CORRECTING THE ‘GROSSEST FAULTS’: CHARLES JENNENS AND THE COMPOSITION OF HANDEL’S MESSIAH

‘passages far unworthy of Handel’

the composer and the music.Traces of evidence for these matters can be found in Handel's performing score of Messiah and in various manuscript copies of the oratorio, including a score from Jennens's own library.Interpreted in the light of comments in the correspondence, the musical sources thus provide some clues to understanding the nature of the working relationship between the composer and the librettist.
The formal record of their professional and social contacts runs for about twenty years, from Handel's letter to Jennens of 28 July 1735, in which he says that he has arranged for Jennens to be provided with a manuscript copy of his opera Alcina, to his presence at a private dinner given by Jennens in 1756. 2 Their association must already have been well established before 1735, however.Jennens's previous interest in Handel's career is shown by the appearance of his name in the subscription lists to editions of Handel's music from Rodelinda (1725) onwards, but Handel's willingness to arrange the provision of a complete full score of an opera, beyond the published collection of movements, indicates a positive relationship, reflecting his confidence in Jennens, and even perhaps a recognition of some professional indebtedness. 3For the latter, relevant evidence is to be found in Handel's use of music supplied to him by Jennens in 1732-3.In April 1732 Holdsworth reported that he had purchased manuscripts of opera scores by Vinci and Alessandro Scarlatti in Rome for Jennens 'so that if you think they deserve it, you may have them perform'd on the English theatre'. 4Soon after the arrival of the manuscripts in London Jennens must have lent them to Handel, because music from the Scarlatti scores found its way into the composition of Handel's Athalia and Arianna in 1733. 5During 1729-37, the period of the Handel/Heidegger opera company at the King's Theatre and Handel's subsequent opera seasons at Covent Garden, Handel had the benefits and disadvantages of artistic control: he did not have to negotiate with company directors and around other house composers (as had been the case with the Royal Academy of Music in the 1720s), but he did have to provide enough repertory for annual seasons of about fifty performances.Jennens wanted to assist Handel directly on the repertory problem by supplying suitable scores, and Handel did indeed take advantage of this facility, though not in the way that Jennens expected, by also using the scores as a resource for his own compositions. 6This episode reveals both the circumstance of Jennens's direct access to Handel and his desire to influence the direction of his activity. 7By the time Handel came to compose the score of Messiah in 1741, therefore, he would have been well aware of Jennens's interest in his 2 Donald Burrows, Helen Coffey, John Greenacombe, and Anthony Hicks, George Frideric Handel: Collected Documents, 6 vols.(Cambridge, 2013-) (hereafter Handel Documents), iii.91-2, and vi (forthcoming), at 29 May 1756; Donald Burrows and Rosemary Dunhill, Music and Theatre in Handel's World (Oxford, 2002), 314-15.
3 There is a possibility, though rather unlikely, that the name on the earliest subscription lists (as 'Mr Jennens') refers to Jennens's father. 4Holdsworth to Jennens, 6(17) Apr.1732; Handel Documents, ii.510. 5 See John H. Roberts, 'Handel and Charles Jennens's Opera Manuscripts', in Nigel Fortune (ed.), Music and Theatre: Essays in Honour of Winton Dean (Cambridge, 1987), 159-202. 6A decade later, concerning another consignment of music from Italy, Jennens wrote that 'Handel has borrow'd a dozen of the Pieces, & I dare say I shall catch him stealing from them; as I have formerly, both from Scarlatti and Vinci' (letter to Holdsworth, 17 Jan.1743; Handel Documents, iv.31). 7Jennens was probably excluded from formal participation in the management of the London opera companies on account of his status as a non-juror.See Smith, 'The Achievements of Charles Jennens', and, on the legal restrictions from 1714 onwards, Ellen T. Harris, 'Taking the Oaths: The Directors of the Royal Academy of Music Swear Allegiance to King and Country', Eighteenth-Century Music, 12 (2015), 197-210.career; moreover, during the immediately preceding years they had worked together on the creation of Saul, L'Allegro, and probably Israel in Egypt. 8

JENNENS, HANDEL, AND MESSIAH : COMPOSITION AND FIRST PERFORMANCES
The chronology of the collaboration between Handel and Jennens on the composition of Messiah is established primarily from the dates that Handel entered in his autograph score, and from references in the correspondence of Handel, Jennens, and Holdsworth.Jennens's first draft of a text for Messiah may have been written in 1739 as a followup to Israel in Egypt, referred to in his letter to James Harris on 29 December 1739: 'I have been preparing a Collection for him [Handel] from Scripture, which is more to my own Tast & (by his own Confession) to his too: but I believe he will not set it this year, being desirous to please the Town with something of a gayer Turn.' 9 It is unclear from this whether Jennens had shown Handel a text, or whether it had merely been a topic for conversation, but a complete libretto must have been to hand at least a month before Handel began drafting his score, as described by Jennens in a well-known letter to Holdsworth on 10 July 1741: Handel says he will do nothing next Winter, but I hope I shall perswade him to set another Scripture Collection I have made for him, & perform it for his own Benefit in Passion Week.I hope he will lay out his whole Genius & Skill upon it, that the Composition may excell all his former Compositions, as the Subject excells every other Subject.The Subject is Messiah. 10 their previous collaboration on L'Allegro, Handel and Jennens had met several times in London during December 1739 and January 1740 to develop the revision of James Harris's original draft libretto while the musical composition evolved, but for Messiah, as with Saul in 1738, there was no contact during the period that the score was written: as his subsequent letters show, Jennens was then at Gopsall, his family home in Leicestershire, and not in London.
Before beginning on the full score Handel no doubt made sketches of musical incipits for several movements, comparable to the page that happens to survive with fragments for 'He was despised', 'Let all the angels of God', and the 'Amen' chorus. 11In addition, the interplay between the use of the same themes in Messiah and in Italian-text duets composed by him the previous month provides some evidence of Handel's current musical thinking: he must have had the themes in his mind as he read through the libretto.The draft composition score of Messiah (Lbl R.M. 20.f.2, hereafter 'the autograph', identified as A in the music examples) occupied him from 22 August to 12 September 1741, followed by a couple of further days during which he 'filled in' details (probably mainly in orchestral parts) of passages that had been left incomplete. 12He then moved on to draft the score of Samson, in which more ambitious requirements than Messiah for singers and orchestra seem to suggest that he was planning for a forthcoming oratorio season in London. 13However, soon after completing a draft score of Samson on 29 October he set off for Dublin, apparently responding to an invitation to perform at the new concert room in Fishamble Street, arriving there in mid-November.We do not have information about the reason for, or the timing of, this apparent change of plans, but one thing is certain: he had not informed Jennens, who eventually discovered from other people that Messiah had been composed, as he wrote to Holdsworth on 5 December: As soon as I came to Town, I heard to my great Satisfaction, that He had set Messiah, but this receiv'd some allay from the Account given me at the same time, that he had carry'd it into Ireland; where it seems there is a Subscription for him of 500 guineas.
I hope, we shall see you in In Dublin Handel gave two six-concert series of subscription concerts, from 23 December 1741 to 7 April 1742, but did not include Messiah in his programme.However, the subsequent performance in April 1742 as an event in support of three Dublin charities may always have been Handel's intention, and linked to his dependence on the 'Dublin choirs'.A minute from a meeting of the Governors of Mercer's Hospital (one of the charities supported from the Messiah performance) in January 1742 suggests that he had sought co-operation from the Cathedrals for the participation of their singers in his concerts, in return for 'having offer'd & being still ready in return for such a favour to give the Governors some of his choisest Musick, & to direct & assist at the Performance of it for the benifit of the Hospital'. 15Evidence from the musical sources suggests that he did indeed have some of the choirmen as performers for his first subscription series, but that for the second series these were no longer available and he had to look for other singers, bringing in Calloghan McCarty and Susanna Cibber as soloists.(The tenor 'Calloghan' was an established Dublin singer; Cibber was already in Dublin for the season, acting with the theatre company at Aungier Street theatre.)For the subsequent Messiah performances, Cibber joined Christina Avolio (referred to by Jennens above as 'Mrs Maclean') but Calloghan was not needed because, as the advertisements proclaimed, 'the Gentlemen of the Choirs of both Cathedrals will assist'. 16Handel distributed various solo movements around 'the Gentlemen', including provision for their alto soloists in a new setting of 'How beautiful are the feet'.Revisions to the performing score show that for Dublin Handel also extended the recitative 'He that dwelleth in heaven' for one of the altos, as a substitute for the original (tenor) aria 'Thou shalt break them', and shortened 'Why do the nations?' to the version of forty-five bars (from 96 bars), perhaps to reduce the load on one of the Cathedrals' bass soloists, but also to tighten the pacing of the movements.17

HANDEL'S RETURN TO LONDON AND JENNENS'S INITIAL EXPERIENCE OF MESSIAH
Handel returned from Dublin to London in late summer 1742, having attempted unsuccessfully to visit Jennens at Gopsall in the course of his journey, writing thus to Jennens on 9 September: 'It was indeed Your humble Servant which intended You a visit in my way from Ireland to London, for I certainly could have given you a better account by word of mouth, as by writing, how well Your Messiah was received in that Country.'18He presumably had some further communication with Jennens about his future plans soon afterwards, since Jennens was able to tell Holdsworth on 29 October 1742: 'You was misinform'd about Mr. Handel, who does not return to Ireland till next Winter; so that I hope to have some very agreeable Entertainments from him this Season.His Messiah by all accounts is his Masterpiece.' 19It is clear that Jennens had not yet seen the music of the oratorio, which is not surprising since he was then still at Gopsall.
The date at which Jennens did see the score for the first time is uncertain, and affects the interpretation of references in his subsequent correspondence.However, on his return to London Handel certainly sent a copy of the printed wordbook from the Dublin performances to Jennens (then at Gopsall), who was not pleased with what he saw, as he wrote to Holdsworth: 'I have a copy, as it was printed in Ireland, full of Bulls, & if he does not print a correct one here, I shall do it my self.'20The 'Bulls' (misprints) included a typographical fault in 'He gave his back to the smiters' and some incorrect words-'a Highway for our Lord' in 'Comfort ye, my people', and the repeated substitution of 'Death' for 'Dead' in the opening movements of Part III.(The last is found in Handel's autograph score, so this error may have come from the composer himself.)More serious was the initial omission of the recitative 'Unto which of the angels' from the text, subsequently corrected by a paste-in slip: Jennens may have received the first state of the wordbook without this correction. 21The original error occurred at a pageturn, and there was a parallel situation with 'But who may abide the day of his coming', which was also designated 'Recitative', probably in error, but uncorrected.The latter had longer-term consequences because the 'Recitative' heading was repeated in the London wordbooks from 1749 onwards, where it was manifestly incorrect. 22Above all, it was from the Dublin wordbook that Jennens probably learned for the first time that Handel had replaced the aria for 'How beautiful are the feet' with the duet-and-chorus setting, involving the substitution of a text from Isaiah 52 for that given by Jennens from Romans 10, with the consequent loss of the second clause beginning 'Their sound is gone out' which had formed the B section of the aria.It is not known whether Handel received advice in Dublin about the choice of biblical texts, but the duet-and-chorus setting provided new musical opportunities: an agreeable showpiece for two of the cathedral altos and a strong choral ending (with 'Thy God reigneth'), to prompt immediate dramatic reaction in 'Why do the nations?'.
Jennens usually came to London from Gopsall in the autumn, following a conventional annual social timetable for the gentry, but this year he set out later than usual, travelling at the very end of 1742, as he reported to Holdsworth in mid-January 1743: I came not to town till the last day of the old year, &, had it not been for your Business, should have come up even then with reluctance, having in my own mind fix'd the beginning of February for my Journey, about a fortnight before the time of Handel's Oratorios… .
He has compos'd an exceeding fine Oratorio, being an alteration of Milton's Samson Agonistes, with which he is to begin Lent.His Messiah has disappointed me, being set in great hast, tho' he said he would be a year about it, & make it the best of all his Compositions.I shall put no more sacred Words into his hands, to be thus abus'd. 23s disapproving comments here seem to be mainly based on the brief period of composition, though it is doubtful that he ever saw the autograph with Handel's composition dates. 24Even a month later it is uncertain whether he had had access to a score, and his specific criticism (noted above) seems to be directed to the text as he had found it in the Dublin wordbook: As to the Messiah, 'tis still in his power by retouching the weak parts to make it fit for a publick performance; & I have said a great deal to him on the Subject; but he is so lazy & so obstinate, that I much doubt the Effect.I have a copy, as it was printed in Ireland, full of Bulls, & if he does not print a correct one here, I shall do it my self, & perhaps tell him a piece of my mind by way of Preface… .What adds to my chagrin is, that if he makes his Oratorio ever so perfect, there is a clamour about Town, said to arise from the B[isho]ps, against performing it.This may occasion some enlargement of the Preface.
[P. S.]Last Friday Handel perform'd his Samson, a most exquisite Entertainment, which tho' I heard with infinite Pleasure, yet it increas'd my resentment for his neglect of the Messiah. 2523 Jennens to Holdsworth, 17 Jan.1743; Handel Documents, iv. 31.The social timetable, based around the dates of Parliamentary sessions and the King's Birthday, largely defined the period of the London opera and theatre seasons. 24In his copy of Memoirs of the Life of the Late George Frederic Handel (1760) Jennens annotated the list of oratorios on p. 152 with dates of composition derived from Handel's autographs: see Winton Dean, Essays on Opera (Oxford, 1990), pl.11.There are annotations for Israel in Egypt, L'Allegro, Saul, and Belshazzar, but, significantly, not for Messiah. 25Jennens to Holdsworth, 21 Feb. 1743: Handel Documents, iv.48.The 1743 wordbook published by Wood (for which, see further below) included no preface.Perhaps Jennens decided against it in view of the 'clamour'.He was not identified as the author in any of the Messiah wordbooks, but that was general practice in the oratorio books, even when a dedication was involved.The earliest public identification of Jennens as the librettist, as currently known, was in The Public Advertiser of 14 Feb.1771, but in a form suggesting that his authorship was common knowledge: 'The Compilation of the Messiah has been ever attributed to him.'In 1768 there were two rival publications of the Messiah wordbook, one of which claimed to be 'From a Copy corrected by the Compiler', but this book was from successors of the Watts/Dod publishing house: see Donald Burrows and Watkins Shaw, 'Handel's Messiah: Supplementary Notes on Sources', Music & Letters, 76 (1995), 356-68 at 366-8.The rider at the end about the 'neglect' of Messiah must reflect conversations with Handel about his plans for the season: so far Handel had only given a single performance (of Samson, on 18 February), and Samson then provided all six nights of his first subscription.If indeed there was already a 'clamour' about the prospect of performing Messiah at Covent Garden (perhaps following submission of the libretto to the Lord Chamberlain's Office), Handel would have been understandably circumspect about the work, and probably thought that it would have more chance of acceptance if it was delayed until Passiontide.Furthermore, Jennens had little justification for complaining about that, since he had specifically stated his intention for Messiah, that Handel should 'perform it for his own Benefit in Passion Week'. 26ennens's next letter was written the day after Handel's introduction of Messiah to London on 23 March (see Pl. 1): parts, which he was too idle & too obstinate to retouch, tho' I us'd great importunity to perswade him to it.He & his Toad-eater Smith did all they could to murder the Words in print; but I hope I have restor'd them to Life, not without much difficulty. 27ce again Jennens here complained about the wordbook printed in Dublin, and indeed he had taken that matter in hand.The 1743 London edition of the wordbook, produced by a different publisher (Thomas Wood) from all the subsequent London books, is by far the most accurate and well-presented text of Messiah from Handel's lifetime; it also has a feature that was not included in the subsequent editions published by the partnership of John Watts and Benjamin Dod, of section numberings equivalent to theatrical 'scenes'. 28Whether or not Jennens had had an opportunity to peruse the score, in advance of the day of performance he certainly must have had some contact with Handel for the preparation of the wordbook, and had foreknowledge of (if not actual negotiation about) the music that Handel intended to perform.The 1743 wordbook corrected errors that had occurred in the Dublin text, in particular heading 'But who may abide?' as 'Song'.Although retaining the Isaiah text 'How beautiful are the feet' as 'Duetto and Chorus' (presumably at Handel's insistence), it was followed by a new 'Song', 'Their sound is gone out'-the aria setting, presumably demanded by Jennens in order to restore this text.Jennens must have undertaken the commissioning of the wordbook himself, choosing Wood as his publisher: the wordbooks for Handel's other performances of the season were published by Watts/Dod and Tonson.The text was more correct and more elegantly printed than that in the 1742 Dublin wordbook, but it followed the same general layout, with some improvements to the page-breaks: as in 1742, the second and third 'Parts' commenced on pages 9 and 14 respectively, so that once again the complete text just fitted the practical ambit of sixteen pages (two eight-page signatures).Space was saved by avoiding the repetition of text for 'Song' and 'Chorus' in 'O thou that tellest'; that said, the introduction of a semi-chorus presentation for 'Lift up your heads' instead expanded the text.There would have been a limited opportunity for a 'Preface' (as threatened by Jennens) on the verso of the title page, but perhaps Jennens or Wood thought better of it.In contrast to the other wordbooks for the season (Samson, and L'Allegro with the St Cecilia Ode) there were no decorations to the pages, another feature in common with the Dublin edition.As with all the wordbooks for Handel's performances of Messiah, the voices for solo movements were not specified.

JENNENS'S 'CORRECTIONS' TO HANDEL'S PERFORMING SCORE
Jennens's reference to Handel's refusal to 'retouch weak parts' implies conversations about the music of the score beyond verbal or structural matters that can be identified from the wordbook.The introduction of 'Their sound is gone out' is the only substantial clue provided by the wordbook to his criticisms of the score.Jennens, as the librettist, could reasonably have expected that Handel would supply him a copy of the score, or at least that he would be given access to the music, before the first performance, but at that time Handel and his copyists would have been busy with arrangements for the other performances.If Handel had found Jennens's 'importunity' about Messiah stressful during that time, he may have kept him at a distance.Jennens's second reference to 'retouching the weak parts' on 24 March suggests that he may have seen a score by then, but the time allowed for his inspection may have been limited, so that his first close contact with the music of Messiah could have been when he attended the performance on 23 March, from which he gained movement-by-movement impressions.In that case he may have been considerably offended by some of the things that he heard-matters of stress in the word-setting, and unacceptable variants in the words themselves.
Although it is thus uncertain whether Jennens's more detailed criticisms influenced the first London performance, they must have affected subsequent performances in 1743 and 1745, and the nature of these criticisms can be established from the musical sources.The primary evidence is found first in Handel's performing score of Messiah (Ob, MSS Tenbury 346-7, hereafter 'the performing score', and identified as B in the music examples), which was almost certainly copied in London soon after the completion of the autograph in 1741.Annotations of singers' names show that Handel used this score in Dublin (there would have been no need for him to take the autograph with him) and it  29 The manuscript has a large number of alterations in ink by Jennens (see Appendix), which reveal interventions comparable to those found in the autograph of Saul. 30Jennens's handwriting is well established from his surviving correspondence (see Pl. 1 above), and there is no doubt about the identity of the writer in the amendments to 'He shall feed his flock' and 'If God be/is for us'.These were the places where he altered Handel's music most radically, adding syllables at 'Come unto him all ye' and altering 'If God be for us' in both text (to 'If God is for us') and rhythm (to bring the stresses into parallel-for us/against us').See Plate 2(a) and Example 1, which shows Jennens's revisions and also variants from Walsh's Songs in Messiah that will be referred to later.Some of Jennens's amendments were made with a thicker quill than he used for his correspondence, especially where heavier strokes were needed to cover previously written words.There is no doubt that they were written by him: the letter-forms match his other texts and the same thicker pen-strokes are found in the corrections to his own score (Mp, MS 130 Hd4 v. 198-v.200, source J, referred to below), for example at bars 76-7 of the 'Hallelujah' chorus, and the altered bars in 'If God be for us' (see Pl. 2(b)). 31The quantity and distribution of these alterations in the performing score indicate a comprehensive critical review of the Messiah text.In all there are more than thirty changes, some of them with multiple occurrences, giving a total of about seventy amendments (again see Appendix).One particularly substantial alteration was in the chorus 'He trusted in God', where Jennens altered Handel's 'he might deliver him' to 'he would deliver him' at the opening entries (see Pl. 3), and Christopher Smith, the original copyist of the performing score, then amended subsequent occurrences to conform. 32he first question about the alterations in the performing score concerns timing: when were they written?It is possible that the score received Jennens's attention over a period of years, but it is more likely that he made a single thoroughgoing inspection and revision, perhaps supplemented by a few further changes shortly afterwards.(For Messiah, in contrast to the situation with Saul, Handel apparently did not let Jennens anywhere near his autograph.) 33Such a review could have taken place initially-though not necessarily involving physical alterations at that stage-at about the same time that Jennens was preparing the wordbook for the publisher, a short time ahead of the performance.This hypothesis is supported by another circumstance.It was Handel's normal practice to mark up his performing scores with the names of the allocated singers, usually in pencil, in advance of the performances, presumably as a guide to the music copyists who wrote out or amended the performing parts.In the case of preparations for the Messiah performances in 1743, however, Handel began by writing these directions (using pencil in Part I, then ink in Part II) into the autograph, instead of the performing score, and subsequently transferred them to the performing score (in pencil), where further amendments followed.Although similar use of his autographs can be found in other works, it does not occur on a comparable scale to that found in Messiah, where the annotations run on into the middle of Part II, up to an 'NB' where Handel broke off to write a new setting of 'Thou art gone up on high' for soprano voice, probably with the same pen.This unusual situation could have occurred if, at the time, the performing score was with Jennens, in which case the first London performance may already have incorporated his revisions.Alternatively, the performing score may have been with Smith at that time in order to make last-minute revisions to the performers' partbooks, so that it would not have been available to Jennens. 34 In that case, Jennens's revisions might have been implemented for the second or third performances; for the second performance, Smith would have had less than forty-eight hours in which make alterations to the partbooks.
Jennens's revisions do not feature in one large group of early manuscript scores which derive from copies dating from around 1743, previously identified by Watkins Shaw as 31 Jennens's authorship of the alterations in the performing score is confirmed by their incorporation into source J during the copying; the subject of his own manuscripts of Messiah is considered below. 32Jennens's 'heavy pen' alterations to the words are obvious at the entries for Tenor and Alto voices (bb.7, 11).He seems to have missed the first occurrence (Bass, b. 2), but this was then revised by Smith: the erasure of 'might' is apparent from a repair to the stave-lines there, and can also be seen similarly at subsequent occurrences. 33See n. 24 above. 34The situation may have been complicated by a coolness in relations between Handel and Smith at this time: see Smith's letter to James Harris, 28 July 1743, Handel Documents, iv.100-1.
Ex. 1. Variants in text-setting the 'S/X' line, because the ancestry of that source-chain was principally from the autograph, not from the performing score. 35However, the period of Jennens's amendments is clarified beyond doubt by the 'Granville' copy of Messiah (Lbl Egerton MS 2937), a manuscript score that was copied from the performing score at some time in 1743-4; that is, between Handel's first London performances in 1743 and his following revival of Messiah in 1745. 36This score, written by Christopher Smith, incorporates within its text all the relevant alterations listed in the Appendix below, and even reproduces an obvious mistake on Jennens's part at bars 71-2 of 'O thou that tellest good tidings to Sion'. 37In the performing score Smith had accidentally omitted the first word at the vocal entry in bar 71, and Jennens filled in the blank space below the quaver, but with the first word of the second clause ('say unto the cities of Judah'), resulting in the words 'say, thou that tellest good tidings to Sion' (see Pl. 4). 38In the Granville score, the biggest variation from Jennens's revisions is that Handel's original word-setting for 'If God be for us' is retained, because the Granville copy has the alto-voice setting of this movement instead of the soprano-voice version on which Jennens made his amendments.Perhaps both settings were present in the performing score when Smith made the Granville copy, and Smith attended to the current alto setting because it preceded the soprano one.The presence of the alto version in the Granville manuscript suggests that the aria was sung by Susanna Cibber in 1743, as she had done at Dublin the previous year. 39hile the Granville copy usefully reflects the state of the performing score in 1743, it does not necessarily preserve the version of Messiah exactly as performed then, but it does imply that (for example) the full ninety-six-bar setting of 'Why do the nations' may have been restored.Allowance has also to be made for the possibility of changes between the 1743 performances: the performing score shows that at some point the tenor John Beard became unavailable and his music was reallocated to the soprano Christina Avolio. 40Nevertheless, the Granville score fixes Jennens's amendments to 1743 (i.e.before Handel's next revival of Messiah, in 1745), and consequently also implies that the Dublin performances had been prepared from the performing score in its 'pre-Jennens' condition.(Jennens could not have influenced the Dublin performances, since he had not yet seen the score.)Thus, for example, the audience at Fishamble Street would have heard 'He trusted in God that he might deliver him', as found in Handel's autograph and in the performing score as originally copied, instead of 'he would deliver him' as subsequently altered by Jennens. 41nnens's reply in December shows that he had not mellowed, and indeed had hardened into a dismissive and self-righteous attitude over his relationship with Handel: 'It is not Leic [ester]shire that has made me quarrel with Handel, but his own Folly, (to say no worse,) if that can be call'd a quarrel, where I only tell him the Truth; & he knows it to be Truth, yet is so obstinate he will not submit to it.' 4339 Cibber's name is written against the movement in the annotated copy of the 1742 wordbook (Lbl Mk.8.d.4).The original music copy of the alto-voice version (which would have originated in Dublin) does not survive, but was presumably still present in the performing score when the Granville manuscript was copied.The earlier copy of the soprano version in the performing score has Handel's pencil markings for transposition of the orchestral parts: these do not conform exactly to the alto aria as found in the Granville copy, and it is probable that they relate to a new alto version of the aria for Caterina Galli c.1750, for which no copy survives.
40 See Burrows, 'The Autographs and Early Copies of Messiah', 219. 41The Dublin 1742 wordbook, as well as the 1743 London edition, correctly printed 'he would deliver him', but there can be little doubt that it was performed as 'he might' in Dublin, from music copies as they then stood. 42Holdsworth to Jennens, 17(28) Oct. 1743; Handel Documents, iv.117. 43Jennens to Holdsworth, 5 Dec. 1743; Handel Documents, iv.140.
Relations remained distant over the next year, and there was no occasion to revive the dissention about Messiah because Handel did not include the work in his 1744 programme. 44Soon after the end of that season, however, the deadlock was broken from Handel's side because he needed new repertory for the extended oratorio season that he planned for 1744-5 at the King's Theatre, as Jennens wrote on 7 May 1744: It is perhaps rather surprising, in view of Jennens's previous critical tone, that the alterations for Handel's 1745 revival of Messiah were not very radical or substantial.There are no further detailed amendments to the word-setting in the performing score, but Handel undertook recomposition in two areas that involved new movements. 47For 'How beautiful are the feet' the duet-and-chorus version was discarded, to be replaced with the first part of the original dal segno soprano aria followed by a new chorus movement for 'Their sound is gone out into all lands', the text of which had already been introduced as the continuo-accompanied aria in 1743.Perhaps Jennens had specified a chorus movement in his original draft libretto, or thought that, to provide weight for the reaction to 'Their sound is gone out' in 'Why do the nations?', something stronger than the aria was required after 'Break forth into joy' in the duet-and-chorus setting.(The untrustworthy da capo direction to the chorus section 'Break forth into joy' after the aria in the 'Mathews' manuscript score probably represents some later person's attempt to remedy this situation.)The aria had also left a solo voice to represent the 'company of the preachers'.The new chorus for 'Their sound is gone out' was more substantial and facilitated the appropriate tonal disruption (E flat major to C major) at the 'scene change', as indicated by a numbered heading in the 1743 wordbook at 'Why do the nations?'.By contrast, the earlier sequence from 'The Lord gave the word' onwards (B flat major, D minor, F major, C major) had been smoother.Jennens was probably pleased with the new chorus for 'Their sound is gone out'; in any case he no doubt felt justified that his original text from Romans had at last been restored in full.Possibly, he had expressed particular dissatisfaction with the quality of Handel's two new continuo-accompanied arias in 1743: 'Their sound is gone out' because it was insufficiently forceful, and 'But lo, the angel of the Lord' because it interrupted the narrative.
If the other 1745 revision, the common-time setting of 'Rejoice, greatly', was also at Jennens's insistence, it is less easy to see the grounds for an objection to the previous 12/8 versions: the substitution avoids the succession of two compound-time movements (though these were distinct in mood and tempo) and has a rather livelier effect than its 12/8 predecessor.More fundamentally, Jennens may have considered that the 12/8 version had inappropriately continued the pastoral mode from the scene of the angel and shepherds: his 'scene number' above 'Rejoice, greatly' in the 1743 wordbook implies a new topic in the narrative of the Messiah. 48 letter from Jennens to Holdsworth after the 1745 performances reads as if Holdsworth had known nothing of the previous problems, and reveals that Jennens was even then still obsessed by Handel's treatment of his libretto: I shall show you a collection I gave Handel, call'd Messiah, which I value highly, & he has made a fine Entertainment of it, tho' not near so good as he might & ought to have done.I have with great difficulty made him correct some of the grossest faults in the composition, but he retain'd his Overture obstinately, in which there are some passages far unworthy of Handel, but much more unworthy of the Messiah. 49wever, after Handel's revisions in 1745 Jennens appears to have lost interest (or calmed down) on the subject of Messiah since there are no further diatribes, though our evidence from the correspondence ceases abruptly with the death of Holdsworth in 1746.Following the 1745 performances Handel did not perform Messiah again until 1749, and this was then succeeded by regular annual performances at Covent Garden and the Foundling Hospital.But there were no further changes to the literary content, and the only new music was resettings of three arias in 1750 for the castrato Gaetano Guadagni.Jennens kept up to date with copies of two of the 'Guadagni' arias in one of his miscellaneous manuscript collections of movements, and also the short form of 'Why do the nations?', but did not have the Guadagni version of 'How beautiful are the feet'. 50e apparently saw no reason to take his own score apart again in order to incorporate the latest music.He may have continued his annual pattern of winter/spring residence in London, but matters at Gopsall must have claimed considerable attention in the late 1740s when he inherited the estate.In 1752, when that situation had probably stabilized, he established his own London house in Great Ormond Street, in succession to his residence at 'brother Hanmer's' property in Queen's Square, and this probably implies a return to his former schedule.There are only occasional hints of his continuing interest in Handel's performances of Messiah thereafter.On 1 May 1756 Thomas Harris wrote to his brother: 'I write this from Ch[arles] Jennens's after having been at the foundling Hospital where the Messiah was performed to a great audience.The Voices did well, but youll be surprizd to hear that there was no sort of accuracy in the instrum[en]ts.' 51  To these can be added a manuscript keyboard/vocal score in Jennens's hand, uncompleted and breaking off after bar 36 of 'Glory to God' (Lbl R.M. 19.d.1).Although of Jennens/Aylesford provenance, this had probably already found its way into the Royal Music Library by the 1780s. 58he pressmarks, written on the front paste-down of the volumes, must relate to the library room that Jennens created at Gopsall, probably soon after he inherited it on the death of his father in 1747 but possibly planned in preceding years.They thus clearly identify items that originated from him, rather than the Guernsey/Aylesford line.From the sale catalogue list, the undoubted 'Jennens items' known today are therefore the partbooks in Lot 239, one of the three-volume scores from Lot 245, and the miscellanies volume Lot 267.Almost certainly, at least one of the lost morocco-bound scores in Lot 245 would also have been from Jennens's library.
I shall return to the 'Jennens status' of the other items presently, but first I need to refer to two of the definite Jennens items that are now in the Newman Flower Collection at Manchester Public Library.The three-volume score (v.198-v.200, Source J noted above) is in the hand of copyist S2, but Jennens added extensive revisions to the wordsetting in 'I know that my Redeemer liveth' which are not found in any other surviving copy of Messiah. 59(See Pl. 5.) The details of these alterations will be examined below, but Jennens's general intention, as revealed in all of his revisions, was to keep the verbal text consistent and in a progressive sequence.Watkins Shaw established that the music text of 58 See Roberts, 'The Aylesford Collection', 60. 59 See Shaw, A Textual and Historical Companion, 78, where Jennens's versions of bb.28-35, 56-66, 111-15 are transcribed.Full comparative transcriptions of the relevant passages as found in Handel's autograph, Jennens's score, and Walsh's editions are given here, with interpretation in the light of Jennens's correspondence.Larsen identified Jennens's handwriting in R.M. 19.d.1 but was not aware of the amendments to 'I know that my Redeemer liveth' because he did not have access to Jennens's score (J), then in Sir Newman Flower's possession.Jennens's score was derived from the performing score rather than Handel's autograph and, as originally copied by S2, it incorporated Jennens's amendments from the performing score that are listed in the Appendix, throughout the oratorio. 60Investigation of the manuscript, however, has revealed that it also has further revisions embedded in it, concentrated in Part I, which are not found in the performing score (see Ex. 2).These involve rhythmic alterations to Handel's music, in order to regularize the sequence of the text (to read 'and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together' instead of 'and the glory, the glory of the Lord, and all flesh shall see it together') or to modify stress-patterns in the text-setting.(Jennens's version of 'And the angel said unto them' does not sit well with Handel's melodic line.)Since S2 copied the score with the amended versions, the revisions must have been made by Jennens previously on another copy, possibly one of the lost 'morocco' volumes.They are also found, as part of the copying sequence, in Jennens As noted, the amendments that were incorporated by S2 as he copied J are concentrated in Part I, but there may have been other changes in a (lost) originating copy.The hypothesis that the present three-volume score was not copied directly from Handel's performing score, but from an intermediate copy, provides an explanation for one apparently anomalous feature.In 'If God be for us' Jennens had altered both rhythm and text in the performing score (see Pl. 2(a) above), but Handel's original setting was copied by S2 into J and Jennens had to alter it again there (see Pl. 2(b) above).Remarkably, he did not do so consistently, writing 'If God is for us' (twice) in the performing score but 'If God be for us' (twice) in J, as if working from memory, and perhaps changing his mind about grammar or emphasis.The need for Jennens to make the amendments in his score indicates that, before Jennens made his alterations in 1743 (or 1744 at the latest), S2 must originally have been copying this soprano-voice version from a source derived from the performing score.At that time, the performing score would have contained the aria 'But lo, the angel of the Lord' as the current version.This does not appear in S2's score, and quite likely Jennens insisted on the substitution of the recitative ('And lo, the angel of the Lord') instead.A choice was also involved with 'Why do the nations?', which had been Larsen chose 'S' codes for the Handel copyists because he imagined them as a 'Smith scriptorium'-that is, an organized group working under the management of Christopher Smith to produce copies for Handel's performances and for the libraries of patrons.There is some justification for this, and it is supported by Handel's agreement to supply Jennens with the score of Alcina in 1735.S2's hand is found occasionally in Handel's performing scores from the 1730s, but in the 1740s my analysis suggests that he was instead employed directly by Jennens, to write partbooks and second copies from scores of Handel's works that Jennens already owned. 62This activity was particularly characteristic of the mid-1740s when Jennens was expanding his library, and the musical content of score J is consistent with the pattern.
Jennens's alterations to 'I know that my Redeemer liveth' (see Ex. 3 and Pl. 5) reveal an attitude to word-setting that was different from Handel's.As with the example from 'And Similarly, the passage referred to earlier in 'And the glory of the Lord' (see Ex. 2 above) communicates perfectly well in context as set by Handel, because the overall sense of the text has been well established by bar 76.The exposition of the three clauses (each to its own characteristic theme) had been completed in bar 63, reinforced by a return to the tonic key from bar 43, and Handel thereafter worked his musical material with combinations of the themes and contrasts of choral texture: at bars 76-9 the defining feature for him was the theme in the bass part, with its associated text.Once again Jennens's revision set the wrong words to the tune, and also broke up the strength of the choral statement with extra percussive consonants.
It is not known whether Jennens ever showed to Handel his attempts at these 'corrections', but if so Handel's reaction can easily be imagined: the alterations in the performing score probably indicate the limit of interference that he was willing to tolerate.Jennens's amendments to 'I know that my Redeemer liveth' may also represent his second attempt at 'correcting' Handel there.Other word-settings, different from Handel's and different from Jennens's revisions in J, are found in that movement as published by Walsh in 1755 and 1763, which must have derived from a manuscript (designated 'S' by Watkins Shaw) dating from 1743. 66(The variations in Walsh's publications are included in Ex. 3; see also other variations in Ex. 1 and Ex.2.) Although there is no definite evidence of Jennens's involvement with Walsh's printed editions (or their source score), these alterations are not casual and may reflect an earlier attempt by him to control the music of Messiah as it would be seen by the public.Score J does not show any attempt to revise Handel's word-setting for 'incorruptible' in 'The trumpet shall sound', but perhaps Jennnens had given up before he reached that far in the manuscript, or he made revisions in another copy: again, variations that are found in Walsh's publications of the aria may reflect some influence from Jennens.

THE 'AYLESFORD' COPIES, AND JENNENS'S PREFERRED SCHEME FOR THE SCORE OF MESSIAH
The set of partbooks with Jennens's pressmarks (Mp, vols.142-9, etc.) in the hand of S1, a separate music copyist from that in Jennens's score, presents a different but no less intriguing situation.While the pattern of variant readings in score J shows that it was based on a source derived from the performing score, the pattern for these partbooks indicates derivation from the autograph instead: the copyist, who appears to have been Smith's most trusted assistant at this period, apparently had access to the autograph that Jennens himself did not.Furthermore, many details reveal that the parts were copied individually from the autograph itself, and not from an intermediate score. 67The most curious and explicit evidence on this matter concerns the 'Pifa'.In the autograph Handel at first wrote the Pifa as a movement of eleven bars, but then decided to extend it with music of comparable length that could serve as the middle section of a da capo scheme.This idea came to him after he had already proceeded with the next music for Part I, so the extra section was written on a leaf that was inserted at the nearest point.(This to revision to accommodate the 1745 music, which was present there from the start.Although they do not have the 'Jennens' pressmarks, these copies may have been prepared to his directions, the partbooks perhaps for Lord Guernsey.Furthermore, while pressmark codes seem to be specifically related to the Gopsall library, there is a possibility that Jennens kept further copies in London, and these would not have had the library codes: on 4 November 1745, while Holdsworth was staying at Jennens's residence in Queen's Square, Jennens wrote from Gopsall that he had 'sent to Mr. Hetherington the key of the Book-Cases in my Musick-Room which I am sorry I could not furnish you with at your first coming there'. 73The surviving three-volume score J2 and the two lost morocco-bound scores may therefore have included at least one copy that Jennens kept in London, and this may even have been the situation initially with score J: it is uncertain whether the new library wing at Gopsall was completed by 1747, so the pressmarks may have been added later, when the shelves were set up there. 74From other references it is clear that Jennens had a pianoforte in London in 1740 (at Queen's Square) and in 1756 (at Great Ormond Street), but there is also a description of one in the Music Room at Gopsall in 1750. 75It is unlikely that the room was finished at the time that Jennens's score J was copied in the mid-1740s (Gopsall Hall would then have resembled a building site), so perhaps Jennens's unfinished vocal score of Messiah (Lbl R.M. 19.d.1) was a project that he attempted while he was in London, arranged from the music in J or from a now-lost morocco-bound score in which he had made revisions.In the opening section of the Sinfony Jennens thickened up the chords in a manner that was surely prompted by the musical characteristics of his pianoforte. 76It may also be significant that, in this keyboard reduction, he did not modify the rhythms, even to adjust the bass to the upper parts in bar 8. 77 Jennens's copy of the overture in Walsh's Six Overtures fitted to the Harpsichord or Spinnet … Eighth Collection (Cambridge, King's College, Rowe Library Mn 13.9; Jennens shelfmark NZ/28) has no amendments or additions to the printed music text.
The uniformity of content with regard to variant movements in the surviving 'Aylesford' copies suggests that, whether or not all of them were directly owned by Jennens, they reflect his influence and present a form of the oratorio that he favoured, thus: Thou art gone up on high: Bass aria78 How beautiful are the feet: 24-bar Soprano aria, followed by chorus 'Their sound is gone out' Why do the nations: 96-bar Bass aria Thou shalt break them: Tenor aria In Parts I and II the contents of the four surviving 'Aylesford' manuscripts for the complete oratorio (two scores, two sets of partbooks) conform exactly in the pattern of variant movements.They were the work of four different copyists and (taking into account the final form of Jennens's score J) they all date from the period 1745-7.Only in Part III do they diverge in content: the S1 partbooks have the dal segno version of 'The trumpet shall sound' (instead of the da capo version as in the other copies), and the partbooks Mp v. 201-v.204 have the twenty-four-bar version of 'O Death, where is thy sting' instead of the forty-one-bar version.In view of the overall alignment, however, I suggest that these copies reflect an ideal or preferred form of Messiah for Jennens in the 1740s, a situation that matches Natassa Varka's conclusions about Jennens's copies of other works by Handel. 79Although the interim provenance of several of the 'Aylesford' manuscripts of Messiah is uncertain, there is a possibility that Jennens acted as agent when other members of his family wanted a copy of Messiah, so his ownership may not have been the only defining factor.And perhaps, one day, the lost morocco-bound scores will turn up, or an Aylesford copy of the published full score with amendments by Jennens, though we have good reason to assume that such variations would not have been accepted by the composer. 80t seems that Jennens, having established a favoured version of the oratorio, was less interested in the subsequent development of the score: as noted above, while the new 'Guadagni' settings of 'But who may abide the day of his coming' and 'Thou art gone up on high' from 1750 were included in one of Jennens's miscellaneous manuscript volumes as 'Additions in Messiah' (thus described in the list of Aylesford manuscripts above), he made no attempt to bring score J further up to date, even though the new versions of these arias became standard in Handel's performances during the 1750s. 81In the overall plan of the oratorio, Jennens's main concern was apparently to rescue the Romans text for 'How beautiful are the feet/Their sound is gone out', which had almost certainly been specified for a da capo aria in his original submission of the text to Handel.This was achieved in two stages: the addition of 'Their sound is gone out' as an aria in 1743, and then the new aria-plus-chorus scheme, restoring the full Romans text, in 1745.Beyond that, as outlined above, musical sources reveal Jennens's alterations to textsetting and to individual words.The amendments in Jennens's hand that are found in the performing score were presumably accepted by Handel, but others (found in Jennens's own score) apparently went no further, though they may indicate some of the matters on which Jennens 'us'd great importunity' with the composer.From the preferred scheme of movements which is suggested by the Aylesford copies of Messiah we may infer, for example, that the aria setting of 'But lo, the angel of the Lord' did not meet with his approval.Thus, the musical sources provide at least some clues to the conversations between Jennens and Handel that are indicated by references in the Jennens-Holdsworth correspondence.
That, however, prompts a final look at the musical sources to see if they carry any other evidence bearing on Jennens's criticisms of the 'composition'.As noted earlier, on the day after the first London performance Jennens wrote ''Tis, after all, in the main, a fine Composition, notwithstanding some weak parts', and in August 1745 (after Handel's 1745 revisions) he wrote: 'I have with great difficulty made him correct some of the grossest faults in the composition, but he retain'd his Overture obstinately, in which there are some passages far unworthy of Handel, but much more unworthy of the Messiah.'What were the 'grossest faults in the composition' to which Jennens objected?One hint at a minor technical 'fault' in the music can be found in J, Jennens's manuscript score.Jennens was assiduous in adding continuo figurings to the bassi lines in his manuscripts.In 'Rejoice, greatly' (one of the 1745 revisions), his labours revealed consecutive fifths over the barline at bars 87-8, and he drew attention to their occurrence with 'NB' (see Pl. 7).82If Jennens's conversations with Handel ran to such details, it is possible that Handel himself then cast a critical eye over his score.At two places in 'All we like sheep' (bb.24-5 and 63-4) Handel amended the bassi line in his autograph to avoid similar motion (though not direct consecutives) with the violin parts (see Ex. 4).Those revisions were not carried forward to the performing score. 83However, in the performing score Handel similarly revised the viola part in bars 38-9 of the bass-voice setting of 'But who may abide', to correct consecutives with the bassi: see Pl. 8.That amendment dates from 1749 at the latest, since he did not perform the bass-voice version of the aria thereafter; it is not found in any secondary copies.These seem to be alterations that were noted by Handel as intended technical improvements, but may not have been applied to his performances.Another example is found in the performing score at bar 27 of the chorus 'And he shall purify', where the second note in the alto part has been altered from c ′ (as in the autograph) to a♭ ′ , This corrects consecutives with the bassi part, but introduces a falling diminished seventh into the melodic line.The Granville copy shows that the amendment must have been made in 1743-4; furthermore, the revision is found clean in Jennens's score J and in his 'score-reduction' autograph.The handwriting of the alteration in the performing score may possibly be Handel's, but it looks more like Jennens's.
And what of the 'Overture'?Because of long-standing familiarity with the Sinfony, it is difficult for us to hear it as Jennens did, and in general terms it seems perfect for its context: a serious-toned piece (in both movements) with a Corellian gravitas that would have given the right messages about the oratorio's subject matter to a theatre audience, and was especially appropriate for the first London performances in view of the newspaper controversy about the suitability (or otherwise) of the oratorio's subject matter for the theatre. 84Furthermore, the Sinfony sets up effectively the transition to the tonic major for 'Comfort ye, my people'.Perhaps Jennens expected something heavier, even rather melodramatic, to represent the condition of conflict that is addressed in 'Comfort ye'; Handel chose instead to provide a more objective introduction to the topic of the Messiah.There are a couple of minor technical points to the music in the Sinfony, hardly noticeable in performance: a set of consecutives between viola and Bassi in bar 89 (duly marked with an 'x' by Jennens) and a couple of (possible) wrong notes in viola at bar 64.In the performing score a piece of paper was formerly attached to cover bars 65-7, and their omission could arguably tighten up a passage involving a long stretch of quavers in violin I. 85 But there is no evidence from other sources that this excision was adopted, and it would have removed the attractive prolongation of the B major chord, enlivened by a chromatic bass part. 86If Jennens simply wanted something grander by way of an opening, Handel's response is found in the ouverture in the same key that opened Belshazzar, their next collaboration, a couple of years later.That was in a different style, and for a very different oratorio.In Messiah, the Sinfony is matched to the work and 'passages far unworthy of Handel' are not easily identifiable.There is a subtle phrase structure to the Grave and a lively interplay between contrapuntal and episodic elements in the Allegro moderato, building towards a climax in the closing bars.Perhaps Handel was making a gesture of dismissal in reply to Jennens's criticisms when he ended the Ouverture to Belshazzar with the same melodic and harmonic outline as in the Sinfony to Messiah. 87

Pl. 1 .
Extract from a letter by Charles Jennens to Edward Holdsworth, 24 Mar.1743.Lfom, Gerald Coke Handel Collection 7685; reproduced by courtesy of the Gerald Coke Handel Foundation Pl. 2. (b) Text and music for 'If God be/is for us' amended by Jennens in his own score (Mp, MS 130 Hd4 v. 200, p. 61: source J). Henry Watson Music Library, reproduced courtesy of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives, Manchester City Council continued in regular use for his subsequent performances in London.

FURTHER
COLLABORATION FOR THE 1745 REVIVAL, AND SUBSEQUENT ASSOCIATION Even after his adjustments to the performing score, Jennens remained discontented about Messiah, apparently feeling that Handel had not responded sufficiently to his criticisms.In October 1743 Holdsworth wrote (from Florence) to Jennens: You have staid too long there [at Gopsall] already; It has had an ill effect upon you, and made you quarrel with your best friends, Virgil & Handel.You have contributed, by your own confession, to give poor Handel a fever, and now He is pretty well recover'd, you seem resolv'd to attack him again; for you say you have not yet done with him.
Pl. 5. 'I know that my Redeemer liveth', page copied by S2 in Jennens's score (Source J), with revisions to word-setting added by Jennens (Mp, MS 130 Hd4 v. 200, p. 4).Henry Watson Music Library, reproduced courtesy of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives, Manchester City Council 's autograph vocal-score version R.M. 19.d.1, as far as that goes.Jennens had perhaps planned a larger project following his 'corrections' to the performing score, to work through Messiah again, movement by movement, correcting what he regarded as Handel's 'faults' in setting the English texts, without reaching Part III by the time S2 copied score J.
Ex. 2. Revisions in Jennens's score Ex. 2. (Continued) performed in the short (45-bar) version at Dublin, but Jennens apparently preferred the longer (96-bar) version.The lost originating copy of the score owned by Jennens may have had the shorter version; again, Jennens may have insisted on its replacement when S2 produced J. 61 Ex. 3. Variants in 'I know that my Redeemer liveth' Pl. 6. 'I know that my redeemer liveth', revision to bb. 111-15 by Jennens in his score (Mp, MS 130 Hd4 v. 200, p. 7, detail).Henry Watson Music Library, reproduced courtesy of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives, Manchester City Council the glory of the Lord', Jennens regarded continuity of the text at every occurrence as paramount: his correspondence refers in various places to 'good sense' and 'nonsense'.(This is in keeping with what we know from other contexts about Jennens's attitude to texts.)For Handel, once the sense and meaning of the text were established, musical elaboration thereafter was a matter of rhetoric, led by choices in emphasis and by compositional logic.His priorities are clearly stated in one of his letters to Jennens concerning the libretto for Belshazzar: 'Your most excellent Oratorio has given me great Delight in setting it to Musick and still engages me warmly.It is indeed a Noble Piece, very grand and uncommon; it has furnished me with Expressions, and has given me Opportunity to some very particular Ideas, besides so many great Choru's.' 63 The 'Expressions' and 'Ideas' in 'I know that my Redeemer liveth' prompted Handel to vary and extend the initial statement of affirmation in creative ways at the repetitions.While Jennens wanted to regularize the accentuation, Handel viewed the text from different angles ('and that he shall stand', 'and that he shall stand', 'and that he shall stand'), thereby renewing the momentum of the aria.Jennens's versions of bars 26-35 and 53-66 introduce rhythmic alterations that are rather fussy and run counter to the lyrical flow of the aria, introducing a clatter of repetitions, extra syllables, and short notes at bars 33-4, 57, 61, and 64; his rewriting of bars 26-35 and 57-66 breaks up the trajectory of Handel's phrases. 64Above all, Jennens's amendment to bars 111-15 (see Pl. 6) destroyed the rondo-like pattern of presentation within the ritornello structure, in which Handel used 'I know that my Redeemer liveth' to initiate a new musical continuation; it also obviously set the wrong words to the tune. 65Here Jennens probably objected to the word sequence 'I know that my Redeemer liveth, for now is Christ risen' in Handel's version, which had no exact biblical authority, though it is strikingly effective in musical/dramatic terms as a restatement of faith.Handel's approach to communicating the text was clearly different from Jennens's.

Ex. 4 .
Handel's revisions in 'All we, like sheep, have gone astray' Pl. 8. 'But who may abide', detail from the performing score, with Handel's amendment to the viola part at b. 39 (Ob, MS Tenbury 346, fo.24 v ).Reproduced from the facsimile edition, Handel's Conducting Score of Messiah (Scolar Press, 1974) Town after Christmas, & before you leave it we shall hear the Messiah, as well as another Oratorio which he almost finish'd before he went, call'd Samson, (I suppose, Milton's Samson Agonistes alter'd) by Mr. Hamilton… .Beard is come home again, & should have gone with Handel into Ireland, but Fleetwood said he should want him to sing in an English Opera.Handel took only Miss Edwards & one Mrs.Maclean with him; & for the rest depends on the Dublin Choirs. 14This reads as if Jennens expected Handel to return to London in time for a Lenten oratorio season in 1742, but that did not happen.
Handel has promis'd to revise the Oratorio of Messiah, & He & I are very good Friends again.The reason is, he has lately lost his Poet [James] Miller, & wants to set me at work for him again.Religion & Morality, Gratitude, Good Nature & Good Sense had been better Principles of Action than this single point of Interest, but I must take him as I find him, & make the best use I can of him. 45In consequence, Jennens was 'set at work' on the libretto for Belshazzar, and Handel's letter on 19 July 1744 in acknowledgement of the first consignment is fairly explicit about the deal that this had involved: At my arrival in London, which was Yesterday, I immediately perused the Act of the Oratorio with which you favour'd me, and, the little time only I had it, gives me great Pleasure… .Be pleased to point out these passages in t[h]e Messiah which You think require altering. 46 The and 'NV/16 vols.'.Mp, MS 130 Hd4 vv.142-9, supplemented by Trumpet and Timpani parts in vv.247-8, 353 from Lot 262.Copyist: S1.) Additions and Alterations in Belshazzar, etc. (a miscellany volume of movements in score, including 'Alterations in Messiah' ['Guadagni 'settings of 'But who may abide' and 'Thou art gone up on high', and the 45-bar version of 'Why do the nations']) (pressmark 'NO/17'.Lbl R.M. 19.a.2.Copyist: S1)