Bath is by modern standards a short distance from London (about one hundred miles west), but coach travel in the eighteenth century made visiting the city a significant undertaking. Although Rauzzini spent extended periods in the capital during the 1780s, daily commuting between Bath and London was naturally impossible. His life in Bath was, of necessity, very different; to be separated from the excitement of the Italian opera and the other musical pleasures on offer in London would have been a considerable sacrifice. Total isolation from the musical life of London, however, would have been injurious to anyone wanting to be known as an operatic composer. Consequently, Rauzzini found it beneficial to maintain a link with the King's Theatre during the 1780s, performing occasionally in Piramo e Tisbe, and composing new works for the company. While it might appear that Rauzzini was poised to enjoy the best of what London and Bath had to offer, his time in London was unfortunately tarnished by the dispute that emerged during the early 1780s with his one-time friend and collaborator, Antonio Sacchini. Not only did this dispute end their friendship in a very public way, it also served to polarize the London critics and opera audiences over Rauzzini's compositions.

The Rauzzini-Sacchini Controversy

This controversy revolved around a claim attributed to Rauzzini that he had composed significant passages of Sacchini's most recent operas. Gossip had been circulating to this effect for some time in London, but matters turned ugly following the premiere of Rauzzini's L’eroe cinese on March 16, 1782. The Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser published a review of the opera two days later that included comments about a “certain mercenary, but celebrated composer.” The reviewer also drew attention to the speculation about the authorship of Sacchini's operas. This paper made a half-hearted attempt at being even-handed with its decision “not to take upon [itself] to contradict or vouch for the truth of this assertation.” On the same day, the Morning Post and Daily Advertiser reported that L’eroe cinese would have been mistaken for Sacchini's work if it had not otherwise been confirmed. On March 20, 1782, the same paper revisited the issue of Rauzzini's having ghost-written for Sacchini, concluding that “a doubt no longer remained on the subject.”