ABSTRACT
For many composers other than Purcell, the study of reception has long since been what Jim Samson has described as a standard ‘part of the tool-kit of historical research’, so that even rudimentary textbooks usually include some consideration of reception within the broader narrative of composer-or work-based studies.1 Yet even the most thoughtful and forward-looking volumes of this type within the Purcellian literature stop more or less dead in 1695,2 and it is probably fair to say that – despite some important exceptions that will be considered in this chapter – consideration of the broader context in which Restoration music was heard, disseminated and appropriated by later generations and came to shape our own perceptions of it today has been largely overlooked within the narratives attached to Purcell’s music. This situation has potentially serious consequences because it has become clear for composers whose reception has been more thoroughly investigated just how profound an effect posthumously developed opinions about their music can have on subsequent reception to the present day. as this chapter will demonstrate, the ‘afterlife’ of Purcell’s music is no exception in this respect.3
