The Consort Music of William Lawes%2C 1602-1645

an imprint of Boydell & Brewer LtdPO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF and668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester NY 14620, USA

www.boydell.co.ukwww.boydellandbrewer.com

The ConsortMusic of William Lawes1602–1645

The C

onsort Music of

William

Law

es 1602–1645

John Cunningham

John Cunningham

William Lawes is arguably one of the finest English composers ofthe early seventeenth century. Born in Salisbury in 1602, he rose toprominence in the early 1630s; in 1635 he gained a prestigious postamong the elite private musicians of Charles I (the ‘Lutes, Viols andVoices’). With the outbreak of civil war in 1642, Lawes took armsin support of the king; he died during the Siege of Chester inSeptember 1645.

This book is divided into three sections. The first is a contextualexamination of music at the court of Charles I, with specificreference to the arcane group of musicians known as the ‘Lutes,Viols and Voices’; much of Lawes’s surviving consort music appearsto have been written for performance of this group. The remainderof the book deals with William Lawes the composer. The secondsection is a detailed study of Lawes’s autograph sources: the first of its kind. It includes 62 black and white facsimile images, and complete inventories of all the autographs, and presentsground-breaking new research into Lawes’s scribal hand, thesources and their functions, and new evidence for their chronology.The third section comprises six chapters on Lawes’s consort music; in these chapters various topics are examined, such aschronology, Lawes’s compositional process, and the relationshipbetween Lawes’s music and the court context from which it arose.

This book will be of interest to scholars working on English musicin the Early Modern period, but also to those interested in sourcestudies, compositional process and the function of music in theEarly Modern court.

JOHN CUNNINGHAM is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the School of Music, University College Dublin.

Jacket: Circle of Pieter Jacobsz Codde(1599–1678), Portrait of a young man (believedto be William Lawes), c.1635–40, oil on canvas. © The Sullivan Collection/The Bridgeman Art Library.

JACKET DESIGN: SIMON LOXLEY

RELATED TITLES

Hermann Pötzlinger’s Music BookIAN RUMBOLD WITH PETER WRIGHT

A study of one of the most significantmedieval manuscripts containing music, andits owner, sheds light on many aspects ofcontemporary culture.

This is an excellent book. EARLY MUSIC REVIEW

Medieval Liturgical Chant andPatristic ExegesisEMMA HORNBY

A sensitive and detailed investigation of thecomplex relationship between text andmusic in medieval chant.

MUSIC IN BRITAIN SERIES 1600–1900

William Lawes:Layout 1 18/12/2009 16:11

THE CONSORT MUSIC OF WILLIAM LAWES

1602–1645

LAWES.indb 1 19/03/2010 10:57

Music in Britain, 1600–1900issn 1752–1904

Series Editors:rachel cowgill & peter holman(Leeds University Centre for English Music)

This series provides a forum for the best new work in this area; it takes a deliberately inclusive approach, covering immigrants and emigrants as well as native musicians. Contributions on all aspects of seventeenth-, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British music studies are welcomed, particularly those placing music in its social and historical contexts, and addressing Britain’s musical links with Europe and the rest of the globe.

Proposals or queries should be sent in the first instance to Professor Rachel Cowgill, Professor Peter Holman or Boydell & Brewer at the addresses shown below. All submissions will receive prompt and informed consideration.

Professor Rachel Cowgill, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Liverpool Hope University, Hope Park, Liverpool, l16 9jd

email: [email protected]

Professor Peter Holman, School of Music, University of Leeds, Leeds, ls2 9jtemail: [email protected]

Boydell & Brewer, PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk, ip12 3dfemail: [email protected]

already published

Lectures on Musical LifeWilliam Sterndale Bennett

edited by Nicholas Temperley, with Yunchung Yang

John Stainer: A Life in MusicJeremy Dibble

The Pursuit of High Culture: John Ella and Chamber Music in Victorian London

Christina Bashford

Thomas Tallis and his Music in Victorian EnglandSuzanne Cole

LAWES.indb 2 19/03/2010 10:57

THE CONSORT MUSIC OF WILLIAM LAWES

1602–1645

the boydell press

John Cunningham

LAWES.indb 3 19/03/2010 10:57

© John Cunningham 2010

All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislationno part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast,

transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner

The right of John Cunningham to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78

of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

First published 2010The Boydell Press, Woodbridge

isbn 978-0-95468-097-8

The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer LtdPO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk ip12 3df, UK

and of Boydell & Brewer Inc.668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, ny 14620, USA

website: www.boydellandbrewer.com

A catalogue record of this publication is available from the British Library

The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites

referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

This publication is printed on acid-free paper

Designed and typeset in Adobe Minion Pro by David Roberts, Pershore, Worcestershire

Printed in Great Britain byCPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne

LAWES.indb 4 19/03/2010 10:57

For My Parents

❧

LAWES.indb 5 19/03/2010 10:57

LAWES.indb 6 19/03/2010 10:57

❧ Contents Preface ix

Acknowledgements xvi

List of Abbreviations xviii

Editorial Conventions xxiii

Chapter 1 The ‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’ 1

Chapter 2 The Autograph Manuscripts 23

Chapter 3 The Music for Lyra-Viol 92

Chapter 4 The Royall Consort 126

Chapter 5 The Viol Consorts 150

Chapter 6 The Fantasia-Suites 177

Chapter 7 The Harp Consorts 213

Chapter 8 The Suites for Two Bass Viols and Organ 249

Chapter 9 Conclusions 273

Appendix 1 Source Descriptions 278

GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 40657–61 279

GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40 285

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229 290

GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17798 295

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2 297

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3 305

GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432 308

US-CAh, MS Mus. 70 315

Appendix 2 Index of Watermarks 319

Bibliography 324

Discography 336

Index of Lawes ’ s Works Cited 339

General Index 342

LAWES.indb 7 19/03/2010 10:57

LAWES.indb 8 19/03/2010 10:57

Preface

In 1603 James VI of Scotland acceded to the English throne, becoming James I of England.1 With his accession many aspects of court life changed. Unlike

Elizabeth I, his predecessor, James was married, with children. The court structure had to change slightly to accommodate this, with the establishment of separate households for the Queen and the royal children. The musical establishment at court was also changing. James’s accession coincided with the coming of age of many of the best native composers of the early seventeenth century, such as John Coprario, Alfonso Ferrabosco II, Thomas Ford, Orlando Gibbons and Thomas Lupo. (According to contemporary writers Coprario was originally John Cooper, who adopted the Italianate form after a visit to Italy; Ferrabosco and Lupo were English, of Italian descent.) Within the first decade or so of the new century musical fashions had moved on from the Elizabethan period, and James’s court became the centre of musical innovation and development. James’s sons, Henry and Charles, were more interested in music than was their father. Henry, created Prince of Wales in 1610, amassed an impressive retinue of musicians, mostly singer-lutenists and viol players; however, he died unexpectedly of typhoid in 1612.2 Charles, created Duke of York in 1605, inherited many of Henry’s musicians when he became Prince of Wales in 1616. Most of the major scoring and formal innovations of the period were conceived and developed between the households of Prince Henry and Prince Charles. Eng-lish music at the time was embracing many Italian traits; exploration of Italian-influenced musical forms was especially fostered in Prince Henry’s household.3 Composers such as Coprario were experimenting with instrumentally conceived music for viols; also being developed were scoring and formal innovations such as lyra-viol trios and fantasia-suites with violins. Indeed, the introduction of the violin to serious consort music (which would find full expression in the consort music of William Lawes and John Jenkins in the 1630s and 1640s), was one of the most important musical developments of the period. Many of these musical inno-vations were developed in Prince Charles’s household. His musicians were to form

1 Probably the best general introduction to the period is B. Coward, The Stuart Age: England, 1603–1714 (3/2003).

2 For Prince Henry’s household, see R. Strong, Henry, Prince of Wales and England’s Lost Renaissance (1986).

3 See HolmanFTF, 197–224.

LAWES.indb 9 19/03/2010 10:57

the consort music of william lawesx

the basis of the group generally known as the ‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’ (LVV) after his accession in 1625. The LVV was not a fixed ensemble; rather it was a group of some of the most distinguished performers and composers in England at the time.William Lawes secured a place in the LVV in 1635.

William Lawes, son of Thomas (d. 1640) and Lucris [Lucretia] (née Shep-herd), was baptized in the Close at Salisbury Cathedral on 1 May 1602.4

Thomas was a lay-vicar at the Cathedral (and vicar-choral from 1632); this sug-gests that William may have been brought up as a chorister. His brother Henry (baptized on 5 January 1595/6) may also have been a chorister there; he joined the Chapel Royal in January 1625/6 (first as an epistoler, then promoted to gentleman in the following year), and received a prestigious appointment to the LVV in Janu-ary 1630/1.5 We know little of William’s early life. According to Thomas Fuller, he was taught by (if not apprenticed to) Coprario in the household of Edward Sey-mour, Earl of Hertford.6 David Pinto has plausibly suggested that this apprentice-ship could have been from c. 1619–26: ‘Owing to the guild system, artisans were apprenticed for a long period, customarily between the ages of 17 and 24 … Until [completion of the apprenticeship], rules bound them from plying their skills (and hence earning real money) separately from their masters. Any performing beforehand, and a fortiori composing, would have been pointless for any budding performers. ’ 7 This may largely explain why so little information exists of Lawes’s early life. The first official record of a court post for Lawes is dated 30 April 1635. It is likely that he participated in the Royal Music for several years before this in an unofficial capacity; he appears to have contributed music to Ben Jonson’s Entertainment at Welbeck performed for the Earl of Newcastle on 21 May 1633, and was well enough known to receive the prestigious commission later that year to compose some of the music for the elaborate Inns of Court masque The Triumph of Peace, performed in February 1633/4. Part of Lawes’s remuneration for the masque included £5 for

4 The following biographical summary is based on that in LefkowitzWL. See also A. Ashbee, ‘Lawes, William’ , BDECM, ii. 710–12; D. Pinto, ‘Lawes, William’ , GMO and ODNB (accessed 10 August 2009); I. Spink, Henry Lawes: Cavalier Song-writer (Oxford, 2000), 1–6. Little new information has been uncovered since LefkowitzWL. For an excellent discussion of the supposed portrait of Lawes in the Music School Collection at Oxford University, see C. V. R. Blacker and D. Pinto,

‘Desperately Seeking William: Portraits of the Lawes Brothers in Context’ , EM 37 (2009), 157–74.

5 See A. Ashbee, ‘Lawes, Henry’ , BDECM, ii. 706–9. 6 FullerW (‘Wiltshire’), 157. 7 See PintoFyV, 9–10, at 9. Edward Seymour died in 1621, so the apprenticeship may

not have continued under the auspices of the Seymour family.

LAWES.indb 10 19/03/2010 10:57

preface xi

‘my Lord Chamberlains boy’ , a servant of Philip Herbert possibly apprenticed to him, though no other records of this are known. Although his modern reputation is founded on his instrumental music, Lawes was a respected song composer. No later than 1636 he was the main composer of vocal music for the royal theatre companies and ‘Beeston’s Boys’ at the Cockpit-in-Court of Whitehall and Black-friars. Lawes also contributed music to the court masques The Triumph of the Prince d’Amour (1636) and Britannia Triumphans (1638), as well as William Cart-wright’s The Royal Slave, a play presented in Oxford during the summer progress of 1636. By the early 1640s the country was veering towards political meltdown. By 1639 court life was becoming increasingly disrupted by forced migrations within the kingdom brought about by Charles’s increasing resort to military measures; by the autumn of 1642 the king had fled London and set up court in Oxford. Around this time Lawes enlisted as a soldier. David Pinto has persuasively suggested that Lawes was present at the Siege of York in April–June 1644.8 He met his untimely death on 24 September 1645 during the Battle of Chester.9 Charles I is reputed to have instituted a special mourning for Lawes, ‘the Father of Musick’ . 10 His death was lamented by the poets Robert Herrick, Robert Heath and John Tatham; Henry Lawes published Choice Psalmes in William’s memory in 1648. Some of Lawes’s consort music remained popular well after his death: pieces from the Royall Consort are found in manuscripts until around 1680. By the last quarter of the seventeenth century, however, his music had become old-fashioned in the face of strong Italian influences. In the late eighteenth century his reputa-tion received no favours from Charles Burney’s disparaging analysis of the Royall Consort.11 Burney’s opinion of Lawes and his contemporaries did much to silence the repertoire for the next century or so. The modern revival of Lawes began in the 1890s with performances by Arnold Dolmetsch and his circle.12 Dolmetsch was

8 PintoY. 9 RingD.10 FullerW (‘Wiltshire’), 157.11 C. Burney, A General History of Music (1776–89), ed. F. Mercer (1935; r/1957), ii.

309–10; in that passage Burney famously described the Royall Consort as ‘one of the most dry, aukward [sic], and unmeaning compositions I ever remember to have had the trouble of scoring’ .

12 For example, at a public lecture at Gresham College given by Professor J. Fred erick Bridge on ‘The Anniversary of the death of Sir Thomas Gresham, 1579, and of Henry Purcell, 1695’ , Professor Bridge ‘assisted by Mr. dolmetsch and his pupils’ performed ‘Some Instrumental Music from the time of Sir Thomas Gresham to that of Purcell’ , which included a ‘Movement from the Royal Consort’ . The lecture took place on 21 November 1890. There is a copy of the programme in the Dol-metsch family library, Haslemere.

LAWES.indb 11 19/03/2010 10:57

the consort music of william lawesxii

an enthusiastic promoter of Lawes’s music, which regularly featured in Haslemere programmes; a performance of a six-part fantasia and ayre at the 1931 Haslemere Festival prompted Rupert Erlebach’s appraisal of Lawes in 1932.13 The Dolmetsch family was also first to record Lawes’s music. In the mid-1930s they set up Dol-metsch Gramophone Records to produce recordings of music performed at the annual Haslemere festivals. The last record (d.r.16) included two dances from the Royall Consort.14

Scholarly appreciation of Lawes reached a peak in 1960 with Murray Lef o-witz’s pioneering monograph on the composer,15 which stands as the most com-plete study of the composer’s music; after nearly half a century, however, many aspects are in need of updating. David Pinto has published the most work on Lawes in the years since Lefowitz’s study.16 His edition of the five- and six-part viol consorts was the first complete collected edition of Lawes’s music.17 Since then Pinto has produced several articles and essays, and an edition of the fantasia-suites for the Musica Britannica series. Perhaps the crowning glory of his research on Lawes is his edition of the Royall Consort (1995), which has commendably pro-duced an excellent text for both the Tr–Tr–T–B (‘old’) and Tr–Tr–B–B (‘new’) ver-sions the collection.18 The edition was accompanied by a monograph in which Pinto discussed the viol consorts and elaborated on several insightful suggestions into the complex issues of the rescoring of the Royall Consort.19 In September 1995 a conference was held in Oxford to commemorate the 350th anniversary of Lawes’s death; many of the papers given were published subsequently as a series of essays, William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work (Alder-shot, 1998), edited by Andrew Ashbee. The wide range of Lawes-related topics covered in this book exemplifies the broad appeal of Lawes’s music among modern musicologists.

My aim in this book has been to address several issues concerning Lawes’s music not dealt with in previous studies, and to build upon the existing body

of knowledge to advance our understanding of Lawes as a composer. Underlying

13 R. Erlebach, ‘William Lawes and His String Music’ , PRMA 59 (1932–3), 103–19.14 The Royall Consort tracks are included on Pioneer Early Music Recordings: The

Dolmetsch Family with Diana Poulton, Volume 1. The Dolmetsch Family. The Dol-metsch Foundation and The Lute Society [c. 2005], lsdol001; d.r.16 is dated 29 September 1948.

15 LefkowitzWL.16 See Bibliography.17 LawesCS.18 LawesRC.19 PintoFyV.

LAWES.indb 12 19/03/2010 10:57

preface xiii

these investigations is a primary research question: what can a detailed study of Lawes’s working environment and his autograph sources tell us about him as a composer, and about the function(s) and purpose(s) of the music that he com-posed? Chapters 1 and 2 deal with background issues relating to Lawes, namely the court and the autograph manuscripts. Chapters 6–9 comprise six shorter studies covering the entire range of Lawes’s consort music and a brief conclusion. Understanding Lawes and his music must begin with understanding the Royal Music at the early Stuart court, as this was the milieu in which he composed his most significant consort music; thus, Chapter 1 examines the ‘Private Music’ of Charles I. Many historical studies of the early modern court have given musicolo-gists invaluable background. In particular, the late Gerald Aylmer’s studies in court administration have provided the basis not only for many historical enquiries, but also for musicologists attempting to understand better the way in which musicians operated within the complex structure of the early Stuart court.20 Several archi-tectural studies, such as Simon Thurley’s brilliant exposition of the architectural history of Whitehall Palace, Whitehall Palace: An Architectural History of the Royal Apartments, 1240–1698 (1999), have provided much valuable information on the physical structure of the palace (destroyed by fire in 1698), helping us to assess possible places of performance. In recent years much research has been done on music at the English court; several publications in particular have significantly increased our understand-ing of this area. The majority of the documentary evidence cited here from court records was made accessible by the pioneering work of Andrew Ashbee, whose nine- volume series Records of English Court Music (RECM) and the accompanying two-volume Biographical Dictionary of English Court Musicians (BDECM) have done much to facilitate the study of music at the English court. In the early Stuart court there were three main secular divisions to the Royal Music: the violin band, the wind bands and the Private Music. The first two groups have been dealt with previously. Peter Holman’s seminal study Four and Twenty Fiddlers: The Violin at the English Court, 1540–1690 (Oxford, 2/1995) has shown what can be achieved when musical meat is put onto the bare bones of court documents; this wide-ranging work is essential reading for anyone researching music in early modern England and sets a high standard to which many subsequent studies will undoubt-edly aspire. David Lasocki’s doctoral dissertation, ‘Professional Recorder Players in England, 1540–1740’ (University of Iowa, 1983) is an intriguing and compre-hensive account of the development of the wind bands in the early Stuart court (and beyond). There is no similarly comprehensive study of the Private Music of Charles I (LVV); this is the aim of Chapter 1, which discusses the origins and

20 See Bibliography.

LAWES.indb 13 19/03/2010 10:57

the consort music of william lawesxiv

development of the LVV, its personnel, organization, and place within the wider context of the Royal Music and the court. Chapter 2 seeks to answer general questions relating to Lawes’s autograph sources. What can the autographs reveal about the development of Lawes’s hand? What is their chronology? What was their function? Can this function be related to the handwriting style? What can they reveal about Lawes’s compositional process? There is a survey of Lawes’s known autographs, and a discussion of his handwriting. Recent studies by Jessie Ann Owens and Rebecca Herissone have brilliantly demonstrated what can be achieved when detailed source studies are used to illuminate the wider context of how composers and musicians used the manuscripts that have come down to us.21 Also influential in my assessment of Lawes’s sources has been Robert Shay and Robert Thompson’s recent study of Henry Purcell’s musical and text hands, which has led to many breakthroughs in helping to date his works and autograph manuscripts.22 A similarly comprehen-sive published survey of Lawes’s hand has been lacking.23 The number of holo-graph Lawes sources is unfortunately much fewer than those available to Purcell scholars. Nevertheless, the autographs reveal much about Lawes’s compositional process, and I will make some suggestions regarding their chronology. Despite the limitations of Lawes’s sources, there is a strong need for this kind of study. For example, in his review of Pinto’s monograph on Lawes, Ian Spink questioned the issue of chronology: ‘it seems a bit too pat; why some of this music cannot be later [than 1642] – Lawes did not die until 1645 – is not made clear’ .24 Although my analysis of the sources yields some different results from those presented by Pinto, we do agree that much, if not all, of Lawes’s consort music dates to before 1642. Along with the evidence from the sources, the main reason for this dating is essen-tially bound up with the reasons for its creation in the first place. The argument throughout this book is that Lawes composed the majority of his consort music for the court. Naturally this does not preclude composition after the removal of the court to Oxford; we know little of Lawes’s movements between then and his death in September 1645. We may imagine, however, that the commissioning of

21 J. A. Owens, Composers at Work: The Craft of Musical Composition, 1450–1600 (Oxford, 1997); R. Herissone, ‘To fill, forbear, or adorne’: The Organ Accompaniment of Restoration Sacred Music (Aldershot, 2006); R. Herissone, ‘ “Fowle Originalls” and “Fayre Writeing”: Reconsidering Purcell’s Compositional Process’ , Journal of Musicology 23 (2006), 569–619.

22 ShayThompsonPM.23 Robert Thompson has presented some preliminary findings on the paper types

and watermarks found in some of the Lawes autographs: see ThompsonEMM and ThompsonP.

24 I. Spink, ‘Review: D. Pinto, For the Violls’ , ML 79 (1998), 108–9, at 109.

LAWES.indb 14 19/03/2010 10:57

preface xv

new consort music was some way down Charles’s list of priorities during the Civil War. More importantly, the evidence from the sources (especially the autographs) strongly suggests that the bulk of Lawes’s output as it has survived was intact by c. 1640. Chapters 3–8 deal with Lawes’s music, applying the findings of the first two chapters to detailed studies of his consort music. Chapter 3 presents a short survey of the evolution and development of the lyra-viol trio (including issues concern-ing the instrument, nomenclature, sources and repertoire) and evaluates Lawes’s lyra-viol music, solo and ensemble. Only six of his trios survive complete; many more survive in one part and afford valuable insights into Lawes’s revision process. Chapter 4 deals with the Royall Consort. Although much has been written on this collection, some key issues are in need of re-examination. Lefo witz was the first musicologist to study the collection in detail and to recognize the existence of the two versions;25 since then the late Gordon Dodd and especially David Pinto have contributed much to our understanding of the collection:26 any subsequent discussion is greatly indebted to their work. Chapter 4 briefly assesses the impor-tance of the Royall Consort in the repertoire, and reassesses some of the most important issues surrounding the collection, including the reasons behind rescor-ing. Chapter 5 discusses Lawes’s music for viol consort, focusing primarily on the issue of when they were composed, and develops further the evidence presented in Chapter 2. The following chapter discuses the fantasia-suites: when and how these pieces were composed, and their place within the consort repertoire. Despite containing some of his finest instrumental writing, Lawes’s harp con-sorts remain in relative obscurity. The modern neglect of the harp consort stems from the partially incomplete harp parts, and from the contentious issue of whether Lawes composed for a gut-strung triple harp or a wire-strung Irish harp, an issue discussed in Chapter 7. This chapter also looks in detail at the music of the harp consorts, and offers suggestions on issues such as internal development and chronology. Lawes’s style of division-writing is also examined, especially its rela-tionship to Christopher Simpson’s The Division-Violist (1659). Chapter 8 explores Lawes’s music for two bass viols and organ. These pieces are highly significant in our understanding of Lawes’s development as a composer; indeed, from them much information can be gleaned of his compositional process. This chapter pro-vides a brief consideration of the development of the genre, a thorough reassess-ment of the sources, and some suggestions on dates of composition. Some conclu-sions are briefly presented in Chapter 9.

25 LefkowitzWL.26 LawesRC; PintoNL; PintoFyV, 34–69.

LAWES.indb 15 19/03/2010 10:57

Acknowledgements

Over the course of writing this book I have received information, encouragement and advice from many people. I owe my greatest debt to Peter Holman,

my doctoral research supervisor, who has encouraged the book from its very earli-est stages. It has been my great privilege to work with Peter, from whom I continue to learn. He remains overwhelmingly generous in giving his time, encouragement and advice; without his encyclopaedic knowledge and unfailing wisdom this work would have been much the poorer. To him, my sincere thanks. My thanks are also due to Peter and his wife Tricia for their hospitality during several visits to Col-chester. Another significant debt is due to Harry White. As an undergraduate at University College Dublin, his lectures on Baroque music were a revelation to me; they sparked my interest in musicology generally and seventeenth-century Eng-lish music in particular. Over many years Harry has been unwaveringly generous in giving his encouragement and support; he also responded to a late draft of the book with typical wit and insightfulness. To him also, my sincere thanks. I am extremely grateful to Christopher Field, Jane Troy Johnson, Layton Ring, Jonathan Wainwright and Bryan White for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of the book in whole or part. I would especially like to thank David Pinto and Andrew Ashbee for their advice and stimulating correspondences on many Lawes-related topics, and for their comments on drafts of several of the chapters; Andrew also kindly shared his forthcoming monograph on John Jenkins ahead of publication. I am also grateful to the following for providing me with help and encouragement in various ways: Anastasia Belina, Barra Boydell, Máire Buffet, Martin Butler, Stuart Cheney, Melissa Devereux, Robin Elliott, Michael Fleming, Kerry Houston, Min Jung Kang, David Larkin, Richard Rastall, Thérèse Smith, Robert Thompson and Andrew Woolley. And, of course, any study of William Lawes inevitably owes much to the research of Murray Lefowitz; this book is no exception. I am indebted also to the Music in Britain, 1600–1900 series edi-tors Rachel Cowgill and Peter Holman, and to Caroline Palmer, Michael Middeke, Catherine Larner, David Roberts and the editorial staff at Boydell & Brewer for their advice, support and professionalism at every stage of this process. My thanks also to the staff of the various libraries in which my research has been conducted; I am grateful for permission to reproduce photographs of their holdings (as specified): Cambridge, MA, Houghton Library, Harvard University (Figs 2.10b, 2.13b, 2.29, 2.30a, 2.30b, 2.30c, 2.30d, 2.31, 2.32a, 2.32b, 2.32c, 2.33, 2.35, reproduced

LAWES.indb 16 19/03/2010 10:57

acknowledgements xvii

by permission of the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Thanks to William Stoneman, Florence Fearrington Librarian of Houghton Library); Dublin, Marsh’s Library; Dublin, Trinity College; Dublin, University College Dublin; Haslemere, Dolmetsch Library (Fig. 3.4. Particular thanks to Jeanne Dolmetsch for her enthu-siastic responses to my research and for her generous hospitality during several visits to Haslemere); Hatfield House, Hatfield (Fig. 2.3, reproduced by permission of the Marquess of Salisbury. Thanks to Vicki Perry, Assistant Archivist, for photo-graphing the document at very short notice); Leeds, University of Leeds, Brother-ton Library; London, the British Library (Figs 2.1c, 2.6b, 2.7a, 2.7b, 2.8b, 2.9a, 2.9b, 2.10a, 2.10d, 2.10e, 2.11a, 2.11b, 2.11c, 2.12b, 2.19b, 2.26, 2.27, 2.28, 2.34b, reproduced by permission of the Trustees); Warminster, Longleat House (Fig. 2.5, reproduced by permission of the Marquess of Bath, Longleat House, Warminster, Wiltshire. Thanks to Kate Harris, Curator); New York, New York Public Library; Oxford, the Bodleian Library (Figs 2.1a, 2.1b, 2.1d, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6a, 2.8a, 2.10c, 2.10f, 2.12a, 2.13a, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16a, 2.16b, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19a, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22a, 2.22b, 2.22c, 2.22d, 2.23, 2.24, 2.25, 2.34a, 5.1, 8.1a, 8.1b, reproduced by permission of the Bodleian Library, Uni-versity of Oxford. Thanks to Martin Holmes, Music Librarian); Oxford, Christ Church Library (Figs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, reproduced by permission of The Governing Body of Christ Church, Oxford. Thanks to Janet McMullin, Assistant Librarian). My thanks also to Susan Clermont, Senior Music Specialist (Music Division), of the Library of Congress, Washington, for providing me with a copy of the Library’s Cummings sale catalogue. The writing of the earliest drafts of this book was generously funded by a National University of Ireland Travelling Studentship in the Arts and Humani-ties, the final stages by an Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship, which I held at the School of Music, UCD; I am grateful to all at UCD for providing a welcoming and stimulating research environment. My thanks are also due to the trustees of the Musica Britan-nica Trust, from whom I received a Louise Dyer Award, which allowed me to visit the Houghton Library, Harvard University to examine Lawes’s autograph lyra-viol book. I am extremely grateful to the Music & Letters Trust for their generous sub-vention to help finance the publication of this book. It gives me great pleasure to record my thanks to Declan Mulligan for his many deeds well beyond the call of duty (over longer than either of us would care to admit); thanks too to my sister Siân and brother Cian. My most personal and heartfelt thanks are to Susan Jane Flynn for forbearance, support and oft-needed perspective. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their continued support, without which this book could never have been started; to them it is dedicated.

Dublin, September 2009

LAWES.indb 17 19/03/2010 10:57

List of Abbreviationsgeneral

b. bornd. diedINV. a portion of a MS written from the end with the volume invertedLVV ‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’ (Private Music of Charles I; see Chapter 1)n. noteom. omitted

instrumentsA AltoB BassBar BaritoneBc Continuo (unfigured, unless stated otherwise)BV Bass violLV Lyra-violT TenorTr Treblev(v) Voice(s)

library sigla(Following the RISM system as used in GMO)

austriaA-ET Ebenthal bei Klagenfurt, Privatbibliothek Goëss

franceF-Pcnrs Paris, Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueF-Pn Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France

germanyD-Hs Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek

great britainGB-Cfm Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum GB-Ckc Cambridge, King’s CollegeGB-Ctc Cambridge, Trinity CollegeGB-CHEr Chester, Cheshire Records Office GB-En Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland GB-Eu Edinburgh, University Library GB-HAdolmetsch Haslemere, Dolmetsch LibraryGB-Lam London, Royal Academy of MusicGB-Lbl London, British Library

LAWES.indb 18 19/03/2010 10:57

abbreviations xix

GB-Lcm London, Royal College of MusicGB-Lpro London, Public Records OfficeGB-Mp Manchester, Public LibraryGB-Ob Oxford, Bodleian LibraryGB-Och Oxford, Christ Church LibraryGB-W Wells, Cathedral Library

irelandIRL-Dm Dublin, Marsh’s Library

united states of americaUS-CAh Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Library (Houghton Library)US-Cn Chicago, Newberry LibraryUS-NH New Haven, CT, Yale University, School of Music LibraryUS-NHub New Haven, CT, Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript LibraryUS-NYp New York, New York Public LibraryUS-SM San Marino, CA, Huntington LibraryUS-Ws Washington, DC, Folger Shakespeare Library

frequently cited journals, series & organizationsAcM Acta MusicologicaAHJ American Harp JournalCEKM Corpus of Early Keyboard MusicELS English Lute Songs, 1597–1632EM Early MusicEMH Early Music HistoryFAM Fontes Artis MusicaeGSJ Galpin Society JournalHLQ Huntington Library QuarterlyIMS Irish Musical StudiesJAMS Journal of the American Musicological SocietyJCAUSM Journal of the Canadian Association of University Schools of MusicJLSA Journal of the Lute Society of AmericaJRMA Journal of the Royal Musical AssociationJVdGSA Journal of the Viola da Gamba Society of AmericaLSJ Lute Society Journal (Great Britain)MB Musica BritannicaML Music and LettersMQ The Musical QuarterlyPRBVCS PRB Productions, Viol Consort SeriesPRMA Proceedings of the Royal Musical AssociationRES The Review of English StudiesRMARC Royal Musical Association Research ChronicleRRMBE Recent Researches in Music of the Baroque EraVdGS Viola da Gamba Society (Great Britain)VdGSJ The Viola da Gamba Society Journal

LAWES.indb 19 19/03/2010 10:57

the consort music of william lawesxx

other works frequently citedAshbeeHM1 A. Ashbee, The Harmonious Musick of John Jenkins, vol. 1: The

Fantasias for Viols (Surbiton, 1992)

AshbeeHM2 A. Ashbee, The Harmonious Musick of John Jenkins, vol. 2: Suites, Airs and Vocal Music (forthcoming)

AshbeeJB A. Ashbee, ‘Instrumental Music from the Library of John Browne (1608–1691), Clerk of the Parliaments’ , ML 58 (1977), 43–59

BDECM A Biographical Dictionary of English Court Musicians, 1485–1714, 2 vols, ed. A. Ashbee and D. Lasocki, assisted by P. Holman and F. Kisby (Aldershot, 1998)

CrumEL M. Crum, ‘Early Lists of the Oxford Music School Collection’ , ML 48 (1967), 23–34

CrumOMSC M. Crum, The Oxford Music School Collection at the Bodleian Library, Oxford: A Guide and Index to the Harvester Microfilm Collection (Brighton, 1979)

CunninghamLVT J. Cunningham, ‘ “Let Them be Lusty, Smart-Speaking Viols”: William Lawes and the Lyra Viol Trio’ , JVdGSA 43 (2006; published 2008), 32–68

CunninghamMPC J. Cunningham, ‘Music for the Privy Chamber: Studies in the Consort Music of William Lawes (1602–45)’ (PhD diss., University of Leeds, 2007)

ES1600–75 English Song, 1600–1675: Facsimiles of Twenty-Six Manuscripts and an Edition of the Texts, 12 vols, ed. E. Jorgens (1986–9)

FieldCM C. D. S. Field, ‘Consort Music I: Up to 1660’ , in Music in Britain: The Seventeenth Century, ed. I. Spink (Oxford, 1995), 197–244

FieldCW C. D. S. Field, ‘The Composer’s Workshop: Revisions in the Consort Music of Alfonso Ferrabosco the Younger’ , Chelys 27 (1999), 1–39

FieldFR C. D. S. Field, ‘Formality and Rhetoric in English Fantasia-Suites’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 197–249

FieldJCH C. D. S. Field, ‘Jenkins and the Cosmography of Harmony’ , in John Jenkins and His Time: Studies in English Consort Music, ed. A. Ashbee and P. Holman (Oxford, 1996), 1–74

FullerW T. Fuller, A History of the Worthies of England (1662)

GMO Grove Music Online, ed. L. Macy (www.grovemusic.com)

HawkinsGH Sir J. Hawkins, A General History of the Science and Practice of Music, 2 vols (1776; r/1877 and 1969)

HolmanD P. Holman, Dowland: Lachrimae (1604) (Cambridge, 1999)

HolmanFTF P. Holman, Four and Twenty Fiddlers: The Violin at the English Court, 1540–1690 (Oxford, 2/1995)

HolmanH P. Holman, ‘The Harp in Stuart England: New Light on William Lawes’s Harp Consorts’ , EM 15 (1987), 188–203

LAWES.indb 20 19/03/2010 10:57

abbreviations xxi

HolmanOA P. Holman, ‘ “Evenly, Softly, and Sweetly Acchording to All”: The Organ Accompaniment of English Consort Music’ , in John Jenkins and His Time: Studies in English Consort Music, ed. A. Ashbee and P. Holman (Oxford, 1996), 353–82

IMCCM1 A. Ashbee, R. Thompson and J. Wainwright (compilers), The Viola da Gamba Society Index of Manuscripts Containing Consort Music, vol. 1 (Aldershot, 2001)

IMCCM2 A. Ashbee, R. Thompson and J. Wainwright (compilers), The Viola da Gamba Society Index of Manuscripts Containing Consort Music, vol. 2 (Aldershot, 2008)

Index Viola da Gamba Society of Great Britain: Thematic Index of Music for Viols, G. Dodd (compiler), with revisions and additions by A. Ashbee (2/2004)

LefkowitzWL M. Lefowitz, William Lawes (1960)

MaceMM T. Mace, Musick’s Monument (1676)

ODNB The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. L. Goldman (www.oxforddnb.com)

PintoAS D. Pinto, ‘William Lawes’ Consort Suites for the Viols, and the Autograph Sources’ , Chelys 4 (1972), 11–16

PintoFyV D. Pinto, For ye Violls: The Consort and Dance Music of William Lawes (Richmond, 1995)

PintoMVC D. Pinto, ‘William Lawes’ Music for Viol Consort’ , EM 6 (1978), 12–24

PintoNL D. Pinto, ‘New Lamps for Old: The Versions of the Royall Consort’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 251–82

PintoY D. Pinto, ‘William Lawes at the Siege of York, 1644’ , MT 127 (1986), 579–83

PlayfordCC H. Playford, ‘A Curious collection of Musick-Books, Both vocal and instrumental ’ (1690) (GB-Lbl, Harl. 5936/nos. 419–20)

RECM Records of English Court Music, 9 vols, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1986–96)

RingD L. Ring, ‘Wednesday, 24 September, 1645 – The Death of William Lawes during the Battle of Rowton Heath at the Siege of Chester’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 155–74

RobinsonCP A. Robinson, ‘“Choice Psalmes”: A Brother’s Memorial’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 175–98

ShayThompsonPM R. Shay and R. Thompson, Purcell Manuscripts: The Principal Musical Sources (Cambridge, 2000)

SimpsonDV C. Simpson, The Division-Violist (1659)

SpringL M. Spring, The Lute in Britain: A History of the Instrument and its Music (Oxford, 2001)

LAWES.indb 21 19/03/2010 10:57

the consort music of william lawesxxii

ThompsonEMM R. Thompson, ‘English Music Manuscripts and the Fine Paper Trade, 1648–1688’ (PhD diss., London, King’s College, 1988)

ThompsonP R. Thompson, ‘Paper in English Music Manuscripts: 1620–1645’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 143–54

TraficanteMS F. Traficante, ‘Music for Lyra-viol: Manuscript Sources’ , Chelys 8 (1978–9), 4–22

WainwrightCC J. Wainwright, ‘The Christ Church Viol-Consort Manuscripts Reconsidered: Christ Church, Oxford, Music Manuscripts 2, 397–408, and 436; 417–418 and 1080; and 432 and 612–613’ , in John Jenkins and His Time: Studies in English Consort Music, ed. A. Ashbee and P. Holman (Oxford, 1996), 189–242

WainwrightMP J. Wainwright, Musical Patronage in Seventeenth-Century England: Christopher, First Baron Hatton (1605–1670) (Aldershot, 1997)

WallsM P. Walls, Music in the English Courtly Masque, 1604–1640 (Oxford, 1996)

WillettsJB P. Willetts, ‘John Barnard’s Collections of Viol and Vocal Music’ , Chelys 20 (1991), 28–42

WoodMfP J. Wood, ‘William Lawes’s Music for Plays’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 11–68

editions frequently citedCoprarioBV John Coprario: Twelve Fantasias for Two Bass Viols and Organ and

Eleven Pieces for Three Lyra-viols, ed. R. Charteris, RRMBE 41 (Madison, WI, 1982)

FerraboscoCM Alfonso Ferrabosco the Younger: Consort Music of Five and Six Parts, ed. C. D. S. Field and D. Pinto, MB 81 (2003)

JacobeanCM Jacobean Consort Music, ed. T. Dart and W. Coates, MB 9 (2/1971)LawesCS William Lawes: Consort Sets in Five and Six Parts, ed. D. Pinto (1979)LawesCVM1 William Lawes: Collected Vocal Music Part 1: Solo Songs, ed. G. Callon,

RRMBE 120 (Madison, WI, 2002)LawesCVM2 William Lawes: Collected Vocal Music Part 2: Dialogues, Partsongs,

and Catches, ed. G. Callon, RRMBE 121 (Madison, WI, 2002)LawesCVM3 William Lawes: Collected Vocal Music Part 3: Sacred Music, ed. G.

Callon, RRMBE 122 (Madison, WI, 2002)LawesCVM4 William Lawes: Collected Vocal Music Part 4: Masques, ed. G. Callon,

RRMBE 123 (Madison, WI, 2002)LawesFS William Lawes: Fantasia-Suites, ed. D. Pinto, MB 60 (1991)LawesHC William Lawes: The Harp Consorts, ed. J. Achtman, et al., PRBVCS 62

(Albany, CA, 2007)LawesRC William Lawes: The Royall Consort (‘Old’ and ‘New’ Versions), 3 vols,

ed. D. Pinto (1995)LawesSCM William Lawes: Select Consort Music, ed. M. Lefowitz, MB 21 (2/1971)

LAWES.indb 22 19/03/2010 10:57

Editorial ConventionsOriginal spelling, capitalization and punctuation have been retained in transcrip-tions of original written sources. Most of the archival documents cited have been transcribed from RECM, where some documents are summarized in modern-ized spelling; duplicate records in RECM have not been recorded. Specific titles of musical forms in Lawes’s music have been regularized (as Aire, Alman, Corant, Fantazia or Fantazy, In Nomine, Pavan and Saraband) based on his general usage: original spellings are given in the manuscript inventories. In folio numbers, the verso portion of a page is given the suffix ‘v’ , the recto side ‘r’: e.g. fols 23v and 24r. Unnumbered folios are identified by a Roman numeral referring to the previous numbered folio, e.g. fol. 21/iii. Items on a page are indicated with a colon; thus, fol. 24v:2 indicates the second piece on folio 24v. Routine dictionary entries (GMO, ODNB, BDECM) for individuals are not ref-erenced unless directly quoted or specific reference is required. Place of publication is London, unless otherwise stated. The music examples are intended as simple transcriptions from the sources rather than critical editions, so obvious errors have been corrected without com-ment; where practical, the bar numbers of music examples correspond to a modern edition(s). Original key and time signatures have been retained, except for triple time pieces where ‘3i’ signatures have been uniformly rendered as ‘3’; accidentals have been modernized and last to the end of the bar, with cautionary or editorial accidentals in round brackets; editorial additions are indicated by small font or square brackets; original clef changes have been followed, although non-standard clefs have been silently emended; barring, beaming and stem directions have been regularized. Musical pitches in the text are indicated by the Helmholtz system: c' denotes middle C on a modern keyboard, with octaves above as c", c''', etc. and octaves below as c, C, etc. Major keys are indicated by capitals, minor keys by lowercase (not italicized). Clefs are indicated using the system where the treble, alto and bass clefs are given as g2, c3 and F4. Throughout the text, numerals in curly brackets {} indicate the number accorded to the piece in the Viola da Gamba Society’s Index. Only items from the Harp Consorts are not referred to by their VdGS number; instead these are referred to by their numbering in the autograph partbooks, and are prefixed by ‘HC’ , followed by the corresponding number: HC23, etc.

LAWES.indb 23 19/03/2010 10:57

the consort music of william lawesxxiv

In sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England, dates in official documents were reckoned from Lady Day (25 March), not from New Year’s Day (1 January). Therefore, in the seventeenth century ‘1638’ ran from 25 March 1638 to 24 March 1639. This system has been retained throughout the book. Thus, the overlapping period receives two years: e.g. 24 February 1637/38. The old system of English currency has been retained: there were twelve pence (d.) to a shilling (s.) and twenty shillings to the pound (£ or l.)

LAWES.indb 24 19/03/2010 10:57

chapter 1

The ‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’

Charles I was one of the greatest patrons of the arts to sit on the English throne. His reign began on 27 March 1625, after the death of his father, James

I; the first time an adult male had directly succeeded to the English throne since Henry VIII in 1509. Born in 1600, Charles was William Lawes’s senior by two years. By the time Lawes gained a post in the royal household in 1635 Charles had been ruling without parliament for six years. The so-called ‘personal rule’ lasted until 1640, by which time Charles – largely through a mixture of ineptitude and circumstance – managed to bring about a political climate that would result in civil war and regicide. Charles was an aesthete. He spent a king’s fortune amassing one of the most impressive art collections in Europe, and commissioned the leading artists of the day such as Peter Paul Rubens and Anthony Van Dyck. Also a lover of music, according to John Playford, Charles was taught to play the bass viol by John Coprario.1 His musical tastes were strongly influenced by his elder brother Henry, who died unexpectedly in 1612. Upon his accession, Charles inherited the existing royal musicians and their organizational structure. The changes that the Royal Music underwent during Charles’s reign were significant in many ways, but perhaps the most important innovation was the formation of the group variously known as ‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’ (LVV), in which Lawes was later employed.2

The main residence of the Tudors and early Stuarts was Whitehall Palace. Royal residences were also kept at Hampton Court, St James’s and Greenwich;

wherever the monarch resided he/she brought the administrative structure with them.3 The structure of the court had to change in 1603 to accommodate the new king. Unlike Elizabeth I, James VI of Scotland (now James I of England), had a

1 J. Playford, An Introduction to the Skill of Musick (10/1683), p. [x]. The fourth to seventh editions refer to Charles’s performing ability but not to his having been taught by Coprario; editions subsequent to 1683 repeat the version of the tenth edition.

2 The information in this chapter is largely drawn from material in RECM. 3 For a succinct background to the development of the court, see HolmanFTF, 32–57;

also N. Cuddy, ‘Reinventing a Monarchy: The Changing Structure and Political Function of the Stuart Court, 1603–88’ , in The Stuart Courts, ed. E. Cruickshanks (Gloucestershire, 2000), 59–85.

LAWES.indb 1 19/03/2010 10:57

the consort music of william lawes2

consort and children. The main household was now that of the king. His wife, Queen Anne of Denmark, also had her own household, as did the royal children (Henry, Charles and Elizabeth) as they came of age. Each of these establishments had its own staff, including musicians, and essentially mirrored the structure of the main household.4 In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the English court was divided into three main areas: the Stables, the Household (the service areas ‘below stairs’) and the Chamber (the living areas etc. ‘above stairs’).5 The Lord Chamberlain was the administrative head of the Chamber; his counterpart below stairs was the Lord Steward. For most of Charles I’s reign Philip Herbert, fourth Earl of Pembroke and first Earl of Montgomery, served as Lord Chamber-lain, holding office from 1626 to 1641. As Lord Chamberlain, Montgomery

controlled all musical activities at Court and all payments for them had first to be approved by him. There were no appointments made (except excep-tionally by the King himself), liveries granted, instruments bought, or duties arranged without his approval and authority. In addition he acted as a medi-ator in any disputes concerning Court servants. His orders were conveyed by means of a written warrant, signed, stamped or sealed by his office and directed to the appropriate person or department.6

The Chamber consisted of several linked rooms proceeding from public to pri-vate: the Great Hall, the Guard Chamber, the Presence Chamber, the Privy Cham-ber, the Privy Apartments, and the Bedchamber. The Privy Apartments were the innermost sanctum of the court. Apart from its staff, only high-ranking courtiers and guests were usually allowed access, especially after the accession of Charles I. The Royal Music was a microcosm of this complex structure.7 It consisted of several distinct groups, all under the Lord Chamberlain’s authority. The Chapel Royal, the oldest and largest of the groups, provided the daily choral music at the court chapels, and ‘Doubtless, its members also contributed a good deal to informal music-making throughout the Tudor and Stuart period’ .8 Secular music

4 For diagrams of the layout of Whitehall Palace etc., see S. Thurley, Whitehall Palace: An Architectural History of the Royal Apartments, 1240–1698 (1999).

5 For a detailed discussion, see G. Aylmer, The King’s Servants: The Civil Service of Charles I, 1625–1642 (2/1974), 26–32.

6 RECM, iii. pp. ix–xiii, at ix. 7 A good general introduction to music at the court of Charles I is provided by J.

Wainwright, ‘The King’s Music’ , in The Royal Image: Representations of Charles I, ed. T. Corns (Cambridge, 1999), 162–75.

8 HolmanFTF, 36. For the Chapel Royal, see The Old Cheque-Book or Book of Remembrance of the Chapel Royal from 1561 to 1744, ed. E. Rimbault (1872; r/1966); D. Baldwin, The Chapel Royal, Ancient and Modern (1990); HolmanFTF, 389–414.

LAWES.indb 2 19/03/2010 10:57

the ‘lutes, viols and voices’ 3

at court was provided by three main sections of the Royal Music: the wind bands, the violin band and the Private Music. These groups were distinguished by instru-mentation and function. Each group had a distinct repertoire, function and place of performance within the palace at Whitehall. The functional distinction between the public and private music groups was basic common sense, stemming from the medieval distinction between haut and bas instruments. The violin and wind bands were suited to larger and more ceremonial entertainments, and loud enough to be heard above the din at meal times. Until 1630 the wind band was divided into three sections: shawms and sackbuts; recorders; flutes and cornetts.9 The duties of the wind band, however, often led to the intermixture of members from different sections resulting in their official reor-ganization in 1630, although David Lasocki notes that in practice reorganization may have occurred much earlier.10 The wind bands provided music for ceremonial events, meal times, masques and for the Chapel Royal. The violin band consisted of thirteen men by 1625.11 Established during the reign of Henry VIII, its ranks grew steadily in number until the Restoration.12 Like the wind bands, the violin band was expected to provide music for social gatherings, such as meal times; its main function, however, was to provide dance music. Instruments such as lutes, viols, harps and keyboard instruments were naturally suited to more intimate set-tings, and were grouped into an ensemble often referred to as the ‘Private Music’ as they performed in the private and semi-private parts of the court. Although ‘Private Music’ is often applied to the earlier part of the century, it is only found in court documents and literature from the Restoration period. The earliest refer-ence dates from 16 June 1660, noting the ‘Private Musick sworne Ju: 16th by my Lord [Chamberlain]’;13 Thomas Fuller used the term in 1662.14 For ease of refer-ence, ‘Private Music’ will occasionally be used here to refer generally to the various incarnations of the LVV. In many court documents from the reign of James I the private music (which mostly consisted of singers and lutenists, but also a harper and several viol players) is referred to as ‘the Consorte’ . In modern usage ‘consort’ is generally understood

9 For the wind bands at the early modern court, see D. Lasocki, ‘Professional Recorder Players in England, 1540–1740’ (PhD diss., University of Iowa, 1983); D. Lasocki, ‘The Recorder Consort at the English Court, 1540–1673’ , The American Recorder 25 (1984), 91–100, 131–5.

10 Lasocki, ‘Recorder Players’ , i. 105–12.11 RECM, iii. 2–3.12 HolmanFTF is the definitive account of the violin at the English court.13 RECM, i. 2.14 FullerW (‘Wiltshire’), 157.

LAWES.indb 3 19/03/2010 10:57


as a small ensemble of instruments with usually one person to a part, and by exten-sion the instruments played. The etymology is confused and confusing. ‘Consort’ seems to have originated from the Italian concerto meaning an ensemble of voices or instruments: the French concert appears to have had a similar meaning.15 War-wick Edwards has convincingly shown that from about 1575–1625 ‘consort’ was used to describe a mixed group of instruments.16 References to broken and whole consorts (respectively implying mixed and homogeneous ensembles) are rare and do not appear until after 1660.17 Even here the meaning is not clear. In music refer-ences in seventeenth-century England, ‘broken’ was most commonly applied to divisions where the given melody or ground was ‘broken’ into shorter notes.18

Upon his accession, Charles I retained most of his father’s musicians and simply added the musicians from his household as Prince of Wales.19 The ‘Consorte’ was modified and became generally known as the ‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’ or the ‘Lutes and Voices’ . ‘Consort’ is retained in some documents, where it appears to be interchangeable with LVV etc.: e.g. when Lucretia Friend (or Frend) was granted denizenship in June 1631 she was described as ‘the wife of John Frend, one of the Consort of his Majesty’s musicians’ .20 And when Robert Tomkins replaced Robert Kindersley in March 1634 it was in ‘the office of musician for the Consort’ .21 In June 1629, however, a warrant was granted ‘for a hayle for ye Consorte’ and ‘for the lutes & voices’ ,22 suggesting that ‘ye Consorte’ may have referred to a particular group within the LVV. (A ‘hayle’ appears to be derived from a secondary meaning of the word ‘hale’ , in origin a doublet of ‘hall’ , which according to the Oxford English Dictionary refers to ‘A place roofed over, but usually open at the sides; a pavilion; a tent; a booth, hut or other temporary structure for shelter’ .)23 Friend, Tomkins and Kindersley held places as ‘Musicians for the Violls’ , associated with the LVV but

15 W. Edwards, ‘Consort’ , GMO (accessed 27 February 2009); HolmanFTF, 132.16 See also W. Edwards, ‘The Sources of Elizabethan Consort Music’ (PhD diss.,

University of Cambridge, 1974), i. 36–57.17 For example, a warrant dated 13 February 1662/3 includes a reference to the

‘Broaken Consort’: RECM, v. 41.18 For example, see SimpsonDV.19 See also HolmanFTF, esp. 32–57; D. Pinto, ‘Music at Court: Remarks on the Per-

formance of William Lawes’ Works for Viols’ , in A Viola da Gamba Miscellany, ed. J. Boer and G. van Oorschot (Utrecht, 1994), 27–40; A. Ashbee, ‘William Lawes and the “Lutes, Viols and Voices” ’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 1–10.

20 RECM, iii. 61.21 RECM, iii. 77–8.22 RECM, iii. 45.23 The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 2/1989), vi. 1026.

LAWES.indb 4 19/03/2010 10:57


not in the group proper. In 1625 the viols group consisted of Friend, Alfonso Ferra-bosco II, Roger Major (replaced by Kindersley in 1626) and Daniel Farrant.24 It seems likely that the bowed string players (perhaps with others) were occasionally referred to as ‘the consort’ , distinguishing them from the main body of the LVV, which mostly consisted of what can be best described as singer- lutenists. At this time most singers played the lute and most lutenists sang. To what degree musi-cians were apt at both varied; for example, Nicholas Lanier was a talented singer and lutenist, but Robert Johnson, John Lawrence, John Kelly, Edward Wormall and Jonas Wrench seem to have been primarily employed as lutenists. Many of the important singers, such as Henry and William Lawes, Anthony Robert, John Wilson and Angelo Notari, were also lutenists. The LVV was officially formed by letters patent dated 11 July 1626.25 According to the patent, each member of the group was to be paid for one year from Lady Day (25 March) 1625, and then for life from Lady Day 1626, suggesting that the group was formed upon Charles’s accession but that there was an administrative delay in granting the official patents, presumably because the group was an innovation. The patent lists seventeen musicians, most of whom were originally employed in Prince Charles’s household. In addition, Nicholas Lanier was appointed ‘Master of the Musick’ , and Ferrabosco II received a grant to replace Coprario as ‘Composer of our musicke in ordinary’ .26 Fourteen of the group received £40 a year. Alfonso Bales and Robert Marshe received £20 a year. They also received this sum in Prince Charles’s household, half that of most of the other musicians. Bales was also a London Wait. His salary may have been based on his ability to attend court;27 per-haps Marsh held a similar arrangement. Thomas Ford received £80 a year, ‘being £40 for his former place and £40 in place of John Ballard, late deceased’ .28 In addition to the initial places, several musicians associated with the LVV, e.g. John-son and Nicholas Lanier, also held posts as musicians for the ‘Lutes’ . Several new posts associated with the group were also created during Charles’s reign. Thus, the loosely defined LVV consisted of twenty-nine musicians (18 singer-lutenists, 1 harpist, 2 keyboard players, 4 viol players and 4 violinists). This number was largely maintained throughout the period 1625–42.29 The most notable aspect of the group was its capacity to perform a broad range of vocal and chamber music:

24 RECM, iii. 9.25 RECM, iii. 19.26 A post that added £40 per annum to Ferrabosco’s wages: RECM, iii. 21.27 Suggested in A. Ashbee, ‘Balls, Richard’ , BDECM, i. 57.28 RECM, iii. 19. Thomas Day received a further £20 a year for keeping a singing boy,

and Robert Johnson the same amount extra for strings.29 Tables listing the members of the ‘Consort’ and the main group of ‘Lutes, Viols and

LAWES.indb 5 19/03/2010 10:57


the preponderance of lutenists suggests that they would have performed in mixed consorts.30

Queens Anne (wife of James I) and Henrietta Maria (wife of Charles I) had their own musical establishments separate from the main household. Henrietta Maria’s establishment was in effect a scaled-down version of that of her husband.31 Most of her musicians were French and Catholic, and generally better paid than Charles’s. The average wage of the LVV was £40 per annum, whereas the majority of Henri-etta Maria’s musicians received £120. This was probably linked to attendance. It is likely that the queen demanded almost daily attendance from most of her musi-cians, whereas the king could afford (and needed) to operate a rota system given his large number of musicians. Foreign musicians in the king’s household gener-ally commanded better salaries than their English colleagues. For example, Adam Vallet received a salary of £60 a year, and Jacques Gaultier started on £50 a year in 1622, which increased to £100 in 1624. The highest-paid English musician (for a single post) was Thomas Ford, who in 1634 was granted an extra £20 a year, bring-ing his income to £60 per annum.32 Only Lanier as Master of the Music earned more for a single post. Although Lanier’s £200 a year was considerably more than the wages of the average court musician, it is put into context when considered against the wages earned by many high-ranking officials such as the Lord Steward, who in the late 1620s earned over £2,000 annually.33 Several members of Henrietta Maria’s music (Gaultier, Richard Dering, Anthony Robert and Nicholas Duvall) also held posts in the main musical establishment. Such plural ism was a common feature of court life. A notable example is Ferrabosco II, who held four court posts by the time of his death in 1628.

The historian Neil Cuddy has noted that James I was obsessive about secu-rity, and transformed the internal subtleties of access to the monarch of his

predecessor’s reign into hard, institutional distinctions.34 The staff and func-tions of the Privy Chamber and Bedchamber were separated. The Bedchamber

Voices’ during the early Stuart period are given in Ashbee, ‘Lawes and the “Lutes, Viols and Voices” ’ , at 2–3.

30 See HolmanFTF, 197–224, esp. 200–1.31 See I. Spink, ‘The Musicians of Queen Henrietta-Maria: Some Notes and Refer-

ences in the English State Papers’ , AcM 36 (1964), 177–82.32 RECM, iii. 79.33 This was his total income; his official salary was £100: for a table of incomes of

selected court officials, see Aylmer, King’s Servants, 204–10.34 N. Cuddy, ‘The Revival of the Entourage: The Bedchamber of James I, 1603–1625’ ,

in The English Court, from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War, ed. D. Starkey (1987), 173–225.

LAWES.indb 6 19/03/2010 10:57


comprised the Withdrawing Chamber, the Bedchamber itself, and the Privy Gal-leries and Lodgings (i.e. the private apartments consisting of libraries, closets, bathrooms, etc.).35 This left the Privy Chamber staff with only ceremonial and formal duties, while the Bedchamber staff, under the Groom of the Stool, took over the intimate aspects of attendance on the monarch. The Privy Chamber and its staff were now under the control of the Lord Chamberlain. Charles, a natu-rally shy and introverted person, inspired by the gravity of the Escorial, took fur-ther measures to ensure his privacy, restrict access to his person, and increase formality. A new triple lock was fitted on the Bedchamber door, with names of their holders engraved on the keys: only Bedchamber staff and invited guests were allowed access under pain of banishment from the court for a year.36 The restric-tions put in place by the early Stuarts were the culmination of a trend begun with the Eltham Ordinances of 1526, which gradually created a restricted and private area of the court for the monarch and his/her guests to reside.37 The restrictions did not have a dramatic effect on musicians, as the places in which they performed were directly linked to the instruments they played. The Presence Chamber and other public areas of the court were open to anyone respectably attired, but the Privy Chamber was closed to all except its own staff and those few individuals personally chosen by the king, which included his private musicians. ‘In practice, by the early 1620s all peers and bishops also had Privy Chamber access’ , which was officially sanctioned by Charles I.38 Although it is unclear whether the musicians were allowed access to the Bedchamber, it is likely that permission was granted as occasion demanded. This had important consequences for such privileged musi-cians. Power at the Stuart court was centred around the physical person of the king. The closer one was to the centre of power, the more power one could wield and the more opportunities there were for remuneration. Thus, with the acces-sion of Charles I we find the paradoxical situation where some of the most menial employees, such as Groom of the Stool and the private musicians, were elevated in status because they personally attended the king. Ferrabosco’s post as instructor illustrates the point. When appointed as teacher to Prince Henry in 1604 Ferra-bosco had to be also appointed as an ‘extraordinary groom of the Privy Chamber’ , granting him passage to the required part of the palace usually out-of-bounds to most servants and courtiers.39

35 See also Cuddy, ‘Reinventing a Monarchy’ , esp. 70–5.36 See K. Sharpe, ‘The Image of Virtue: The Court and Household of Charles I, 1625–

42’ , in English Court, ed. Starkey, 226–60.37 See HolmanFTF, 32–57.38 Cuddy, ‘Reinventing a Monarchy’ , 67.39 RECM, iv. 11.

LAWES.indb 7 19/03/2010 10:57


The Exchequer was responsible for all of the court’s revenue.40 Most royal musicians were paid directly from the Treasury of the Chamber, although

some were paid directly from the Exchequer. The Exchequer also paid occasional lump sums to various court officials, such as the Treasurer of the Chamber, the Master of the Great Wardrobe, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, and the Cofferer of the Household, who were occasionally required to pay musicians from their own resources. The records of the Exchequer and the Treasury of the Chamber are especially valuable sources in tracing payments to musicians. In 1614 the purchase of strings and instruments was transferred from the Privy Purse to the Treasurer of the Chamber, so many records fortunately survive.41 Court finances generally appear to have been used for whatever purpose was most pressing, and payments did not always follow the same channels.42

Court posts were highly sought-after, and usually secured in one of three ways: in reversion; through the influence of a courtier; or (rarely) by direct command of the king. The admissions process was complex and expensive. Fortunately for us, during the Interregnum court officials faced the unenviable task of attempting to reconstruct the complex procedures of court administration; this necessitated documents being drawn up to instruct newly appointed officials how the system worked during a period of significant administrative disruption. The admissions process was set out in a memorandum entitled ‘The Method (and style) of issuing Instruments under the Great Seal’; here summarized by Peter Holman:

A warrant was prepared by the Clerks of the Signet on behalf of the Attor-ney General for the sovereign’s signature, the ‘Royal Sign Manual’ , or his signature expressed in the form of a stamp. Once this was obtained, it pro-ceeded through the system, carried from office to office by the individual himself, the ‘party prosecutor’; he went from the Secretary of State to the Signet Office, back to the Secretary, then to the Privy Seal Office, and finally to Chancery. … Musicians, particularly those paid by the Treasury of the Chamber, were often appointed by a simpler method: the Clerk of the Signet prepared … a ‘Warrant to prepare a bill to pass the Privy Signet, thereby authorizing the Treasurer of the Chamber’ to pay fee and livery.43

40 For a succinct account of the court’s financial structure in relation to musicians see Ashbee’s description of the court payment procedures and their relations to the surviving records: RECM, iii. pp. xii–xiii.

41 See RECM, iii. p. xii.42 See Aylmer, King’s Servants, 32–40.43 HolmanFTF, 42–3. Holman quotes the memorandum (GB-Lpro, State Paper Office,

18/42/5) in full; it dates to 1653 and is discussed in G. Aylmer, The State’s Servants:

LAWES.indb 8 19/03/2010 10:57


The system of reversions further complicated the acquisition of court posts. A post could be held over, in reversion, to the holder’s heir.44 Reversion sometimes resulted in persons taking up positions at court for which they were ill-suited, although this was unlikely to have affected the musicians’ places. Musical training was usually passed down from father to son, and it seems that one had to have a high degree of competency to gain a post in the LVV. In the LVV five sons inher-ited their fathers’ posts: Alfonso Ferrabosco III, Henry Ferrabosco, John Taylor, Theophilus Lupo and Robert Dowland.45 Within the LVV there were also famil-ial connections, undoubtedly used to form alliances: Henry and William Lawes, Giles and Robert Tomkins, Nicholas and John Lanier. There were also familial ties between the different music groups.46 There was intermarrying within the LVV (and within the Royal Music generally), strengthening the dominance of some families, especially the émigré Italian families, such as the Bassanos, Laniers and Lupos. This nepotistic structure was a microcosm of the court structure in general, which (as a consequence of the underlying theory of divine right) functioned on the premise that one’s birth afforded certain privileges. Connections were vital in gaining a position at court. Posts usually came avail-able upon the death of the holder, if they were not held in reversion or promised to someone else. John Wilson, one of the foremost native lutenists of his day and later Heather Professor of Music at Oxford, was successful in gaining a place in the LVV in 1635 only after several attempts (although one must be cautious of hyperbole):

Dr Wilson made great and frequent sute to K: Charles, to bee admitted to be one of his private musiq: But by the envie and opposition of some at Court, was still put by. 9 petitions hee had delivered for severall vacancies, and yet still some other was preferred before him.47

Wilson may have been the person to whom the Earl of Newcastle was referring in his advice to the young Prince Charles (II) when he noted that

a merry Mutition that I knowe, desired the place of the kinges bagpiper, …

The Civil Service of the English Republic, 1649–1660 (1973), 436–7. See also Aylmer, King’s Servants, 69–96.

44 See Aylmer, King’s Servants, 72–3 and 96–106.45 Dowland’s place was extraordinary.46 Diagrammatic tables tracing the family relationships between court musicians can

be found in BDECM, ii. 1225–7.47 The passage is quoted in full in Ashbee, ‘Lawes and the “Lutes, Viols and Voices” ’ ,

4; it is taken from the ‘manuscript notebook of a society man, c. 1640–60’ currently housed in the Museum of London, Tangye collection (no reference no.; ibid., 9 n. 6).

LAWES.indb 9 19/03/2010 10:57


hee sayd therefore hee Hopte to have itt, for they always gave places, to those That were moste unfitt, for them, as a Luteneste place, to one that playd of the viole, & a violest place to one that Playd of the Lute.48

A court post did not, however, guarantee the successful acquisition of further places. Following the death of Thomas Lupo in 1628, Robert Johnson unsuccess-fully petitioned for his place as composer to the ‘Lutes and voyces’ , stating that he had served for ‘23 yeares and never obteyned any suite’:49 his two court posts notwithstanding. Occasionally new places were created in the Private Music, allowing sought-after (usually foreign) talents to be employed: additional places were created in 1625 for the infamous French lutenist Jacques Gaultier, and again in 1631 for the singer John Fox.50 Another way to gain a court post was to work in an extraordi-nary capacity, often without fee, in the hopes of later securing a court post when one became available. For example, the violinist John Woodington appears to have served in the violin band of the main household from c. 1618, and in the group known as ‘Cooperarios Musique’ in Prince Charles’s household from c. 1622. In both cases, it seems that he served in an extraordinary capacity without remu-neration.51 He did so until 1625, when he replaced Adam Vallet a violinist in the LVV; Holman has suggested that Woodington was apprenticed to Vallet.52 It was clearly advantageous to serve the court even without official remuneration. Such speculative work would have had other rewards in the form of payments from the Crown’s Privy Purse and gifts. It also allowed musicians to come to the attention of the king, and was one way of getting lucrative jobs with wealthy courtiers hoping to ape the fashionable court music. Many musicians, such as William Lawes, who replaced original members of the LVV seem to have begun their court careers in this way. Some musicians served as apprentices to court musicians, which could also lead to a court post. Lawes was taught by (if not apprenticed to) Coprario in the house-hold of Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford. Although this was many years before Lawes’s admission to the Royal Music, such connections would have opened doors. Lawes was also fortunate to have his brother Henry employed in the Chapel Royal

48 Ideology and Politics on the Eve of Restoration: Newcastle’s Advice to Charles II, ed. T. Slaughter (Philadelphia, 1984), 57. I am grateful to Peter Holman for this observation.

49 RECM, viii. 99–100. Lupo also held a post as composer to the violin band.50 Fox received £40 per annum ‘in reward of his service in his Quality of Singing’ :

RECM, iii. 60.51 See A. Ashbee, ‘Coprario, John’ , BDECM, i. 296–8.52 HolmanFTF, 214.

LAWES.indb 10 19/03/2010 10:57


from 1626 and in the LVV from 1631, allowing William easier access to the court. There appears to have been a tradition of apprenticeship among the court harpers in the early seventeenth century. From July 1618 Philip Squire received £30 a year ‘to teach Lewis Evans, a child of great dexterity in music, to play on the Irish harp and other instruments’ .53 Further privy seals show that Squire continued to teach Evans and provide his maintenance until Evans received his own post in 1633.54 Holman has convincingly suggested that Squire was himself apprenticed to Cor-mack MacDermott, whom he replaced in 1618.55 There are also several references to singing boys apprenticed to various court musicians. The boys were primarily associated with the Chapel Royal, although they also appear to have participated in secular entertainments; in the early part of the century they also acted.56 In early 1623 Thomas Day (a gentleman of the Chapel Royal) succeeded Richard Ball as instructor of a singing boy in Prince Charles’s household. Day also held a place in the LVV from its inception. In addition, on 24 January 1633/4 he replaced Nath-aniel Giles as Master of the Children of the Chapel. Angelo Notari received £48 a year from Christmas 1622 for keeping and training two singing boys in Prince Charles’s household, formerly the job of Richard Ball. Notari was also on the initial list of LVV; payments for keeping the boys appear to have ended in 1625.57 A posi-tion as a singing boy could occasionally lead to a post as a professional musician in adulthood. For example, Edward Wormall was one of two singing boys appointed to Prince Henry’s household in 1610.58 He was granted a place as a musician to Prince Charles in 1622 and went on to serve in the LVV until the disbandment of the court. After the Restoration, Henry Cooke became the Master of the Children of the Chapel. In addition to his place in the LVV, he was responsible for ‘ye boyes in ye private musick’ .59 Warrants related to Cooke give a fuller picture of what was expected of the children. Their duties were presumably similar those expected earlier in the century:

Warrant to pay £115. 10s. 6d. to Captain Henry Cooke, master of the chil-dren of his Majesty’s Chapel Royal, for having the children taught Latin, to

53 RECM, viii. 78.54 RECM, iii. 45; RECM, viii. 117; RECM, iii. 192; RECM, iii. 78.55 HolmanH, 194.56 See L. Austern, Music in English Children’s Drama of the Later Renaissance (Phila-

delphia, 1992).57 For Notari, see HolmanFTF, esp. 200–11.58 RECM, iv. 211–12.59 RECM, i. 4.

LAWES.indb 11 19/03/2010 10:57


write, to play on the violin, organ and lute, for stringing and penning their harpsichords, for fire and strings at the music room at the Chapel, for his disbursements for clothes for Michael Wise, late one of the children of the Chapel, and for going into the country looking after boys for the Chapel for half a year from Michaelmas 1664 to Lady Day 1665, and for nursing of three boys that were sick of the small pox.60

In the Restoration at least, the children were evidently schooled in the old bowling alley at Hampton Court.61 The likelihood is that this was only for the summer months when the king was on progress, which suggests that many of the royal musicians did not attend the king on progress (see below). A permanent base for the boys at Hampton Court is unlikely: it would have been too far from Whitehall if the boys were needed for regular duty. Although taking charge of children appears to have been another way for court musicians to increase their income, the children received food, board and an education.

The creation of the post of ‘Master of the Music’ was an important step in the history of the Royal Music. The post appears to have originated in Prince

Charles’s household, to which Nicholas Lanier was appointed in March 1624/5.62 He was awarded £100 a year, whereas the usual rate was £40, suggesting a position of responsibility. The post was confirmed in 1626 with an annuity of £200. Lanier was responsible for all of the music groups at court, which apparently caused some friction. Indeed, on 6 May 1630, the Lord Chamberlain was forced to issue a state-ment confirming Lanier’s ‘freedome of diet’ among the various music groups, with refusal to co-operate leading to punishment.63 Holman notes that ‘diet’ in this case was unlikely to mean the food royal servants received when in service at court. Rather, citing a wider secondary meaning, he suggests that ‘in the present context “diet” might mean regular performances or rehearsals’ .64 Lanier’s author-ity was evidently questioned beyond the LVV, which suggests that prior to 1626 the music groups were largely self-governing: this in turn suggests evidence of the demarcation between the groups. The Master of the Music post suggests that there was some need for order to be imposed on the Royal Music; the attempted

60 RECM, i. 62. See also RECM, i. 57.61 See RECM, i. 66. For Hampton Court, see S. Thurley, Hampton Court Palace: A

Social and Architectural History (2003).62 For a detailed account of Lanier, see M. Wilson, Nicholas Lanier: Master of the

King’s Musick (Aldershot, 1994).63 RECM, iii. 53.64 HolmanFTF, 232–3, at 233.

LAWES.indb 12 19/03/2010 10:57


centralization of the music groups also ties in with other court reforms and is perhaps reflective of Charles I’s controlling nature. The ‘freedom of diet’ request coincides with the reorganization of the wind bands, which presumably occurred under the auspices of Lanier who had close family ties to the wind bands. David Lasocki has shown that in 1630 the three traditional wind bands were officially reorganized as one group, divided into three companies.65 From 1630 until 1642 the three companies alternated duties. Although their instrumentation is never stated, the ‘first company seems to have been primarily cornettists, and the second and third probably players of the cornett, shawm and sackbut. The group provided music in the Chapel Royal, for masques, ceremonies and the King’s dinner table’ .66 A warrant from the Lord Chamberlain dated 6 May 1630 outlines the way in which the three companies were employed on a weekly rota system.67 It is likely that some of the other sections of the Royal Music also operated on a rota system. For example, not all members of the violin band accompanied the king on some royal expeditions.68 The violin band, how-ever, does not seem to have operated by rota in its daily duties, as its members appear to have all played together as a single orchestra.69 The reorganization of the wind bands appears to have prompted a reform of the violin band, with the order dated 12 April 1631 ‘for the better regulating and ordering of his Mates Musique of Violins’ .70 Holman noted that this was directed at Stephen Nau (composer for the violins) not Lanier, implying that Nau exercised de facto control over the group and that Lanier’s ‘freedom of diet’ request a year earlier had been successfully resisted by the violin band.71

No information survives on how much attendance members of the LVV gave at court, or whether they also attended the king on progress. It was traditional for the monarch to leave the capital and embark on progresses for approximately five months from July to November, primarily to avoid the summer stench of the raw sewage and the consequent rise in the risk of disease.72 Although some court musicians accompanied the king, many did not, leaving the entertainment to local

65 See Lasocki, ‘Recorder Players’ , i. 105–12.66 Lasocki, ‘Recorder Players’ , i. 112.67 RECM, iii. 52–3. There are two similar orders: RECM, iii. 74 and 94–5.68 See RECM, iii. 80.69 See HolmanFTF, 234 (and passim).70 See HolmanFTF, 234.71 HolmanFTF, 233–5.72 See also, P. Slack, The Impact of Plague in Tudor and Stuart England (1985; r/

Oxford, 1990).

LAWES.indb 13 19/03/2010 10:57


musicians.73 Records concerning the preparations for the summer progresses of 1628 and 1629 indicate the attendance of at least some of the LVV.74 Members of the Chapel Royal (some of whom also held posts in the LVV) appear to have been in regular attendance on the king when he left Whitehall. Despite the lack of documentary evidence, it seems likely that the members of the LVV were employed on some kind of rota system, especially as many of its members also held places in the other music groups (and occasionally as attend-ants or tutors). In addition, the kinds of music that the LVV are likely to have played would not have required the continuous attendance of the entire group. Although it is impossible to know for certain what music was played at the court, it is reasonable to assert that much of the music contained in court (and court-related) sources, composed by court musicians, was written for performance at the court as part of the duties of some of the musicians. The consort music of Coprario and Orlando Gibbons certainly appears to have been popular at Charles’s court. There is a warrant dated 15 February 1634/5 to pay the violinist John Woodington £20 ‘for a whole sett of Musicke Bookes by him p’vided & prickt wth all Coper aries & Orlando Gibbons theire Musique, by his Mats speciall Comand & warrt’ .75 The ensemble ‘Cooperarios Musique’ appears to have been in existence from c. 1622.76 Their repertoire is likely to have included Coprario’s fantasia-suites and Gibbons’s three- and four-part fantasias.77 The group also included Adam Vallet (violin) and Gibbons (organ). Coprario presumably played bass viol; Thomas (or later The-ophilus) Lupo may have played violin as required. The group changed consid-erably around the time of Charles’s accession; Gibbons and Vallet died in 1625, Coprario in 1626. Vallet was replaced by Woodington. Although Thomas Warwick was granted the two keyboard places held by Gibbons, Richard Dering gained the prestigious post of keyboard player in the LVV (replaced by Giles Tomkins in 1630). This, and John Tomkins’s admittance to the Chapel awaiting a vacancy, suggests that Warwick’s skills left something to be desired.78 There were several viol players capable of taking over from Coprario: John Friend, Daniel Farrant, Alfonso Ferrabosco II (or Alfonso III) and Robert (or John) Taylor. Similar ensem-bles must have played, inter alia, Lawes’s five- and six-part viol consorts, his harp consorts, fantasia-suites, lyra-viol ensembles, and the Royall Consort. Peter Holman has observed that the way in which music was deployed in the

73 See HolmanFTF, 33–5.74 See RECM, iii. 32, 45, 88.75 RECM, iii. 150 and 81.76 See RECM, v. 299.77 The group is discussed in detail in HolmanFTF, 213–24.78 See also A. Ashbee, ‘Warwick, Thomas’ , BDECM, ii. 1129–31.

LAWES.indb 14 19/03/2010 10:57


masque was a reflection of the everyday activities of the various music groups. The lutes and voices performed the songs etc., the violin band played the louder dance music, and the wind band provided aural cover for scene moves and processions.79 Wind instruments also occasionally played dance music where they were added to the violins for colour, usually in grotesque music or antimasques.80 Although specific groups may have been responsible for the performance of particular rep-ertoires, it is most likely that the makeup of these ensembles was reasonably flex-ible. One suspects that part of the daily duties of the LVV was to provide entertain-ment for dignitaries, courtiers and members of the royal family in the innermost parts of the court. This would have necessitated portable ensembles capable of performing a wide range of music on the short notice of the Lord Chamberlain. Viols, violins, theorboes and harps are reasonably portable, and the presence of so many organs throughout Whitehall (see below) is indicative of consort music performances throughout the palace. Some of the demand for light background music at court was presumably sated by extemporized performances realized from two-part outlines (see Chapter 7). Extemporization, especially of divisions, was expected of professional musicians of the period; indeed, it will be argued throughout this book that the incorporation of divisions is an observable feature of Lawes’s consort music after his court appointment. There is little documentary evidence of where music was performed at the Stuart court.81 Peter Holman, Andrew Ashbee and David Pinto have offered convincing hypotheses on possible locations of private music performances at Whitehall: the Privy Lodgings, the Cockpit-at-Court, the Banqueting Hall, the Presence Hall and the Great Chamber.82 Although references to actual performances in specific parts of the palace are scant, one can advance some ideas about where in the palace the various music groups would have played. Various rooms in the palace were used to receive diplomats and guests. Charles would freely entertain audiences in other parts of the palace such as the Great Hall, Withdrawing Chamber, Guard Chamber or the Preaching Place; the Presence Chamber was also used for semi-public dining. Rooms such as the Great Hall or Presence Chamber were accessible to most courtiers; music was presumably used when guests were received. These rooms would also have been large enough to hold musical entertainments staged

79 P. Holman, ‘Review: P. Walls, Music in the English Courtly Masque, 1604–1640’ , EMH 16 (1997), 328–35.

80 See, for example, WallsM, 151.81 The best account of possible music venues at Whitehall during the period is Pinto,

‘Music at Court’ .82 See HolmanFTF, esp. 104–22 and 225–81; Ashbee, ‘Lawes and the “Lutes, Viols and

Voices” ’; Pinto, ‘Music at Court’ .

LAWES.indb 15 19/03/2010 10:57


for the amusement of guests. Thus, the violin and wind bands probably performed in rooms such as the Banqueting House, the Presence Chamber, or the Guard Chamber. It is likely that music was provided in the private parts of the court on a regular basis, especially given the many references to organs and virginals in various parts of the royal apartments. This music would have been provided by the various incarnations of the LVV. (In the Queen’s household it was usual for ‘public visits of courtesy from diplomats’ to be held in the Privy Chamber, but oth-erwise audiences were held in her Withdrawing Room.83 On at least one occasion Queen Anne of Denmark held entertainments in her Privy Chamber.)84 Simon Thurley’s exposition of the architectural history of Whitehall Palace also offers possible hints regarding musical activities.85 We can glean some clues from his reconstruction of the Privy Gallery and the rooms off it. Within the Privy Apart-ments there were several rooms progressing from the more public to the most private: the Withdrawing Chamber, Privy Chamber and Bedchamber.86 Although Whitehall Palace physically changed little in the first half of the century, Thurley concludes that ‘it seems as if Charles devised a new arrangement at the east end of the gallery which placed his bedchamber next to the vane room, and next to that on the west three closets for his works of art and private use’ .87 In musical terms, this is even more revealing when one notes that the room that became the Third Privy Lodging in Charles’s time was in Elizabeth’s reign filled with an organ and other musical instruments.88 This is not to say that the function of these rooms did not change: they probably did; however, it indicates precedent. We know that the various music groups performed different kinds of music related to the function of the group. This in turn allows us to present some ideas on places in which different kinds of music were performed, as each room at court was also linked to a particu-lar function or functions. For example, the Banqueting House (before 1638) and the Presence Chamber were probably used for dancing and other (semi-)public entertainments. Compositions such as the Lawes’s suites for two bass viols and organ or some of his harp consorts were likely heard in a concert-like setting. The most likely places for such performances would be the Presence Chamber, the Privy Chamber or in the Privy Gallery. The Privy Chamber was presumably also used for dancing etc. as the king desired.

83 Ceremonies of Charles I: The Note Books of John Finet, 1628–1641, ed. A. Loomie (New York, 1987), 30. Finet published his notebooks in 1656.

84 RECM, viii. 80. This document is discussed in Chapter 7, below, pp. 216–17.85 Thurley, Whitehall Palace, esp. 65–98. See also Loomie, Finet, esp. 27–30.86 See Thurley’s layout: Whitehall Palace, 93.87 Thurley, Whitehall Palace, 93.88 See Thurley, Whitehall Palace, 65.

LAWES.indb 16 19/03/2010 10:57


In the early seventeenth century the most informative accounts of where cer-tain instruments were set up come from bills for repairs or for moving instru-ments such as organs and virginals. The records are limited. They do not account for easily portable instruments, such as viols or lutes, responsibility for which was covered by a separate post held for most of Charles’s reign by John Taylor. A war-rant issued by the Lord Chamberlain to the Surveyor General in 1663 ‘to make and erect a large organ loft by his Maties Chappell at Whitehall’ reveals that this was ‘where formerly the great Double organ stood’ .89 Several makers, tuners and repairers of instruments were associated with the ‘Consorte’ and the LVV. Andrea Bassano served from 1603 until 1626. Bassano (who also held a post in the wind bands) initially held the post jointly with Robert Henlake.90 The pair received £60 a year, a 300 per cent increase on the wage of their predecessor. Henlake died towards the end of 1610 and a new warrant was made for Bassano and Edward Norgate in 1611. Norgate assumed the post in full after Bassano’s death in 1628, serving until 1642. Norgate, a talented artist, also carried out several diplomatic missions on behalf of James I and Charles I. (Sharing of court posts was common, the place was usually held in full by the longer liver. A share in a post was a valu-able commodity that could be sold for a tidy sum.)91 Thomas Craddock served as an organ maker from c. 1621–36. The post appears to have been initially extraor-dinary. Craddock did not gain an official post until May 1626. Although he died in 1636, he was not replaced until 1661. The different instrument makers had sepa-rate duties. Norgate appears to have been responsible for the organs at Whitehall, Richmond Palace and Hampton Court.92 Craddock appears to have been respon-sible for the organs in the ‘Privy lodgings at Whitehall’ and those in St James’s Palace.93 In the early Restoration John Hingeston was appointed keeper of the king’s organs.94

Henrietta Maria also had her own organ makers and repairers: Robert Dallam and John Burwood. Dallam was one of the famous family of organ makers who built organs at York Minster, Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and at Whitehall. The Dallams appear to have been Catholics and left England for France in 1642. Robert described himself as ‘organist to the Queen of England’;95 his reli-gion would have been a good introduction to Henrietta Maria’s court. On 9 July

89 RECM, i. 47–8.90 RECM, iv. 5.91 See Aylmer, King’s Servants, 225–39.92 RECM, iii. 89, 94 and 101.93 RECM, iii. 16 and 194.94 See for example, RECM, i. 34 and 43.95 Quoted in ‘Dallam Family’ , BDECM, i. 330.

LAWES.indb 17 19/03/2010 10:57


1626 Burwood was sworn in as a ‘Groome of his Mats vestrey Extraordinarie for the tuninge & mendinge of his Mats Organs when hee shalbe required’ .96 He was associated with Henrietta Maria’s household no later than June 1638.97 Henrietta Maria also employed Robert Vere as keeper of the organs from 1632. Vere appears to have been replaced by Richard Greenbury (also keeper of the Queen’s pictures) in 1635, who served until 1642.98 These records demonstrate that music featured throughout the Stuart palaces; although mostly from the Restoration, they are likely to be evidence of a well-established and continuous tradition of music- making. It is reasonable to assume that there were, for example, organs in the ‘Privy lodgings at Whitehall’ during the first half of the century. The presence of so many organs at the palaces is significant, and indicative of the growing importance of the organ as an accompanying instrument in consort music of the period.

Although musicians were relatively low-ranked servants, a post in the Royal Music was the professional pinnacle for a (secular) musician in seventeenth-

century England. There were other opportunities, such as the Waits of various towns or private positions in wealthy households. A court post was generally better paid, however; it also had the added bonus of status and had more chances for advancement.99 The best-paying musician’s post outside court (notwithstand-ing the private employ of some nobles) was in the London Waits, who were paid on average around £20 a year.100 Attempting to estimate the approximate modern values of wages against the cost of living is difficult, especially in the seventeenth century.101 Peter Walls’s succinct description of prices during the period puts wages into some context; the passage is worth quoting in full:

Court records suggest that £10 would have bought a reasonable lute or viol in the Jacobean period, though Alfonso Ferrabosco was paid twice that for a lyra viol purchased in 1623. A treble cornett in the late Jacobean era cost less than £2. Violin prices in the period ranged from £2 paid in 1607 to £24 for ‘a Cremona violin’ bought in 1638. (Two tenor violins acquired for the

96 RECM, viii. 325.97 RECM, v. 17.98 See RECM, iii. 251 and 252.99 See also Aylmer, King’s Servants, 160–82, esp. 168–73.

100 For the London Waits, see W. Woodfill, Musicians in English Society from Elizabeth to Charles I (Princeton, NJ, 1953; r/1969). An interesting comparison can be made with C. E. C. Burch, Minstrels and Players in Southampton, 1428–1635 (Southamp-ton, 1969). See also Lasocki, ‘Recorder Players’, i. 215–18.

101 A useful handbook in this area is L. Munby, How Much is that Worth? (Salisbury, 2/1996).

LAWES.indb 18 19/03/2010 10:57


court at about the same time cost £12 each.) A labourer earned about 10d. a day (about £12 a year), while a yeoman working the land would have an income somewhere between £40 and £200 per annum. A pint of beer cost a halfpenny, admission to the yard in the public theatres a penny, a seat in a gallery twopence or (for a cushion and an even better view) threepence. The cheapest place in the indoor theatres cost sixpence. In 1626 [the musician] Nicholas Farnaby leased a house in the Parish of St Olave’s Jewry (where he was parish clerk) for 30s. (£1. 10s.) per annum; in the 1630s the Countess of Carlisle paid an annual rent of £150 for what has been described as a modest house in the Strand.102

Some musicians were employed in the service of wealthy courtiers. Casual work was occasionally to be found in large entertainments: e.g. participation in The Triumph of Peace earned musicians between £10 and £40.103 Posts ranged from casual part-time commissions to full-time positions and could yield a musician as much as £20 per annum. The majority of court musicians were paid around £30 a year (or 20d. a day), the LVV were mostly paid £40 a year. Court musicians also received an annual allowance of £16. 2s. 6d. for livery. This figure was, however, only the tip of the iceberg for some court musicians. Other benefits were available to the more entrepreneurial members of the musical establishment.104 Neverthe-less, wages of court musicians remained the same from the sixteenth to the seven-teenth centuries despite a sharply rising inflation meaning that by the 1630s the average court musician was worse off than his predecessors. Even so, court musi-cians were generally better off than many court servants were, and considerably better off than other musicians. Royal monopolies, prohibited by parliament in the early 1620s, had been unpopular in the reign of James I. To raise revenue in the 1630s, however, Charles I reintroduced monopolies under the guise of patents. Patents were frequently granted to musicians, often for non-musical enterprises.105 An associated source of income for the Crown was the encouragement of incorporations by trade asso-ciations that lacked strong guilds, such as leatherworkers. Under this initiative, a group of the king’s musicians reconstituted themselves as a corporation under a charter dated 15 July 1635. The Corporation was established due to the constant

102 P. Walls, ‘London, 1603–49’ , in The Early Baroque Era, From the Late 16th Century to the 1660s, ed. C. Price (1993), 270–304, at 281. Walls’s article provides a succinct introduction to musical life in London in the early seventeenth century.

103 See A. Sabol, ‘New Documents on Shirley’s Masque “The Triumph of Peace” ’ , ML 47 (1966), 10–26.

104 For a more detailed discussion of this point, see HolmanFTF, 32–57, esp. 44–52.105 Holman gives examples in HolmanFTF, 49.

LAWES.indb 19 19/03/2010 10:57


dispute between the court musicians and the company of minstrel freemen of the City of London. Both groups claimed authority over the training of musicians in the city and the surrounding areas. Most members of the Corporation were royal musicians, and most of the LVV were involved; Nicholas Lanier was elected as the first marshal. Indeed, many members of the LVV (and the Royal Music generally) probably supplemented their income as teachers, especially during the Interregnum. Other benefits of being a royal musician included immunity from arrest, immunity from certain subsidies and taxes, the courtesy title of ‘gentlemen’ , and entitlement to a coat of arms.106 Musicians were also entitled to free diet and ‘bouge’ or ‘bouche’ (bread and ale for breakfast, and firewood and candles) at court. This was a valuable benefit-in-kind, although some musicians were given more than others. A warrant of 1617 noted that ‘The Consorte’ was to be allowed ‘fower dishes’ , whereas ‘The Musitians’ were allowed three.107 This was part of the alterations to diet proposed to reduce the household expenses to £50,000. A fur-ther warrant suggests that some problems were experienced by the household due to the sheer numbers of musicians required to be fed by 1627: a consequence of Charles I’s policy of retaining most of his father’s musicians in addition to his own. It is also clear from this warrant that the ‘Consorte’ , now the LVV, retained a more privileged position than many of the other music groups, and that such groups were demarcated, even at mealtimes:

Musicons & ConsortsThat there being 3 messes of 3 dishes of meate apointed for his Mats Musi-cons and Consorts to be eaten by them together in one Roome. Because the number of them is soe great that they cannot sitt together wth any conven-iency, the matter was referred to the Consideracōn of his Mats officers of the greencloth how they might be best accomadated and to compose the differ-ence between them. Upon whose certificate to his Lo[rdshi]P it is ordered That the Consorts for winde Instrumts to be restored to their former allow-ance of 4 dishes of meate and that the newe Consorts for Voyces, Lutes, &c be likewise allowed a diett of 4 dishes and the Musicons a dyett of 3 dishes to be eaten sev’ally in their owne Chambers.108

Although several sections of the Royal Music joined to form the Corpora-tion, they remained demarcated at court. The functional and physical demarca-tions are important in understanding the relatively privileged status of the private

106 See also G. A. Philipps, ‘Crown Musical Patronage from Elizabeth I to Charles I’ , ML 58 (1977), 29–42; Lasocki, ‘Recorder Players’ , i. 119–41; HolmanFTF, 32–57.

107 RECM, viii. 76.108 (Undated, [1627]) RECM, v. 2–3.

LAWES.indb 20 19/03/2010 10:57


musicians in comparison to their Royal Music colleagues. This is perhaps one of the reasons behind the resentment evident from the challenge to Lanier’s author-ity. From the court records we can glean a reasonable account of how well the court musicians fared. Certain privileges were common to all court musicians: livery, immunity from subsidies and taxes, New Year gifts. Some privileges were, however, evidently dependant on family connections and on the entrepreneurial nature of individuals; the Bassano, Lanier and Lupo families are a case in point. Although a court post was prestigious and reasonably well paid, many musicians were often in debt, even the more favoured ones such as Thomas Lupo and Ferra-bosco II.109 To supplement their income many royal musicians held posts outside the court, in cathedrals, wealthy households and the theatres. A court post, or court connection, was evidently advantageous in obtaining positions elsewhere. Giles Tomkins was involved in a dispute over his appointment as organist at Salis-bury Cathedral in January 1628/9, replacing the deceased John Holmes. The dean of the cathedral preferred Tomkins, whereas Thomas Holmes was preferred by the master of the choristers, and later by the bishop. The family’s royal connections proved vital. After a long dispute upon which the king was asked to pronounce, Tomkins was appointed. Tomkins’s hectic work-schedule was, however, appar-ently causing some friction a few years later. In 1634 he was accused of leaving the cathedral choir without a teacher once or twice while he attended court. There was clearly some truth to the allegations, as Tomkins pledged not to do so again.110 It is unclear in what capacity Tomkins was absenting himself to attend the court, although it is likely to have been as Charles I’s main organist in the LVV, a post he obtained in 1630. This adds further weight to the suggestion that the LVV worked on some kind of rota system, similar to the Chapel Royal. Charles I has often been criticized for the extravagance of the masques staged for his court. As studies by Malcolm Smuts and Martin Butler have shown, how-ever, these entertainments were not relatively speaking a serious drain on court finances;111 the same can be said of the Royal Music generally. Court records show that the average annual cost of the LVV from 1625 to 1642 was approxi-mately £2,400.112 Even allowing for gaps in the records, the annual cost of the group was unlikely to have been more than around £3,000: a reasonable amount

109 HolmanFTF, 52.110 See W. Shaw, The Succession of Organists of the Chapel Royal and the Cathedrals of

England and Wales from c. 1538 (Oxford, 1991), 261–2.111 M. Smuts, Court Culture and the Origins of a Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart Eng-

land (Philadelphia, 1987; r/1999); M. Butler, The Stuart Court Masque and Political Culture (Cambridge, 2008).

112 This figure includes instruments, strings, wages, livery, New Year gifts, and miscel-laneous expenses.

LAWES.indb 21 19/03/2010 10:57


in comparison with many other parts of the Crown’s expenditure.113 For exam-ple, in the mid-1630s the Crown spent around £7,100 on extra diets of regional Lord Presidents, Star Chamber and others; Gerald Aylmer calculated the total annual expenditure at the time as between £340,000 and £360,000.114 Musicians were generally paid on time, or within a reasonable timeframe; however, by 1635 their payments were about six months in arrears.115 Some arrears can probably be explained by absence from the court, although in times of financial crisis musi-cians were never going to be a priority: some things never change. In the reign of Charles II the court’s financial situation was much worse than earlier in the century, and the musicians were among those who suffered.

The Private Music (in its various incarnations) was the most significant musical force in England throughout the early part of the seventeenth century. Its

members were responsible for most of the musical innovations that swept English consort music in the first half of the century and into the early Restoration period. Some of the finest composers and performers in the land were employed in this group, from the old guard of Coprario, Ferrabosco II, Lupo and Gibbons, to the vanguard of Maurice Webster and William Lawes, and even to Matthew Locke in the early Restoration period. Understanding the complex working of the early Stuart court allows a greater understanding of the role of music within the court. William Lawes stands out as one of the most significant composers employed in the LVV during the reign of Charles I, and it is to him that we now turn.

113 The most expensive year in the extant records was 1632, where expenses for the LVV rose to around £2,900.

114 Aylmer, King’s Servants, 249.115 See RECM, iii. 161–243.

LAWES.indb 22 19/03/2010 10:57

chapter 2

The Autograph Manuscripts

William Lawes’s consort music largely survives in manuscript sources; none of it was published during his lifetime. Eight autograph sources have sur-

vived. A comprehensive survey of Lawes’s hand is lacking, although useful com-ments on many of the autograph sources can be gleaned from various monographs, articles, essays and modern editions.1 The autographs mostly contain instrumental music, which is usually more difficult to date than vocal music that one can often link to specific events such as masques or plays. The sources vary in material, func-tion, date, and states of completeness (complete inventories in Appendix 1):

1 GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17798: bass partbook from a set of six2 GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432: songbook3 GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 40657–61 (the Shirley partbooks): five partbooks from

a set of six4 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2: scorebook5 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3: scorebook6 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229: organbook7 GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40: set of three string partbooks8 US-CAh, MS Mus. 70: lyra-viol partbook from a set of three

Several other manuscripts have also been attributed to Lawes: GB-Och, Mus. MSS 725–7, GB-Lbl, MS R.M.24.k.3 and GB-Ob, Tenbury MS 302; they have not been included in the present discussion as I challenge the attributions in Chapter 3. Murray Lefowitz was the first musicologist to examine the Lawes autographs in detail. Although his pioneering work is to be commended, he also made sev-eral rash and misleading statements. For example, Lefowitz noted that all of the autograph volumes are ‘bound exactly alike, in brown calf, with the Royal Arms of Charles I stamped in gold on the covers, and on either side of the design an initial, first W. and then L. [except B.3, which has H. L.]’ .2 Whilst conceding that

1 Notable examples are: LefkowitzWL; PintoAS; PintoMVC; LawesCS; LawesFS; Wil-lettsJB; PintoFyV; FieldFR, 206–7 and 244 n. 54, 245–6 n. 64; FieldJCH, 12–13 n. 31; WainwrightCC, 206–7 (and n. 98).

2 LefkowitzWL, 31. The Shirley partbooks were not mentioned by Lefowitz; the earliest publications I have been able to trace to cite them as autograph are an edi-tion by Gordon Dodd of Aire [Fantazy] {336}, VdGS Supplement, 5 (1964; r/2003)

LAWES.indb 23 19/03/2010 10:57


the manuscripts offer little assistance in determining their chronology, he further suggested that

all of the volumes appear to be part of one large set which was meticulously arranged and guarded. … An examination and identification of the watermarks of the various auto-graphs supports the claim that they were for the most part all of the same set, as well as the suggestion that the set was compiled in Oxford, c. 1642–3.3

Lefowitz’s idea of ‘one large set’ is misleading, however, as David Pinto demon-strated in a 1972 article:

it is not so that ‘all nine autograph volumes are bound exactly alike’ . Add. 17798 … has a contemporary vellum binding stamped in gold bassvs above a conventional floral design; its watermark does not seem to be an encircled peacock. It and D.229 are far smaller than B.2 and B.3. These volumes do not have printed staves, and the number of staves a page varies – and of course the organ-book has staves of six lines. Most significant of all is the diversity in binding: even the volumes bound in calf differ from one another. The stamp of Arms upon D.229 is not the same as that upon B.2 and B.3. … Furthermore the stamped initials upon D.229 differ. This in conjunction with Lefowitz’ own findings on the watermarks is clear evidence that B.2 and B.3 are not of the same vintage as D.229.4

Nevertheless, Lefowitz’s assessment of the autographs has remained influential. Indeed, a 1998 article by Scott Nixon primarily relied upon Lefowitz for dating some of Lawes’s manuscripts, leading to some rather flawed conclusions; the same can be said of the introduction to the recent (2007) edition of Lawes’s Harp Consorts.5 Almost half a century after Lefowitz’s pioneering research there is a clear need for a complete and detailed examination of the autographs.

and William Lawes: Pavan and Two Aires a4 in G Minor, ed. L. Ring (1964). I am grateful to David Pinto for his advice on this matter.

3 LefkowitzWL, 31. 4 PintoAS, 12. 5 S. Nixon, ‘The Sources of Musical Settings of Thomas Carew’s Poetry’ , RES 49

(1998), 424–60; LawesHC. See also my review of LawesHC in VdGSJ 2 (2008), 84–98.

LAWES.indb 24 19/03/2010 10:57

the autograph manuscripts 25

❧ Lawes’s Hand

With the exception of the Shirley partbooks and Mus. 70, Lawes’s hand (text and music) does not show signs of significant change throughout the auto-

graph sources; where there are changes they are rarely consistent. Scholars gen-erally agree that the Shirley partbooks represent an early stage in Lawes’s career (although opinions vary on how early) and that the songbook (MS 31432) and bass partbook (MS 17798) represent a later stage of his career, usually dated to around the end of the 1630s or early 1640s. The scorebooks (B.2–3) appear to have been compiled over several years during the 1630s. The remaining partbooks are difficult to date. The main problem with attempting to ascertain chronological changes in Lawes’s text hand is that we have too few sources giving enough datable information. The issue is compounded by the fact that the two main sources con-taining datable music were compiled c. 1633–41 by which time Lawes was between the ages of thirty-one and thirty-nine and dramatic changes in his scribal hand were unlikely.6

Throughout the autographs Lawes’s hand is broadly consistent. For example, musical symbols: sharps are generally drawn with straight vertical lines crossed by two diagonal lines ascending rightwards, the diagonal lines will often be longer on the left than the right side of the vertical ones; flats rarely have closed loops. It is common for Lawes to add titles usually descriptive of the instrumentation such as ‘For the Organ:∙ Base Viole and Violin’ (B.2, p. 76). This kind of titling is characteristic of Matthew Locke, Henry Purcell and their contemporaries. Most titles include the number of instruments, and usually takes the form of ‘Fantazy:∙ A 6’ etc. Spelling of individual forms is also generally consistent. Fantasia is usu-ally spelt with a ‘z’ (‘Fantazy’ is used interchangeably) and Pavan as ‘Pauen’ . Alman is used with and without a terminal ‘e’ , though Lawes preferred the generic ‘Aire’ (to describe dances in common and triple time) which he usually spelt with an ‘i’ (not ‘y’); where he used ‘Ayre’ it does not seem to imply difference in style or metre. Like Purcell, Lawes is extremely consistent in his use of a large loop for his lowercase ‘d’ and ‘h’. The same is true of Lawes’s lowercase ‘g’ . Lawes uses vary-ing forms of the individual letters, most easily observed with the letter ‘e’ . Unlike Purcell, he does not appear to have favoured secretary over italic forms of certain letters, or vice versa. The Greek (epsilon; ‘ε’) and italic forms of the letter ‘e’ can

6 In contrast, the significant changes in Purcell’s hand outlined by Shay and Thomp-son took place when he was at the end of his teens and start of his twenties (c. 1678–83) (ShayThompsonPM, 26–32). A useful introduction to handwriting in seventeenth-century England is G. Dawson and L. Kennedy-Skipton, Eliza-bethan Handwriting, 1500–1650 (New York, 1966), 7–10 and passim; see also ShayThompsonPM, esp. 23–6.

LAWES.indb 25 19/03/2010 10:57


often be found alternating in words such as ‘Aire’ or ‘Pauen’ . There is no pattern to this. Lawes alternates between the two forms from one page to the next, and even within words, with little consistency. The previous letter, however, does largely seem to determine the form of ‘e’ used. Where a letter finishes high (such as ‘r’) it was easier to continue down with the epsilon. Where the letter finishes low (such as ‘n’) it was easier to continue upwards into the italic form. Where ‘e’ is the first letter (whether the first of the word or after lifting the pen) the epsilon is preferred. This kind of ‘consistent inconsistency’ is frustratingly common throughout the autographs, complicating the chronology of their contents. Some of Lawes’s numberings are also characteristic, especially the numbers ‘3’ and ‘6’ . In his later manuscripts the number ‘3’ usually has an upturn at the top,

Fig. 2.1 (a) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229, fol. 16r, detail: Lawes’s time signature number ‘3’; (b) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.238, fol. 5r, detail: Lawes’s number ‘3’ in numeration;

(c) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17798, fol. 13v, detail: Lawes’s number ‘6’; (d) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2, p. 3, detail: cut-common time signatures

(a)

(b)

(c)

LAWES.indb 26 19/03/2010 10:57


varying in degrees of elaboration; it also found in Mus. 70 which dates to the early 1630s (see below). The upturn is more usually found in time signatures rather than in numeration: sometimes there is an elaborate ‘3’ with an upturn in the time signature but a plain ‘3’ with a flat top for the piece number (Figs 2.1a–b, 2.31, 2.33 and 2.35). The number ‘6’ is also more elaborate and consistent in the later manu-scripts. The top curve usually arches out quite far and the lower loop rarely closes (Fig. 2.1c). Only five pieces in the Shirley partbooks are in (or have passages in) triple time; however, most of the three-part pieces are labelled ‘A 3’ (Fig. 2.9a). In these instances, the ‘3’ has either a straight top or curves slightly downwards. The rest of the pieces (with a time signature) are in cut-common time. There are usually slight curves at either end of the vertical line through the ‘C’ resembling a long s (see Figs 2.6a, 2.8a–b, 2.9b, 2.12a, 2.16b, 2.19a, 2.34a); in some instances the lower curve is quite pronounced (e.g. Fig. 2.8a). This cannot be taken as characteristic of his early hand as he uses a similar form throughout the autographs, although in later manuscripts it is interchanged with a straight vertical dash, sometimes within one system (Fig. 2.1d). The straight lines are more characteristic of his hand in B.2–3 (e.g. Fig. 2.1d) and thus may be related to the function of the manuscripts (see below).

(d)

LAWES.indb 27 19/03/2010 10:57


❧ Lawes’s Signature

For our purposes, the most important aspect of Lawes’s hand is his signature. The signature is broadly consistent throughout B.2–3, D.229, D.238–40 and

MSS 17798 and 31432. In each of these sources the main signature is what we shall call his ‘mature’ signature, i.e. ‘Wjllawes’ (Fig. 2.2); a date for this ‘maturity’ is dis-cussed below. Lawes signed the majority of his compositions, although there are several unsigned pieces in the Shirley partbooks, and many of the organ parts to the fantasia-suites are unsigned in D.229 as are most of the five-part viol consort pieces in MS 17798. It is unclear why he did not sign these pieces. The mature signature has several distinguishing characteristics. William is abbreviated as ‘Wj’ . The ‘j’ has a wide leftwards loop at the bottom that usually continues upwards to the right into the ‘ll’ (secretary form of the capital ‘L’), often giving the impression of being done without lifting the pen. The first ‘l’ resembles the modern lowercase form of the letter, while the second resembles the modern uppercase form. The base of the second ‘l’ curves upwards underneath the let-ters ‘awes’ . The length of the curve varies. It can finish at the ‘a’ or after the ‘s’ , or anywhere in between. The ‘ll’ is crossed with a short horizontal dash and both ‘l’s have loops at the top. Although it was common practice to cross a ‘ll’ , the ‘ll’ and the crossing dash curved at the ends seem to only be features of Lawes’s mature hand. The joining of the ‘j’ to the ‘ll’ is a key characteristic in the development of the signature. Most of Lawes’s signatures are written in three stages: the ‘Wj’ (each letter often written separately); the ‘ll’; and the ‘awes’ . This three-stage formation is most noticeable amongst the early signatures of the Shirley partbooks, although in many instances it is difficult to see as the stem of the ‘j’ is usually brought into the ‘ll’ . This suggests that Lawes was consciously developing this join, giving the appearance of writing the ‘Wjll’ without lifting the pen. He became more adept at this in the later manuscripts; although there are many instances of this ‘un-joined’

Fig. 2.2 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229, fol. 15v, detail: Lawes’s ‘mature’ signature

LAWES.indb 28 19/03/2010 10:57


signature, the break is usually difficult to see. In the early seventeenth century the English alphabet had twenty-four letters: ‘j’ and ‘v’ were regarded as variations of ‘i’ and ‘u’ respectively. Indeed, they did not become fully fledged letters until Noah Webster’s An American Dictionary of the English Language of 1828.7 Nevertheless, one wonders whether Lawes’s adoption of the ‘j’ form of ‘i’ in his signature was in imitation of his teacher John Coprario, who tended to use the ‘j’ form when using the first person singular and at the start of words. Coprario used a similar ‘j’ to Lawes in his forename (Fig. 2.3);8 even the loop at the bottom of the stem running upwards into the next letter is the same in both hands. Lawes and Coprario also both tend to use a long ‘s’ . Lawes often uses the long ‘s’ in words where there is a double s, the first (or both) usually being a long ‘s’. He also tends to use the long ‘s’ in the middle of words. Lawes could have adopted these imitative handwriting traits during his tenure with Coprario in Edward Seymour’s household. Although there are examples of Lawes’s mature signature with an italic ‘e’ (e.g. MS 17798, fol. 1r) an epsilon is more common and seems to be indicative of his mature signature. Coprario preferred the italic ‘e’ , which may have exerted an early influence on Lawes. The epsilon is a more natural choice for proceeding from the ‘w’ , providing a seamless transition down from the top of the ‘w’ , allowing a more flowing signature. Late examples of the signature with an italic ‘e’ are aberrations, perhaps subconscious remnants of prior practice. This ‘mature’ signature is the one most commonly found in the sources, although some of the later examples of Lawes’s hand contain a variation, the ‘short L’ (see below), characterized by the relatively short length of the base of the letter ‘L’ , which points downwards at an angle rather than curving upwards (Fig. 2.4). Notwithstanding the ‘short L’ variation, we only find examples of significant change or developments in Lawes’s signature in Mus. 70 and the Shirley partbooks, suggesting that they are relatively early (see below). There are unfortunately no signatures in the surviving court acquittance books to provide a useful dating tool. Court records contain several references to payments to Lawes, who usu-ally signed for his own wages and for those of his brother Henry. These payments are recorded in the Exchequer books, known as the Auditor’s Debenture Books, GB-Lpro, E403/2187–98; they do not, however, contain original signatures.9 Two books (GB-Lpro, E405/543 and E407/10) are isolated survivors from the records of individual tellers containing original signatures, but cover a period before Lawes’s

7 See D. Sacks, The Alphabet (2003). 8 Cf. Coprario’s autograph treatise, now in the Huntington Library, San Marino,

California, published in facsimile in Giovanni Coperario: Rules How to Compose (c. 1610), ed. M. Bukofzer (Los Angeles, 1952).

9 Transcribed in RECM, iii. 165–239.

LAWES.indb 29 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.3 Autograph letter by Coprario dated 1 June 1607 to ‘Mr Billett’: Cecil Family and Estate Papers, Box U/60

LAWES.indb 30 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.4 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.240, fol. 18r, detail: Lawes’s ‘short L’ signature

royal appointment (1628–32). Exactly when Lawes adopted his ‘mature’ signa-ture is unclear. He certainly did so before March 1633/4, when he used this form to signed a document relating to Inns of Court masque The Triumph of Peace (Fig. 2.5).10 Thus, Lawes’s signature is an important tool in distinguishing between manuscripts compiled before and after c. 1634, which can in turn help cast some light on their contents.

❧ GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 40657–61 (The Shirley Partbooks)

The Shirley partbooks (now lacking the Sextus, first bass) contain consort music in two to six parts by composers including Lawes, Coprario, Alfonso

Ferrabosco II, Thomas Lupo, John Ward, William White, Claudio Monteverdi and Luca Marenzio. With the exception of Mus. 70, this is the only surviving Lawes autograph not to contain solely his own works, indicating that the partbooks were copied for their owner.

10 See M. Lefowitz, ‘The Longleat Papers of Bulstrode Whitelocke: New Light on Shirley’s “Triumph of Peace” ’ , JAMS 18 (1965), 42–60, the signature is reproduced in Plate I; see also A. Sabol, ‘New Documents on Shirley’s Masque “The Triumph of Peace” ’ , ML 47 (1966), 10–26. The Longleat papers include three Lawes signa-tures, dated 10, 16, 17 March 1633/4.

Fig. 2.5 Lawes’s signature from the Longleat Papers. Reproduced by permission of the Marquess of Bath, Longleat House, Warminster, Wiltshire.

LAWES.indb 31 19/03/2010 10:57


Four hands have been identified in the manuscript.11 Two are attributed to Lawes: one an early hand (A1), the other later (A2). Lawes’s hand is generally care-ful and neat with evenly spaced notes, especially the A1 hand (Fig. 2.9a); the A2 hand is, in places, messier and rightwards-slanting (Fig. 2.9b). David Pinto has convincingly suggested that the ‘books were probably largely in their present form by February 1632/3 when the second baronet Sir Henry Shirley died leaving an heir less than ten years of age’ .12 We know little of Lawes’s activities before his court appointment in 1635; no connection is known between him and the Shirley family other than the partbooks. From the repertoire and careful calligraphic hand, it can be assumed that the pieces copied in Lawes’s early hand (A1) were entered when he was relatively young, perhaps around 1630 but possibly as early as c. 1625. His second, later, hand (A2) is more problematic. Scholars have suggested several dates: c. 1633, c. 1635 and 1644.13 The third hand (B) remains unidentified, although Robert Ford has noted that the same copyist contributed to US-SM, EL 25 A 46–51.14 The fourth hand (C) is an unidentified eighteenth-century scribe who added violin parts for several dances, songs and psalms to MS 40661. Lawes appears to have had a close connection to Hand B. In several places the music was entered by Hand B and the titles by Lawes. In fact, Lawes appears to have written all the titles and composer names, even where Hand B entered the music. The men appear to have worked roughly contemporaneously. For example, Hand B copied (most of) the four-part ‘Doc: Bull’ fantasia but Lawes completed the piece, added the titling and the bass part (in his early A1 hand; MS 40660, fol. 26v).15

Several characteristics of Lawes’s musical hand are evident throughout the Shirley partbooks. They can be identified as signifiers of his early hand, given that they change significantly in the later manuscripts. Several of these characteristic features are found in his clefs. There are only two types of treble clef in the auto-graphs. Lawes appears to have adopted a standard treble clef at an early stage and used it throughout his career. It resembles a number ‘6’ with a broad arch on top usually wider than the base of the clef but which can also be the same size as the base of the clef (Fig. 2.6a). In the Shirley partbooks the arch is usually of a similar width to the bottom loop of the ‘6’ . This seems to be a characteristic of his earlier

11 IMCCM1, 69–76. See also PintoMVC; R. Charteris, ‘The Huntingdon Library Part Books, Ellesmere MSS EL 25A 46–51’ , HLQ 50 (1987), 59–84; WainwrightMP. The A1, A2 etc. references to the hands in the partbooks are those used in IMCCM1.

12 LawesCS, xii.13 Respectively, FieldFR, 245–6 n. 64; PintoFyV, 14–15; and Gordon Dodd, quoted in

PintoFyV, 15.14 See IMCCM1, 70 (and 382–4 for facsimile examples). See also, PintoMVC, 21 n. 3,

and LawesCS, xii.15 IMCCM1, 73 attributes the entire piece to Hand B.

LAWES.indb 32 19/03/2010 10:57


hand; later examples (even the A2 examples from MS 40657; Fig. 2.10a) tend to have a wider arch at the top. The second treble clef is found only in the Shirley partbooks. It resembles a modern lowercase ‘g’ and is found in both the early and later hands (Fig. 2.6b). This clef is only found in pieces entered in Lawes’s A2 hand. For example, Lawes used this ‘g’ clef for the five-part fantasia and ‘Iñomine’ in g {68–9} (MS 40657, fols 43v–44r; MS 40661, fols 14v–15r). (The compilers of IMCCM designated these two pieces as A1; there seems little reason for doing so, as they are comparable with the A2 four-part pieces.) These pieces complete the five-part sequence, coming directly after a series of Italian madrigals (also copied by Lawes) none of which uses this clef. It seems likely that Lawes copied his fan-tasia and ‘Iñomine’ from an early autograph in which he used the ‘g’ treble clef; based on the difference in the inks used, these two pieces were added together, but not with the previous five-part pieces. There is no reason to suspect that this is Lawes’s late hand. It retains many of the early hand characteristics, but it need not be as early as the rest of the five-part pieces. Lawes also used this treble clef in one of his three-part pieces and in one of his four-part pieces (all A2 hand). In the four-part piece, Aire {306} the same clef is used for both trebles: MSS 40657–8, fol. 27v; this is the only instance of the clef in the four-part sequence. Lawes also used this treble clef in the three-part Aire {206} (MS 40657, fol. 15r), one of the last pieces added to the sequence. The three-part piece is in a more rushed hand than the five-part pieces. It is noteworthy, however, that in MS 40658 (Tr2), Lawes reverts to his usual ‘6’ treble clef; perhaps this piece was also taken from an early source. The first (three-part piece) on fol. 15r is in a different ink from the other pieces on fols 14v–15r. Whether space was left for it on fol. 15r is unclear, but it was not copied at the same time as the second piece. The second piece on fol. 15r appears to be in the same ink as the two pieces on fol. 14v, suggesting that they were copied around the same time. Lawes’s c-clefs in the Shirley partbooks are quite distinctive, and more carefully drawn than in later sources. The clef is drawn with a vertical stroke only on the right side of the four horizontal strokes, two above and below the line denoting c' (Fig. 2.7a). Later sources have two main forms of the clef (discussed in detail below). The first is similar to that in the Shirley partbooks. The second has two vertical lines bordering the horizontal ones. Later c-clefs generally have a narrow upturn, from which flats in the key signature are often drawn (e.g. Fig. 2.14, staves 3–4). The upturn is also found in several pieces in the Shirley partbooks (MS 40658, fols 29r, 43v–44r; MS 40659, fols 14r, 15r–15v, 29v–30r; Fig. 2.9b); in each instance the pieces were added in Lawes’s A2 hand. Lawes also uses another form of c-clef where the lines denoting c' join at angles of 45°, sometimes resulting in two trian-gles. This clef is used intermittently in several of his early hand pieces (MS 40658, fols 42r–43r and MS 40659, fols 11v–12r) and in some of the A2 pieces (Fig. 2.11b).

LAWES.indb 33 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.6 (a) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229, fol. 15v, detail: usual treble clef; (b) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40658, fol. 27v, detail: Lawes’s lesser-used treble clef

(a)

(b)

LAWES.indb 34 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.7 (a) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40661, fol. 13r, detail: c-clef; (b) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40659, fol. 12v: Hand B ‘triangle’ c-clef

(a)

(b)

LAWES.indb 35 19/03/2010 10:57


Hand B also uses this form of c-clef (MS 40658, fols 26v, 31r–33v, 38v and 47v–49r, MS 40659, fols 12v, 17r–19v, 23v, 24v–25r and 33v–35r: Fig. 2.7b). Some pieces mix the triangles and regular clefs: for example, MS 40661, fols 10v, 11r, 11v. The clef may have been in imitation of Hand B; however, it also seems to be linked to Lawes’s hurried hand: its development can be seen in several pieces where the denoting lines are messily drawn. Where this happens the upper lines generally go downwards, and the lower ones go upwards (Fig. 2.11c). Lawes uses two main forms of bass clef. First, his elaborate form resembling a number ‘8’ with an arch on top (Fig. 2.8a); this is most commonly found in the Shirley partbooks. He used the ‘8’ clef for all of the three-part pieces in MS 40660, except for stave 3 of Aire {207} on fol. 14v; it was also used for most of the four-part section: nos. 1–17, 21 (staves 1–2 only of 6), 22, 26, 27, [28] and [31]. Otherwise it is found only three times, in the five-part sequence: no. 7 (staves 1–3 and 5 of 5), no. 8 (staves 1–3 of 5) and no. 29. The clef is also found thrice in the four-part sequence of MS 40659: in the crossed-out version of Aire {110}, and in no. 22 and in no. 26 (staves 1–2 of 8). The second type of clef resembles a number ‘2’ , and is found in several significant variations throughout the sources (see also below). In the Shirley partbooks the clef usually occupies two or three spaces on the system, and the tail curves back upwards towards the dots denoting f ; where the tail begins at the bottom of the arch varies sometimes resulting in a sharp edge, sometimes a rounded edge (Fig. 2.8b). This clef is found in both A1 and A2 hands, although it is more common to A2. On several occasions, however, both forms of bass clef (‘8’ and ‘2’) are used within the same piece (e.g. Fig. 2.8b).16 For example, Lawes entered the first bass of Aire {110} into MS 40659 on fols 7r and 13r, the first of which was later crossed out. Interestingly these parts have a mixture of the two clefs. Bass 1 on fol. 7r has the ‘8’ clef throughout, and the same piece on fol. 13r has the ‘2’ clef throughout. The answer seems to lie with the second bass part (MS 40660, fol. 27r), which has the ‘8’ clef for the first two staves and the ‘2’ clef for the remaining four. The solution seems to be that Lawes first entered the Bass 1 part on fol. 7r, perhaps mistaking its position (putting it after no. 10 rather than no. 20); the part is the same as that on fol. 13r except that the latter corrects an error in the cadence at the end of the first strain. He then entered the Bass 2 part and, realizing his error, crossed out the original Bass 1 part and re-entered it on fol. 13r. The change in clefs could have been caused by imitating the source from which the piece was copied, though by this time Lawes was clearly favouring the ‘2’ clef as shown by the Bass 2 part. (It should also be noted that the four (not crossed-out) parts are all in

16 Both clefs are found in MS 40660: three-part Aire {207}, four-part no. 21 and five-part no. 7. MS 40659: four-part no. 26.

LAWES.indb 36 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.8 (a) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.238, fol. 5v, detail: ‘8’ bass clefs; (b) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40659, fol. 14v, detail: ‘2’ and ‘8’ bass clefs

(b)

(a)

LAWES.indb 37 19/03/2010 10:57


the same ink different from the ink used for the crossed-out part, which suggests that the complete version was entered some time later.) The evidence suggests that the ‘8’ clef was early, and that a change to the ‘2’ came during compilation of the main four-part sequence. The five- and six-part sequences were entered with the ‘2’ clef, suggesting that they were mostly entered after the main four-part sequence. When Lawes came back to the entering the last pieces of the four-part section (i.e. the A2 pieces), he sometimes reverted to the ‘8’ clef, either in imita-tion of the Shirley partbooks to that point or of the source from which he was copying. Another distinctive feature of Lawes’s early hand is the use of ‘curved’ beams for grouping quavers or semiquavers (Fig. 2.9a). Although intermixed with straight beams, these are a predominant feature of his early hand not commonly found in later manuscripts. The decorative endings for pieces are largely consistent throughout manuscripts, although there are differences between manuscripts and even within manuscripts. The ending generally used in the Shirley partbooks is a (sideways) conical squiggle formed from the final barline (e.g. Figs 2.9a–b). Lawes used a similar terminal barline, usually with a dash through it, in later manu-scripts such as B.2–3 and D.229 (e.g. Fig. 2.23). One of the most interesting features of the Shirley partbooks is Lawes’s signa-ture. Of his twenty-two pieces in the Shirley partbooks, Lawes signed fourteen.17 Only five signatures are from pieces in his early (A1) hand, three of which are found in the three-part section. The first is obviously a quite early and formal signature, ‘Will: Lawes:’ (MSS 40657–8 and 40660, fol. 5v: Fig. 2.9a). Despite the calligraphic style, many characteristic traits of his mature signature are evident. For example, the outwards descending curve on the left side of the ‘w’ , the long base of the ‘L’ running underneath the rest of the signature, and the loop at the top of the ‘L’; the long upwards-curving horizontal base of the ‘L’ is also found in words like ‘Lupo’ . The main signature of the A2 hand is similar to Lawes’s mature signature but lacks the crossed ‘ll’ and uses a colon to abbreviate William to ‘Wj:’ (e.g. Fig. 2.9b): ‘Wj:Lawes’ . (The colon was commonly used to signify an abbre-viation; its presence in Lawes’s signatures appears to signify his early hand as it is not commonly found in later sources.) Most of the ‘Wj:Lawes’ signatures in the Shirley partbooks have an epsilon.18 These signatures are all written in two or three stages, first the ‘Wj:’ then the ‘L(awes)’ . This is true of most of the early signatures in the Shirley partbooks. In many instances the join is difficult to see.

17 This implies a signature in at least one of the partbooks. Signatures sometimes vary slightly between each partbook.

18 There is an italic ‘e’ in the following ‘Wj:Lawes’ signatures: MSS 40657–8, fols 14v:1, 44r; MS 40660, fols 14v:2, 44r; MS 40661, fol. 15r.

LAWES.indb 38 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.9 (a) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40658, fol. 5v, detail: Lawes’s (A1) hand; (b) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40658, fol. 29r, detail: Lawes’s (A2) hand

(b)

(a)

LAWES.indb 39 19/03/2010 10:57


In the mature signature the stem of the ‘j’ gives the appearance of joining the ‘L’ in one continuous action. Although this is not always the case, it seems that Lawes consistently made a conscious effort to give the appearance of a join (e.g. see MS 40657, fol. 30r:1, MS 40659, fol. 16r:2, and MS 40660, fol. 30r). The signature is found in Lawes’s five-part fantasia and ‘Iñomine’ in g {68–9}, which suggests that they date to before 1633. There is a third version of his signature: ‘WLawes’ (MS 40657, fol. 29r), also found in Mus. 70, fol. 12r; a late variant is found in B.2, p. 81 and MS 31432, fol. 1r (cf. Figs 2.10a–d).19

19 Similar signatures are also found in GB-Och, Mus. MSS 725–7, although the for-mation of the ‘W’ is quite different and the ‘W’ is not joined to the ‘Lawes’ (see Chapter 4).

Fig. 2.10 (a) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40657, fol. 29r, detail; (b) US-CAh, MS Mus. 70, fol. 12r, detail; (c) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2, p. 81, detail; (d) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432, fol. 1r, detail;

(e) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40660, fol. 30r, detail: Lawes’s initialling; (f) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2, p. 110, detail: Lawes’s initialling

(a)

(b)

(c)

LAWES.indb 40 19/03/2010 10:57


Two of the four-part A2 pieces are initialled: ‘W:L’ and ‘Wj:L’ (Fig. 2.10e); the bass of the three-part Aire {227} is also initialled ‘WjL:’ (40660, fol. 14v). Lawes did not commonly sign with initials, although instances can be found in the catches and drinking songs at the end of B.2 (Fig. 2.10f), on a song (‘Pleasures, Bewty, youth attend yee’) and the last lyra-viol piece in MS 31432 (Fig. 2.34b), and on one of the bass viol suites in D.229 (fol. 79r (INV.)). These instances indicate little in terms of chronology: in later manuscripts they appear to be convenient shorthand. Nevertheless, despite the fact that most initialling occurs in later sources, it is not sufficient evidence to date the initialled pieces in the Shirley partbooks to a late period. Two of them are similar to Lawes’s early signature but without the ‘awes’ , which is uncharacteristic of the later initials. An important question regarding the

(d)

(e)

(f)

LAWES.indb 41 19/03/2010 10:57


Shirley partbooks clearly lies in dating this ‘later’ (A2) Lawes hand. Had Lawes completed his involvement with the manuscript around the time of Sir Henry Shirley’s death in February 1632/3? Does the later hand date (as Pinto suggests) to around the time of Lawes’s court appointment, or (as Gordon Dodd suggested) could it ‘be dated as late as the civil-war period … perhaps, in March 1644?’ .20

The pieces entered by Lawes in what has been designated his A2 hand were added some time after the main three-, four- and five-part sequences were com-pleted. The last nine pieces in the four-part sequence are particularly interesting examples of the A2 hand. They were evidently added in at least three stages: (1) nos. 21–6 (of which nos. 23–4 were on a page now removed; a page was abstracted after no. 22 in MSS 40657–60); (2) nos. 27 and [28]; (3) the last three pieces, which are unnumbered but for ease of reference can be designated nos. [29–31]. This sec-tion of the manuscript is, however, much more complex than it first appears. First, the four-part pieces are numbered 1–27 in MSS 40657–9; the number ‘27’ is in a different ink, which suggests that it was added after the main sequence of num-bers. Second, no. 27 (i.e. the piece itself) is in the same dark ink in MSS 40658–9 (both are also numbered). But this is not the same ink as used in no. 27 in MSS 40657 and 40660, which are both in the same ink. Third, no. [28] is in the same ink in MSS 40568–9; this is lighter ink than on the previous page (and is different again to the same page in MS 40660). The piece is omitted from MS 40657 (the page on which it should be is unused). The solution seems to be that Lawes added nos. 21–6 and then numbered the entire four-part sequence 1–26. Nos. 27–8 were then added individually (as suggested by the difference in ink in MSS 40658–9). The Tr1 part of nos. 27–8 seems to have been on the leaf abstracted from MS 40657 (before fol. 29r), which caused Lawes to write out the part again (this time with no piece number and a different signature: ‘WLawes’); he must simply not have gotten round to recopying the Tr1 part of no. [28]. Lawes added nos. [29–31] in a rather messy hand (of MS 40657, fols 30r–30v). The ink suggests that the three pieces were added at the same time but later than the previous pieces. The pieces were hurriedly written, with a rightward slant; they lack the decorative finishes and curved beams characteristic of the earlier hand, and in Corant {339} the treble clefs are not even fully drawn (for comparison to Lawes’s hand in the rest of the Shirley partbooks, cf. Figs 2.9b, 2.11a–b). The bass partbook, MS 40660, is the only one of the books to deviate from this pattern. Here the piece numbers stop after ‘22’ . It is also significant that in MS 40660 nos. 26–8 were also entered in a rather messy hand, comparable to Lawes’s hand in nos. [29–31]: this notably deviates from the ‘presentation style’ of the other partbooks. The implication is that in MS 40660 nos. 25–8 were also removed and then re-entered by Lawes around the same

20 Quoted in PintoFyV, 15; see also RingD.

LAWES.indb 42 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.11 (a) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40657, fol. 30v, detail; (b) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40659, fol. 16v, detail; (c, overleaf) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 40659, fol. 31r, detail

(a)

(b)

LAWES.indb 43 19/03/2010 10:57


time as nos. [29–31]. As noted, a leaf was abstracted after no. 22 in MSS 40657–9. In MS 40660, however, two leaves seem to have been removed; a third may have been removed but this is difficult to determine due to the tightness of the binding. Two leaves (i.e. four pages) would have been enough to have originally contained nos. 23–4 and nos. 25–8. There would certainly have been enough room if a third leaf was removed. Although the A2 hand, and the last three four-part pieces in particular, have been argued as demonstrating Lawes’s late hand, it seems to me that they are in fact perfect examples of what may be termed Lawes’s ‘rushed’ hand. This term does not carry a chronological implication but rather reflects Lawes’s attitude towards the act of copying, which seems to be closely linked to the function of the manu-script. As the ‘rushed’ pieces in the Shirley partbooks do not exhibit the obvious characteristics of Lawes’s early hand it is tempting to give them a late date; they have more in common with the hand of, for example, later portions of D.229. Sev-eral points, however, argue against a late dating. First, there is the ‘early’ signature on Corant {339} (MS 40657, fol. 30v). Second, the c-clef used in the same piece (MS 40659, fol. 16v; Fig. 2.11b) is consistent with the ‘triangle’ form found only in pieces in Lawes’s early hand (and Hand B). Third, despite his generally careful hand in the Shirley partbooks, Lawes occasionally entered some pieces in a messy hand clearly comparable to the four-part pieces in question. A perfect example of this is found in MS 40659, fol. 31r: the tenor part of Thomas Lupo’s five-part Fan-tazia {11} (Fig. 2.11c). We can also see in this piece a ‘double-vertical’ c-clef similar to that found in late manuscripts such as B.3 (see below); it is otherwise found in only two places in the Shirley partbooks: MS 40661, fols 13r (Fig. 2.7a, stave 1) and

(c)

LAWES.indb 44 19/03/2010 10:57


13v (stave 4). Thus, the evidence suggests that what is often considered Lawes’s late hand is actually his ‘rushed’ hand , which in the Shirley partbooks can further be demonstrated to be early (i.e. before c. 1633). Pragmatic as this explanation may be, it is notable that Lawes’s hand does not change dramatically throughout the sources; as we shall see, however, his hand does seem to change according with the function (or with Lawes’s intended func-tion) of the manuscript. MS 17798 and sections of D.229, D.238–40 and the Shirley partbooks are written in a careful hand, what is termed here his ‘formal’ presen-tation style. This ‘formal’ style suggests that the manuscript was intended for a purpose beyond personal record or use, and was what we may call a ‘presentation volume’ , although whether such manuscripts were actually presented to patrons is debatable. This does not imply that they were not used. Rather, the ‘formal’ style was closely related to the intended function of the manuscript, which may have been copied for the benefit of someone other than Lawes. The ‘formal’ style can be contrasted with manuscripts that appear to have been for Lawes’s personal use (though in different ways), such as in B.2–3, MS 31432 and Mus. 70. The ‘formal’ style within portions of D.229, D.238–40 and MS 17798 are similar (cf. Figs 2.12a–b). Although these manuscripts would have fulfilled the same essential function as Mus. 70 (i.e. playing parts), it is wholly written in an ‘informal’ presentation style (discussed below). Lawes mixed the faster, ‘informal’ hand with the more careful ‘formal’ hand in manuscripts such as D.229 and D.238–40. This implies a change in (perceived) function of the manuscript, or simply an expedience, rather than instances of more and less mature hands (see below). This may help to explain why Lawes changed from a ‘formal’ style to a less careful and at times rather messy hand in the Shirley partbooks. One suspects that it was linked to a change in func-tion or circumstance, vicissitudes that can most obviously be linked to the death of Sir Henry in February 1632/3; though the break in the manuscript’s functional continuity (and Lawes’s consequent approach) may well pre-date this. Thus, a note of caution should be raised on the designation of the A1 and A2 Lawes hands as early and later; they should not be used to imply that Lawes copied the manu-script in two separate and distinct stages. Rather, it was probably copied in several stages during which Lawes’s hand moved away from an early calligraphic style and gradually adopted many of the traits present in later manuscripts. (It should be noted that the ‘formal’ presentation style of the Shirley partbooks is similar to Lawes’s later ‘informal’ style, which suggests that (like his signature) Lawes consciously developed the ‘formal’ style typified by later sources.) Nonetheless, some chronological gap between the early calligraphic hand and the more mature hand in the Shirley partbooks is to be assumed. How much of a gap is difficult to tell. The Shirley partbooks clearly provide us with examples of Lawes’s early hand,

LAWES.indb 45 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.12 (a) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.238, fol. 32v: Lawes’s ‘formal’ presentation style; (b) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17798, fol. 25v: Lawes’s ‘formal’ presentation style

(a)

(b)

LAWES.indb 46 19/03/2010 10:57


much of which probably dates to around the late 1620s or early 1630s. They reflect Lawes as a composer coming of age, growing in confidence and in the estimation of his patrons. This growth is represented by the gradual inclusion of his own com-positions. It is also represented by Lawes’s conscious development of a distinctive signature: an increasingly confident graphic representation of the self (and of the composer).

❧ GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.229 and D.238–40

The manuscripts D.238–40 contain the string parts for Lawes’s fantasia-suites, harp consorts, and suites for two bass viols and organ. The set is generally

thought to date from around the time of Lawes’s court appointment, with some later additions. The Oxford Music School catalogue of 1682 records them as ‘Mr William Laws his 3 Parts’ in four books, probably donated by Henry Lawes.21 The fourth book is likely to refer to D.229. It is unclear whether D.229 was originally intended as part of the set as the contents do not correspond exactly with D.238–40. D.229 contains the organ parts for the fantasia-suites, most of the suites for two bass viols, and for all of the five- and six-part consorts. It also contains (Tr–B) harp parts for the first eight harp consort dances. Both manuscripts consist of similar paper. The watermark evidence suggests that D.229 was bound sometime in the 1630s; paper with the same type of water-mark is found in MS 31432. Robert Thompson notes that it is

commonly described as ‘Venetian’ although it was probably made in the Venetian hinterland rather than in the city itself. … The peacock paper may have been transported to England by sea, but in the small quantities in which it appears to have been supplied it could equally have been carried across the Alps to join the Berne, Basle and Strasbourg papers on their journey down the Rhine.22

Being an organbook, D.229 is much larger than D.238–40, which are upright quartos (a format not commonly used for string parts because of the short stave lengths). The bindings also differ. The cover stamp on D.238–40 consists of scrollwork, in a diamond shape, emanating from a centre-circle (Fig. 2.13a). The D.229 cover stamp consists of the royal coat of arms enclosed by the Garter, sur-mounted by a crown, in a large entwining frame, flanked by the initials ‘W’ ‘L’ . The stamp is also found on Mus. 70 (Fig. 2.13b) and MS 31432.23 It is one of five main

21 CrumEL, esp. 28–9; LawesFS, xv–xxi, 115–16.22 ThompsonP, 145–6.23 The D.229 stamp is reproduced in LawesFS, xxx.

LAWES.indb 47 19/03/2010 10:57


types used in the Stuart period as identified by Mirjam Foot, who noted sixteen variants.24 The British Library has designated the stamp ‘Stuart Royal Arms’ (SRA). The variant on D.229 and Mus. 70 is similar to SRA VII, found on several bindings from the reign of Charles I, and on ‘a rather plain binding from the library of James I ([GB-Lbl,] C.83.k.1)’ .25

In the Musica Britannica edition of Lawes’s fantasia-suites David Pinto sug-gested that D.238–40 contain examples of an early and a late Lawes hand. It is worth quoting Pinto in detail:

There is little doubt that Lawes’s fantasia-suites had been composed before his appointment to the court in 1635. Reliable evidence of this is provided by his own playing-parts, now Oxford, Bodleian Library, Mus.Sch.MSS D.229 and D.238–240. Among the later contents of these books are the suites for division viols and for viol consort, written in a fluent cursive hand which can be dated with some certainty to c. 1636–38, whereas the violin suites, and the harp consorts entered shortly after them, are in an earlier and sig-nificantly less mature hand.26

24 M. Foot, ‘Some Bindings for Charles I’ , in Studies in Seventeenth-Century English Literature, History and Bibliography, ed. G. A. M. Janssens and F. G. A. M. Aarts (Amsterdam, 1984), 95–106. See also PintoMVC, 21 n. 6.

25 Foot, ‘Bindings for Charles I’ , 97.26 LawesFS, xvi–xvii.

Fig. 2.13 (a) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.238, front cover; (b) US-CAh, MS Mus. 70, back cover, detail: SRA VII

(a) (b)

LAWES.indb 48 19/03/2010 10:57


The case for dating [Lawes’s] playing parts in almost their final form at c. 1635 rests partly on the view that non-autograph copies were in circula-tion by c. 1638, and partly on the relative maturity of Lawes’s hand compared with the style which he used later, probably c. 1638, in copying such works as those for viols and for division viols into his organ book.27

A detailed examination of the manuscripts, however, raises questions about the reliability of this evidence. Most important, there is actually no significant differ-ence in the handwriting used throughout the books. Rather than looking for an earlier and a later hand, it seems more useful to attempt to distinguish between the speeds at which Lawes copied the various portions of the partbooks.28 The fantasia-suites do appear to have been first entered into D.238–40, but it is more likely that they were followed by the bass viol pieces, with the harp consorts prob-ably entered last. The first problem with the attribution of the fantasia-suites to Lawes’s early hand in D.238–40 is that Lawes mostly signed them using his mature signature: the signature he used throughout the partbooks. Only in no. 22 (Fantazia {135}: D.238 and D.240) does he vary the signature to the ‘short L’ form.29 The ‘short L’ signature is most commonly found in MS 31432, especially fols 42r–53v: examples can also be found in D.238–40, D.229 and B.2–3. Apparently a late development, Lawes generally used this signature when writing his name in miniature, usually when constrained by space, though at times the signature is small for no obvi-ous reason. Indeed, despite Pinto’s claims to the contrary, there is a close resem-blance in the hands used to copy the fantasia-suites and the bass viol suites.30 The bass viol suites are written in a slightly slanted hand, but this seems to be linked to the speed at which they were copied and the amount of musical information (i.e. they include semiquavers etc; Fig. 2.14), rather than when they were copied. The fantasia-suites and the bass viol pieces contain emendations and correc-tions, which suggests that they were used in performance (see Chapters 6 and 8); it is also worth noting that Lawes maintained his ‘formal’ presentation style in both. Perhaps one of the most significant features of D.238–40 and D.229 is Lawes’s rendering of bass clefs. In D.238 Lawes initially used the ‘8’ bass clef (nos. 1–10; Fig. 2.8a) that he used almost consistently throughout the Shirley partbooks. This

27 LawesFS, xx.28 Christopher Field seemed also to be unconvinced by Pinto’s early and late designa-

tions within D.238–40: see FieldFR, 245–6 n. 64.29 This fantasia is also found in B.2, p. 76, and appears to be a later revision in the

partbooks (see Chapter 6).30 The same conclusion was reached by Field: FieldFR, 245–6 n. 64.

LAWES.indb 49 19/03/2010 10:57


would seem to cast doubt on the attribution of these parts to his mature hand.31 These apparently early bass clefs are only used, however, at the start of the staves of the first ten pieces. In the two instances in these pieces where Lawes changes from a c-clef back to the bass clef in the middle of the line (D.238, fols 9r and 9v: nos. 9 and 10) he uses the small ‘2’ bass clef found in the rest of the suites. A notable recurrence of the early ‘8’ clef comes in D.229, fols 70r–69r (INV.) in the two six-part fantasias in c. Pinto has, however, pointed out that most of these two pieces are in the hand of another copyist.32 The copyist entered the first fan-tasia, and the first section of the second (i.e. the first six staves of D.229, fol. 69r (INV.)); Lawes then completed the second piece using the ‘8’ clef (Fig. 2.15). The copyist finished both pieces with a single barline (the pre-ruled barline); Lawes wrote the flourish at the end of the first piece, wrote the directs at the end of the third system of fol. 69r (INV.), and numbered and titled both pieces. The copy-ist (who was presumably working from Lawes’s score, B.2) appears to have had close connections with Thomas Tomkins and the copyist Thomas Myriell. He also

31 A feature also noted in FieldFR, 246 n. 64.32 LawesCS, xiv.

Fig. 2.14 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.238, fol. 89v (INV.), detail: Aire {103}

LAWES.indb 50 19/03/2010 10:57


contributed to GB-Och, Mus. MSS 62 and 67, GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. C.93 and GB-Lbl, Add. MS 29996.33 Pinto convincingly suggested Giles Tomkins as a pos-sible candidate, ‘who combined membership of the Tomkins family circle with assistance to Myriell in Cambridge or London c. 1620, and who had graduated to the royal music by 1638–40 (a probable date for the later of Lawes’s fantasies)’ 34 (see Chapter 5). Whatever the identity of the copyist, Lawes appears to have tem-porarily reverted to the ‘8’ clef in imitation of him. The harp consorts in D.238–40 are often in a more considered hand than the bass viol suites, but this appears to be because of the amount of musical informa-tion to be conveyed within the given space (see Figs 2.16a–b and 2.17). A notice-able aspect of these pieces is the frequent spacing between the ‘L’ and the ‘awes’ of ‘Lawes’ , which is also a feature of Lawes’s later signature: other examples can be found in MS 31432 (fol. 63r) and B.3 (pp. 67 and 68). This variation on the mature signature does not appear to be of major chronological significance (Fig. 2.17). The decorative endings common to B.2–3 and MS 31432 are similar to those found in the Shirley partbooks. They are formed from the final note or final bar and take the form of a conical squiggle; the squiggle is frequently found with a diagonal

33 D. Pinto, ‘Thomas Tomkins and a Copyist Associated with Him’ , ML 72 (1991), 517–18.

34 Pinto, ‘Tomkins and a Copyist’ , 518.

Fig. 2.15 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229, fol. 69v (INV.): ‘Tomkins copyist’ (Hand D); Lawes’s hand begins on system 4

LAWES.indb 51 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.16 (a) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.240, fols 35v–36r; (b) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.239, fols 19v–20r: decorative ending

(a)

(b)

LAWES.indb 52 19/03/2010 10:57


dash through it in the later sources. This dash resembles a large fermata. These kinds of decorative endings signify Lawes’s ‘informal’ hand, and are commonly found in what appear to be Lawes’s playing parts (Mus. 70), personal manuscripts (MS 31432) and his compositional sketchbooks (B.2–3). Music manuscripts, especially partbooks, were generally compiled first from the front end; if another section of music was added, it was often entered in the rear of the book (turned upside-down, i.e. inverso).35 Subsequent sections could be added as needed on unused pages. Thus the layout alone of D.238–40 with the fantasia-suites and bass viol suites at either end suggests that they were first to be added to the books, followed by the harp consorts. This is reinforced by the fact that the harp consorts in D.238–40 mostly exemplify Lawes’s ‘informal’ presenta-tion style, whereas the fantasia-suites and bass viol suites both retain the ‘formal’ style (and the earlier forms of bass clef). Only the first eight pieces in the violin partbook (D.239) retain the calligraphic decorative endings of the ‘formal’ style (Fig. 2.17). It is unclear why Lawes began this section with the ‘formal’ style, only to abandon it several pages later. The change to the ‘informal’ style in the majority of the harp consort parts, however, implies that the function of D.238–40 changed. Lawes probably began the partbooks in a ‘formal’ style as ‘presentation’ volumes or with some similar purpose in mind. At some point, the inclination or need to com-plete these books as ‘presentation’ volumes ceased. The first eight harp consorts in

35 Assuming, of course, that the manuscript was compiled after binding.

Fig. 2.17 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.239, fols 21r and 21v: change from ‘formal’ to ‘informal’ presentation styles

LAWES.indb 53 19/03/2010 10:57


D.239 may simply have been in imitation of the presentation style of the rest of the volume, but equally they may record the precise moment at which the function changed. I shall argue in Chapter 8 that the bass viol suites were composed c. 1638, which suggests an approximate terminus post quem for D.238–40, although the fanta-sia-suites are likely to have been composed earlier; this date is also supported by evidence presented below. The fantasia-suites and bass viol suites were the first entered, followed by the harp consorts. The corresponding parts in D.229 appear to have been (at least partially) compiled after the string parts. The similarities in inks and presentation styles between D.238–40 and D.229, however, suggest that there was not a large chronological gap between the corresponding sections. Both manuscripts appear to have begun life as some form of ‘presentation’ volumes, though at some point – c. 1639 – Lawes, through pressures of time or circumstance, abandoned the ‘formal’ style and (especially in D.229) began to copy parts in his ‘informal’ hand. This is most evident in the viol consorts of D.229, which are in a more squashed and untidy hand than that of the other pieces in the manuscript and which seem to have been copied and revised in several stages (see Chapter 5). By contrast, the fantasia-suites were copied quite carefully in D.229, although Lawes did make some later additions resulting in an occasionally untidy appear-ance. The score format of D.229 would have made it difficult to maintain a clear presentation. The many palimpsests and generally untidy hand in the viol consorts

Fig. 2.18 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229, fol. 35v: Harp Consorts, harp parts

LAWES.indb 54 19/03/2010 10:57


suggest that this portion of the manuscript was used for working out the organ parts (rather than copying them from another source: see Chapter 5); the hand is similar in style to Lawes’s hand in B.2–3 – his ‘compositional draft’ presentation style (discussed below).

❧ GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17798

Manuscript 17798 is a bass partbook for all the five- and six-part viol consorts. It is the surviving partbook of a set of six, perhaps Lawes’s own

set of playing parts referred to in Henry Lawes’s will.36 The watermarks etc. unfor-tunately do not assist in dating the manuscript. I shall argue in Chapter 5 that the viol consorts were composed by 1639–40; they certainly seem to have circulated before 1642. MS 17798 shows signs of revision, postdating it from the other auto-graph sources. The fourth leaf, containing Fantazias {71–2}, is a replacement. The autograph score (B.2) and organ part (D.229) of Fantazy {71} have an extensive middle-section, which Lawes crossed out. There is no sign of the omission in the later sources,37 which suggests that MS 17798 is an intermediate source, datable to c. 1640. The replacement leaf does not appear to be autograph, rather a copyist (Hand E) closely imitating Lawes’s hand. The signature on fol. 4r is certainly not Lawes’s (and was added in an ink different from that used for the music). MS 17798 appears to have been part of a set designed for a formal purpose, given the carefully laid out and copied parts, similar to the ‘formal’ presentation style of the bass viol suites and the fantasia-suites in D.238–40 and D.229 (cf. Figs 2.19a–b). Lawes maintained his ‘formal’ style throughout MS 17798. The six-part pieces appear to have been copied some time after the five-part ones. Lawes began numbering the former at ‘23’, even though there had been only sixteen pieces in the volume; however, the last page of the five-part pieces is numbered ‘22’ , which Lawes appears to have mistaken as the piece number. (The partly missing ‘3’ of ‘23’ on fol. 12r indicates that the manuscript was cropped after copying.) All the five-part sequence was entered using the same ink; a different ink was used for the six-part pieces. It also seems significant that Lawes used the small ‘2’ bass clef in the five-part pieces, but used it only in the first of the six-part pieces, thereafter chang-ing to the large form (see below). All the six-part pieces are titled and signed with the mature signature. Only the first and last pieces in the five-part section are titled

36 Probate transcribed in A. Ashbee, ‘Lawes, Henry’ , BDECM, ii. 706–9. Lawes bequeathed ‘the bookes of Fancies, Pavins and Almans of five and six parts for the Violls and six bookes of concert lessons bound in Blew Leather’ to Francis Sambrooke; the ‘Blew Leather’ binding refers to the second set of books, but not necessarily to the first (cf. PintoMVC, 21–2 n. 11).

37 See LawesCS, xix.

LAWES.indb 55 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.19 (a) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229, fol. 78r (INV.); (b) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17798, fol. 11v

(a)

(b)

LAWES.indb 56 19/03/2010 10:57


and signed. Both signatures are the mature form, the first has an italic ‘e’ , the last an epsilon (Fig. 2.19b). The close similarities between the hand in MS 17798 and the ‘formal’ pieces in D.238–40 and D.229 strongly suggest the manuscripts were compiled within a reasonably short timeframe, adding further weight to the sug-gested date of c. 1638 for D.238–40. They also prompt us to consider the possibility that these manuscripts were compiled for a similar ‘formal’ purpose: Lefowitz’s idea of a carefully compiled œuvre is perhaps not as fanciful as it first appears.38

❧ GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. B.2 and B.3

Manuscripts B.2 and B.3 are large folio volumes containing scores of much of Lawes’s consort music as well as some vocal music; understand-

ing them is central to establishing a coherent chronology for much of his consort music. As with D.229 and D.238–40, B.2–3 were probably in the Music School’s collection before the death in 1681 of Edward Lowe, the late professor of music: ‘they may have been presented through Lowe by Henry Lawes c. 1661, along with a donation of a theorbo as recorded by Sir John Hawkins’ .39 B.2 contains masque music, vocal music, five- and six-part viol consorts, the lute suite and the suites for two bass viols and organ. B.3 contains six-part viol consorts, the large-scale harp consorts, and the Tr–Tr–B–B (‘new’) version of the Royall Consort. Most pieces in the volumes are titled. The volumes are almost undoubtedly compositional drafts, as suggested by the score format, the vocal music texts given in incipits only, and the large number of revisions, palimpsests and crossings-out.40 Thus, the form of presentation style in B.2–3 can be labelled as Lawes’s ‘compositional draft’ style. Both volumes bear the same Royal Arms stamp on their covers:41 ‘the coat [of arms] enclosed by the Garter, surmounted by the crown and upheld by the lion and unicorn supporters on a bracket of the royal motto’ (Fig. 2.20).42 B.3 seems to have originally belonged to Henry Lawes as the initials ‘H’ ‘L’ are stamped on the

38 LefkowitzWL, 31; see also above pp. 23–4.39 LawesFS, 114; see also CrumEL.40 For excellent background studies of autograph sources (of similar periods) and

their compilation, see J. A. Owens, Composers at Work: The Craft of Musical Composition, 1450–1600 (Oxford, 1997) and R. Herissone, ‘ “Fowle Originalls” and “Fayre Writeing”: Reconsidering Purcell’s Compositional Process’ , Journal of Musicology 23 (2006), 569–619.

41 The stamp is reproduced from other books in R. Shackleton, Fine Bindings 1500–1700 from Oxford Libraries (Oxford, 1968), no. 139. See also PintoMVC, 21 n. 6.

42 PintoAS, 12; Foot, ‘Bindings for Charles I’ , 105; LawesFS, 114. The stamp is also found on the following music manuscripts, GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17801, GB-Lbl, MS R.M. 24.k.3 and GB-Cfm, Mu. MS 734.

LAWES.indb 57 19/03/2010 10:57


cover: ‘W’ ‘L’ are stamped on the cover of B.2. B.3 may have been given to Henry as part of his court duties in the ‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’ (LVV). Henry, a member of the Chapel Royal since 1626, was sworn into the LVV on 6 January 1630/1; there was a delay with the appointment and he was not officially admitted until Christ-mas 1631. William could have procured the manuscript from Henry before his own appointment in 1635, giving a plausible terminus post quem for B.3 of c. 1631–2; as we shall see, however, the remaining contents of B.3 suggest that William did not acquire the manuscript until c. 1638, if not slightly later. It is highly likely that Wil-liam came into possession of B.2 before his court appointment, as it contains music composed for the Inns of Court masque The Triumph of Peace (1634).43 Henry may have acquired the volume for his brother or perhaps it was given to William for composition of the masque music. The latter seems plausible given the close association of the court with the masque. Robert Thompson has noted that ‘Lawes might well have been using a stock of old music paper, because the staves have been carefully drawn one line at a time rather than with a complex rastrum as was usual by the 1630s. … the books may perhaps have been bound in the mid- or late 1620s incorporating earlier material’ .44 The scorebooks may have been unwanted old stock from the court stationer; indeed, Thompson has further noted that the watermark of the flyleaf is from Basle and unlikely to date any later than 1630.45 The similarities of the binding suggests that the volumes were bound around the same time. Examination of the handwriting suggests that both manuscripts were

43 For a discussion of the masque, see P. Holman, ‘Music for the Stage I: Before the Civil War’ , in Music in Britain: The Seventeenth Century, ed. I. Spink (Oxford, 1992), 282–305, esp. 300–2.

44 ThompsonP, 144.45 See ThompsonP, 144–5.

Fig. 2.20 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2, cover stamp

LAWES.indb 58 19/03/2010 10:57


compiled when Lawes’s musical and textual handwriting was sufficiently mature to not reveal any major inconsistencies: this appears to be from c. 1633–4 onwards. The characters of the musical hand are generally small and often quite messy with a slight rightwards slant. Lawes’s beaming throughout B.2–3 (and D.238–40, D.229, MSS 31432 and 17798: e.g. Fig. 2.21) has lost the calligraphic curves of the Shirley partbooks, although they do reappear in rare instances. The beaming in B.2–3 is either straight, arched or follows the flow of the stems. If we accept, as I think we must, that the scorebooks primarily consist of com-positional drafts then much of the masque music in B.2 can be dated with certainty. Indeed, the masque (and other vocal) music confirms the status of B.2 as a volume of compositional drafts. The score format and (the large number of) palimpsests are obvious clues, although they could perhaps be explained as signs of a poorly copied anthology. A sure sign that here we have compositional drafts is, however, the texts, which are given only in incipits: this is true of all vocal music in B.2. It is unlikely that Lawes would have had made several drafts of his music. The drafts in B.2–3 are likely to have been the first and only scores Lawes made. The scores were then revised as necessary rather than fresh scores made out, except in cases (such as Fantazia {135}, discussed in Chapter 6) where complete reworking was required: the five-part viol consorts reworked from earlier versions in B.2 or the ‘new’ ver-sion Royall Consort in B.3 are cases in point. This, of course, does not preclude the possibility that Lawes occasionally made rough sketches elsewhere (especially

Fig. 2.21 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3, p. 88, detail

LAWES.indb 59 19/03/2010 10:57


on unbound folios); he certainly occasionally revised as he made out parts. As we would expect, the handwriting does not significantly change between the masque pieces (see Figs 2.22a–d ), but this is no indication that they were compiled around the same time (i.e. retrospectively), as implied by Gordon Callon, who suggests that ‘It is likely that Lawes entered most of the music in [B.2] ca.1644–45’ .46 Masques were ephemeral entertainments, usually performed only once or twice. If Lawes were compiling songs for an anthology, he would have been more likely to preserve a selection of songs rather than most of the entertainment; MS 31432 seems to be such an anthology (see below). B.2 may originally have contained much more masque music: as many as four-teen pages were removed in the middle of the main masque section (pp. 35–44). There is music from at least three masques, dating from 1634, 1636 and 1638,47 but they are not found in chronological order. First, there is a selection of songs from Britannia Triumphans (1638) (pp. 15–18). Then, after some four- and five-part viol consorts, comes the main masque section (pp. 35–44) including music from The Triumph of Peace, and from the court masque The Triumph of the Prince d’Amour (1636; with music also by Henry Lawes).48 The likely explanation is that when Lawes came to enter the music for Britannia Triumphans at least some of the pages immediately following The Triumph of the Prince d’Amour had been filled (with the main five-part viol consort sequence), thus he turned to the unused pages towards the front of the manuscript. The Triumph of Peace music was probably among the first to be entered, which means that Lawes began towards the middle of the manu script perhaps leaving space at the front for instrumental music: a similar layout is observable in MS 31432 (see below). Music for masques had to be composed well ahead of the performance to allow rehearsals for musicians, and more importantly for dancers.49 For example, pay-ment records for Oberon (1611) note that Alfonso Ferrabosco II, Nicolas Confesse and Jeremy Herne were paid £20 in ‘reward for their paines having bene imployed in the Princes late Mask by the space almost of sixe weekes’ .50 Masque records (where they exist) are rarely so detailed, although due to the collaborative nature

46 LawesCVM4, 69.47 Edition: LawesCVM4.48 For a detailed discussion of Lawes’s masque music, see LefkowitzWL, 205–34, and

WallsM, 159–205; also P. Walls, ‘New Light on Songs by William Lawes and John Wilson’ , ML 57 (1976), 55–64.

49 The masquers were generally members of the aristocracy, often joined by members of the royal family.

50 Quoted in WallsM, 37. Ferrabosco composed the songs; Confesse and Herne appear to have composed some of the dances and taught the choreography: see WallsM, 37–8.

LAWES.indb 60 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.22 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2: (a) p. 16, detail: Britannia Triumphans (1638); (b) p. 38: The Triumph of Peace (1634); (c, overleaf) p. 42, detail: The Triumph of the Prince d’Amour (1636); (d, overleaf) p. 36, detail: ‘Cease warring thoughts’

(a)

(b)

LAWES.indb 61 19/03/2010 10:57


(d)

(c)

LAWES.indb 62 19/03/2010 10:57


of masques (and masque music) it seems likely that a similar preparation time was necessary for many court masques, especially the elaborate masques of the 1630s. Given the unprecedented scale of The Triumph of Peace, this timeframe may well have been increased. The first performance was given on 3 February 1633/4, so it seems reasonable to assume that much of the music was composed no later than January 1633/4, and probably before. By the same reasoning, we can also assume that Lawes began to compose his music for The Triumph of the Prince d’Amour (presented on 24 February 1635/6) no later than January 1635/6. One suspects that Lawes had begun work on the five-part viol consorts following the main masque section (i.e. after p. 44) before he came to compose the music for Britannia Tri-umphans, probably by December 1637: the masque was performed on 7 January 1637/8. It also seems likely that by this time the six-part viol consorts and the five-part version of Alman {38} from the Royall Consort were already composed at the start of the volume: the composition of the viol consorts in the scorebooks is discussed in detail in Chapter 5. In the midst of the main masque section there are three miscellaneous songs. The text of ‘Cease warring thoughts’ was published in 1646 by James Shirley as a song from his private masque The Triumph of Beauty (essentially an adapta-tion of the Judgement of Paris).51 Establishing an accurate date for the first per-formance of the masque is problematic. Lefowitz was first to identify the song as from Shirley’s masque.52 The find was significant, as the composer of the masque’s music had hitherto been unknown and it implied that the first performance of the masque happened before 1645. Lefowitz suggested a date of c. 1644. This song has a significant impact on establishing dates for Lawes’s scorebooks, as ‘Cease warring thoughts’ is the latest datable piece in the manuscript if it can be associ-ated with Shirley’s masque. This implies that B.2 was in use well into the 1640s. As Ian Spink has noted, however, there is little to suggest that Lawes’s setting of the poem in B.2 was part of the original production.53 He cautioned that ‘it is dangerous to deduce that Lawes wrote all the music for the original performance on the evidence of this single setting of the first song, particularly in this doubtful context’ .54 The context is ‘doubtful’ presumably because ‘Cease warring thoughts’ comes directly after the four-part viol consort pieces, in a now incomplete section

51 Published with his Poems. The full title reads: ‘the trivmph of beavtie. As it was personated by some young Gentlemen, for whom it was intended, at a private Recreation’ .

52 M. Lefowitz, ‘New Facts Concerning William Lawes and the Caroline Masque’ , ML 40 (1959), 324–33; LefkowitzWL, 230–4.

53 I. Spink, ‘Correspondence: William Lawes’ , ML 41 (1960), 304–5.54 Spink, ‘Correspondence’ , 304.

LAWES.indb 63 19/03/2010 10:57


of three miscellaneous poem settings of which only the first is associated with a masque. Indeed, the composition of this sequence is reminiscent of MS 31432 where at least one masque song is juxtaposed with poem settings. Moreover, in the masque, ‘Cease warring thoughts’ is sung by Mercury, who descends to sing Paris to sleep; in Shirley’s printed text there is nothing to suggest that there is anyone other than Paris and Mercury on stage at this point, despite Lawes’s setting being for three voices. Another song, ‘Goe bleeding hart’ follows,55 but several leaves were abstracted in the middle of the piece. It is followed by a setting of Thomas Carew’s poem ‘Secresie protested’ (the text of which was published his Poems of 1640) also incomplete.56 This in turn is followed (in a different ink) by The Tri-umph of Peace sequence. Lawes may have followed on from these when composing The Triumph of Peace music, which perhaps suggests a date of c. 1633. The setting of ‘Secresie protested’ is close enough to the printed version to suggest that Lawes had access to a fair-copy before publication. Carew (d. 23 March 1639/40) was appointed as Sewer in Ordinary to Charles I in 1630 and could have known Lawes from at least the mid-1630s. Lawes’s version of ‘Cease warring thoughts’ has several variants from the printed version.57

Printed version (1646), p. 13 Lawes version (B.2, p. 36)Cease, warring thoughts, and let his braine Cease, warring thoughts, and let his brayneNo more discord entertaine, Noe More discord EntertayneBut be smooth and calme againe. but be smooth and Calme againe

Yee Crystall Rivers that are nigh, you Crystall Riuers that are nighAs your streames are passing by, teach your Murmours harmony 5Teach your murmurs harmony. as your streames ar passing by.

Yee windes that wait upon the spring, ye winds that waite uppon the springAnd perfumes to flowers do bring: and perfume to the flowers bringLet your amorous whispers here let your Amorous whispers heereBreath soft Musick to his eare. breath soft Musique to his Eare. 10

Yee warbling Nightingales repaire yee Warbling Nightingales repaireFrom every wood, to charme this aire, from euerie wood to Charme this AireAnd with the wonders of your breast, fill with the Wonders of your brestEach striving to excell the rest. Each striving to excell the rest

55 The text is also found copied by Edward Lowe (attributed to ‘Mr Will Lawes’) in GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. E.451; the piece is laid out in table format but no music was entered. The compilers of IMCCM2 suggest that Lowe copied this piece (and several others by the Lawes brothers) around the time he acquired the manuscript in 1636: see IMCCM2, 212–24. Edition: LawesCVM2, 163–5.

56 Edition: LawesCVM2, 165–7.57 Edition: LawesCVM4, 61–4. Callon also dates it to c. 1640–4 (ibid., xix).

LAWES.indb 64 19/03/2010 10:57


When it is time to wake him, close When it is tyme to wake them Close [ your parts, [ your parts 15And drop downe from the trees with And drop downe from ye Trees wth

[ broken hearts. [ broken harts

Apart from the obvious differences in spelling and capitalization, Lawes makes lines 1–10 into a single stanza, and swaps the positions of lines 5 and 6 (although this does not affect the overall rhyme scheme). He also gives a slight variant for line 13. These (and the other minor discrepancies) may simply have been the result of transcription error. Lawes was, however, generally quite accurate in transcribing texts that appear to have come from printed sources (or which were later used in printed sources). The changes are likely to reflect Lawes’s adaptation of the text for setting as a song; similar alterations are found throughout the poem settings in MS 31432.58 Nevertheless, the textual differences in ‘Cease warring thoughts’ are (inter alia) enough to convincingly suggest that Lawes’s poem setting is an isolated one. Another version of ‘Cease warring thoughts’ is found in GB-Eu, MS Dc. I. 69 and GB-Ob, MS Mus. D.238, which together comprise the cantus parts of a three-part manuscript set copied by Edward Lowe; a complete version is found in US-NYp, MS Mus. Res. *MNZ (Chirk).59 The partbooks contain songs by John Wilson, as well as nine songs by Lawes, including ‘Why do you dwell’ from The Triumph of Peace and ‘Conjunction thrives’ from The Triumph of the Prince d’Amour; the latter is also in a different version in B.2. Peter Walls has suggested that the ‘partbooks contain Lawes’s revised version’ of ‘Cease warring thoughts’ , but there is noth-ing to suggest that the Lawes songs are not adaptations by someone else.60 Either way, Walls does little to support his contention that ‘Cease warring thoughts’ is from an original performance of the masque. Indeed, he also notes that in 1659 John Gamble published three-part settings of all but one of the songs in Shirley’s masque, including ‘Cease warring thoughts’ , in his Ayres and Dialogues (1659).61 Walls suggests that Gamble set these songs as part of a revival of the masque, which is unlikely. It is more likely that Gamble was the composer of the original performance, and that Lawes’s setting of ‘Cease warring thoughts’ was an isolated setting from the 1630s, the text of which Shirley incorporated into his masque. The setting is found in a group of partsongs: the abstraction of over a dozen pages from

58 For a discussion of this see M. Crum, ‘Notes on the Texts of William Lawes’s Songs in B.M. MS. Add. 31432’ , The Library, 5th series, 9 (1954), 122–7.

59 See Walls, ‘New Light’; and WallsM, 182–9 and 334–6. Both versions are tran-scribed in WallsM, 183–8, and LawesCVM4, 61–8.

60 WallsM, 189: in a footnote (189 n. 50) Walls notes that these may be arrangements by John Wilson; Callon also attributes this setting to Lawes in LawesCVM4.

61 See also Spink, ‘Correspondence’ .

LAWES.indb 65 19/03/2010 10:57


this section suggests that it was originally much larger and consisted of other part-songs rather than masque music, a repertoire perhaps similar to MS 31432. Lawes, who had worked with Shirley previously, could easily have acquired a copy of his poem (and the others) much earlier than 1644. At the end of B.2 there are several drinking songs (for which Lawes was renowned) and catches.62 ‘Some Drink, Boy’ (p. 107) is from Sir John Suckling’s The Goblins, for which Julia Wood has suggested termini a quo and ad quem of 1637–41.63 Another of Lawes’s drinking partsongs from the same play, ‘A Health, … a health to the Northerne lasse’ , is found in MS 31432 (fols 36v–37r).64 MS 31432 appears to date from c. 1639–41 (see below), and seems to be roughly contempora-neous with this section of B.2. Indeed, the last of the partsongs in B.2 is the six-part catch ‘Warrs ar our delight’ (p. 110), perhaps hinting at the increasing turmoil of the late 1630s.65 This was one of four of the B.2 catches published in John Hilton’s Catch that Catch Can (1652). These songs do not provide a more definite date than late 1630s for this portion of the manuscript; the inks here vary, which suggests that the songs were entered piecemeal.

Lawes maintained a consistent musical and textual hand throughout both scorebooks. The terminal barlines are all finished with a similar flourish,

originating from the final barline and usually finished by a (fermata-like) dash. This appears to be one of the features of Lawes’s ‘informal’ mature hand, appearing throughout B.2–3, D.229, D.238–40 and MS 31432 (e.g. Fig. 2.23). The most con-sistent feature of Lawes’s text hand in B.3 is his capital letter ‘A’ . Throughout much of B.3 this letter lacks the short upturn on the lower left leg characteristic of his hand. This ‘straight A’ is especially consistent throughout the Royall Consort sec-tion (pp. 48–100), which was probably added c. 1639 (Fig. 2.21; another example is Fig. 2.18). The ‘upturn A’ is a consistent feature of the autograph manuscripts (or rather portions thereof) in which he uses his ‘formal’ style, whereas the ‘straight A’ is common to his ‘informal’ style (see below). The ‘straight A’ is the only form found in songs texts in B.2 and MS 31432 (e.g. Figs 2.27–8), suggesting it was his natural formation of the letter. Both forms of ‘A’ are found in titles in B.2 and B.3. Whilst the ‘straight A’ appears to be more a feature of his later hand, Lawes is frus-tratingly inconsistent in his juxtaposition of both. Throughout both volumes Lawes uses the ‘6’ treble clefs. As noted earlier, there are two main forms of c-clef used throughout the later manuscripts. The first

62 Edited in LawesCVM2.63 WoodMfP, 26, 45–6 and 55.64 The song is transcribed in WoodMfP, 27–9; see also LawesCVM2, 8–9.65 See also RingD, 164–5; LawesCVM2, 100–1.

LAWES.indb 66 19/03/2010 10:57


consists of a single vertical stroke with a large upturn, often coming up as far as the top horizontal stroke. The four horizontal strokes vary considerably even within a single piece, but generally take one of two forms: (a) the top two lines slant downwards as the bottom two slant upwards towards the line denoting c' (Figs 2.14, 2.24); (b) the four lines are almost horizontal (also found in the Shirley partbooks: Fig. 2.7a). Often both variations are found in close proximity (Fig. 2.22b). The second clef consists of two vertical lines bordering the four horizontal ones, which usually all slant upwards; the upturn is found less frequently in this clef (Figs 2.1d, 2.25). This ‘double-vertical’ clef is the main form in B.3, where Lawes used it con-sistently; its presence in the Shirley partbooks has been noted previously. It is also found in the bass viol part of the harp consorts in D.240. It is also the main form of c-clef used throughout MS 31432. Occasionally, however, the ‘single-vertical’ clef with upturn is found juxtaposed: the ‘single-vertical’ clef becomes the main clef used from around fol. 41v until fol. 54v. Both forms of the clef are found in B.2. The ‘double-vertical’ clef is found especially in the six-part sequence (pp. 1–9) and the first half of the main sequence of five-part consorts (pp. 45–61; Fig. 2.1d).66 It is also found in The Triumph of the Prince d’Amour music, which means that

66 It is the main c-clef on pages 1–8, 17–18, 42, 45–61, 87, 101, 105–7, 109–10.


LAWES.indb 67 19/03/2010 10:57


Lawes was using it by at least late 1635. The ‘double-vertical’ is also found on p. 101, where we find the lament on the death of John Tomkins who died in September 1638 (see Chapter 5). Indeed, it seems to have become Lawes’s main form of the clef around this time. Earlier examples of the clef often have the lines denoting c' horizontal, whereas in later versions of the clef they mostly slant upwards to the right. The ‘single-vertical’ clef is also found in the bass viol parts of the fantasia-suites (D.238, fols 10v, 11v, 22v, 24r, 25v, 26r, 26v, 27v, 31v, 33r, 35r) and in the bass viol suites in D.238–40. The organ parts in D.229 unfortunately shed little light on the c-clef as there are relatively few examples. The ‘double-vertical’ clef is only used once: in the viol consorts section, fol. 57r (INV.), stave 8. The ‘single-vertical’ (usually with an upturn) is used consistently in the right hand of the organ part for the fantasia-suites for two violins. The two forms of c-clef appear to indicate late forms of the hand, with the ‘double-vertical’ evidently the later of the two. Lawes’s use of the clefs is sometimes inconsistent in B.2 and in MS 31432, making it dif-ficult to establish even a rough point of transition from one clef form to the other, if indeed one ever really took place. The ‘double-vertical’ is consistently used, how-ever, in B.3 and in the sections of D.238–40 and D.229 that seem to date to the late 1630s. It should be stressed that the different c-clef forms are found at the start of systems: where Lawes changes to a c-clef in the middle of a stave he generally uses the ‘double-vertical’ form regardless of the form used at the start of the stave (e.g. Figs 2.22a, 2.24). The variations of the c-clef appear to be related to variations in Lawes’s bass clef. We saw earlier the two bass clefs used by Lawes in the Shirley partbooks. The second clef, resembling the number ‘2’ is found in several variations in the rest of the manuscripts. The first variation is the ‘small 2’ , which usually takes up no more than two stave spaces. The tail of this clef is short and either ascends quickly forming a narrow edge between it and the end of the arch, or is drawn horizontally (Figs 2.1d, 2.6a, 2.10e, 2.12a, 2.14, 2.19a–b, 2.22a–d, 2.24, 2.28). In either case the tail does not go beyond the two dots denoting f (although they may occasionally touch). Although the straight tail is a feature of this clef, variants are found where the tail curves upwards similarly to the clef found in the Shirley partbooks, which suggests that Lawes used this basic form of clef throughout much of the 1630s. This clef is found throughout B.2, but only on the first few pages of B.3. It is also in the five-part (and the first piece of the six-part) section of MS 17798, and throughout the fantasia-suites and bass viol suites in D.238–40 and D.229.67 The clef is also found throughout most of the viol consorts in D.229, fols 66r–57v (INV.). The second bass clef variation is larger than the first, covering between three and five stave spaces (sizes vary considerably) with the top of the arch usually

67 With the exception of the ‘8’ clef in the first folios of D.238.

LAWES.indb 68 19/03/2010 10:57


coming over the top line of the stave. The tail of the clef is long, curved and boldly drawn, coming out past the dots denoting f, often elaborately so (Figs 2.12b, 2.16a, 2.18, 2.21, 2.23, 2.25, 2.27). The curvature of the tail makes the clef often resemble a figure eight, similar to Purcell’s early bass clef (but not to be confused with the ‘8’ clef).68 This clef is also similar to the ‘2’ clef in the Shirley partbooks. It found throughout much of B.3. At the start of the manuscript it is juxtaposed with a smaller version (similar to that found throughout B.2 etc.), but from p. 5 the large clef is predominant. There is nothing to suggest that B.3 was not compiled roughly in the order that it survives, implying that compilation probably postdated the latest material in B.2 and that much of B.3 was compiled from c. 1639 onwards. The change to the larger bass clef seems to have happened around this time. Indeed, it is worth noting that the organ parts for all the viol consort pieces from B.3 were compiled in D.229 using this large bass clef (fols 57r–51v (INV.)). Further, the large bass clef is also found in the harp consort parts in D.238–40 and D.229; the ink in these sections

68 Cf. the hook bass clef used by Purcell: ShayThompsonPM, 26–7.


LAWES.indb 69 19/03/2010 10:57


also strongly suggests that they were copied around the same time as the B.3 viol consort organ parts (see Chapter 5). An elaborate form of the clef is found in all except the first six-part viol consort parts in MS 17798, where the tail has a broad upwards sweep (Fig. 2.12b): this may be related to the ‘formal’ presentation style of the manuscript. The clef is also found in MS 31432, which seems to date to c. 1639–41; it is, however, juxtaposed with the smaller bass clef (see below). This suggests that the large clef indicates a very late Lawes hand, but alone does not confirm it. Although Lawes used the large clef inconsistently, it seems that it is strongly but not exclusively indicative of his later hand, and that most occurrences of the clef date to c. 1639 and later.

It seems clear that Lawes used B.2 and B.3 for compositional drafts over a period of about eight years, from c. 1633–c. 1640. Although much of their contents is

difficult to date, compilation of B.2 seems to have begun sometime in 1633. The music from The Triumph of Peace was probably among the first to be added, and may have been preceded by the miscellaneous poem settings on pp. 35–6. Whether the two five-part viol consort pieces (pp. 19–25) and the four-part pieces (pp. 26–35) immediately preceding the poem settings were first added to B.2 is impossible to tell. It is worth noting, however, that the two five-part pieces and two of the four-part pieces are also found in the Shirley partbooks (see Chapter 5). The position of Alman {38} immediately before the music from Britannia Triumphans suggests

Fig. 2.25 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3, p. 33, detail, Fantazy {191} HC30

LAWES.indb 70 19/03/2010 10:57


that it too was entered by the end of 1637; quite some time before the rescoring of the Royall Consort in B.3, which seems to have occurred c. 1639 (see Chapter 4). It also seems likely that Fantazia {135} and the bass viol suites were added c. 1638 (see Chapters 6 and 8). The random compilation of B.2 seems to reflect Lawes’s multi-purpose professional activities around the time of his royal appointment; he evidently became more occupied with consort music towards the end of the 1630s as suggested by the relatively ordered structure of B.3. Establishing dates for B.3 is more difficult due to the lack of any datable masque music. Compilation appears to have been in order, beginning in late 1638 with the six-part viol consorts, closely followed by the harp consort pieces, with the rescored Royall Consort added last. Both volumes were probably largely filled by 1640. The many abstractions from B.2–3 unfortunately hinder our understanding. These leaves were carefully removed close to the binding; when, why and by whom, is impossible to tell.

❧ GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432

Lawes’s autograph songbook, MS 31432, is also bound in brown calf leather, with the royal coat of arms on both covers (SRA VII: no initials).69 The

watermark throughout the manuscript is similar to that in D.229 and D.238–40 (peacock in a circle). The watermark of the original flyleaves is the stylized pot type common in the 1630s. An inscription on the original flyleaf shows that it was once owned by a Richard Gibbon, ‘giuen to him by Mr William Lawes’ .70 Gibbon may have been a pupil of Lawes who perhaps presented the manuscript to him c. 1642, with the impending Civil War making teaching life less tenable. Pamela Willetts has convincingly made the case that Gibbon was a young London-based doctor, who died prematurely in 1652.71 He obviously took great pride in owning such a volume, noting on the inside flyleaf that it was ‘all of his [Lawes’s] owne pricking and composeing’ . Gibbon presumably employed the copyist responsible for Jenkins’s lament on the death of Lawes at the start of the manuscript, entered after three solo lyra-viol pieces and a vocal canon in Lawes’s hand. Willetts has noted that although the elegy does not seem to have been copied from the printed parts in Choice Psalmes the copyist may ‘have been involved in the preparation of parts for printing’ .72 Perhaps Gibbon himself was the copyist.

69 ES1600–75, vol. 2 includes a facsimile reproduction of MS 31432.70 Reproduced in P. Willetts, ‘Who was Richard Gibbon(s)?’ , Chelys 31 (2003), 3–17, at

4.71 See Willetts, ‘Gibbon(s)?’ .72 Willetts, ‘Gibbon(s)?’ , 11. Jenkins’s elegy was poorly proofread for the publication:

see RobinsonCP, 184.

LAWES.indb 71 19/03/2010 10:57


Although MS 31432 contains songs composed for plays from 1633 to 1641, it appears to have been compiled in several stages within a relatively short period between 1639–40 and 1641. The dates can be deduced from the first song, which is from Suckling’s play The Tragedy of Brennoralt performed between 1639 and 1641. This suggests a terminus a quo of c. 1639.73 Conversely, as many of the dat-able songs were copied retrospectively, it is reasonable to assume that the initial 1639 songs may also have been retrospective, which could put a start date for the manuscript’s compilation as late 1639 or even 1640. David Pinto has convincingly suggested that the Robert Herrick portion of the manuscript (fols 47r–51r) was compiled c. 1640.74 This portion is followed by the latest datable song (fols 58v–59r), which comes from Shirley’s The Cardinal, licensed for performance on 25 November 1641. Due to plague, the theatres were closed from August to November of 1641, and on 2 September 1642 Parliament placed an interdiction on public thea-tre performances.75

Most of the signatures in MS 31432 are either the ‘mature’ or ‘short L’ forms. The ‘short L’ is mostly consistent in the later part of the manuscript. However, it is frequently juxtaposed with the ‘mature’ signature, and appears to have been used primarily as Lawes’s miniature signature. It seems significant that the ‘short L’ signature appears primarily in MS 31432, confirming its status as a late develop-ment of Lawes’s hand. There is a third form of signature in MS 31432: the ‘running L’ form. As with the ‘short L’ , this signature is identical to the mature signature except for the ‘L’ , the base of which now runs into the ‘awes’ . This signature, appar-ently an aberration, occurs only twice (fols 43r and 57r). The first instance appears to lack the loops in the ‘ll’ characteristic of Lawes’s mature signatures (Fig. 2.26); the loop is present on the second ‘l’ but the ink is quite faded. This form of signa-ture appears to be early, found in one other instance: Mus. 70, fol. 16v (Fig. 2.30d). The positioning of the two instances of this signature amongst late signatures in MS 31432 is confusing. These aberrations are further examples of Lawes’s ‘consist-ent inconsistency’ . This is not to be confused with several instances of the mature signature where there is a gap between the ‘L’ and ‘awes’ , often with the base of the

‘L’ running into the ‘awes’ (for example, see no. 10 in Fig. 2.17). In general, the hand in MS 31432 can be characterized as Lawes’s ‘informal’ style, although it is often quite untidy and much of the manuscript appears to

73 The songs are edited in LawesCVM1; LawesCVM2; LawesCVM4.74 D. Pinto, ‘The True Christmas: Carols at the Court of Charles I’ , in William Lawes

(1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 97–120, at 102. There is also a Herrick sequence in Henry Lawes’s scorebook GB-Lbl, Add. MS 53723, fols 70r–80v.

75 See Willetts, ‘Gibbon(s)?’ , 10.

LAWES.indb 72 19/03/2010 10:57


have been compiled rather hurriedly. Lawes may also have used the volume for composition. On the recto side of the (unruled) flyleaf Lawes wrote the text of an otherwise unknown song ‘Sweetest Cloris lend a kisse’ . The text is quite dif-ficult to make out. There are three six-line stanzas and a rhyming couplet, with the last two lines of the second stanza crossed out (for transcription, see p. 308). The crossing-out was to add new lines, and not due to transcription error: perhaps the text may have been Lawes’s own. He did not set it to music, implying that it was added late to the manuscript. Two compositional drafts are also of note. On fol. 25v ‘If you a Wrinkle’ is only partially composed. Lawes first set out the text between the staves before beginning to add the music, common practice for text settings; he only added music for just over one line. The compositional process is also evident in ‘O draw your Curtaines’ , the text of which Lawes laid out between the staves on fol. 40r but no music was added: a complete setting is found on fol. 54r. It seems that the lyra-viol pieces at the start of the manuscript were written at some chronological remove from the songs. They are likely to have been entered first, followed by the songs, with space left for perhaps more lyra-viol music to be added; the extensive revisions and the generally untidy hand suggest that they are compositional drafts. The unused section after the lyra-viol pieces is approx-imately two gatherings (fols 5v–22r). The manuscript may originally have been intended to contain two (amateur) repertoires: songs and solo lyra-viol pieces; Lawes abandoned the lyra-viol pieces and concentrated on the songs. There are also several unused pages after the last song (fols 63v–71r). The similarity of the tablature hand in these lyra-viol pieces to that in the lute suite in B.2 suggests that they were copied around the same time. This too would fit with the proposed

Fig. 2.26 GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432, fol. 43r: ‘running L’

LAWES.indb 73 19/03/2010 10:57


chronology of MS 31432, as it seems that Lawes composed the lute suite c. 1638 (see Chapter 3). Lawes’s hand throughout MS 31432 is quite messy at times, comparable to B.2–3 (cf. Figs 2.27–8 and 2.34b, and 2.21, 2.22a–d and 2.24). The large bass clef, apparently indicative of his late hand, is found in two sections: fols 22v–29r and fols 60v–63r (the first seven and last four songs, respectively). The large section of songs in between was compiled using the smaller type of bass clef. A further complication arises with the change of clef (from small to large) in the last sec-tion. The change occurs at the start of fol. 60v: this is in the middle of the song

‘Cloris, I Wish that Envye were as Just’ (fols 60r–60v). Judging by the inks, the songs on fols 59v–63r all appear to have been entered around the same time (although the music of the last song and the signature on fol. 63r were added later in a different ink). Thus, it seems that Lawes alternated between the two forms of bass clef; he tended, however, to use one form or the other throughout large sections of his manuscripts. The peculiar instance of ‘Cloris, I Wish …’ is an oth-erwise unrepeated aberration. It is also possible that the three sections of MS 31432 were not compiled in order, and that the first seven songs were the last added to the manuscript (ink variants could support such a reading). One suspects that this is unlikely given the unused pages following fol. 63r and the fact that much of the music in the section using the small bass clef seems to date to at least 1639, by which time Lawes is likely to have been using the large clef in B.3 (see above). Nevertheless, much of the manuscript is clearly an anthology copied from another source or sources, allowing easy estimation of pages required,

Fig. 2.27. GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432, fol. 60v, detail: from ‘Cloris, I Wish that Envye were as Just’

LAWES.indb 74 19/03/2010 10:57


especially for songs (where one or two pages usually suffice). Peter Walls has noted that Lawes may have selected songs suitable for adaptation in domestic performance;76 it seems more likely, however, that he compiled the manuscript for didactic purposes in the early 1640s. If this were so it would not necessarily follow that the manuscript was compiled after the removal of the court to Oxford, when, of course, Lawes would presumably have had limited access to the court stationer. The increased political tension in the year or two before 1642 could have given Lawes the impetus (or need) to take on more private pupils (presuming he had any in the first place) to supplement his income, or indeed, to secure an income at all. The last recorded payment of wages to Lawes comes on 13 March 1639/40 when he received 20s. for the half-year to the previous Michaelmas.77 In addi-tion to the external evidence, it seems safe to give MS 31432 a terminus a quo of c. 1639–41.

76 WallsM, 182.77 RECM, iii. 239; William also collected 10s. for his brother Henry for the same

period.

Fig. 2.28 GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432, fol. 59r, detail: end of ‘Come my Daphnee’

LAWES.indb 75 19/03/2010 10:57


❧ US-CAh, MS Mus. 70

The manuscript Mus. 70 has received little scholarly attention in publishedliterature.78 Murray Lefowitz’s discovery of it was too late for inclusion in his

monograph proper. Instead, mention of it went into the preface and footnotes; the promise of a published ‘article concerning this manuscript in the very near future’ never came to fruition.79

Mus. 70 is the sole surviving partbook of an original set of three containing lyra-viol trios. It is bound in contemporary brown reversed calf leather with gilt-stamped arms of Charles I on the covers; the reversed calf binding is unlike any of the other autographs. The cover stamp is the same as that on D.229 and MS 31432 (SRA VII; Fig. 2.13b). The reversed calf covers incorporate an earlier vellum binding.80 On the front vellum cover Lawes wrote ‘Three Lyra Vialls’ . It is note-worthy that this titling is significantly different from the inscription on the covers of GB-Och, Mus. MSS 725–7 (see Chapter 4). Two flyleaves (at either end) sepa-rate the reversed calf and vellum covers; no watermarks are visible, although the paper is different from that in the rest of the volume suggesting that they were incorporated with the outer binding. The watermarks of the ruled pages suggest that the paper dates to the 1620s or early 1630s; the vellum binding is likely to have originated around this time. A book label on the inside cover reads ‘Robert Trollap (of Yorke and Newcastle, Free-Mason) his Booke, 1657’ . Trollap was made a freeman of York in 1647–8: joined by his brother ‘Henricus Trollopp, bricklayer’ in 1669.81 The label suggests that Trollap did not possess the other two volumes (although they could also have had the same label). Pinto has convincingly argued that Lawes was in or near York around April-July 1644, around the time of the siege,82 at which time the manuscript may have come into Trollap’s possession. W. H. Cummings (1831–1915) owned the manuscript by the late nineteenth century (for later owners, see Appendix 1, pp. 316–17). The Index notes that there are two hands in the manuscript. The first, unidenti-fied, scribe (Hand H) copied eight pieces (in tablature) at the start of the volume (Fig. 2.29). There are then eighteen pieces copied by Lawes. The tablature in the Lawes portion of the manuscript shares many characteristics with the two known examples of Lawes’s tablature in B.2 and MS 31432. The first eight pieces of the

78 It is discussed in CunninghamLVT.79 LefkowitzWL, x.80 Cf. Music Manuscripts at Harvard, ed. B. Wolff (Cambridge, MA, 1992), 95–6.81 Register of the Freemen of the City of York from the City Records, II: 1559–1759, ed. F.

Collins (Durham, 1900), 106, 136.82 PintoY.

LAWES.indb 76 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.29 US-CAh, MS Mus. 70, fol. 6r: anonymous portion (Hand H)

LAWES.indb 77 19/03/2010 10:57


manuscript are unattributed: the first five are untitled. These pieces are tentatively assigned to Lawes in the Index, but as Lawes began his group of pieces after an interval of several pages and did not sign any of them this seems unlikely. Indeed, he appears to have left the unused pages deliberately to separate the two groups. The holograph portion was compiled in two stages: fols 11v–16v (Portion 1) and fols 17r–20r (Portion 2). Both portions contain differing examples of Lawes’s

Fig. 2.30 US-CAh, MS Mus. 70: (a) fol. 13r, detail: Portion 1 (The ‘Will Lawes’ under the signature appears to have been written by Cummings.); (b) fol. 14v, detail: Portion 1;

(c) fol. 15v, detail: Portion 1; (d) fol. 16v, detail: Portion 1

(b)

(a)

LAWES.indb 78 19/03/2010 10:57


signature. In Portion 1 they are notably different from the mature form. The secre-tary ‘ll’ with the horizontal dash is present, although the second ‘l’ is not as elabo-rate as in the ‘mature’ signature. Instead of the base of the ‘ll’ coming under the ‘awes’ it runs into the ‘awes’ (‘running’ signature). Although this is similar to the two late examples in MS 31432 (cf. Figs 2.26 and 2.30a–d), it is significant that all of the first portion signatures lack the flowing loops characteristic of his mature hand. (The loops are only missing from the first instance of ‘running’ signature in MS 31432.) Furthermore, whereas the ‘running’ signatures of MS 31432 appear to be aberrations, there is a consistency of letter formation in this portion of Mus. 70. Also of note is the bar that crosses the ‘ll’ . In the ‘mature’ signature this is usually an elongated loop (sometimes done without lifting the pen), whereas in Portion 1 it is an unelaborated single dash, done with one (separate) stroke. In all but one of the ‘Willawes’ signatures in Portion 1 William is abbreviated to ‘Wi’; only the last piece of the section uses ‘Wj’ . Of the eight Portion 1 signatures, seven are

(c)

(d)

LAWES.indb 79 19/03/2010 10:57


variations of the same basic (and early) ‘Willawes’ . This is not found in any of the other autograph sources. There is only one significant aberration in Portion 1. Alman {564} on fol. 12r is the only signature to have a capital L, a form of Lawes’s signature found in only one other instance: the Shirley partbooks, fol. 29r (cf. Figs 2.10a and 2.10b),83 suggesting that it is an early form. All of the Portion 1 signatures (and titles) vary between the Greek and italic ‘e’ forms. In Portion 2 the signatures are mostly consistent with the ‘mature’ form, although the two forms of ‘e’ are again found: fols 17r, 17v, 18r and 18v have the italic ‘e’: the last four pieces have the epsilon. This suggests that there was some time difference between compilation of the two autograph portions, and that the second was later and closer to Lawes’s mature hand. Portion 2 does contain signa-ture aberrations, implying that it is still relatively early, perhaps c. 1632–3. The main aberration is on fol. 18v, Saraband {444}. This is similar to the ‘WLawes’ aberration in Portion 1, but here there is a lowercase ‘l’ before the capital (Fig. 2.31). This is closer to the ‘mature’ form (lacking the ‘i’ or ‘j’), whereas the Portion 1 aberration is closer to the earlier example from the Shirley partbooks. This supports the earlier suggestion that Lawes experimented with various forms of his signature, and that the secretary ‘ll’ came about gradually (see Figs 2.30a–d and 2.32a–c). It is also

83 This signature can be compared to several other examples in the Shirley partbooks.

Fig. 2.31 US-CAh, MS Mus. 70, fol. 18v, detail: Portion 2

LAWES.indb 80 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.32 US-CAh, MS Mus. 70: (a) fol. 17r, detail: Portion 2; (b) fol. 19r, detail: Portion 2 (The tuning legend is also in Lawes’s hand.); (c) fol. 18r, detail: Portion 2

(c)

(b)

(a)

LAWES.indb 81 19/03/2010 10:57


perhaps worth mentioning that the anonymous portion and the first autograph portion of Mus. 70 contain pieces exclusively in the ‘eights’ tuning popular earlier in the century, whereas the second autograph portion pieces are in the ‘harp-way’ tunings popular in the 1630s (see Chapter 3). There are two main differences in the tablature lettering from the first to the second autograph portions: the letters ‘f ’ and ‘y’ .84 In Portion 1, the ‘f ’ has an upwards curved tail and only a slight rightwards curve at the top. In Portion 2 the ‘f ’ has a more pronounced rightwards curve at the top and a less elaborate curve at the bottom (cf. Figs 2.30a and 2.33). Indeed, the tail at the bottom often appears to have been written separately to the rest of the letter, which would leave the ‘f ’ in its basic form similar to later examples in MS 31432 and B.2. This second ‘f ’ is also found at the start of the lute suite in B.2, although in the lute suite Lawes abandons this ‘f ’ by the end of the second system in favour of a plain ‘f ’ formed by a straight vertical stroke and a straight horizontal stroke, similar to a lowercase ‘t’ . This is the same form of ‘f ’ found in the three tablature pieces in MS 31432 (see Figs 2.34a–b). The case is similar for the letter ‘y’ , although there are fewer instances available for comparison: ‘y’ is not used in the lute suite. In the first autograph portion of Mus. 70 the ‘y’ (like the ‘f ’) mostly has an upwards curving tail, whereas in Portion 2 the tail is less pronounced; it is similar to the letter ‘f ’ . In the tablature of MS 31432 ‘y’ is again similar to ‘f ’ , and again the upwards curving tail is omitted. As with the ‘f ’

84 ‘i’ is often replaced by ‘y’ in tablature because of its separate dot, which could cause confusion. ‘j’ was not used as it could be too easily confused with ‘i’ , and because ‘j’ was regarded as a variant of ‘i’ until the nineteenth century.

Fig. 2.33 US-CAh, MS Mus. 70, fol. 17r, detail

LAWES.indb 82 19/03/2010 10:57


Fig. 2.34 (a) GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2, p. 86, detail: Lawes lute suite; (b) GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432, fol. 1v: ‘Sarabd’ for solo lyra-viol

(a)

(b)

LAWES.indb 83 19/03/2010 10:57


in the lute suite, however, the less elaborate ‘y’ is found alongside the more elabo-rate version in Mus. 70, Portion 1 (e.g. Figs 2.30c and 2.30d). This suggests that such changes occurred over a brief period, and that the two autograph portions were copied within a relatively short space of time. The differences in the tablature letters between MS 31432 and B.2 and Mus. 70 are perhaps also related to the different functions of the manuscripts. The former appear to be compositional drafts, whereas Mus. 70 was presumably part of a set of performance parts, copied in Lawes’s ‘informal’ style. In other words, the tabla-ture in Portion 2 of Mus. 70 is a more careful ‘informal’ version of the tablature in B.2 and MS 31432. There is an exact parallel in the harp consorts, which are in the ‘compositional draft’ style in B.3 and in the ‘informal’ style in D.238–40. This adds further weight to the theory that Lawes’s hand varied according to the function of the manuscript, and implies that Lawes’s tablature hand (like his music and text hands) did not change significantly after c. 1633. The anonymous copyist (who numbered his own pieces, e.g. Fig. 2.29) also numbered the pieces (1–11) in the first Lawes portion, but did not make any anno-tations to Portion 2. This confirms the division of the autograph portions, and may suggest that the manuscript initially belonged to the anonymous copyist who perhaps commissioned Lawes to add some of his own pieces (Portion 1), and who subsequently numbered these pieces. Sometime thereafter, Lawes may have acquired the manuscript, or at least the first copyist no longer had access to it (as he did not add any further pieces or add numerations to Portion 2). This is supported by an analysis of the inks. The anonymous portion was copied using a light brown ink, now quite faded and difficult to make out in places. Some of the revisions (fols 4r and 6r) are in a much darker ink; these are where the copyist has entered bars he originally omitted (fol. 6r; Fig. 2.29, stave 4) or has removed duplicated bars (fol. 4r). The first Lawes portion was written in good quality black ink, clear even today with little bleed-through. Portion 2 was also copied using a black ink, although it is of poorer quality than in Portion 1. It is still quite clear, but the ink often blotched (especially in the tails of the letter ‘f ’) resulting in much bleed-through. The differences in the tablature letters are not observable in Lawes’s hand-writing in the two portions. There is an inherent problem with attempting to form a link between a scribe’s text and tablature hands. Tablature and text letters are not always formed in the same way, and tablature letterforms are often highly con-ventional, such as the Greek gamma (Γ) denoting the letter ‘c’ to avoid confusion with ‘e’ . There are some notable similarities however between Lawes’s tablature hand and aspects of his text hand, of which we have examples in the song texts in MS 31432 and B.2. In general, Lawes’s lowercase ‘f ’ when written in song texts is written with no tail at the bottom and a small loop at the top, especially when ‘f ’

LAWES.indb 84 19/03/2010 10:57


is the last letter of the word. This is not always the case. Examples are found of the letter ‘f ’ with a looped tail juxtaposed with the straight-tailed ‘f ’ (Fig. 2.34a). Such inconsistencies add further difficulties to dating letterforms, but generally, looped tails do not seem to be a common feature of Lawes’s later hand. The case is similar regarding the letter ‘y’ , which is most commonly found in song texts with no loop at the bottom but with a narrow rightward upwards tail (Fig. 2.34b). The letter ‘y’ is not used in the B.2 tablature; however, there are several examples of ‘g’ with elaborate loops (Fig. 2.34a). The capital letter ‘A’ used in titles in Mus. 70 contributes further evidence that the first autograph portion was compiled relatively early. The two almans and the aire are written with a broad upwards curve flowing from the left stem of the capi-tal ‘A’ , more elaborate than the ‘upturn A’ discussed earlier. Elaborate upturns on the capital ‘A’ are most commonly found in the Shirley partbooks (cf. Figs 2.30a, 2.30c and 2.30d, with Fig. 2.6b). In the rest of the sources the capital ‘A’ is usually written with either no left tail (‘straight A’; Figs 2.21, 2.27 and 2.28) or a rather short one (i.e. ‘upturn A’ , which is also found in the Shirley partbooks; Figs 2.1a, 2.9a–b, 2.12a–b, 2.16b, 2.19a–b). The ‘upturn A’ is a common feature of Lawes’s ‘formal’ presentation style. The two examples of the word ‘Aire’ in the second autograph portion of Mus. 70 seem to confirm this pattern. Both are written in the style common throughout the later sources (‘upturn A’), adding further weight to the suggestion that some time elapsed between the copying of the two autograph por-tions. The capital ‘A’ with an elaborate upturn on p. 31 of B.2 is a rare aberration in the scorebooks. The separation of the autograph portion into two sections has implications for the manuscript’s concordances, which are found in GB-Och, Mus. MSS 725–7 and GB-HAdolmetsch, MS II.B.3. It seems significant that all of the MSS 725–7 con-cordances are found in Portion 1 and all the II.B.3 concordances in Portion 2. It is likely that the first portion of Mus. 70 (which contains a divergent reading of one strain of Humour {568}) is earlier than MSS 725–7, suggesting that Lawes com-posed (and revised) lyra-viol trios at different times throughout his career (see Chapter 3). From their presentation style, it seems likely that Mus. 70 is from a set of performance parts; it lacks the ‘formal’ presentation style of D.238–40, D.229 and MS 17798. Given the relationship with its concordances, Mus. 70 appears to have been compiled from two separate (now lost) autograph scores containing Lawes’s lyra-viol trios, perhaps similar to B.2 and B.3. The first (lost) scorebook also appears to have been related to MSS 725–7 and to Portion 1 of Mus. 70. It is likely to have been a relatively early manuscript but slightly later than the Shirley partbooks, perhaps dating to the early 1630s. Portion 2 of Mus. 70 could have been copied from a second (lost) scorebook, explaining why II.B.3 only includes pieces from this section with no connections to the earlier part of Mus. 70 or MSS 725–7.

LAWES.indb 85 19/03/2010 10:57


Portion 2 was copied later than Portion 1 but is also relatively early, perhaps dating to between The Triumph of Peace and Lawes’s royal appointment. Another factor suggesting that the manuscript as a whole is relatively early (i.e. pre-1635) is the decorative endings, which lack the horizontal dash generally characteristic of the later sources. Examples of the decorative flourish without the dash can be found in MS 31432; nevertheless, the Mus. 70 decorative endings are identical to those of Lawes’s A1 hand in the Shirley partbooks (for example, cf. Fig. 2.9a and 2.30a–d). II.B.3 seems to be a more complete copy of the phantom scorebook, implying that either the scorebook was added to after Mus. 70 (but before II.B.3), or that Mus. 70 is a selection volume. The latter seems most likely given Mus. 70’s partial relation-ship to both the known concordant manuscripts. Some confusion arises regarding the order in which the pieces on the last two pages were entered (fols 19v–20r; Fig. 2.35). The Toy is begun on fol. 19v, with the last four bars concluded on the bottom of fol. 20r under the Thump, indicating that the Toy was entered after the Thump. The Thump was completed with the title and signature in the right-hand corner, a common position for Lawes to write titles and or signatures. After this Lawes began the short Toy under the Aire on fol. 19v. Why he copied the Toy here is unclear; there are plenty of unused pages after fol. 20r. The Toy is evenly spaced and clearly presented. This is not always the case when Lawes squeezed in pieces. The last few bars of the Toy on fol. 20r are somewhat more compressed than those in the rest of the piece, confirming that the words ‘Thump Wjllawes’ were already present, forcing Lawes to make the last few bars slightly more compact. The answer seems to be that Lawes entered the Toy here because it was intended to be played between the Aire and Thump in a suite. Indeed, these three pieces, preceded by the Pavan, are all in a new tuning (and key) sequence. Mus. 70 appears to have originated in a vellum binding, probably owned by the anonymous copyist. The first autograph portion was probably compiled c. 1630, and almost certainly before Lawes’s participation in The Triumph of Peace. At some later point Lawes added the second group of pieces, probably around the time of The Triumph of Peace, by which time his hand had assumed many of its ‘mature’ characteristics. Lawes’s connections to the anonymous copyist are unclear: was he a fellow musician, a patron, or a friend? Whereas one cannot entirely dis-count the possibility that the anonymous copyist had the volume bound in the reversed-calf covers, this seems unlikely. It is more plausible that Lawes had the volume(s) bound by the court stationer following his court appointment. Perhaps the anonymous copyist gifted Lawes the volumes to celebrate the appointment; or perhaps he was a court musician with whom Lawes supplied lyra-viol trios in the early 1630s in the hopes of getting them played at court. Of course, the fact that Mus. 70 has the royal coat of arms stamped on the cover need not imply that Lawes

LAWES.indb 86 19/03/2010 10:57


acquired the manuscript post-1635; as we have seen with B.2–3, Lawes appears to have been able to acquire such bindings before his appointment.

❧ Conclusions

Lawes’s hand does not seem to have changed significantly after the early 1630s or so. His earliest hand in the Shirley partbooks is readily identifiable, but

even so, traits observable therein are also found in much later sources. This study has shown that previous readings of Lawes’s early and late hands are flawed, and that it is more useful to distinguish between the functions of the manuscripts. For example, there seems to be an identifiable difference between Lawes’s copying hand and his more flowing, or (to borrow Pinto’s term) ‘cursive’ , hand present in sources that appear to be personal manuscripts or sketchbooks. Moreover, there seems to be a further distinction between Lawes’s ‘formal’ and less formal (‘infor-mal’) copying hands. These two kinds of presentation styles appear to be closely related to the function, or intended function, of the manuscripts. The similarities between the ‘formal’ portions of D.238–40 and D.229, and MS 17798 are evidence that Lawes cultivated a mature ‘formal’ copying hand that remained consistent into the late 1630s and 1640s.

Fig. 2.35 US-CAh, MS Mus. 70, fols 19v–20r

LAWES.indb 87 19/03/2010 10:57


Three main kinds of presentation style in Lawes’s manuscripts are identifiable, each of which reflects the manuscript’s function. First, the ‘compositional draft’ style evident in B.2–3, and in the viol consort sequence in D.229. In this style Lawes does not cultivate any kind of ‘formal’ script; it is characterized by frequent revisions (palimpsests etc.), a generally quite messy script often quite squashed (and rightward leaning), and by the final conical flourish; any texts are given only partially. Second, the ‘formal’ style characterized by a careful hand, evenly spaced notes and a calligraphic final barline (e.g. MS 17798, and the fantasia-suites and bass viol suites in D.238–40 and D.229). It is important to note that the ‘formal’ style is also at times slightly untidy and does contain mistakes and occasional revi-sions and corrections; corrections are generally inserted, however, not written as palimpsests (which suggests omissions). The third style is closely related to both the ‘formal’ and ‘compositional’ styles, and best described as the ‘informal’ style as illustrated by Mus. 70 and the harp consorts in D.238–40 and D.229. Overall, there is little difference between this and the ‘formal’ style; the lack of the calli-graphic final barlines is the main distinguishing feature. The presentation style of much of the Shirley partbooks is similar to Lawes’s later ‘informal’ style, although the intention was clearly ‘formal’ . The ‘informal’ style is also found in MS 31432, although the overall presentation style of this volume is quite untidy and has simi-larities with the ‘compositional draft’ style. The majority of the songs in MS 31432 are unlikely to have been composed there and overall the presentation style has most in common with the third category. The lyra-viol pieces at the start of MS 31432 are, however, in the ‘compositional draft’ style, and are unlikely to have been copied from another source: a lack of palimpsests etc. and fully written-out texts distinguish the ‘informal’ and ‘compositional draft’ styles. Identifying the presence of three presentation styles is important for under-standing the function of the manuscripts. The ‘compositional draft’ is easily com-prehended, although its presence in D.229 strongly suggests a change in the manu-script’s function from the ‘formal’ style of the early pieces. D.229 appears to have gone through three separate functional stages: the ‘formal’ stage of the fantasia-suites and bass viol pieces (entered at either end), the ‘informal’ presentation style of the harp consorts, and the ‘compositional draft’ style of the viol consorts. The distinction between the last two may not be clear-cut. As we have seen, the harp consorts appear to have been entered after the viol consorts in D.229 and Lawes may have been in the process of composing the harp parts therein. The case is yet more complex when one considers that the organ parts of bass viol pieces also appears to have been partially composed in D.229 (see Chapter 8), despite being written in the ‘formal’ style; they seem to represent a transitional point in the manuscript’s function. What function the ‘formal’ style represents is difficult to say, although it seems

LAWES.indb 88 19/03/2010 10:57


likely that Lawes put such effort into the ‘formal’ manuscripts with some pur-pose in mind beyond performance. Presentation, or the intention to present, to a patron seems to be a reasonable suggestion. This is perhaps best illustrated by MS 17798, which although copied in two stages retained the ‘formal’ style throughout. What relation the ‘informal’ style has to the ‘formal’ style is unclear. In D.238–40, D.229 and Mus. 70 it appears to be more related to performance from an easily read text than to presentation. Mus. 70 was certainly a playing part, suggesting a tangible link between presentation style and function. Lawes appears generally to have used the ‘informal’ style in his personal manuscripts: the ‘formal’ style appears to have been used for manuscripts intended for undetermined official or non-personal functions. MS 31432 is in a similar presentation style to Mus. 70 but appears to have been a pedagogical tool; clarity of presentation was not a prior-ity, as the manuscript did not need to be read by a group of musicians. Apart from Lawes (who evidently entered the songs quite hurriedly) those consulting MS 31432 would have used it to create their own texts. The Shirley partbooks are probably the earliest examples of Lawes’s hand and generally exhibit the ‘informal’ style, although this actually appears to be a nascent stage in the development of his ‘formal’ style proper. This manuscript was definitely copied for a patron, but the pieces in (what has been described here as) his ‘rushed’ hand again suggest that the initial function of the manuscript changed. Whether the main catalyst was the death of Sir Henry Shirley, or Lawes’s growing stature and confidence as a composer is impossible to tell. Either way, it seems highly unlikely that the change observed in Lawes’s hand throughout the Shirley partbooks was the consequence of additions in the late 1630s or early 1640s. It is frustrating that few characteristics of Lawes’s hand can be interpreted chronologically, a situation further hampered by Lawes’s ‘consistent inconsist-ency’ . Nevertheless, based on the evidence discussed in this chapter, a tentative chronology of Lawes’s autograph manuscripts (with suggested periods of usage) may be advanced (Table 2.1). It seems that the cultivation of a signature written in one fluid motion was important to Lawes, and that the evolution of his ‘mature’ signature was coinci-dent with his achievement of growing status beginning with the composition of music for The Triumph of Peace, a status consolidated by his admission to the Royal Music a year later. Mus. 70 captures part of the development of the signa-ture, as do the Shirley partbooks. Only late in the 1630s did his signature undergo change or variation, one that seems to have been closely related to constraints of space (‘short L’). The present investigation highlights the fact that we have too few of Lawes’s autographs, from too restricted a chronological range, to make definite conclu-sions about them. It has been obvious for some time that we lack many of Lawes’s

LAWES.indb 89 19/03/2010 10:57


manuscripts. Many more are hinted at by Henry Lawes’s oft-quoted remarks on his brother, ‘besides his Fancies of the Three, Foure, Five and Six Parts to the Viols and Organ, he hath made above thirty severall sorts of Musick for Voices and Instru-ments: Neither was there any Instrument then in use, but he compos’d to it so aptly, as if he had only studied that’ .85 Lefowitz suggested seven lost volumes:86

1. The three-part psalms.2. The verse anthems.3. The madrigals in three, four and five parts.4. The suites for lutes.5. Additional consort ‘lessons’ or dances for instruments.6. Pieces for wind instruments (perhaps).7. Works for the keyboard (perhaps).

Although one wonders how plausible nos. 4, 6 and 7 are, to this list there should perhaps be added at least one and probably two (or more) score volumes. These manuscripts would perhaps contain (scores of) lyra-viol trios, the original (Tr–Tr–T–B) version of the Royall Consort, the fantasia-suites and some of the harp consorts, perhaps with complete harp parts (assuming, of course, some of these were not originally on the pages abstracted from the surviving scorebooks).

85 Choice Psalmes, ‘To the Reader’ .86 LefkowitzWL, 32–3 and passim: the list is from 32.

Table 2.1 Proposed chronology of Lawes’s autograph manuscripts

Source Previously accepted dating(s)* Proposed dating(s)

Shirley partbooks

c. 1626–early 1633, with additions in the late 1630s/early 1640s a

mid-late 1620s?–early 1633

Mus. 70 c. 1620–1645 b c. 1630–c. 1633B.2 Various dates, from c. 1634–1645 c. 1633–c. 1639D.238–40 c. 1635–c. 1638 c c. 1638–c. 1641D.229 After 1640 d c. 1638–c. 1641B.3 Various dates, from c. 1634–1645 c. 1638–9–c. 1640MS 17798 Early 1640s e c. 1639–40MS 31432 c. 1639–41 f c. 1639–c. 1641

* No single source offers all dates.a PintoMVC; PintoFyV; D. Pinto, ‘Lawes, William’ , GMO (accessed 7 August 2009).b TraficanteMS, 19.c LawesFS.d LefkowitzWL, 32; see also PintoMVC; LawesCS.e LawesCS; PintoFyV: this date is implied though not explicitly stated.f Various sources: see the above discussion of the manu script.

LAWES.indb 90 19/03/2010 10:57


Nevertheless, one must be somewhat cautious in attributing so many lost score volumes to Lawes. There are occasional tantalizing references to pieces and col-lections by Lawes that have not survived. For example, ‘Mr. Lawes Consort for 2 Lyra’s [sic], a Violin and Theorbo, prick’d in quarto’ , his ‘Little Consort, in 4 parts’ , or his ‘Airs of 4 parts’ listed in Henry Playford’s 1690 auction catalogue:87 the last two items are likely to have been versions of some or all of the Royall Consort. There is also the ‘Two sets of [books] in 4 parts by Jenkins, Lock, Lawes, &c. ’ listed in Thomas Britton’s sale catalogue (1714).88 Indeed, one wonders to what pieces the Restoration biographer John Aubrey was referring in the following extract: ‘Our Vicar’s daughter, Abigail Slop, played in consort W. Lawes, his base’s three parts when she was not fully six years of age: she wanted one month of it, this to my knowledge’ .89 Was Aubrey referring to the lyra-viol trios, or did he intend to say that the girl played the bass part of Lawes’s three-part pieces: at any rate, impressive for a six-year-old! Until such chimerical sources become a reality, the lack of Lawes holographs can be compensated for (to an extent) by a detailed study of the minutiae of the extant sources, allowing us to present a more complete con-text for Lawes’s surviving consort repertoire.

87 PlayfordCC, respectively, nos. 60, 117 and 118.88 ‘Instrumental Music’ , no. 2. The original catalogue is lost; it is transcribed in

HawkinsGH, ii. 792–3.89 Aubrey on Education. A Hitherto Unpublished Manuscript by the Author of Brief

Lives, ed. J. Stephens (1972), 36–7. I am grateful to Andrew Woolley for bringing this reference to my attention.

LAWES.indb 91 19/03/2010 10:57

chapter 3

The Music for Lyra-Viol

Although its repertoire includes music by some of the finest English composers of the early seventeenth century, the definitive account of the

lyra-viol and its music has yet to be written.1 As with composers such as Coprario, Ferrabosco II and Simon Ives, music for lyra-viol forms a significant part of Lawes’s surviving output; this music is, however, understudied.2 The main reasons for this neglect seem to be because the solo repertoire is considered trivial3 and because much of the ensemble music is lost or survives incomplete. Over a quarter of a century ago, Frank Traficante described music for the lyra-viol as ‘any music from the late sixteenth to the early eighteenth centuries notated in tablature and intended for a bowed viol with a curved bridge’ .4 From this description we can immediately see that lyra-viol music does not have to be played on a lyra-viol. The term ‘lyra-viol’ , and the inconsistent ways in which it was applied by seventeenth-century commentators, has led to much scholarly debate.5 First, the term was applied to a specific instrument: a viol slightly smaller than the consort bass, with lighter strings (of lower action than the consort bass) and a less rounded bridge that those of the consort bass and division viol.6 The smaller dimensions and other modifications were to facilitate the performance of divisions and chords. In practice, however, a consort bass viol was often used. Second, ‘lyra-viol’ is used in sources to describe a particular tuning, known vari-ously as ‘The leero fashion’ , ‘Liera way’ , ‘Lyra way’ , ‘Leerow way’ and ‘the Bandora set’ . Third, ‘lyra-viol’ is used to characterize the repertoire generally: i.e. the use of

1 Frank Traficante was the first musicologist to approach the topic in detail (see Bibliography); see also J. Sawyer, ‘Music for Two and Three Lyra-Viols’ , JCAUSM 1 (1971), 71–96; A. Otterstedt, Die Englische Lyra-Viol: Instrument und Technik (Kassel, 1989).

2 Lawes’s ensemble lyra-viol music is discussed in LefkowitzWL, 126–39, and CunninghamLVT.

3 For example, see LefkowitzWL, 137. 4 TraficanteMS, 4: although imperfect (see F. Traficante, ‘Lyra-viol Music? A Seman-

tic Puzzle’ , in John Jenkins and His Time: Studies in English Consort Music, ed. A. Ashbee and P. Holman (Oxford, 1996), 325–51), this definition is understood in the following discussion. All tunings are here interpreted with the top string as a d'.

5 See Traficante, ‘Semantic Puzzle’ . 6 SimpsonDV, 2; see also F. Traficante, ‘Lyra viol’ , GMO (accessed 7 August 2009).

LAWES.indb 92 19/03/2010 10:57

the music for lyra-viol 93

tablature and (usually) altered tunings, regardless of the type of viol actually used in performance (i.e. playing a viol ‘lyra-way’). This is the most useful interpreta-tion and should be borne in mind throughout the following chapter. A largely English phenomenon, the lyra-viol (or playing the viol ‘lyra-way’) became popular among both amateur and professional musicians in the late six-teenth and early seventeenth centuries. An early indication of this popularity is found in Ben Jonson’s Cynthia’s Revels (1600), where two of the songs in Act 4 were accompanied by the ‘lyra’ , described as ‘an instrument that (alone) is able to infuse soule in the most melancholique, and dull disposde creature vpon earth’ (4.3.236–7).7 The songs are part of Jonson’s representation of a sophisticated Italian courtly entertainment, and a ‘lyra’ was used mainly because of this newly fashion-able way of playing the viol. In terms of etymology, ‘lyra’ is likely to refer to the derivation of the instrument from some form of the lira da braccio, an instrument also associated with chordal accompaniment, and often simply called ‘lira’ in con-temporary literature.8 Although the lira da braccio did not travel much beyond Italy, it is likely that the word ‘lyra’ travelled with the Italian émigré musicians, such as Alfonso Ferrabosco I, who subsequently applied it to the viol. The lyra-viol repertoire demonstrates a remarkable versatility; it includes solo music, song accompaniments, and ensemble pieces for consorts of lyras and for lyras as part of a mixed ensemble.9 Music for lyra-viol is usually written in French tablature (borrowed from lute music), which was important in facilitating the var-ious scordatura tunings.10 Nearly sixty tunings (including normal viol tuning) are known.11 Tunings are indicated by the letter (representing a fret) needed to pro-duce a unison with the next string, from high to low: ffeff describes the intervals of a standard viol tuning (fourths with a third in the middle). Only a handful of tun-ings were widely used: many are variants of the most popular ones. Each tuning had its own characteristics and limitations, often harmonic. In printed sources and carefully laid out manuscripts, pieces are usually grouped together by tunings, often leading to organization by key, as many tunings are only suited to one or two keys.

7 Ben Jonson, ed. C. H. Herford, P. and E. Simpson, vol. iv (Oxford, 1932), 3–184. 8 See E. Winternitz, Musical Instruments and their Symbolism in Western Art (1967),

86. 9 For a succinct introduction to the lyra-viol, see also John Jenkins: The Lyra-viol

Consorts, ed. F. Traficante, RRMBE 67–8 (Madison, WI, 1992).10 There are examples of lyra music in staff notation, especially later in the century;

these are beyond the scope of this discussion.11 Over fifty tunings are listed in F. Traficante, ‘Lyra Viol Tunings: “All Ways have

been Tryed to do It” ’ , AcM 42 (1970), 183–205, 256.

LAWES.indb 93 19/03/2010 10:57


Table 3.1 Main lyra-viol tunings

Tuning name Tuning String pitches Keys*

Viol-way ffeff D–G–c–e–a–d' G/g; D/d; F/f; A/aLyra-way fefhf C–F–c–f–a–d' F/fEights fhfhf AA–D–A–d–a–d' D/d; G/gHarp-way sharp defhf D–G–d–g–b–d' GHarp-way flat edfhf D–G–d–g–b b–d' gHigh harp-way sharp fdefh D–A–d–f #–a–d' DHigh harp-way flat fedfh D–A–d–f–a–d' d

* Given here are the keys commonly associated with the various tunings; the list is not intended to be exhaustive.

There are over seventy-five surviving manuscript sources containing lyra-viol music: the majority are English in origin.12 In addition, eighteen books contain-ing music for lyra-viol were printed in England between 1601 and 1682; none was printed between 1615 and 1651.13 In the early period ‘leero way’ and ‘viol way’ tun-ings were the most popular, certainly in the years before Alfonso Ferrabosco’s Lessons for 1. 2. and 3. Viols (1609). After 1609, ‘eights’ and ‘Alfonso way’ (ffhfh) became popular: when music publication recommenced in 1651 the popularity of ‘viol way’ , ‘eights’ and ‘leero way’ tunings had been usurped by the various ‘harp-way’ tunings, which became established in manuscript sources in the 1630s. Lyra-viol music continued to be popular at the Restoration court, as shown by the purchase of lyra-viols for the court in 1663 and 1671 by the viol player Theodore Stoeffken.14 Perhaps the best evidence of this popularity is the success of Playford’s Musicks Recreation: on the lyra viol .15 In 1651 Playford tentatively published twenty-four pieces for solo lyra-viol as the first part of A Musicall Banquet, a pub-lication obviously intended to gauge the potential market for printed music: the four sections of the Banquet contained the blueprint of Playford’s most success-ful collections.16 The lyra-viol section became Musicks Recreation, which went

12 See also TraficanteMS. Although in need of updating, Traficante’s list is the most complete currently available; see also Otterstedt, Lyra-Viol, 250–67 (largely derived from Traficante’s lists).

13 Listed in F. Traficante, ‘Music for the Lyra-viol: The Printed Sources’ , LSJ 8 (1966), 7–24; also Otterstedt, Lyra-Viol, 243–50.

14 RECM, i. 45, 103.15 From the second edition (1661) the title was amended to Musicks Recreation on

The viol, Lyra-way.16 See also, S. Houck, ‘John Playford and the English Musical Market’ , in ‘Noyses,

sounds, and sweet aires’: Music in Early Modern England, ed. J. A. Owens (Wash-ington, DC, 2006), 48–61, esp. 50–6.

LAWES.indb 94 19/03/2010 10:57


through four editions between 1652 and 1682. The kind of piece exemplified by the Playford lyra-viol collections is typical of the solo repertoire generally: short, relatively simple dances or popular tunes. Manuscript sources are often replete with ornament signs, which if realized can elevate simple tunes to varying degrees of technical brilliance.17 The lack of ornament signs in publications was due to the difficulty involved in replicating (a wide variety of) symbols using moveable type.

Ninety-seven lyra-viol pieces in seven tunings are attributed to Lawes,18 forty-three of which are solo pieces generally typical of the kind published

by Playford.19 Like much of the repertoire, most of Lawes’s lyra-viol music is found in single sources. His solo pieces are found in ten manuscript sources and in the first two editions of Musicks Recreation; most of these sources date to after his death and imply a larger background of now lost antecedent copies (Table 3.2). Perhaps the most interesting of the solo pieces are the three simple tunes (in defhf) on fols 1r–1v of Lawes’s autograph songbook, GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432. The first saraband and the corant appear on the recto side, with the second saraband on the verso side of the page preceded by a short vocal canon. Murray Lefowitz concluded that these pieces were ‘of no great significance’ .20 While musically this is true, they are the only solo lyra-viol pieces surviving in Lawes’s hand; indeed, they are the only solo pieces in the repertoire so far identified as holograph. Writ-ten casually on the opening pages of his songbook, one imagines Lawes was able to throw off such tunes with ease, although there are several signs of revision. All three bear similarities to many of the lighter dance pieces Lawes composed for

17 GB-Lbl, Add. MS 59869 is a good example of a source containing pieces replete with ornament signs.

18 This includes four arrangements of consort pieces ({73}, {343}, {345}, {346}) not listed separately in the Index, where a further eight anonymous pieces from US-CAh, MS Mus. 70 are also tentatively attributed to Lawes (see below). Another Aire attributed to Lawes in MS 59869, fol. 8r carries an attribution to Simon Ives in several other sources; listed in the Index as Ives {50}. At the time of writing, the Index does not include the three pieces in GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432 (discussed below), although they have previously been noted by scholars: see LefkowitzWL, 137; and PintoFyV, 26. All of Lawes’s lyra-viol music is edited in CunninghamMPC, ii. 390–470 (staff notation only).

19 This figure includes Ives {50}, the arrangements of consort pieces, and one part of what is probably a duo (Corant {541}, found in IRL-Dm, MS Z3.4.13: this manuscript is discussed in detail in J. Cunningham, ‘Lyra Viol Eccle-siastica: A Neglected Manuscript Source in Archbishop Marsh’s Library, Dublin’ , VdG SJ 3 (2009), 1–54 (available at http://www.vdgs.org.uk/files/VdGSJournal/Vol-03-1.pdf).

20 LefkowitzWL, 137.

LAWES.indb 95 19/03/2010 10:57


Table 3.2 Lawes: solo lyra-viol sources

Source No. of pieces Copied Main scribe

A-ET, Goëss MS B, seq.(93) 2 c. 1668 ?GB-CHEr, MS DLT/B 31 3 c. 1640–70 Peter LeycesterGB-Lam, MS 600 2 ?c. 1620 John BrowneGB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432 3 c. 1639–41 William LawesGB-Lbl, Add. MS 59869 8 ?c. 1659 Cartwright?a

GB-Lbl, Add. MS 63852 3 mid–late 17thC ?GB-Lbl, Mus. MS 249 1 late 17thC ?GB-Mp, MS BrM832Vu51 6 late 17thC Henrie Read?GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.245–7 2 before 1639 John MerroGB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. F.575 2 c. 1673b ?IRL-Dm, MS Z3.5.13 8 c. 1660s Narcissus MarshPlayford, MRLV (1652) 6Playford, MRLV (1661) 7

Note: This table includes cognates; for individual concordances, see Index and CunninghamMPC, ii. 726–31.

a Only one of the scribes has been identified, John Lilly; Cartwright appears to have been an owner, if not the main scribe. Bound with a copy of SimpsonDV: see IMCCM1, 77–81.

b Dated 1673, the manuscript was donated to the Music School by William Iles; it includes ten songs from the 1630s; several of the lyra-viol pieces suggest that it was copied c. 1670. Facsimile in ES1600–75, vol. 6.

7

13

20

27

3

Example 3.1 Lawes, Saraband for solo lyra-viol: GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432, fol. 1r

LAWES.indb 96 19/03/2010 10:57


three lyra-viols, most of which survive incomplete (see below). Of the three, the first saraband (Example 3.1) is the most notable, as it contains written-out divi-sions.21 Although the saraband should be played at a fast tempo, the divisions are technically undemanding. Whole strains with written-out divisions are uncom-mon in the lyra-viol repertoire, notwithstanding several printed instances by Play-ford in Musicks Recreation, and Thomas Mace’s claim later in the century that lyra-viols ‘will serve likewise for Division-Viols very Properly’ .22 The second saraband is also significant: it is one of the few lyra-viol pieces in Lawes’s hand to contain ornament signs. Ornaments, or ‘graces’ as they were generally known, are found in many lyra-viol sources.23 Graces were played by both the left hand and by using the bow, and were either fully written out or indicated by signs. In many sources, ornaments such as trills are often written out in full in the tablature, because improvisation in tablature is difficult for less experienced players. Ornament signs were unfortunately not codified and are rarely explained. The signs represent a dynamic tradition that was often idiosyncratic on a local level. Apart from the two signs in this piece, the other autograph sources use only slurs and dots (which indicate a pizzicato ‘thump’).24

Nine pieces attributed to Lawes were published between the first two editions of Musicks Recreation. Of these, two are unique to the first edition {421–2} and three to the second {464–6}; four were included in both editions {511–14}. Several of these pieces provide evidence of how the solo lyra-viol repertoire developed and disseminated. Only three of the Lawes pieces from Musicks Recreation are found elsewhere: all in GB-Mp, MS BrM832Vu51 (the largest single source of solo lyra-viol music);25 the two sources are apparently unrelated. Saraband {466}, attributed to ‘Thomas Goodge Or trulye Mr. Willm Lawes’ in the Manchester book, is clearly corrupt in the 1661 print. Corant {465} carries a similarly corrected attribution in the Manchester book (‘Mr Roger Read Or Trulye Mr Willm Lawes’); the text again contains several variants between the two sources. Alman {511} is also found in

21 David Pinto has noted a resemblance between the opening of this piece and Royall Consort Saraband {48}: PintoFyV, 26.

22 MaceMM, 246.23 For lyra-viol ornaments, see P. Furnas, ‘The Manchester Gamba Book: A Primary

Source of Ornaments for the Lyra Viol’ (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1978), i. 38–84; and M. Cyr, ‘Ornamentation in English Lyra-viol Music’ , Parts I-II, JVdGSA 34 (1997), 48–66, and 35 (1998), 16–34.

24 There are also two large # signs in Alman {570} from Mus. 70; this sign (‘shake’) was generally used to indicate a trill, although its meaning in this instance is unclear.

25 Contains 246 pieces in tablature and 12 in staff notation: see Furnas, ‘Manchester Gamba Book’ , includes transcriptions in staff notation and tablature.

LAWES.indb 97 19/03/2010 10:57


both sources but with no telling variants. Apart from the printed pieces, only one other solo piece by Lawes is found in more than one source. Corant {545} from the Manchester book is also found in the Merro partbooks, GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.245–7. The most telling of the few differences between the two sources is the lack of ornament signs in the Manchester book.26 Perhaps the most interesting of Lawes’s solo pieces is ‘faire fidelia’ {346} arranged for solo lyra-viol in GB-Lbl, Add. MS 63852, a manuscript of lyra-viol music, keyboard pieces and vocal music. The lyra-viol version appears to be an arrangement of a highly popular piece also found in two- and three-part consort versions,27 and arranged for solo lute (Rich-ard Matthew’s The Lute’s Apology (1652)) and four-course cittern (US-CAh, MS Mus. 181). The tune is set to the lyric ‘Clorinda, when I go away’ in US-NYp, Drexel MS 4027. Evidently popular, the piece appeared in all three of Playford’s two-part publications with the title ‘Elizium’ , perhaps hinting at a masque origin. If we take this brief account of Lawes’s solo lyra-viol music to illustrate the repertoire generally, we can see that dissemination took place largely through manuscript sources and that where pieces were disseminated (and most were not) they were likely to incorporate variants. While some variants are the result of cor-ruptions, many are linked to divergent approaches to graces and divisions. The variants can often result in significant departures from the ‘original’; this will also be observed in the ensemble repertoire. Solo lyra-viol music is characteristically amateur-orientated; it is also closely linked with the music played by profession-als. This is shown by the many intabulations for solo viol of consort pieces, such as {346} or {73} by Lawes. Aire {73} is best known as a five-part viol consort piece. It is also found in a widely disseminated two-part version, and in arrangements for keyboard and solo lyra-viol (see Chapter 5). Arrangements such as these dem-onstrate the complex relationship between the various compositional media, and also hint at a complex relationship between the amateur and professional rep-ertoires. As we shall see, within the context of the lyra-viol ensemble this rela-tionship between amateur and professional repertories can also be shown to be a particularly flexible one.

Lyra-viol ensembles appear to have developed as quickly as the solo repertoire. There are almost 300 surviving pieces for two lyra-viols and

over 170 for three. Of the trios, the composers of forty or so are unidentified. The remainder can be attributed to a relatively small group, mostly connected to the court: Tobias Hume, Ferrabosco II, Coprario, Robert Taylor, Simon Ives, Lawes

26 Those within the Merro books (D.245 and D.246) are almost identical.27 The tenor of the three-part version (US-NH, Filmer MS 3) was probably added by

the copyist Francis Block. See Index for sources.

LAWES.indb 98 19/03/2010 10:57


and Jenkins. Many of the duo and trios are unique and over half lack one part (or often two in the case of the trios). There are only seven surviving sources for the trios. Five are manuscripts, dating to c. 1630–50. The two printed sources date from the first decade of the century. One was published by Hume; the other is Ferra bosco’s Lessons.28

The sources and repertoire suggest that the lyra-viol trio originated with, and was developed primarily by, court musicians or by composers associated with the court, such as the courtier Tobias Hume.29 Nevertheless, it is likely that Ferra-bosco II introduced the lyra-viol trio to the English court, and that it was quickly taken up by composers such as Hume. Like so many other scoring innovations of the Jacobean period, lyra-viol ensembles appear to have been largely developed in the households of Princes Henry and Charles (later Charles I).30 In Henry’s house-hold there was a trio of viol players – Ferrabosco, Thomas Ford and Valentine Sawyer; Ferrabosco and Ford both published collections of lyra-viol music. Noth-ing is known of Sawyer after the death of Prince Henry in 1612 and the subsequent disbandment of his household. Ford was a singer-lutenist who also played the lyra-viol: his Musicke of Sundrie Kindes was published in 1607. Upon the creation of Prince Charles as Prince of Wales in November 1616, Ferrabosco and Ford were joined by another exponent of the lyra-viol, Robert Taylor. Coprario, another composer of lyra-viol trios, officially joined the household in 1622 but is likely to have served before this in an unofficial capacity. Andrew Ashbee has noted that ‘from lyra viol duets and trios, it was a logical step to incorporate the instrument in a mixed ensemble’ .31 This step appears to have been taken by Hume at the same time as his duos and trios. According to its title-page, his book of Ayres includes ‘Pauines, Galliards, and Almaines for the Viole De Gambo alone, and other Musicall Conceites for two Base Viols, express-ing fiue parts, … and for two Leero Viols, and also for the Leero Viole with two Treble Viols, or two with one Treble’ . Thus, Hume was composing for a mixed ensemble of one lyra-viol and two treble viols, or two lyra-viols and one treble.

28 T. Hume, The First Part of Ayres (1605): see Traficante, ‘Printed Sources’ for details. Hume’s Poeticall Musicke (1607) mostly contains trios with two parts given in French tablature, the third in staff notation. The tablature parts were intended for lyra-viols (ffeff), the first string tuned to g' : the third part was for a consort bass viol. Although essentially lyra-viol trios, they have been omitted from the present study as tablature is a requisite part of Traficante’s definition cited above.

29 Hume was probably in some way associated with James VI’s Scottish court, before his accession to the English throne in 1603.

30 For an account of music in the princes’ households, see HolmanFTF, 197–224.31 A. Ashbee, ‘John Jenkins, 1592–1678, and the Lyra Viol’ , MT 119 (1978), 840–3, at

842.

LAWES.indb 99 19/03/2010 10:57


He was more detailed in his recommendations of instruments to play his Poeticall Musick (1607). Although ‘Principally made for two Basse-Viols’ Hume’s title-page suggests various mixed consort combinations as an alternative, such as: two lutes and a bass viol, two orpharions and a bass viol, and two tenor viols and a bass viol, and finally ‘all these Instruments together with the Virginals, or rather with a winde Instrument [organ?] and the voice’ . This last suggestion appears to hint at some form of mixed consort. Indeed, the recommendation to replace the viol with the lute may indicate that the lyra-viol consort partly developed by substitut-ing the lyra-viol for the lute in similar mixed consorts. It was not until around the middle of the century that the instrumentation of the ‘lyra consort’ became more or less standardized: one or two violins or treble viols, lyra-viol, bass viol (or theorbo) and keyboard continuo (usually harpsichord).32 In 1676 Thomas Mace was still advising the addition of a trio of lyra-viols to complete the gentleman’s music collection, although he seems to be referring also to some form of the lyra-viol consort:

And now to make your Store more Amply-Compleat; add to all These 3 Full-Sciz’d Lyro-Viols; there being most Admirable Things made, by our Very Best Masters, for That Sort of Musick, both Consort-wise, and Peculiarly for 2 and 3 Lyroes. Let Them be Lusty, Smart-Speaking Viols; because, that in Consort, they often Retort against the Treble; Imitating, and often Standing instead of That Part, viz. a Second Treble.33

Whatever the connections to the mixed consort, lyra consorts are essen-tially two-part music, easily arranged from treble and bass parts by the addi-tion of a second treble part (if desired) and a tenor-range lyra-viol part, filled out by the continuo:34 the lyra-viol had the advantageous ability to perform melodic and continuo parts simultaneously. Peter Holman has suggested that Jenkins probably invented the lyra consort.35 Jenkins certainly appears to have

32 For more on the lyra consort, see Ashbee, ‘Jenkins and the Lyra-viol’; Jenkins: Lyra-viol Consorts, Introduction; AshbeeHM2, ch. 13. The lyra consort is the main sub-ject of I. Stoltzfus, ‘The Lyra Viol in Consort with Other Instruments’ (PhD diss., Louisiana State University, 1982): this dissertation is primarily descriptive of the extant (complete) repertoire and does not adequately discuss the origins or devel-opment of the genre.

33 MaceMM, 246. There are several examples of this in Jenkins’s lyra consorts.34 See HolmanFTF, 244–5. The case for a similar development from two-part origins

for the harp consort will be argued in Chapter 6, below.35 John Jenkins: Late Consort Music, Parley of Instruments, dir. Holman, cda66604,

liner notes, 4.

LAWES.indb 100 19/03/2010 10:57


been the leading contributor to the genre. Over sixty of his lyra consorts have survived complete and many more are known to have been lost or survive incomplete;36 they are difficult to date, however, and survive in late sources mostly connected with the North family.37 An annotation by Nicholas Le Strange on the flyleaf of a bass book of some of Jenkins’s three-part airs significantly suggests that the lyra-viol part was a later addition by Jenkins:38

The Lyra pt … is forced, and was only made for filling the Musicke of a private Meeting for they were originally composed for 1 Ba: 2 TR: and are compleate without the Lyra pt.39

Whether or not he invented the genre, Jenkins certainly pioneered the ensem-ble as it became known by the middle of the century. The other large collection of lyra consorts to have survived is Christopher Simpson’s Little Consort.40

We know from various sale catalogues from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, such as those of Henry Playford (1690) and Thomas Britton, as well as a seventeenth-century catalogue found in Gloucester Cathedral, that Lawes and others composed music for lyra consort.41 It is frustrating that many of the items listed in these catalogues have not survived: none of Lawes’s lyra con-sorts are known. The Playford and Britton catalogues also provide evidence that lyra-viol duos and trios were still known (and possibly performed) in the last dec-ades of the seventeenth century.42

36 See Jenkins: Lyra-viol Consorts, Introduction; see also Index. Jenkins’s lyra consorts are discussed in AshbeeHM2, 219–33.

37 Jenkins: Lyra-viol Consorts, Introduction.38 See AshbeeHM2, 219–33.39 US-Cn, MS VM.1.A.18.J.52c., quoted in AshbeeHM2, 226; see IMCCM1, 210–26 for

a description and inventory of the manuscript.40 Christopher Simpson: The Little Consort, ed. I. Stoltzfus, PRBVCS 43, 3 vols (Albany,

CA, c. 2001–2).41 PlayfordCC; ‘Britton Catalogue’ , reproduced in HawkinsGH, ii. 792–3; R. Andrewes,

‘Hidden Treasure in Gloucester?’ , VdGS Bulletin 28 (January, 1968), 13–14. For Play-ford catalogues see: W. C. Smith, ‘Playford: Some Hitherto Unnoticed Catalogues of Early Music’ , MT 67 (1926), 636–9, 701–4; L. Coral, ‘A John Playford Advertise-ment’ , RMARC 5 (1965), 1–12; and R. Thompson, ‘Manuscript Music in Purcell’s London’ , EM 23 (1995), 605–18.

42 An appendix containing a list references to the lyra-viol in English sources 1593–1749 can be found in Traficante, ‘Semantic Puzzle’ , 335–51. To this list should be added nos. 113–15 and 126 of the Britton catalogue; and ‘A set of Musick in four Books with black leather Covers in 4º. filletted with gold, Containing Six Consorts entituled within (The Violin part) (The Theorbo part) (The first Lyra part) (The Harpsichord and 2d Lyra part) the Musick is composed by Mr. William Lawes,

LAWES.indb 101 19/03/2010 10:57


Like the lyra consort, our understanding of the lyra-viol trio is hampered by the poor survival of sources: many more sources of duos have survived. It is difficult to account for the paucity of sources for trios, especially as the form appears to have remained reasonably popular into the early Restoration period (although trios do not appear to have been composed after the mid-1640s or so). Although three-part consort music in staff notation continued to be copied until the late seventeenth century, lyra-viol trios were not. The reasons for this are not hard to understand. By the early 1660s most of the leading contributors to the genre in the Caroline period were dead. Furthermore, even by Mace’s day the lyra-viol trio must have seemed arcane, whereas consort trio scorings were at least still current. Indeed, the very texts of the intabulated viol trio must have contributed heavily to the loss of manuscript sources in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; many tabla-ture manuscripts may simply have been thrown away during this period because owners did not know what they were or how to read the tablature. One, now lost, manuscript in particular perfectly illustrates this point. The bookseller Thomas Osborne (d. 1767) listed a pair of folio lyra-viol manu-scripts in several sale catalogues from 1749 to 1754:43

‘ A catalogue of Thirty Thousand Volumes, (With the Prices printed) of Several libraries Just purchas’d; Particularly the library of William Kynaston, Esq; … Mr. josiah martin , … W. Glanvil, Esq; the Revd. Mr. Jackson, And several others … to be sold, at t. osborne ’s … On Tuesday the 9th of May, 1749, and … every Day till the first of August’ .44

• ‘Letter L. English Folio’ , no. 1401: ‘Lawes’s and Jenkins’s Airs for two and three Lyra Viols of the new Tuning in MSS. 2 vol. bound in blue Turkey, gilt leaves, 1l 11s 6d’ .

‘ A catalogue of the libraries of richard graham , Esq; … Mr. thomas day, .… Rev. Mr. cawley, … And several others .… The whole containing above thirty Thousand volumes .… to be sold … At t. osborne ’s … On monday, the 11th of december, and … every Day, till lady-day, 1750’ .45

Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Simpson’ from ‘Musick Books belonging to the Cathedral of GloucR’: see Andrewes, ‘Gloucester’ , 13.

43 All available through Eighteenth Century Collections Online, www.galenet.galen-group.com. The reference from the December 1749 catalogue is also found in L. Coral, ‘Music in English Auction Sales, 1676–1750’ (PhD diss., University of London, 1974), 190; and Traficante, ‘Semantic Puzzle’ , 351.

44 GB-Ob, Bookstack 2593 e.2(8).45 GB-Ob, Bookstack 2593 e.2(9).

LAWES.indb 102 19/03/2010 10:57


• ‘Musick, Print and Manuscript. folio ’ , no. 2740: ‘Aires composed by Lawes and Jenkins for the 2. and 3. Lyra Violls of the New Tunings, as also for 3 Lyra Violls, by John Taylor, in MSS. 2 vol. bound in blue Turkey, gilt leaves, 1l 11s 6d’ .

‘ A catalogue of the libraries Of the Late Dr. cromwell mor-timer , … edmund pargiter , Esq; And many Others .… to be sold … At t. osborne ’s, … On the 26th Day of November 1753; and … every Day till November 1754. vol. i ’46

• ‘Poetry and Translations. folio ’ , no. 4527: ‘Laws’s Airs, composed for the 2d and 3d Lyra Viols, 2 vol. MSS. bound in blue Turkey, gilt Leaves, 1l 11s 6d’ .

‘ A catalogue Of the libraries of The late right honourable henry , Lord Viscount Colerane, The Honble Mr. Baron clarke , The Rev. samuel dunster , d.d. … And many others: Containing near two- hundred thousand volumes … to be sold … at t. osborne’s and j. ship-ton’s … On the Eleventh of November 1754; … they will continue daily selling for Two Years, viz. to the First of November 1756’ .• Vol. 2, ‘Poetry and Translations. folio ’ , no. 19206: ‘Law’s Airs, com-

posed for the 2d and 3d Lyra Viol, 2 vol. Mss. 1l 1s’ .47

Evidently the second and third books of an original set of three (although one of the books may have contained two parts on facing pages), they contained duos and trios ‘of the new Tuning’ (i.e. harp-way tunings) by Lawes, Jenkins and John Taylor (recte Robert?). One suspects that the sale catalogue description was found in the manuscript (cf. GB-HAdolmetsch, MS II.B.3, below), though it bears no resemblance to any known source. Osborne clearly found the manuscript difficult to sell, reflected in the diminishing description (which perhaps also tells us some-thing of the comparative reputations of Lawes, Jenkins and Taylor by the mid-eighteenth century), and by the reduction in price by 1754. The item was neverthe-less expensive in comparison to other music items in the catalogues: e.g. no. 4522 of the 1753 catalogue, ‘Locke’s 46 Airs for a Treble and a Bass, MSS’ , was on sale for a mere ‘5s’ . One hopes that Osborne eventually made the sale and that the books may yet turn up; the 1754 catalogue boasts availability in ‘all the Chief Cities and Noted Towns in Europe’ . The manuscript (complete set or not) highlights the simple fact that the arcane tablature notation made such items much less desir-able to collectors. Indeed, the ambiguity of the manuscript’s contents may also be reflected in its classification as ‘Musick’ in only one of the catalogues.

46 GB-Lbl, General Reference, 128.i.7.47 GB-Lbl, General Reference, 128.i.8–9.

LAWES.indb 103 19/03/2010 10:57


Historical accident notwithstanding, the paucity of lyra-viol ensemble sources may also be an indication that much of the repertoire was impro-

vised from solo pieces (or also from duos in the case of the trios) used as the basis for extemporized contrepartie settings.48 An important feature of the ensemble lyra-viol repertoire is the essentially egalitarian relationship between the parts. The individual parts of lyra-viol duos and trios are usually relatively complete har-monically and rhythmically. Many are capable of being performed as solo pieces and may have originated as such: for example, in his Musicke of Sundrie Kindes Thomas Ford described his lyra-viol duos as ‘Pavens, Galiards, Almaines, Toies, Iigges, Thumpes and such like, for two Basse-Viols, the Liera-way, so made as the greatest number may serue to play alone’ .49 Thus, a significant problem for study-ing the ensemble repertoire today is that many individual parts of lyra-viol duos and trios survive unidentified as solos. Ferrabosco’s Lessons appears to contain several examples of lyra-viol contre-parties. This important collection contains fifty-three solo lyra-viol pieces, twelve duos and two trios. It is also an important source for supplying missing parts to several of the nine pieces that are arrangements of his consort pieces for four or five viols.50 The book is arranged by tuning, with most of the solo pieces arranged into pairs of alman, galliard or pavan followed by a corant. The duos are simi-larly organized. One part of each of the six corant duos also appears earlier in the volume as a solo piece, with only minor variants. Although it is impossible to say so with certainty, it is tempting to suggest that the solo versions were composed first to complete the solo pairs and then recast with the duos, the second part added as a contrepartie. This is suggested by the fact that most of the solo corants are thematically related to the dance with which they are paired. None of the six duo versions of the corants are related to the dance with which it is paired: some are even in a different key from the preceding dance. If the Ferrabosco pieces are con-treparties, they would be early examples of the technique applied to the lyra-viol. Perhaps the best-known example of a contrepartie by an English composer is by Lawes. In his scorebook GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2 (p. 86) there is a short three-movement suite for two lutes, consisting of an alman and two corants. These are Lawes’s only surviving pieces for lute. The first part of the alman has been identi-fied as an alman for solo lute by the French lutenist René Mesangeau (d. 1638)

48 Contrepartie is generally used to describe a second lute part added to a pre- existing solo lute piece, most French baroque lute duets were composed in this manner; its use here is not limited to the lute repertoire.

49 The duos are edited in Thomas Ford: Lyra Viol Duets, ed. O. Timofeyev, RRMBE 90 (Madison, WI, 1998).

50 Christopher Field (FieldCW) has convincingly argued that the lyra-viol versions postdate the consort versions; see also FerraboscoCM.

LAWES.indb 104 19/03/2010 10:57


published by Pierre Ballard in Tablature de luth de different autheurs, sur les accords nouveaux (Paris, 1638).51 According to Matthew Spring, ‘The version of the Mesangeau allemande used by Lawes is reasonably accurate, when compared with the published version, though a few rhythmic variants are to be found and all ornamentation is absent’;52 this suggests that Lawes used the published version (or a source derived from the print), giving a terminus a quo of 1638. Neverthe-less, he may not have taken the piece directly from the printed volume, perhaps obtaining it through an English (or French) lutenist at court. The original alman was well known in Britain and is found in several manuscript sources.53 Lawes’s contrepartie (i.e. Lute 2) complements the alman perfectly. The setting pre-dates any known lute contrepartie in French sources, the earliest of which dates from the period 1650–70.54 David Pinto has suggested that Lawes may have composed the contrepartie as ‘a tombeau’ to Mesangeau, who died sometime in January 1637/8.55 Mesangeau visited England in late 1631, although we have no way of knowing whether he had any contact with Lawes, directly or indirectly. It is curious that Lawes did not attribute the alman to Mesangeau. In each of the four known exam-ples of musical quotation by Lawes, he credited the relevant composer (see Chap-ters 7 and 8). This may indicate that he did not know who composed the alman, although if he took it from the printed edition this is unlikely; nevertheless, the lack of an attribution seems to weigh against Pinto’s tombeau suggestion. The two corants that follow seem to be original compositions by Lawes, although they may also be contreparties. Lawes’s lute pieces were written for twelve-course lutes; a b b' ‘on the eleventh [course] is consistently required, and an eleven-course lute in England c. 1640 would be unlikely’ .56 All three pieces are in the same style and show that Lawes had skilfully mastered the new brisé style popularized in England by French lutenists in the 1630s.

51 The alman was identified by Anthony Bailes: LawesFS, 114. The original is in René Mesangeau: Œuvres, ed. A. Souris (Paris, 1971), no. 34. See also D. Buch, ‘On the Authorship of William Lawes’s Suite for Two Lutes’ , JLSA 16 (1983), 12–14; SpringL, 351–5 (includes a complete transcription, facsimile and comparison of the alman from British sources; the first strain is also transcribed in LefkowitzWL, 138–9).

52 SpringL, 353.53 GB-Ctc, MS 0.16.2 (c. 1630), p. 109; GB-En, Sutherland papers, Dep. 314 no. 23

(c. 1643–4), fols 32r–32v; GB-En, MS 9449 (c. 1635–43), fols 26v–27v; F-Pcnrs, ‘Bullen Reymes’ lute book’ (c. 1632), fol. 34r. See M. Spring, ‘The Lady Margaret Wemyss Manuscript’ , LSJ 27 (1987), 5–30.

54 SpringL, 353 n. 171.55 D. Pinto, ‘Lawes, William’ , GMO; C. Chauvel, ‘Mesangeau, René’ , GMO (accessed

10 February 2009).56 SpringL, 353.

LAWES.indb 105 19/03/2010 10:57


Precedent for Lawes’s lute duet is perhaps found in the ‘Sampson’ (formerly ‘Tollemache’) lute book (GB-Lam, MS 602; c. 1609) where there is what appears to be a second part for John Dowland’s ‘Lord Willoughby’ for solo lute found in the ‘Folger-Dowland MS’ (US-Ws, Ms. V.b.280; c. 1590). Although the arrange-ment is unusual in that both parts double the bass all the way through, ‘there can be no doubt that the [Sampson] half is a later addition to an already existing solo, whether by Dowland himself or not, it is hard to say’ .57 A similar example is Giles Farnaby’s short alman for two virginals in the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book, where the first virginal plays the tune as the second adds embellished variations.58 These examples show that such arrangement techniques were used by composers in Eng-land in various genres throughout the first half of the century; the issue of author-ship of the Dowland arrangement is beside the point. Such techniques, composed or extemporized, could easily be applied to the lyra-viol, especially when setting dances for lyra-viol duos and trios. Composers and performers would probably have used such techniques to expand the repertoire as required. It is doubtful that contreparties were applied to more serious and highly imitative compositions such as fantasias, which were through-composed and not commonly found for solo lyra-viol. Extemporization based on dance pieces was a common feature of viol playing in the seventeenth century, especially among professionals. Dance strains were often repeated ad lib., and performers were expected to extemporize divi-sions when required. In addition to historical accident, extemporized contrepartie settings go some way to explaining why so few lyra-viol trio sources have survived despite the genre’s apparent popularity in the first half of the century. After Ferrabosco’s Lessons no lyra-viol trios were printed in England. No duos were printed after 1612, and after Robert Taylor’s Sacred Hymns (1615) no lyra-viol music was printed until A Musicall Banquet. The dearth of printed lyra-viol sources between 1615 and 1651 should not be interpreted as a decline in the instru-ment’s popularity. It was symptomatic of the general dearth of printed music in England in the second quarter of the century largely stemming from the various problems associated with the music-printing patent passed down through Byrd and Tallis to Thomas Morley and William Barley.59 From the 1620s onwards little new music was published in England. Commercial music printing in London only began with John Playford in the 1650s. Playford was an astute businessman. He

57 D. Poulton, John Dowland (2/1982), 169; edited in The Collected Lute Music of John Dowland, ed. D. Poulton and B. Lam (3/1981), 198–203.

58 The Fitzwilliam Virginal Book, ed. J. A. Fuller Maitland and W. Barclay Squire (1899), corrected and rev. B. Winogron, 2 vols (New York, 2/1979), i. 202.

59 For a succinct overview of music publishing in early seventeenth-century England, see HolmanD, 1–12; also D. Krummel, English Music Printing, 1553–1700 (1975).

LAWES.indb 106 19/03/2010 10:57


did not print lengthy or complex music; the more complex the music, the more difficult it was to print clearly in movable type. The solution would have been to print such music using engraved plates, which was prohibitively expensive. The various sale catalogues show that Playford did sell complex music, but in manu-script. Scribal publication – a common form of literary transmission – was rela-tively inexpensive, and manuscript copies were often easier to read than printed editions.60 From the second decade of the century the lyra-viol trio was dissemi-nated through manuscripts, many of which have not survived. Although the lack of manuscript sources is harder to account for than the decline of printed lyra-viol trios, the lacuna does not appear to be representative of a decline in the genre. We know that ensembles of lyra-viols continued to be popular at the English court into the 1620s and 1630s: duos and trios survive by Ferrabosco, Coprario, Lawes and Taylor. Indeed, in 1623 Ferrabosco received £20 for ‘a new Lyra and vyoll de Gambo’ , and a further £20 in February 1626/7 for ‘a greate Base Vyall, and a greate Lyra’ .61 Never theless, there are only five surviving manuscript sources for lyra-viol trios, all of which date roughly 1620–50:

1 GB-HAdolmetsch, MS II.B.32 GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.245–73 GB-Och, Mus. MSS 531–24 GB-Och, Mus. MSS 725–75 US-CAh, MS Mus. 70

Of these, only two survive complete, MSS 725–7 and D.245–7.62 With the exception of the earliest manuscript, MSS 531–2, Lawes’s music features prominently in each. The relationship between the sources of Lawes’s trios makes it clear that many others have simply not survived. In fact, our picture of the genre is likely to be extremely sketchy, which is lamentable given the high quality of the trios that sur-vive. Almost half of the fifty-eight trios attributed to Lawes are in ‘eights’ (fhfhf) tuning. Only six survive complete.63 They are found in three sources: II.B.3, Mus. 70 and MSS 725–7. Only MSS 725–7 is complete. II.B.3 and Mus. 70 are each one partbook of three. MSS 725–7 is one of the most important surviving lyra-viol

60 See H. Love, The Culture and Commerce of Texts: Scribal Publication in Seven-teenth-Century England (Oxford, 1993), esp. 3–34.

61 RECM, iv. 114; RECM, iii. 138.62 For D.245–7, see J. Sawyer, ‘An Anthology of Lyra Viol Music in Oxford, Bodleian

Library, Manuscripts Music School d.245–7’ (PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1972); IMCCM1, 139–66.

63 See also LefkowitzWL. {573} and {568} were published in LawesSCM. The complete trios have been published in William Lawes: Lessons for Three Lyra-viols, ed. R. Carter and J. Valencia (Kritzendorf, 2006).

LAWES.indb 107 19/03/2010 10:57


sources. These three oblong quarto partbooks (c. 280 × 190 mm) are the latest surviving complete source of lyra-viol trios. Originally bound in soft cardboard, they are now bound as a single volume. In addition to the six Lawes trios, there are also two complete trios by Robert Taylor and one part for ten trios by Simon Ives (Table 3.3).64 The watermark of the ruled pages bears the typical features of Norman paper from the 1630s as described by Robert Thompson.65 Such paper is commonly found in manuscripts up to the mid-1650s, although it seems ‘to have lacked the weight considered necessary for a music book of special quality’ .66 All titles, tempo indications and numberings appear to have been written by the copy-ist, who also wrote the inscription on the cover of each partbook: ‘for 3 liero violls second pte’ (MS 726).67

Judging by the difference in the inks, the books were compiled in three stages corresponding to the composers represented. None of the pieces contains orna-ment signs, except for a few slurs and some random signs in some of the Ives pieces. Tempo indications (‘fast’ and ‘slowe’) were added to the second Lawes Fan-tazy {567} and to the last strain of his Humour {568}. The copyist of MSS 725–7 is the same person as Richard Charteris’s ‘Scribe A’ and Pamela Willetts’s ‘Hand B’ , who copied GB-Lbl, MS R.M.24.k.3, parts of GB-Ob, Tenbury MS 302, GB-Lcm, MSS 1045–51 and GB-Och, Mus. MSS 732–5.68 The attribution seems safe enough, although in the case of MSS 725–7 it hinges upon the titles and ascriptions rather than on the tablature. There has, however, been some disagreement on the identity of the copyist. David Pinto has argued that MSS 725–7 is in Lawes’s hand ‘comparable with the early work in the Shirley books (and in other possible occurrences); one can safely date them before 1635’ .69 He has also suggested that R.M.24.k.3, which dates to the mid-1620s and contains the organ part to Coprario’s fantasia-suites, is ‘entirely in the youthful hand of Lawes’ .70 It should be said that there are many similarities between some of the

64 The manuscript (with reconstructions of the Ives pieces) is transcribed in Cunning hamMPC, ii. 406–31. See also Cunningham, ‘Lyra-Viol Ecclesiastica’.

65 IMCCM1, 297.66 ThompsonP, 144.67 The Harvester microfilm of the manuscript does not reproduce the covers, a

significant omission as they provide further examples of the copyist’s hand; cf. the note on the vellum cover of Mus. 70 (see Chapter 2 above, p. 76).

68 R. Charteris, ‘Autographs of John Coprario’ , ML 56 (1975), 41–6; WillettsJB. Neither uses MSS 725–7 as exemplars of the hand. Common scholarly consensus has underscored this attribution: FieldFR, 206–7 (and n. 54); FieldJCH, 12–13 (and n. 31); WainwrightCC, 206–7 (and n. 98).

69 PintoFyV, 27. See also PintoMVC, 22 n. 15; Pinto, ‘Lawes’ , GMO.70 LawesFS, xvi.

LAWES.indb 108 19/03/2010 10:57


Table 3.3 GB-Och, Mus. MS 727: Inventory

Folios No. Title Attribution Key Tuning VdGS

‘Eights’0r [Unused]a

0v–1r ‘ffantasie first’ b ‘W: Lawes’ G fhfhf {567}1r ‘Serabrand’ ‘W: Lawes’ D fhfhf {569}1v ‘Pauin: first’ ‘W: Lawes’ c d fhfhf {563}2r ‘Almaine’ ‘W: Lawes’ d d fhfhf {564}

2v–3r ‘fantasie. Second’ e ‘Wj:Lawes’ d fhfhf {573}3v [‘Humour’] f ‘Wj:Lawes’ G fhfhf {568}

4r–5v [Unused]

‘Fifts’6r ‘Almaine. first’ ‘Mr Ro: Tayler’ g a ffhfh {25}6v ‘2. Almaine’ ‘Mr Ro: Taylor’ h a ffhfh {26}

7r–19v [Unused]

[Reversed end: folios are INV. MS 727 only; unused in MSS 725–6]

22v 2 ‘Mris Mary Brownes Choyce’ ‘Sy: Iue’ D fhfhf {141}22v 4 ‘Coranto’ ‘S:I:’ D fhfhf {142}22r 7 ‘Mris Colliers Choyce:’ ‘S:I:’ d fhfhf {143}22r 8 ‘The Choyce’ ‘S:I:’ d fhfhf {144}21v 10 ‘Mris Anne fforests Choyce’ ‘S:I:’ D fhfhf {145}21v 12 [Alman] ‘S:I:’ D fhfhf {146}21r 16 ‘The man in ye moone’ i ‘S:I:’ d fhfhf {147}21r 32 ‘Sir Will Owens Choyce’ ‘S:I:’ D fhfhf {148}20v 36 [Alman] ‘S:I:’ d fhfhf {149}20r 37 ‘All you for saken Louers’ ‘S:I:’ d fhfhf {150}

Note: The modern (pencil) foliation begins at ‘0’ . At the time of writing, the manuscript was not available for consultation due to renovations to the library.

a Opening of ‘fantasie first’ in MS 725.b ‘fantasia. first’ (MS 725); ‘fantasie. first’ (MS 726).c ‘WjLawes:’ (MS 726).d ‘Wj: Lawes’ (MSS 725–6).e ‘ffantasie: Second’ (MS 725).f Title supplied from Mus. 70; untitled in MSS 725–7.g ‘An Almaine by Mr Robert Tayler’ (MS 725); ‘Mr Robert Taylor’ (MS 726).h ‘Ro: Tay:’ (MS 725); ‘Ro: Taylor’ (MS 726).i A tune associated with Gray’s Inn Masque (1613), the music for which is presumed to have been

composed by Coprario.

LAWES.indb 109 19/03/2010 10:57


letterforms used by Lawes and ‘Hand B’ , though the formation of the letters in several instances also betrays dissimilarities. For example, the distinctive straight join between the second and third legs of the capital ‘M’ in the MSS 725–7 copyist is also not found in Lawes’s autographs. The capital ‘I’ in the Simon Ives pieces at the reverse end of MS 727 are also similar, although Lawes’s tend to lack the sharp curve at the top of the stem (formed from the top loop) (see Fig. 3.1). There are also similarities among the various signatures attributed to Lawes in MSS 725–7 (and MS 302) and the autograph portions of the Shirley partbooks (and even to Lawes’s later signature in B.2 and B.3). Although many of the signatures in MSS 725–7 are similar to Lawes’s, they seem more likely to be imitative than authentic (Fig. 3.2). There are several significant differences between the Shirley partbooks and MSS 725–7, such as the formation of quaver stems. Several other features suggest that MSS 725–7 is not in Lawes’s hand. First, there are distinctive signs on fol. 21v (INV.) of MS 727 apparently clarifying the rhythmic durations: see the opening bars of Fig. 3.1. This sign is found throughout other sources by this copyist, such as R.M.24.k.3 (e.g. fol. 12v), but is not found in any of Lawes’s autographs. Second, the upwards turn of the fermatas is not characteristic of Lawes’s hand, but it is a consistently observable feature of this copyist’s hand. Third, unlike the MSS 725–7 copyist, Lawes rarely uses superscript: this is most evident in the titles of the Ives pieces (MS 727). Fourth, and most important, the tablature in MSS 725–7 is quite different from Lawes’s known examples: Mus. 70, the lute suite in B.2, and the solo

Fig. 3.1 GB-Och, Mus. MS 727, fol. 21v (INV.), detail

LAWES.indb 110 19/03/2010 10:57


lyra-viol pieces in MS 31432. In these examples Lawes’s tablature is broadly consist-ent, although they appear to have been written over a period of almost a decade (see Chapter 2). Nevertheless, many traits are consistently observable, such as the looped tails on the letters ‘b’ , ‘d’ , ‘g’ and ‘h’ . Such looped tails are only formed in the letter ‘b’ of MSS 725–7; here too, the ‘g’ is formed as a modern ‘y’ topped by a horizontal line. It seems unlikely that this was another aspect of Lawes’s ‘consist-ent inconsistency’ described in Chapter 2. MSS 725–7 and Mus. 70 appear to have been copied for a similar purpose: playing parts or fair copies for dissemination. It is unlikely that Lawes’s tablature hand would have changed so dramatically for the same type of copying, even if several years separated the two manuscripts (which is also unlikely), especially given that Lawes’s hand does not seem to have changed significantly overall from the early 1630s. What we can say is that both Lawes and

Fig. 3.2 GB-Och, Mus. MS 725, fol. 4v, detail: Humour {568}

LAWES.indb 111 19/03/2010 10:57


Willetts ‘Hand B’ share many scribal characteristics, but with several telling points of variance. Willetts established (largely through MS 302) that ‘Hand B’ was associated with John Barnard, a minor canon of St Paul’s Cathedral. Thus, she reasonably assumed that the copyist was associated with the musical establishment of St Paul’s, plau-sibly suggesting John Tomkins (1586–1638) of the family of court musicians as a candidate.71 Both Tomkins and Ives had strong connections to St Paul’s. John’s many familial court connections strengthened the suggestion. For example, he could have gained access to the Lawes trios through Henry Lawes, with whom he served in the Chapel Royal from 1626. Henry also served with Robert Taylor, and Giles and Robert Tomkins in the LVV from January 1630/1. Also William Lawes wrote ‘An Elegie on the death of his very worthy Friend and Fellow-servant, M. John Tomkins, Organist of his Majesties Chappell Royall’ , who died in September 1638; the elegy was published in Choice Psalmes (1648).72

Whether the copyist can be identified, it seems likely that MSS 725–7 was com-piled before Lawes’s royal appointment in 1635. This is suggested by the ascrip-tions in the manuscript. Of the three composers, only Robert Taylor is given the honorific title of ‘Mr’ . This could be a reflection of his status as an established court musician, compared to Ives the city musician and up-and-coming William Lawes. It seems that the Lawes trios were selected from a larger, unknown source, perhaps similar to Mus. 70; five of them have one part concordant in the first autograph sequence of Mus. 70: ‘fantasie. Second’ is unique to MSS 725–7. The rather random assemblage of the pieces in MSS 725–7 suggests selection from a larger source; although the six Lawes pieces are arranged by tuning, they are not all grouped by key. Moreover, the pieces are not arranged as a suite, although the some of the titles (‘ffantasie first’ , ‘Pauin: first’ and ‘fantasie. Second’) suggest that they once were: similar titles are found in R.M.24.k.3, where the first movement of Coprario’s fantasia-suites is titled ‘ffantasia first’ etc. Even the sequence of three pieces in d does not follow any coherent suite pattern, running randomly from pavan to alman to fantasia. This random pattern adds further weight against the supposition that MSS 725–7 is in Lawes’s hand. Lawes was perhaps the driving force behind the development of the Baroque suite in England. Although the auto-graph portions of Mus. 70 are not all arranged into coherent suites, the pieces are arranged first by tuning and then by key. The two Taylor pieces are titled similarly to the Lawes pieces: ‘Almaine. first’ and ‘2. Almaine’ , and presumably also selected from a larger source. Although it is a consistent feature of ‘Hand B’ , Lawes pre-ferred ‘alman’ or ‘almane’ . In the autographs, Lawes used ‘Almaine’ only once: a

71 See WillettsJB.72 Edition: LawesCVM2, 53–6.

LAWES.indb 112 19/03/2010 10:57


three-part piece by Thomas Holmes in the Shirley partbooks (GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 40657–61, fol. 13v). Lawes used ‘Almaine’ in MSS 40657 and 40660 and ‘Almane’ in MS 40658. Nor is ‘ffantasie’ (as a variant of fantasia etc.) found in Lawes’s auto-graphs; the secretary ‘ff ’ indicating a capital is also not found. Robert Taylor, a composer of sacred and secular music, was a London Wait from 1620 and a member of the LVV from 1625 until his death in 1637. His surviv-ing output is likely to be a meagre representation of what he composed.73 Apart from his Sacred Hymns, mostly pieces for solo bass and lyra-viol survive. The two MSS 725–7 trios show Taylor to be a composer of quality.74 A consort version of the first alman also exists, in GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31423, a late seventeenth-century guardbook.75 The consort version is in g and only the treble and bass parts have survived, a third part is recoverable from the lyra-viol version. It seems likely that the piece originated as a consort piece and was later arranged for lyra-viols; it is unusual to find lyra-viol arrangements for the same number of instruments as the original, which suggests that the piece was originally for a larger consort. Much of Taylor’s writing is idiomatic and requires some technical facility in performance. Both pieces stylistically date from the first quarter of the century, probably around the time of Sacred Hymns. The imitative entries provide a subtle structural back-ground for both almans. The interplay between the three parts shows that Taylor conceived of lyra-viol trios in much the same manner as Coprario, Ferrabosco and Lawes, i.e. almost as three solo instruments with frequent crossing of the parts: unison writing (between the parts) is rarely used, except at cadential points. Taylor introduces variety between the strains and much of the music is carried through short imitative motifs; they are quite diatonic and most of the modulations are smooth. The second piece, Alman {26}, is more effective than the first (Example 3.2). The phrases are well balanced, the harmonies clear (there is even an effective madrigalian shift from an E major to a C major chord), and the sequential motif in the tripla strain works well, although the piece gets a little stuck at the opening of the second strain. The closing triple-time strain is derived from the idiom of masque almans and is more commonly found in dances from the first quarter of the century. To what extent Taylor influenced Lawes is difficult to gauge. He (and Coprario and Ferrabosco) uses multiple stops much more frequently than Lawes does. Stylistically the two Taylor pieces are closer to the trios of Coprario than of Lawes. The suggestion that the pieces in MSS 725–7 were selected from a larger source

73 See Index.74 Robert Taylor: Two Almaines for Three Lyra-Viols, ed. R. Carter and J. Valencia

(Kritzendorf, forthcoming).75 See IMCCM2, 77–81; the Taylor piece is in the fifth section (of six).

LAWES.indb 113 19/03/2010 10:57


is most clearly demonstrated by the Ives pieces. At the end of MS 727 there is a series of ten pieces by Ives in eights tuning. The title of the first piece runs as fol-lows: ‘Mris Mary Brownes Choyce by Sy: Iue ∙ for 3 lyros; the other parts ar in the 2 violl bookes’ (Fig. 3.3). The other partbooks are lost; they are unlikely to refer to MSS 725–6, as the sentence implies that that the parts were already copied. It is clear from the numbering that the copyist took a selection from a collection containing at least thirty-seven pieces. The answer seems to be that the ten pieces in MS 727 were written as contreparties (i.e. an additional third part) to an existing set of lyra-viol duos copied into a now lost set of two partbooks.76 Whether this collection also contained the pieces by Lawes and Taylor is impossible to tell; the Ives pieces are in a rather different style than those by Lawes and Taylor, and the system of numbering is different. The titles of the Ives pieces suggest that at least some of these pieces were connected to masques or other such entertainments. Six of the trios can be fully reconstructed from other sources, and one other part has been identified for the remaining pieces, facilitating an editorial reconstruction of the third part.77 The concordant parts are found in two main sources: (the Merro

76 See Cunningham, ‘Lyra Viol Ecclesiastica’ .77 The pieces are reconstructed in CunninghamMPC, ii. 422–31; the concordances

were identified by Peter Holman, who brought them to my attention.

5

9

Example 3.2 Robert Taylor, Alman {26}, opening

LAWES.indb 114 19/03/2010 10:57


partbooks) D.245–7 and IRL-Dm, MS Z3.4.13. Indeed, a second part for all ten MS 727 pieces is found in Z3.4.13.78

Lawes’s trios are probably the latest complete examples of the genre. Given the poor survival of trios it is fortunate that Lawes’s complete ones cover a variety of forms. There are two fantasias, a pavan, a saraband, an alman and a humour; they are comparable in length to Lawes’s five- and six-part viol consorts. Both fantasias are in a similar style. ‘fantasie. Second’ {573} is unique to MSS 725–7. In its variety and incorporation of dance rhythms, it is reminiscent of many of Lawes’s large-scale fantasias for five or six viols and organ. The inclusion of a triple-time section in a fantasia was rare for Lawes and perhaps shows the influence of Thomas Lupo’s fantasia-airs or Coprario’s fantasia-suites (Example 3.3). A triple-time section is found in only one other Lawes fantasia: Fantazia {135} in D for violin, bass viol and organ (see Chapter 6). Although both lyra-viol fantasias are relatively early works (probably dating to the early 1630s) they show a remarkable compositional maturity and are at times highly idiomatic. The other fantasia, {567}, is stylistically similar to the first but lacks many of the dance elements. Perhaps one of the most interesting features of this piece is the tempo indications given in the last strain, but which do not

78 This is discussed in full in Cunningham, ‘Lyra Viol Ecclesiastica’ .

Fig. 3.3 GB-Och, Mus. MS 727, fol. 22v (INV.), detail

LAWES.indb 115 19/03/2010 10:57


32

35

38

42

46

51

4

4

4

3

3

3

Example 3.3 Lawes, ‘fantasie. Second’ {573}, bars 32–54 [LawesSCM: bars 53–87]

LAWES.indb 116 19/03/2010 10:57


appear in the concordant part in Mus. 70. This may suggest that they do not come from Lawes, although they do work well; similar tempo directions are found in the Humour (see below). The alman is a wonderfully worked piece; the highly imitative sections and the asymmetrical design demonstrate its independence from functional dance music. Again, the interaction of the parts, treated almost as three solo instruments, reveals a composer at home in this idiom (Example 3.4). The imitative opening and the tutti quaver passage are reminiscent of Taylor’s Alman {26}. Lawes’s ‘tutti’ passage is short and effectively worked into the compo-sition, gradually building throughout the second strain, whereas Taylor’s passage is longer and used purely for effect. The saraband is typical of many of Lawes’s two-strain sarabands: its clearly articulated rhythms and symmetrical structure are those of functional dances. The pavan is typical of many of Lawes’s consort pavans. The strains are symmetrical and replete with imitative entries. Again, the writing is idiomatic but the pavan is not as musically convincing as the fantasias. An important source of Lawes’s lyra-viol music is Mus. 70: an incomplete, partial autograph source for twenty-six lyra-viol trios. I have argued in Chapter 2 that the autograph portion was copied in two phases in the early 1630s. The two autograph copying stages are significant for the manuscript’s concordances. All of the MSS 725–7 concordances are found in the first autograph portion, whereas

5

10

Example 3.4 Lawes, Alman {564}, strain 1

LAWES.indb 117 19/03/2010 10:57


the II.B.3 concordances are in the second. The relationship between Mus. 70 and the other two surviving sources for Lawes’s lyra-viol trios is complex. Four of the five individual parts common to MSS 725–7 and Mus. 70 concord closely and cor-respond to the same partbook: Pavan {563}, Alman {564}, Fantazy {567} and Sara-band {569} all concord with MS 726 (LV2). Humour {568} is (mostly) concordant with the part in MS 727 (LV3). In the first four pieces, there are occasional discrep-ancies between the sources, such as notes omitted from or added to chords and occasional rhythmic differences, but overall the differences are slight and do not present major problems to the modern editor. The case of Humour {568} is differ-ent. Again, there are the usual minor variants between the two sources; however from the end of tripla section Mus. 70 gives a different ending to that in MS 727 (Examples 3.5a–d). The first three and a half bars of MS 727 are given in twice the

(A) (B)

(C)

(A)

(B) (C)

(D)

(D)

Example 3.5 Lawes, Humour {568}: (a) ending from GB-Och, Mus. MS 727; (b) ending from US-CAh, MS Mus. 70; (c) ending from GB-Och, Mus. MS 726;

(d) ending from GB-Och, Mus. MSS 725–7

(a)

(b)

(c)

LAWES.indb 118 19/03/2010 10:57


19

23

27

Slowe

Fast

Slowe

Fast

[Slowe]Fast

Slowe

Slowe

[Slowe]

note values in Mus. 70 (i.e. quavers are now crotchets etc.): (A). The next two and a half bars of MS 727 are then given in half the note values in Mus. 70: (B). The next bar is similar in both sources, with rhythmic variants: (C). Mus. 70 then gives a different ending, though with only some melodic resemblances to the MS 727 ver-sion. This is actually a version of the MS 726 part (i.e. LV2), with similar rhythmic alterations: (D). The first bar of the (D) section in MS 726 is given in half the note values in Mus. 70, with the last two bars given as the same. These revisions roughly coincide with the tempo directions given in MSS 725–7.79 The direction to ‘slowe’ coincides with the first half-time section (A). The direction ‘fast’ coincides with the double-time section (B); the (C) section does not, however, fit with the tempo directions. The final half-time section (D) also roughly coincides with the ‘slowe’ direction. Despite the close relation between the revisions and the tempo directions, the revisions are not simply written-out versions of the directions, although the revisions may have come about from per-formance, notated in words in MSS 725–7.

79 ‘slowe’ directions not given in MS 727.

(d)

LAWES.indb 119 19/03/2010 10:57


The evidence suggests that one of these sources contains a revised version of the other. Whereas it is difficult to say with certainty which source contains the revision, it seems likely that MSS 725–7 was copied from a later and revised ver-sion of the first portion of Mus. 70. This is based on several pieces of evidence. For example, the first autograph portion of Mus. 70, which contains the Humour, is written in an early Lawes hand and is likely to pre-date the copying of MSS 725–7, perhaps by several years. Moreover, on purely musical grounds, the shorter version seems likely to be the revision. In Mus. 70 the (implied) harmony gets a little stuck on the dominant in the last five or six bars before the final cadence. The MSS 725–7 version shortens the piece by six minim beats (or three bars), and while much the same harmony is retained, the version in MSS 725–7 is slightly more direct and the emphasis on the (dominant) A chord is used to greater har-monic effect. The revision of the Humour was essentially rhythmic (although it had significant harmonic implications), and involved a partial amalgamation of two of the original parts. Thus, the last strain of the original version of the Humour in Mus. 70 and its companion books must have been substantially revised. One can imagine that such a revision had somewhat radical melodic implications for (some of) the piece, suggested by the partial amalgamation of two of the parts. The simple swapping of parts within a lyra-viol trio would be a somewhat thankless task having no audible effect given that each part operated as an equal. It would have had implications for the players, but is unlikely to have been done to make one or more parts easier to perform, as the amalgams make little difference to level of difficulty. The amalgamation of parts implies a radical melodic overhaul of the part that has been supplemented by the amalgam; indeed, a similar revision technique, amalgamating lines, can be observed when the concordances between Mus. 70 and II.B.3 are examined. II.B.3 is one of the most tantalizing lyra-viol manuscripts. It was evidently once part of a set of three, judging by the inscription tertivs stamped on the cover; it is unfortunately the only one of the three books to survive. The tablature was writ-ten by three copyists, and the bulk of the manuscript appears to have been com-piled in a relatively short space of time. The ascriptions are in at least two hands and appear to have been written by the tablature copyists. II.B.3 was once owned by John Cawse (1779–1862) who wrote the notes on the inside cover and on the fly-leaves (Fig. 3.4) and some notes throughout the manuscript. Cawse was a painter, picture restorer, book illustrator and viol player; he clearly understood what the manuscript was, although it is doubtful that he realized it was one book of three. It is not clear when the two companion books became separated from II.B.3, but it is likely to have happened before Cawse acquired it: none of his annotations indi-cates that it was one of a set. Cawse was evidently given II.B.3 by a John Webb. This may have been the poet, antiquary and clergyman (1776–1869), who was Rector

LAWES.indb 120 19/03/2010 10:57


of Tretire with Michaelchurch in Herefordshire.80 It is not known when or how Arnold Dolmetsch acquired the manuscript, although it is likely that he did so in Oxford in the 1890s.81

There are 101 pieces in II.B.3: 13 anonymous, 37 by Lawes, 36 by Jenkins and 15 by Ives.82 Unlike the rest of the pieces in the volume, the anonymous pieces are neither titled nor attributed. The manuscript is arranged by tuning in the fol-lowing order: fhfhf (eights), edfhf (harp-way flat) and one piece in edfhh, defhf (harp-way sharp), dehfh (high harp-way sharp), and then edfhf again. This results in groups of pieces largely in the same key or in parallel major/minor pairs. Only in the initial anonymous pieces are the pieces not coherently arranged into suites via keys. Within the tuning sequences, the pieces are arranged by composer. Of the 101 pieces in II.B.3 only the six Lawes pieces also found in Mus. 70 have any known concordances. When these pieces from both manuscripts are compared they provide further evidence of revisions made to Lawes’s trios. As only one of the partbooks survives in each case, it is almost impossible to say which ‘version’ came first. The evidence (albeit meagre) suggests that II.B.3 is the later of the two sources and therefore should be seen as containing the revisions. Although II.B.3 is non-autograph, the extent of these revisions implies that they were made by the composer and are not simply the result of corruptions. At the time of writing, two of these six pieces common to Mus. 70 and II.B.3 (Pavan {441} and Saraband {444}) are listed in the Index as being copies of the same part, and the other four (Pavan {521}, Thump {527}, Corant {443} and Aire

80 P. Holman, Life after Death: The Viola da Gamba in Britain from Purcell to Dolmetsch (forthcoming), ch. 8; W. W. Webb, rev. B. Frith, ‘John Webb (1776–1869)’ , ODNB (accessed 2 March 2009).

81 I am grateful to Jeanne Dolmetsch for her advice on this matter.82 For an inventory and detailed description, see CunninghamMPC, i. 157–72.

Fig. 3.4 GB-HAdolmetsch, MS II.B.3, inside cover and flyleaf

LAWES.indb 121 19/03/2010 10:57


{448}) are listed as forming a different part.83 Neither description is correct. The six II.B.3 concordances are an amalgamation of the Mus. 70 part and another part, resulting in the II.B.3 part. The confusion appears to have arisen from the similarities and differences of the incipits. It is highly unlikely that the concord-ances in Mus. 70 and II.B.3 are complementary parts, or rather copies thereof, as when both parts are put together there are frequent passages of unison writing (i.e. duplication) between them. From a consideration of Lawes’s complete trios (and of lyra-viol trios generally) it is clear that he did not conceive of lyra-viol trios in this fashion. In the complete trios each part has, at all times, a different line, vary-ing from the other parts melodically or rhythmically. Moreover, between the two sources, four of the pieces contain different strain lengths. Revisions are the most likely explanation. A brief examination of Aire {448} will provide a representative example.84 The first strain is almost identical in both sources (Example. 3.6). One of the parts, however, appears to have been slightly amended to allow for a revi-sion of the order of the imitative entries. The revision, although slight, must have been significant for at least one of the other parts. The harmonic structure of the strain was evidently retained. Most of the second strain is similar in both sources, although there are some melodic differences. In II.B.3 the repeated quavers at the start of bar 27 are used to emphasize the entry of the arpeggiated point. This kind of descending, imitative figure beginning with two repeated quavers is found sev-eral times in Lawes’s consort music.85 It seems likely that the II.B.3 copyist had access to a later (now lost) source of Lawes’s lyra-viol trios post-dating Mus. 70. Regardless of which source is later a substantial revision is evident from the fact that it would have made little sense to simply redistribute the parts, as the overall aural effect would be the same. The effect of such revisions on the pieces would have been quite considerable, amounting almost to recomposition.

❧ Conclusions

From the slender evidence that survives of Lawes’s lyra-viol trios three main conclusions can be drawn. First, they were in the repertoire for a considerable

time, probably from the mid- to late 1620s or early 1630s until Lawes’s death in 1645 and slightly beyond. Almost half of Lawes’s trios are in eights tuning, which was largely superseded by the harp-way tunings during the 1630s. This perhaps indi-cates that many were composed relatively early in his career, probably before 1635,

83 II.B.3: {441}, pp. 330–1; {444}, p. 334; {521}, p. 374; {527}, p. 380; {443}, p. 333; {448}, p. 340.

84 The six Lawes pieces are discussed in detail in CunninghamLVT.85 For example, Aire {10} and Fantazy {36} from the Royall Consort.

LAWES.indb 122 19/03/2010 10:57


although it does not imply that they were not played at the court. Second, the lyra-viol trio was a dynamic genre. Lawes apparently revised several of the pieces over a period of a decade or so. We saw earlier that many of the solo pieces acquired sig-nificant variants when they were disseminated. The distinction between ‘variant’ and ‘revision’ is of course blurred, in either case something akin to recomposition occurs. Last, although the fragmentary state of the surviving sources inhibits our

Mus. 70

II.B.3

7

12

16

22

29

Example 3.6 Lawes, Aire {448}: comparison of sources (US-CAh, MS Mus. 70, fol. 18r and GB-HAdolmetsch, MS II.B.3, p. 340)

LAWES.indb 123 19/03/2010 10:57


understanding of Lawes revision process, it is clear that (at least some of) his revi-sions were quite substantial. Without the missing companion partbooks for Mus. 70 and II.B.3 we can only glimpse Lawes’s revision process in the lyra-viol trios. Even this glimpse, however, provides some context for our understanding of his compositional process; the autograph volumes have many effacements, emenda-tions, insertions, abstractions and palimpsests (see Chapter 2). Perhaps the most apposite comparison for Lawes’s revision process in the lyra-viol trios is his revi-sions of the Royall Consort, the subject of the next chapter. Here also Lawes made substantial revisions while still retaining much of the original melodic material; in rescoring many of the pieces from the Royall Consort Lawes also changed several strain lengths by the odd bar or two.86 Whereas Lawes does not appear to have laboured repeatedly over the majority of his compositions it is clear that several of them warranted revision. It is interesting to note that, as with the Royall Consort, the revisions in the lyra-viol trios were largely done to dance pieces. One would be less surprised if Lawes went through a process of revising what we consider his more serious (i.e. contrapuntal) pieces, the fantasias and pavans. This raises questions of the way in which Lawes thought about his own music, and is perhaps symptomatic of the growing stature of the dance, and the dance suite, in early Stuart England. The two aspects of Lawes’s lyra-viol repertoire discussed in this chapter, solo and trio, demonstrate two complementary aspects to the repertoire. On the one hand, the solo pieces were largely composed for and played by amateurs. On the other, the more sophisticated ensemble pieces were beyond the grasp of all but the most dedicated amateur: judging by the contents of his manuscripts, we can include John Merro in this category. Although the publications of 1601 to 1615 were available to amateurs it is unlikely that many of them would have been intended for amateur performers. There were practical reasons for this. It is unlikely that the average amateur would have had sufficient technical facility to perform many of the trios, or indeed duos. Many are of a moderate to difficult standard. A lack of sufficient viols to perform the ensembles may also have contributed to the appar-ent lack of demand for duos and trios amongst amateurs. The difficulties involved in keeping the ensemble in tune would have been one of the most significant bar-riers. The case is, however, more complex than this simple amateur/professional division suggests. As we have seen, many solo pieces also functioned as one part of an ensemble. Thus, we find a third section of the repertoire of which we can now only form a fleeting glimpse: the improvised or arranged ensemble based on contre parties. Within this medium the repertoires of amateur and professional co-habited. The very nature of lyra-viol music meant that this was possible and

86 See LawesRC, Introduction.

LAWES.indb 124 19/03/2010 10:57


ensured the popularity of the repertoire throughout the seventeenth century. This flexibility is demonstrated in equal measure by the way in which simple dance tunes could be radically transformed by the addition of ornaments according to the will (or rather, skill) of the player. The surviving lyra-viol trio sources are a meagre representation of what was a highly considered and developed medium popular, especially at the English court, for several decades. After the first generation of composers, the trio continued to be explored by court composers such as Lawes and Taylor, as well as the com-posers associated with the court such as Simon Ives and John Jenkins. It is no surprise that Lawes composed lyra-viol trios, given that Coprario had done so. Lawes’s trios reveal a genre that had lost none of its initial vitality. One imagines that Lawes’s trios were performed by the LVV, perhaps along with those of Taylor, Coprario and Ferrabosco. The Ives trios suggest that the genre spread to circles closely related to the court during the 1630s; those by Jenkins suggest that (like the fantasia-suite) the genre spread to the provinces during the 1640s. Of course, given the poor survival rate, it is difficult to appreciate fully Lawes’s contribution to the genre, or even the genre itself. Lawes’s two fantasias and the pavan (one of the few explorations by Lawes in this form) are especially fine pieces. They are undoubtedly earlier works than many of his five- and six-part viol con-sorts, but demonstrate a complete engagement with the idiomatic possibilities of the lyra-viol. It is difficult to disagree with Murray Lefowitz’s observation that the MSS 725–7 trios (and Fantazia {573} in particular) ‘are among the very best of Lawes’ production’ .87 Lawes’s lyra-viol trios do not outwardly differ significantly to those of Coprario, Ferrabosco and Taylor; one can certainly see a continuous line of development in the trio throughout the early seventeenth century that is coloured only by the individual styles of the composers. Lawes’s MSS 725–7 trios are, however, the latest complete examples and form a small yet significant part of his output. It is for these reasons that these trios represent, if by default, the apex of the genre. It is only regrettable that more examples have not survived of this the most egalitarian of viol ensembles.

87 LefkowitzWL, 134.

LAWES.indb 125 19/03/2010 10:57

chapter 4

The Royall Consort

The Royall Consort is a large and diffuse collection, the parameters of which are difficult to define. Perhaps begun as early as the 1620s, the collection was

apparently well received by contemporaries. Playford also published some dances from the collection in Court-Ayres (1655) and Courtly Masquing Ayres (1662), and parts of the collection are found in manuscript sources until the 1680s.1 Murray Lefowitz was first to recognize that the Royall Consort survives in two versions, known today as the ‘new’ (Tr–Tr–B–B with continuo) and the ‘old’ (Tr–Tr–T–B with continuo).2 Since then David Pinto has edited both versions, and has dis-cussed the collection in several articles and in his monograph.3

Apart from the high quality of the music, the Royall Consort represents an important stage in the development of the suite and in the development of a two-treble scoring for dance music in England. Although Peter Holman has addressed both of these issues previously, a brief recapitulation will provide necessary back-ground.4 According to Holman, both developments received much of their impe-tus from Germany. Common to the early seventeenth-century collections of the English expatriates William Brade and Thomas Simpson, and of Germans such as Paul Puerl and Johann Hermann Schein, was organization of movements grouped by key and the progression therein from the serious to the lighter dances.5 Sev-eral English manuscripts from the 1630s record the gradual emergence of the con-sort suite: GB-Lbl, Add. MS 36993 (a bass viol partbook in French tablature);6 and GB-Och, Mus. MSS 367–70 and 379–81 (two sets of partbooks owned by John Browne).7 The four groups of dances in MSS 367–70 and 379–81 by Charles

1 For sources, see Index; LawesRC. 2 LefkowitzWL, 68–87. 3 See Bibliography. 4 The following discussion of the consort suite and of two-treble scoring is primarily

based on HolmanFTF, 251–61. See also PintoNL. 5 For example, W. Brade, Newe ausserlesene Paduanen (Hamburg, 1609); P. Puerl,

Newe Padoan/Intrada. Däntz unnd Galliarda (Nürnberg, 1611); J. H. Schein, Banchetto musicale (Leipzig, 1617); T. Simpson, Opus newer Paduanen (Hamburg, 1617).

6 PintoNL, 278–9 for inventory. 7 PintoNL, 275–8 for inventories; also IMCCM2, 233–7 and 241–4.

LAWES.indb 126 19/03/2010 10:57

the royall consort 127

Coleman and William Drew ‘are probably the earliest surviving English consort suites by single composers, but they still look as if they were assembled rather than planned’ .8 The Royall Consort represents the next stage in the development of the consort suite, with the emergence of the Alman–Corant–Saraband (A–C–S) sequence at its core. Nevertheless, no single form of the consort suite dominated. Fantasia-suites continued to be composed, and Lawes’s suites for five and six viols and organ follow a different format (see Chapter 5). It seems that the developments of Coleman et al. were roughly contemporaneous with those made by Lawes in the earliest forms of the Royall Consort. The A–C–S core no doubt developed through performance, governed by a sense of climax, i.e. the gradual progression from slow to fast movements. Such tastes for progressive elements in musical design are obvious in one of the most influential treatises of the Restoration, Christopher Simpson’s The Division-Violist (1659). In that work Simpson essentially advanced a theory of progressive climax when using divisions: always begin slowly and build to a climax (see also Chapters 7 and 8). A similar guiding principle is evident in the development of the suite. The Royall Consort is one of the first collections in England to use Tr–Tr–T–B (or ‘string quartet’) scoring for dance music.9 Holman suggested that the impe-tus for English composers to write dance music in Tr–Tr–B or Tr–Tr–T–B is best represented by Thomas Simpson’s last anthology Taffel-Consort (Hamburg, 1621). The main link between Taffel-Consort and the English court seems to be Maurice Webster, who came to England from Germany in 1622, serving in the LVV until his death in 1635–6.10 David Pinto has rightly argued that the contribution of Rich-ard Mico and Richard Dering in the development of two-treble scoring should also be noted.11 The pieces by Dering and Mico that use the two-treble idiom are, however, mostly fantasias or stately pavans that appear to have been composed for viols and have little to do with the growing taste at court for lighter dance music; notwithstanding the cross-attribution of a pavan to Dering and Webster. It is likely that the Tr–Tr–T–B repertoire was expanded by reducing existing five-part dance music to three or four parts.12 The old version of the Royall Consort represents the next stage in the development of the scoring in England. The origins of the Tr–Tr–B–B scoring are less clear, but probably developed from the increased use

8 HolmanFTF, 259. 9 A detailed account of the development of Tr–Tr–T–B scoring is given by

HolmanFTF, 251–81, esp. 252–61.10 See also Maurice Webster: Complete Consort Music, ed. P. Holman and J. Cunning-

ham (Launton, 2010).11 See PintoNL, esp. 270–1; Pinto argues against the significance of Webster.12 See HolmanFTF, 257.

LAWES.indb 127 19/03/2010 10:57


of violins and a desire to balance them with bass (rather than tenor) viols. It seems that Thomas Lupo was the first English composer to use the novel Tr–Tr–B–B scoring in three of his four-part fantasias, composed during the first quarter of the century (see Chapter 5).13 The scoring does not appear to have been further developed until the Royall Consort, although John Jenkins, Christopher Simpson, and John Hingeston cultivated it towards the middle of the century.14 Jenkins in particular explored the scoring in his thirty-two airs for two trebles, two basses and organ, which date to the 1640s.15 There is another example of the scoring in GB-Lcm, MS 1146, a set of six partbooks in the hand of Edward Lowe (c. 1610–82). The lengthy, multi-sectional anonymous piece in d is titled ‘Consort For 2 Treble Viollins 2 Basses and 2 Theorboes’ and clearly modelled on parts of the Royall Consort. Evidently of Oxford provenance, the piece was probably copied in the 1670s. Although the old version sources do not indicate instrumentation, Lawes speci-fied two violins, two bass viols and two theorboes in the new version pieces in GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3. Viols or violins would be possible for the old version, although it is reasonable to suggest that Lawes originally composed for violins. The general range of the tenor part in the old version falls within the viola range, although in two separate pieces the notes A and d" are required, suggesting a tenor viol.16 The bass of the old version could be played on either a bass violin or bass viol. Given that the bass does not really change between the two versions, it is reasonable to assume that the same instruments were used in both. The single occurrence of the low A in the tenor part does not necessarily preclude the use of a viola, but the evidence suggests that viols were used for the tenor and bass parts of the old version, with theorbo continuo. One suspects that this instrumentation was flexible, and that performances by a ‘string quartet’ or by a mixture of viols and violins could have occurred. The Royall Consort has been divided by modern scholars into ten suites (or

13 Thomas Lupo: The Four-Part Consort Music, ed. R. Charteris and J. Jennings (Clifden, 1983), nos. 4, 9 and 10.

14 Hingeston has one fantasia–alman pair for two trebles, two basses and organ (only the organ part survives); Simpson has 20 aires for two trebles and two basses, the main sources for which are GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. E.431–6 and F.568–9. In D-Hs, MS ND VI 3193 there are 113 pieces for two trebles, two basses and con-tinuo, including concordances for Jenkins and Simpson; the first bass is lacking (see Chapter 6).

15 Published in John Jenkins: Consort Music of Four Parts, ed. A. Ashbee, MB 26 (1969; r/1975); see also AshbeeHM2, ch. 8.

16 Nos. 26 and 60 respectively: see the discussion of instrumentation in LawesRC, ix–x.

LAWES.indb 128 19/03/2010 10:57


setts), comprising either six or seven movements: three in D and in d, and one in F, C, B b and a (‘the varied key-sequence’ , to borrow Pinto’s phrase).17 There are ten main sources of the collection, although they are divergent enough to assume a larger background of now lost antecedent copies.18 In the two main old ver-sion sources (GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. E.431–6 and F.568–9) the pieces in D and d appear in a rather random order, followed by the varied key-sequence pieces in consistent order, suggesting that the collection began as a loose grouping of aires in d/D.19 E.431–6 is a set of six partbooks containing suites of aires in three and four parts with an unfigured bass.20 Margaret Crum has suggested that they may be the ‘Sett [of] Bookes of 3.4.5. and 6 parts in Manuscript’ referred to in a payment document dated March 1656/7, as ‘given in hand to Mr. Jackson for pricking of aires for the [Oxford Music] scooles’ .21 Crum identifies the copyist as the bass viol player Thomas Jackson, who became a singing-man at St John’s. Coleman is credited with the doctorate he took on 2 July 1651, so it is reasonable to date the partbooks to around the mid-1650s; a terminus ante quem of 1669 can be established from the lack of reference to Benjamin Rogers’s D.Mus. According to Holman, ‘Two theorboes certainly seem to have been used in performances from MSS Mus. Sch. E. 431–6, for the source includes two duplicate copies of the bass; lutenists normally read from unfigured bass at the time, while English organists either used scores or written-out parts’ .22

F.568–9 are the second treble and tenor partbooks from an original set of five; a note on F.568, fol. 2r states that the set once contained ‘2 Trebles, Tenor, Base, and thorough bass’;23 it is possible that they originally contained duplicate copies of the bass. F.568–9 contains suites of four-part aires and fantasias with continuo, and presumably has a similar provenance to E.431–6.24 The manuscript begins with a sequence of ninety-two aires loosely arranged by key into suites, numbered 1–93,

17 LawesRC, vi.18 See Index; LawesRC, Introduction.19 See also LawesRC, Introduction; PintoFyV, 52–3.20 IMCCM2, 187–97.21 CrumEL, 27. William Ellis has also been suggested as the main copyist: J. B. Clark,

‘A Re-emerged Seventeenth-Century Organ Accompaniment Book’ , ML 47 (1966), 149–52; AshbeeHM1, 148; HolmanFTF, 260.

22 HolmanFTF, 261. For the accompaniment of consort music of the period, see HolmanOA.

23 ‘The lessons from the first page to the 89th are Mr William Law s [sic] for 2 Trebles, Tenor, Base, and thorough bass’ . On fol. 2r of MS 569 the same list states the same except that ‘thorough bass’ is ‘Continued Base’ .

24 For a full description of the manuscript and its collation, see CrumOMSC, 132–4; also LawesRC, vii–viii.

LAWES.indb 129 19/03/2010 10:57


but lacking nos. 36 and 38 (Table 4.1): over eighty of the aires are associated with the old version of the Royall Consort. Of these ninety-two pieces, only nos. 1–9 (suites 1–2) and 39–61 (suites 5–9)25 are not found among later incarnations of the Royall Consort. Nos. 1–9 are a significant group of Tr–Tr–T–B pieces in g/G, also found in E.431–6.26 The g pieces are Pavan {101}, Aire {103}, Corant {338}, Aire {70} and Corant {339}. The G pieces are Pavan {79}, Alman {320}, Aire {80} and Corant {322–3}.27 The style of these pieces is the same as those in the Royall Con-sort and one could plausibly date them to the mid-1620s. In these miscellaneous pieces, however, there is a definite four-part texture. The tenor plays an important part, unlike in the old version pieces proper where it is largely non-essential. One is inclined to agree with Pinto’s suggestion that these pieces ‘number some of the composer’s earliest and probably most cherished efforts’ .28 The functional tenor part is a significant break with the style of the old version Royall Consort pieces and points to a demarcation between the two forms of Tr–Tr–T–B scoring in

25 Attributed to Thomas Brewer in Index: see LawesRC, vi.26 All published in LawesRC.27 All are untitled in F.568–9.28 PintoNL, 265.

Table 4.1 Lawes sequence from GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. F.568–9

Folios Nos. Key ‘Suite’ no.

3r–5r 1–5 g 15v–7r 6–9 G 2

7v–11v 10–18 d 311v–20v 19–38 D 421r–24r 39–45 a g 524v–26v 46–50 G 627r–28v 51–4 c 729r–30v 55–8 C 831r–32r 59–61 F 932v–36r 62–9 d 1036v–38r 70–5 B b 1138v–41v 76–82 F 1242r–44v 83–8 a 1345r–46v 89–93 C 14

a Space was left for nos. 36 (fol. 20r) and 38 (fol. 20v) but no music was entered in either partbook.

LAWES.indb 130 19/03/2010 10:57


Lawes’s mind. They are likely to have been included with the early version because of the Tr–Tr–T–B instrumentation, but appear to have been separated from the collection quite early; the functional tenor seems to be the reason. The valued status of these pieces is suggested by the fact that Lawes later returned to them for material. He reworked two of the pieces in g for two bass viols and organ: Pavan {101} and Aire {103} (see Chapter 8). These two pieces are also found in MSS 367–70, though not as a pair. Three of the four pieces in the Lawes sequence of MSS 367–70 (nos. 43–6) are, however, found in the discarded Royall Consort suite in g, although here Corant {339} is in d. Despite this, it seems significant that Corant {339} was still grouped with two of the other parts of the suite. The fact that it is in d here suggests that the piece may have originated in that key, and may have been part of the originally large set of dances in D/d that was eventually trimmed down into the Royall Consort proper. The odd-one-out in the MSS 367–70 Lawes sequence, Aire {264}, is a strange bedfellow, which does not appear in any of the Royall Consort sources. This may suggest that it was originally associated with the Royall Consort but discarded at an early stage, even pre-dating that preserved by E.431–6. It may alternatively mean that MSS 367–70 were com-piled piecemeal from selections compiled from various sources; Aire {264} may not even have composed by Lawes. Pavan {103} is also found in the Shirley partbooks (GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 40657–61), which also suggests that the piece is early. The Shirley partbooks version reveals some differences from the other four-part versions, which are generally quite consistent.29 The main differences are found in the inner parts, especially the tenor. The outer parts are essentially the same in the Shirley partbooks and in the Royall Consort sources with only slight rhythmic differences in the treble, but with much rhythmic alteration to the bass line and several octave transpositions. The points of imitation in the inner parts are retained. Thus, this version may be the earliest form that was subsequently revised. Pavan {103} is one of a sequence of nine holograph four-part pieces added by Lawes in the Shirley partbooks at the end of the four-part sequence. This main part of the sequence (fols 16r–26v) was copied in Lawes’s early (A1) hand; the last piece (a fantasia by John Bull) was mostly copied by Hand B, but with the bass part copied by Lawes (see Chapter 2). The pieces in this sequence were probably copied around the same time: the same black ink is used throughout fols 16r–26v. The holograph sequence (fols 27r–30v) was entered in Lawes’s A2 hand: as we have seen in Chapter 2, this need not imply that they are ‘late’ pieces. The first piece of the sequence is Aire {110}, the bass of which was entered in MS 40659, fol. 7r but crossed out. The rest of the holograph sequence was apparently copied

29 LawesRC gives both versions.

LAWES.indb 131 19/03/2010 10:58


in several stages, judging by the variety of ink used. Six of Lawes’s pieces are in Tr–Tr–T–B (Table 4.2): the remaining three are in Tr–Tr–B–B, including Aire {110}, which implies that Lawes was experimenting with the scoring probably by the early 1630s. The pieces in Lawes’s ‘rushed’ hand – Aires {337}, {103} and Corant {339} – are in Tr–Tr–T–B. The presence of pieces in Lawes’s A2 hand using the Tr–Tr–B–B scoring is not enough to suggest that these pieces were copied any later than 1633; as noted in Chapter 2, the early forms of his signature in this sec-tion strongly mitigates this. Thus, it would seem likely that these pieces are among Lawes’s first explorations of Tr–Tr–B–B scoring. There are also two apparent suites for two trebles and two basses, in C/c {108–13}, by Lawes in GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2 but they seem to date to c. 1634 (see Chapter 5). Aire {70} is also found in the g suite for five viols and organ. There is little difference between the four- and five-part versions, notwithstanding the second tenor part in the latter. The five-part version is probably later, although this is the only one of the ‘rearranged’ pieces in which the original tenor was not even partially recomposed. Thus, one cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the four-part version was created by omitting the second tenor part from the five-part version, although if this were the case Lawes would perhaps have recast the part in some form. Two of the pieces in G – Pavan {79} and Aire {80} – are also found in five-part versions: both in F.30 Consideration of the two versions sug-gest that the five- again postdates the four-part. The two trebles and bass parts are similar in both versions. The tenor is partially retained from the five- to the four-part versions. The tenor of the four-part version is sometimes transposed (to allow for the second tenor part), and juxtaposed with new material; it is

30 LawesCS; see also PintoFyV, 27–8, 88–91.

Table 4.2 GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 40657–61, Lawes four-part sequence

Folio (MS 40657) VdGS Type Scoring Hand *27r {110} Aire Tr–Tr–B–B A227v {306} Aire Tr–Tr–B–B A228r {336} Aire Tr–Tr–T–B A228v {109} Aire Tr–Tr–B–B A229r {318} Aire Tr–Tr–T–B A229v {319} Aire [Tr]a–Tr–T–B A230r {337} Aire Tr–Tr–T–B A230r {103} Aire Tr–Tr–T–B A230v {339} Corant Tr–Tr–T–B A2

* This follows the designations in IMCCM1, 73.a Space left, but the cantus part was not entered.

LAWES.indb 132 19/03/2010 10:58


significant that material only from the first tenor part of the five-part version is used. If the four-part version postdated the five-part, one would expect Lawes to have included (at least some) material from both tenor parts. The third strain of the pavan underwent significant revision. In the five-part version dotted-quaver figures are pervasively worked into the texture, seemingly inspired by the addition of the second tenor. Of course, the best evidence for suggesting that all of the five-part versions postdate the four-part ones is that the former are all found in B.2, which probably postdates any of the sources from which E.431–6 and F.568–9 were copied. Several of Lawes’s three-part pieces also have links with the Royall Consort. Lawes’s three-part consort pieces are relatively few in number and do not appear to have been widely disseminated.31 They seem to rank among his earliest com-positions, and several were mined later for material in other media. The three-part consorts fall into two categories: those composed in three parts, and those apparently arranged for three instruments by others. The most important source is the Shirley partbooks, which include ten of Lawes’s three-part pieces, two of which – {75} and {83} – he later recast for five viols and organ. Most of these ten autograph pieces are unique or survive in one other source. Only Aire {321} was widely disseminated, and it seems to be related in some way to the old version of the Royall Consort as it is found in the two main sources, E.431–6 and F.568–9. It is also found in GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 31423, 31429 and 17792–6, GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.245–7 and Tenbury MS 302.32 MS 31429 is another important source for Lawes’s three-part music. The three partbooks (two trebles and a bass) date to the late seventeenth century and also contain music by Grabu, Jenkins, Lully, and Paisible: Lully’s music is not found in English sources before the 1680s. The manuscript contains eleven three-part pieces by Lawes. Two are concordant with the Shirley partbooks, {320} and {321}. Seven others are arrangements of pieces from the old Royall Consort: {10}, {11}, {12}, {13}, {17}, {26} and {28}. Corant {17} was omitted from the old Royall Consort; in MS 31429 it is in c, rather than d. Although it was included in the new version there is good reason to suspect that it was origi-nally part of an early version of the Royall Consort, but was discarded for some reason, perhaps even by oversight. The MS 31429 versions simply lack the tenor part. MS 31429 also contain a version of Aire {80} (see above), which is found in several sources connected with the old Royall Consort, such as F.568–9 and E.410–4. These settings are in G, and in four parts. (The aire was later reworked

31 Much of Lawes’s three-part consort music has recently been edited by M. Daven-port (Colorado, 2002); not all sources were collated and the edition excludes the seven three-part (Tr–T–B) pieces from US-NH, Filmer MS 3.

32 Also found incomplete in GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.236 and E.451.

LAWES.indb 133 19/03/2010 10:58


by Lawes for five viols and organ, transposed to F.)33 The remaining Lawes piece in this manuscript is Corant {339}, which is found in four parts in the Shirley partbooks, and in the main old version Royall Consort sources. Thus, the contents of MS 31432 appear to have links to the earliest versions of the Royall Consort, though the manuscript seems to represent the move later in the seventeenth cen-tury towards the trio sonata scoring and is unlikely to represent an authoritative setting of Lawes’s consort music. Many of the Lawes pieces appear to have been arranged by the omission of at least one part.

Fortunately B.3 contains most of the Royall Consort pieces in d and D in the new version, thus establishing a coherent internal formal structure for

the suites (largely based on the A–C–S sequence).34 Few sources preserve the sequences in their entirety, or leave the internal orders unchanged, especially in the suites in D/d. Pinto has convincingly suggested that

Some pre-existing d-D sequences were revised for the newly-fashionable 2Tr–2B scoring in the later 1630s; then joined by setts in a, C, F, B flat, which were fresh-conceived in the new scoring. … Out of symmetry, and of course an anticipated residual practical use, ‘Old’ versions of the fundamentally ‘New’ setts were then concocted.35

This is suggested by the varied key-sequence suites, which seem more naturally suited to the two-treble idiom (as do the two fantasias) than do many of the D/d pieces. Further, none of the varied key-sequence pieces shows revisions in the lengths of phrases found in several of the D/d pieces.36 Thus, as Pinto suggests, it seems that, rather than the new version superseding the old, both new and old versions were available (in part at least) at around the same time. Nevertheless, why Lawes rescored such a vast collection remains unclear. There seems little to contradict the suggestion that B.3 was compiled roughly in the order in which it survives, implying that the Royall Consort pieces date to c. 1639 (see Chapter 2). It is difficult to determine exactly when the collection was disseminated, although one suspects that the process of circulating the new version began soon after com-pletion, i.e. c. 1639–40. The surviving texts strongly suggest that there are several now lost copies. The main sources date to the Commonwealth and beyond. The set copied by Stephen Bing c. 1653 (GB-Och, Mus. MSS 754–9) appears to be the

33 PintoFyV, 27–8.34 Only Saraband {27} is found in the old version and not in the new, its removal

seems to have been an oversight.35 PintoNL, 268–9.36 PintoNL, 268–9 and 281 n. 8.

LAWES.indb 134 19/03/2010 10:58


earliest copied.37 The other main sources date to at least the 1660s (GB-Lbl, Add. MS 10445; GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.241–4), and many date to around 1670–80 (GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 31431 and 31433; GB-Och, Mus. MSS 391–6 and 479–83). Although most of these sources are difficult to date precisely, they demonstrate the continued popularity of the Royall Consort well into the Restoration and confirm an extremely complex stemma of dissemination only partly recoverable.38

Lefowitz appeared to have solved the rescoring issue with the citation of a note written by a close contemporary of Lawes, the Oxford music professor and Chapel Royal organist, Edward Lowe. Lowe became organist at Christ Church, Oxford sometime between 1631 and 1641. He remained at Oxford during the 1640s and 1650s, becoming Heather Professor of Music at Oxford in 1661, succeeding (the royal musician, and Lawes’s colleague) John Wilson. Lowe was a meticulous copyist, responsible for organizing and extending the Music School manuscripts. On one of those manuscripts, he appeared to explain the rescoring of the Royall Consort:

The followinge Royall consort, was first composd for 2 Trebles a Meane & a Base. but because the Middle part [the tenor] could not bee performd with equall aduantage, to bee heard as the trebles were. Therfore the Author, inuolued the Inner part in two breakeinge Bases: which I causd to bee tran-scribd for mee in the Tenor & Counter-tenor Bookes, belonginge to thes. & soe bound. Wher the two breakinge Bases are to be found. & soe many figured as agree with thes in Order/.

The comments are on fol. 1v of GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.236: one of a now incom-plete set of partbooks, MSS D.233–6 (originally a set of six, now lacking counter-tenor and tenor books). According to a note on the first flyleaf of D.233, Lowe bought the books on 6 October 1636.39 (E.451, also copied by Lowe, is the compan-ion through-bass book to D.233–6. According to a note on the inside front cover, Lowe acquired the manuscript from a Mr Davis on 28 May 1636. It contains an unfigured bass (identical to the bass part) for many of the Royall Consort pieces. Hereafter when D.233–6 is cited E.451 is also implied.) The partbooks were prob-ably originally prepared for a collection of vocal music before being purchased by Lowe, who added consort music by William and Henry Lawes, Coleman, Jenkins, and Matthew Locke.40 D.233–6 contains twenty-four Royall Consort pieces from

37 LawesRC, vii; IMCCM1, 205–7.38 For the sources of the collection, see LawesRC; PintoFyV; PintoNL.39 The note is no longer visible, as the flyleaf has been pasted to the cover.40 For descriptions of D.233–6 and E.451, see respectively CrumOMSC, 80–3, and

IMCCM2, 212–24.

LAWES.indb 135 19/03/2010 10:58


the D/d suites. These are from the old version, although apparently ‘Lowe did later make them more comprehensive by adding the revised parts’ .41 The Royall Consort pieces appear to have been copied by Lowe post Restoration.42

Lefowitz cited Lowe’s note suggesting that Lawes rescored the collection due to the inaudibility of the tenor part. This explanation has received much scrutiny. For example, the late Gordon Dodd remarked that the inner voices in dance music do not need to be heard distinctly.43 Moreover, Pinto has noted that the tenor parts in the old version make little attempt at independence, engaging in much parallel writing with the outer lines. This must have been a deliberate technique as it is applied to the entire collection: Pinto concluded that a ‘change in function, character, or style of performance (such as an altered place of performance), or all of these must be behind the rescoring process’ .44 A change in function seems to be the most likely answer. This need not, however, imply that Lowe’s note mis-represented Lawes. Despite the apparently problematic connotations of Lowe’s note, it may accurately reflect Lawes’s intentions. Lawes’s rescoring of the collec-tion does not necessarily imply his dissatisfaction with Tr–Tr–T–B scoring gener-ally or with the tenor line as it was conceived. Modern studies have assumed that when Lowe complained that the tenor was not ‘performd with equall aduantage to bee heard as the trebles were’ he was talking about the musical implications. It is also conceivable that Lowe was not simply referring to the tenor line per se, but to the tenor viol/viola player. It seems that in its original form the collection was designed to accompany dancing, whereas its new Tr–Tr–B–B form was intended either as Tafelmusik or to be listened to in some form of concert-like setting.45 Thus, the new Royall Consort fulfilled a different function to the Tr–Tr–T–B origi-nal, and it was now to be heard in a setting closer to (for want of a better term) a concert. It was accordingly of more ‘aduantage’ to the players to be allowed to exhibit their ability to perform divisions, typically the preserve of the bass viol. The performance of divisions is exactly what the rescored ‘two breakinge Bases’ facilitate and appears to be at the heart of Lawes’s rescoring. As Simpson noted in The Division-Violist, through the performance of divisions ‘a Man may shew, the dexterity, and excellency, both, of his Hand, and Invention; to the Delight, and Admiration, of those that hear him’ .46 This relates closely to the change in per-formance function, although the continued development of the old version sug-

41 LawesRC, vi.42 See also LawesRC, vii–viii.43 G. Dodd, ‘William Lawes: Royall Consort Suite No. 9 in F’ , Chelys 6 (1975–6), 4–9.44 LawesRC, vi; see also PintoNL.45 See HolmanFTF, 261.46 SimpsonDV, 21.

LAWES.indb 136 19/03/2010 10:58


gests that the functional circumstances remained. The tenor line necessitated this change: the instrument, although satisfactory in a functional dance setting, was not satisfactory in a concert-type setting. Revision and expansion to incorporate divisions is an observable trend throughout much of Lawes’s consort music output in the 1630s. Perhaps the most significant example of this kind of revision is Fantazia {135} in D for violin, bass viol and organ (see Chapter 6). Although divisions in the Royall Consort are not generally as demanding as those in Fantazia {135}, the harp consorts, or the bass viols pieces, they all appear to have been revised with the same basic intention of adding divisions. In the new version Royall Consort, the tenor line is distributed between the ‘two breakinge Bases’ . When one bass viol has the tenor line, the other generally plays divisions against the bass line. Whereas in the old version the bass line was played by the theorboes and the bass viol, in the new version the theor-boes are sometimes left to play the bass line alone, although one of the bass viols generally supports them. The outer parts were not significantly altered during rescoring, although some cadences were elaborated. Thus, the two trebles and the bass line are largely the same in both versions (with slight variants). The bass viol divisions are generally in descant or simple breaking bass techniques, usually moving in parallel concords with the theorbo line or providing an embellished version thereof. Gordon Dodd suggested that the theorbists may have alternated between playing the bass line and filling in the harmonies, perhaps occasionally both playing tasto solo.47 These points are perhaps best illustrated by a brief com-parison of the new and old versions of one of the suites: no. 6, in D.48

In the first strain there is little difference between the two versions of Aire {37}. BV1 carries the tenor part until around bar 5 where it is taken by BV2. From bar 8 BV1 begins to add simple divisions ‘breaking the ground’ with a descending octave displacement figure,49 leading to a brief descant towards the cadence. In the second strain BV2 mostly carries the tenor line, shared briefly with BV1 in the antiphonal passage (bars 19–21). As with the first strain, the old tenor part peters out towards the cadence. Throughout the second strain BV1 adds newly composed divisions, occasionally doubling the bass line. Again, the divisions are quite simple breaking of the bass, with occasional descant. In Alman {38} the ‘old’ tenor line is again distributed among the two bass viols. The new divisions begin in BV2 (bars 1–2), with a simple descant. The divisions re-enter with the ascending quaver scalar figure (bars 6–7) and continue until the end of the strain. The second strain divisions again mostly descant above the theorboes. Alman {38} is also found in

47 Dodd, ‘Royall Consort’ , 8.48 For musical illustrations of this chapter, see LawesRC: bar numbers correspond.49 SimpsonDV, 21–8 covers ‘Of Breaking the Ground’ .

LAWES.indb 137 19/03/2010 10:58


a Tr–Tr–A-T–B arrangement in B.2 (p. 15), ‘For the Violins ∙ of 2 ∙ trebles’ . In this version the two trebles and bass are identical to those in the B.3 Royall Consort sequence. What connection the B.2 and B.3 versions share is unclear, although the latter has more divisions in the replacement lines. There are leaves abstracted before the B.2 version, which comes just before the music from Britannia Trium-phans of 1638, thus a date of c. 1637 can be assumed. This version was evidently not intended for the court violin band, which played with a single treble line at this time.50

The tenor line of Corant {39} is mostly contained in BV2 throughout this piece, with BV1 adding a simple descant above the theorbo, often in thirds, partially har-monizing the bass line. In the second strain BV1 adds a new point of imitation answering Violin 1 at the octave. Thereafter BV1 mostly moves in parallel thirds with the bass as BV2 plays the tenor. In Aire {41} the first strain begins with the tenor part in BV1, against which BV2 adds a simple breaking bass line above and below the theorbo. After bar 5 the theorboes are doubled by one of the bass viols. A similar layout is found in strain 2, although the tenor line is mostly in BV2; it begins and ends in BV1. Although – with Fantazy {36} and Ecco {40} – they are now designated as Sett 6, these four pieces do not appear as a group in any of the sources. They are found in a random order in one of the main old version sources F.568–9; only Aire {37} is found in E.431–6 and D.233–6. The reason for grouping them together is B.3. Here, Lawes rescored the Royall Consort in one long sequence (pp. 50–100), largely organized by key. First, a sequence of (mostly) d pieces (pp. 50–79), fol-lowed by a sequence of (mostly) D pieces (pp. 80–100 and 48–9). Within these two key sequences Lawes ordered the pieces into suites or setts, elaborating on a basic A–C–S core. At either end of the sequence there are randomly assembled miscellaneous groups of pieces. At the start of the d sequence there are two pieces in D: Aire {37} and Corant {39}. At the end of the sequence there are four pieces – three in D, one in d – not in suite order: Alman {38}, Fantazy {36}, Saraband {14} and Aire {41}. It is unclear why the Saraband in d was included here. It is grouped with Sett 2 in most of the new version sources, and appears to have been an after-thought. The Fantazy, Alman and Aire at the sequence end are today grouped with the two pieces at the start of the sequence, and reordered into what is now designated Sett 6. Lawes evidently intended this sett but the random order sug-gests piecemeal composition: confirmation of Pinto’s theory regarding the initial random order of the D/d aires. The B.3 Royall Consort sequence is written in what appears to be the same ink, suggesting that it was all done within a relatively short space of time. Lawes tackled the rescoring in a logical and orderly fashion: first

50 See HolmanFTF, 225–50, esp. 234–5.

LAWES.indb 138 19/03/2010 10:58


by key and then by suite. This suggests that the two pieces in D (that come before the sequence in d) were composed after the sequence in d as a whole was com-pleted, on pages left unused after the harp consort pieces. Lawes may have run out of space after p. 100 and finished the sequence at the start, which suggests that the pages abstracted after p. 100 were removed before the rescoring. Another aberrant piece belongs to our modern Sett 6: Ecco {40}, included after the first sett in d. The explanation seems to lie with the preceding piece, also an Ecco (in d). Both Eccos are essentially stylized corants ‘devised to show off the dualism of the new scoring (two Tr–B pairs)’ .51 They appear to have been newly com-posed for the new version, and are the only ecco pieces in the collection. It seems that Lawes explored the ecco idiom in the d corant and then composed another essay in the form this time in D, resulting in a temporary aberration in the key sequence. In addition to the ecco corant, Lawes also composed a fine fantasia in this motley D sett. It is one of only two fantasias in the collection: the other heads the first sett in d. The fantasia was not a particularly suitable form for the Royall Con-sort ensemble, which was essentially a mixed consort in many ways similar to the Elizabethan mixed consort ensemble in its unsuitability for contrapuntal music (and especially the fantasia), which depends on the relative equality of voices to be effective. Throughout the surviving mixed consort repertoire extended passages of imitative counterpoint are seldom encountered.52 Although strictly speaking the fantasia-suites of Lawes and Coprario are mixed consorts, they are ensembles of similar instruments and therefore a different case. It is perhaps telling that of the hundred or so pieces that Lawes wrote for genuinely mixed ensembles (i.e. the Royall Consort and the harp consorts) only three are fantasias. From a consideration of the style and content of the two Royall Consort fanta-sias, it seems that Lawes conceived them as a complementary pair, despite some chronological (and physical) separation. The d fantasia appears to have been the first piece composed in the Royall Consort sequence in B.3. Beginning with such an abstract piece clearly demonstrates that Lawes was now composing for a rather different function. The D fantasia does not have the same corresponding pride of place at the head of the D sequence. Rather, as we have seen, it was added in a somewhat piecemeal fashion at the end of the sequence. These pieces are amongst the most refined of Lawes’s consort fantasia movements. One aspect of this refinement is due to the instrumentation. The independence of the plucked

51 LawesRC, v.52 See The First Book of Consort Lessons: Collected by Thomas Morley 1599 and 1611, ed.

S. Beck (New York, 1959); and Music for Mixed Consort, ed. W. Edwards, MB 40 (1977).

LAWES.indb 139 19/03/2010 10:58


instruments in these fantasias is exceptional in polyphonic consort music, rivalled only in Lawes’s harp consort fantasia (see Chapter 7). From the outset there is a direct tension between form and medium. The use of two unequal instrumen-tal groups was potentially problematic for a fantasia given the unequal acoustical potential of the bowed strings against the plucked theorboes. The theorboes play from single (unfigured) bass lines and were undoubtedly expected to realize quite a full continuo accompaniment. The fantasia in d, {1}, is one of Lawes’s finest.53 It is in four clearly defined sec-tions. The opening imitative section demands the listener’s attention from the outset, with the initial theme first presented softly in the theorbo. The first theme is built around an expression of the tonic triad; first the repeated tonic, moving by step to the mediant, and then, by leaps, back to the tonic, then to the dominant and then to the upper tonic, emphasized by the chromatic neighbour note from below. From the start Lawes incorporates division-writing into the fabric of the composition, in a similar way to Fantazia {135}. The fugal opening contrasts the timbres of the ensemble. The second theorbo is answered in the dominant by the second violin, in turn answered (in the tonic) by the second bass viol: all at the dis-tance of a breve. This opening motif (or variations thereupon) is stated seventeen times in the opening section. The section comes to a rather abrupt close at bar 15, where Lawes modifies the repeated-note idea of the opening theme to introduce a short dialogue passage. This brief moment also contains a chromatic shift to a, via an augmented chord, a harmonic device often used by Lawes. This brief change in mood and key introduces a short dialogue section for all the instruments (bars 16–19), using melodic fragments recalling various sections of the opening theme. Lawes follows this passage with an exploration of the antiphonal possibilities of the ensemble, anticipated in the opening bars of the movement. He begins with a trio of Violin 1, Bass Viol 2 and Theorbo 2, closely answered by the alternate trio group (Violin 2, Bass Viol 2 and Theorbo 1). Lawes uses two contrasting ideas for either trio group to highlight the antiphonal effect. In the first group he estab-lishes a ‘sighing motif ’ (Example 4.1), essentially a rhythmic gesture consisting of a dotted minim falling to a quaver or a crotchet. This motif is similar to the rhetorical figure ecphonesis or exclamatio, also found in contemporary vocal music. The introduction to Giulio Caccini’s Le nuove Musiche (1601) claims that, ‘Exclamation [esclamazione] is the principal means to move the Affection’ .54 Exclamations (which usually begin on a weak beat) are

53 See also the discussion in FieldCM, 218.54 The quotation is from an English translation of Caccini’s preface entitled ‘Brief

Discourse of, and Directions for Singing after the Italian manner’ , which Playford incorporated into editions of the Introduction to the Skill of Musick from 1664 to

LAWES.indb 140 19/03/2010 10:58


further described as suitable for use in all passionate music on a suitable dotted minim or dotted crotchet quitted by a downward step or leap. To contrast the sigh-ing motif Lawes introduces a division-based passage in the answering trio. In the section of his treatise concerning the composition of divisions in more than two instruments Simpson wrote the following:

In Divisions made for Three Basses, every Viol acts the Treble, Basse, or Inward Part, by Turns. But here you are to Note, that Divisions, of Three Parts, are not usually made upon Grounds; but rather Composed in the way of Fancy [i.e. fantasia]: beginning with some Fuge; then falling into Points of Division; answering One Another; sometimes Two answering One, and

1694: (1664), 63–4; see FieldFR, 231. J. Tarling, The Weapons of Rhetoric (Hertford-shire, 2004) provides a good introduction to rhetoric and music; HolmanD, 42–6 provides an excellent model for the analysis of musico-rhetorical ideas.

Example 4.1 Lawes, Royall Consort Fantasia in d, {1}, bars 16–19: ‘sighing’ motif: GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3

16

18

4

4

4

444

LAWES.indb 141 19/03/2010 10:58


sometimes, All joyning Together in Division; But commonly, Ending in Grave, and Harmonious Musick.55

Thus, when we find examples of division techniques in these fantasias they are often without the ‘ground’ . After these brief antiphonal passages the opening of the movement is recalled with the solo passage for Theorbo 2, now in F; the empty tonic and dominant emphasis recalls the second half of the opening motif. More-over, the change from the Dorian mood of the opening to the pastoral key of F attempts to bring an air of calm to proceedings. This brief solo passage is followed by another trio passage for the first group, which retains the earlier sighing motif while incorporating some of the division elements of the second trio group; an affect further underlined by the chromatic bass line in the theorbo. This passage is then seemingly dismissed by a brief tutti section in the tonic (bars 30–2); the earlier sighing motif has now permeated the entire ensemble. A new section begins at bar 32, which lasts until bar 35, with a new melody for solo violin and theorbo. This duet is a gently lilting melody, slowly rising from tonic to dominant. It is followed by trio group 2, and a choir of the bowed strings, both of which are based upon this gently rising duet melody. Towards the end of the bowed string choir the sighing motif reoccurs, reinforced by a four-note descending quaver motif, which builds to a concluding tutti. The tutti builds to a climactic use of divisions in the bowed strings, and includes a reminiscence of the descending chromatic bass line in both theorboes (bar 47). The overall affect of this division passage recalls that of the sighing motif, through its association with the short descending quaver motif. Just as Simpson would later advise, the entire ensemble comes together ‘Ending in Grave, and Harmonious Musick ’ , with the brief homophonic coda at bars 50–5 calmly rounding off the fantasia on the tonic major. The fantasia in D is imbued with a serenity rarely achieved in Lawes’s other fantasias; indeed, the key of D seems often to evoke a mood of serenity for Lawes: e.g. the fantasia-suite for two violins, no. 8 in D. The bowed strings initially domi-nate the opening imitative section of this piece. From the start, division-writing is more prominent in this fantasia, the quaver divisions adding a rhythmic drive and momentum to the opening, continued throughout the movement. Again, Lawes answers the opening imitative section with a short dialogue passage for all the instruments, but here anapaest rhythms begin to permeate the texture as it builds to a persuasive tutti (bars 20–3). This effect is reinforced by the anapaest rhythmic motif, an idiom commonly employed by Lawes in the five- and six-part fanta-sias. This confident, homophonic passage climaxes with the serene coda at bars 28–30. Here Lawes adopts a spacious, almost regal, setting in stark contrast to the

55 SimpsonDV, 49.

LAWES.indb 142 19/03/2010 10:58


impulsiveness of the preceding passage. There is, significantly, a chromatic bass similar to that of the fantasia in d, again harmonized in much the same way. (A similar chromatic passage is found in Lawes’s five-part Fantazy {81} (bars 21–2).)56 The middle section (bars 31–41) also employs an antiphonal device. The first trio group is for Violin 1, Bass Viol 2 and Theorbo 1, as they present a simple repeated-note motif. The second trio group answers the first, itself answered by a condensed repetition by the first trio group before the brief concluding tutti. The following section begins softly with a brief duet for Bass Viol 2 and Theorbo 2 in the tonic. This duet uses a similar arpeggio motif to that found in the second half of the opening theme of the fantasia in d. Now, however, the motif has moved from the weaker theorboes to the stronger tones of the bass viol. The duet quickly intro-duces the division idioms that dominate the concluding tutti. Although there is a brief reference to the sighing motif of the fantasia in d it is now subordinated to the division-writing. The progression to the final cadence is further ushered by the stepped repetition in the theorboes, now at the full of their expressive powers combining divisions with a reach right down to the edge of their range with the low AAs.57

The close resemblances suggest that the fantasias were conceived as a com-plementary pair, or that one was modelled on the other in a similar manner to the two ecco pieces discussed earlier. Both fantasias best exemplify the kind of contrapuntal division-writing employed by Lawes in the new version. The addi-tion of these pieces gave their respective suites an added weight and impor-tance; Lawes may have intended the suites to be complementary. The fantasias differ from the majority of the other movements given that they are both writ-ten in six real parts; the rest of the collection is in four or five real parts. The only movement that comes close is Pavan {49}, one of the new version additions. Its divisions are similarly demanding to those found in the harp consort pavans. Although Pavan {49} is not found in an autograph source the divisions appear to be authentic, and are the most elaborate and technically demanding in the Royall Consort. The pavan is in the usual form: ||A||A1||B||B1||C||C1||. There are mostly only five real parts, as both theorboes play the same line (except when performing divisions), a line which is often partially doubled by one of the bass viols. Again, Simpson’s idea of culmination and progression to a climax of divi-sions is evident. The first strain is typical of a stately pavan, dominated by the dotted minim and three-crotchet figure in free imitation. The theorboes play the same bass line, doubled in places by the first bass viol. For the A1 strain the

56 LawesCS, 46.57 For a discussion of theorboes probably used in England at the time, see L. Sayce,

‘Continuo Lutes in 17th and 18th-Century England’ , EM 23 (1995), 667–84.

LAWES.indb 143 19/03/2010 10:58


first violin holds the pavan melody as the bass viols take the bass line while the theorboes perform the divisions with the second violin, sometimes in imitation. The divisions are initially quite simple, especially in the theorboes. Although the format of the B strain is the same as the A strain, the B1 divisions are more intense and complex than in A1.58 The theorboes now take the bass line as the first violin and both bass viols perform virtuosic ‘mixt’ divisions, with fast scalar passages, chordal skips, octave leaps and written-out trills. The C strain pro-vides relief from the explosive divisions of the previous strain. By contrast, C1 demonstrates Lawes’s use of varied textures. The divisions begin imitatively in quavers in the theorboes, the motive is then taken by the bass viols (again in imitation) building to semiquaver movement. The violins take over the divisions (also imitatively) at bar 65, against bass line played in unison by the viols and theorboes for three bars; thereafter the divisions become faster and more com-plex, permeating throughout the ensemble and building to a rousing climax (Example 4.2).

It is difficult to be certain what function the Royall Consort served. Holman has noted that it ‘is certainly ideal Tafelmusik, poised midway between seri-

ous consort music – which demands to be listened to in a concert-like situa-tion – and functional dance music’ .59 Although the addition of the fantasias and pavans indicates that the collection in its Tr–Tr–B–B form was intended for a more concert-like performance, the generally simple style of divisions used in the rescored version point to a less explicit concert function. The most common forms of divisions are descant and simple breaking bass techniques (rhythmic altera-tion, octave displacement, neighbour notes and passing notes). There is little of the virtuosic pyrotechnics heard in the harp consort pavans or in the bass viols duos; the only comparable movement is Pavan {49}. The lack of elaborate divisions implies that the music was not intended to distract the audience, suggesting an informal setting where music was important, but not the focal point. Neverthe-less, the divisions in the Tr–Tr–B–B version would satisfy the fashionable taste for divisions which in turn reflect well on the players. Furthermore, the performers would of course be able to extemporize more complex division as the situation required, to their ‘equall aduantage’ . Simply because Lawes did not compose elab-orate divisions for the Royall Consort – Pavan {49} notwithstanding – does not mean that they were not extemporized. One could argue that Lawes was generally meticulous in composing divisions where he wished them to be played. This may,

58 Violin 2 of the B1 strain is lacking, reconstructed in LawesRC; see also C. D. S. Field, ‘Rehabilitating William Lawes’ , EM 25 (1997), 149–52.

59 HolmanFTF, 261.

LAWES.indb 144 19/03/2010 10:58


however, simply indicate a relatively fixed function for the Royall Consort. The works with composed divisions are suggestive of a concert-like setting: a point addressed throughout this book. One explanation for the lack of (elaborate) composed divisions for the Royall Consort is a fluid performance function, reinforced by Pinto’s suggestion that the Tr–Tr–T–B and Tr–Tr–B–B versions must have overlapped to some degree. There is no reason to suppose that both forms were not popular contemporaneously, but in different contexts. It is unlikely that Tr–Tr–T–B scoring simply died with Lawes’s

71

73

75

4

4 4

4 4 4

Example 4.2 Lawes, Pavan {49}, ending: GB-Och, Mus. MSS 754–9

LAWES.indb 145 19/03/2010 10:58


ambitious foray into Tr–Tr–B–B. Evidence for extemporized elaborate divisions comes from the aforementioned Pavan {49}. It survives in two main sources, only one of which contains the divisions. Thus, elaborately worked versions of several of the Royall Consort pieces – pavans would seem to be main candidates – could have existed, depending on the occasion. They were evidently extemporized, or the sources have not survived. Because these pieces are not copied into the later partbooks Pinto has sug-gested that the two fantasias and the pavans in a and C possibly represent Lawes’s ‘finishing touches’ .60 Although this is plausible, it is also somewhat misleading. A brief overview of the sources concerned is necessary. First, GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.241–4 contains both violin parts and both bass viol parts, but only of the D/d pieces. Thus, D.241–4 cannot be held as not containing either the a or the C pavans. None of these pieces was included, which suggests that they were not available to the copyist. Both pavans are omitted from F.568–9 and E.431–6, suggesting that they were composed sometime after the initial version of the collection, but that does not imply that they were conceived as ‘finishing touches’; rather, as part of a later incarnation. Apart from the autographs and D.233–6 (and E.451), there are six main sources of the new version. GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 31431 contains the violin parts and one of the bass parts for most of the collection. GB-Och, Mus. MSS 754–9,61 GB-Och, Mus. MSS 391–6 and GB-Och, Mus. MSS 479–83 survive com-plete. GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 31433 and 10445 can be grouped together: MS 31433 has one theorbo and one bass viol part (a ‘Didvideing B[ase]’), MS 10445 has the other bass viol part (‘A breaking Base’) and both violin parts. The two books are not from the same set, but appear to be distantly related. These four sources (grouping MSS 31433 and 10445 together) contain most of the collection (although MS 10445 contains only twenty-six of the dances). Of these sources, the fantasias and pavan in C are found in two, MSS 754–9 and 391–6. The pavan in a is found in all five (but not in MS 10445). Thus, it is not relevant to group the pavan in a with the other three movements. The pavan in C is found also in MSS 479–83, but only in the theorbo book (MS 483B, fol. 13v), which suggests that either it was not fully avail-able to the copyist or that he began the pavan and then abandoned copying it. It is curious that Pavan {49} is also omitted from MS 31431. The pages where it should be are numbered ‘48’ but unused, which suggests that it was known but not copied. It seems significant that the three pieces generally omitted from the new version sources are the fantasias and Pavan {49}. This does not necessarily imply that they

60 PintoFyV, 65; also D. Pinto, ‘The Music of the Hattons’ , RMARC 23 (1990), 79–108, esp. 82.

61 Copied by Stephen Bing c. 1653: see WainwrightMP, 100–2, 403–5 (inventory); also IMCCM1, 205–7.

LAWES.indb 146 19/03/2010 10:58


were not available to later copyists: it may mean that they declined to copy them because of the six-part textures. We can draw a parallel here with the harp con-sort pieces. None of the large-scale harp consorts exists beyond the autograph sources, despite the apparent popularity of the rest of the collection in several later sources (see Chapter 7).62 Later copyists of the Royall Consort may not have been interested in the more abstract fantasias and the elaborate pavans. Complex con-trapuntal works for large consort groups were not fashionable after c. 1660. Indeed, Lawes’s exploration of large-scale forms in the 1630s is quite individual as most composers at the time were tending towards smaller-scale forms. Furthermore, the evidence from B.3 does not support the claim that these were late additions. One could argue that the fantasia in D was somewhat of an afterthought, coming as it does in a miscellaneous sequence after the main sequence. The fantasia in d (arguably the better of the two), however, comes early in the main sequence, and may have been the first one added. The issue hinges on what date one puts on the B.3 sequence, and what stage of the collection it represents. Whether the B.3 version represents a ‘final version’ of the collection is debatable. As Pinto points out, ‘the partbook copies of the

“new” sometimes agree with the “old” in some small features. … Quite possibly something not totally polished had gone into circulation before Lawes got round to the intended final draft’ .63 This implies that Lawes went through one or more drafts of all or part of the Royall Consort, which seems unlikely given the scale of the collection: the B.3 sequence alone numbers forty-one pieces. This is not to say that (now lost) corrupt copies did not circulate between the B.3 sequence and later manuscripts; this seems quite likely given Lowe’s somewhat hybrid version in D.233–6. One suspects that the B.3 sequence was a reasonably finished draft, and probably the only autograph scores of those ‘new’ version pieces. Lawes would undoubtedly have revised small details between the scorebook and his partbooks. As with the various revisions (from scorebook to partbooks) evident in the viol consorts (see Chapter 5), harp consorts (see Chapter 7) and bass viol pieces (see Chapter 8), such revisions are, however, unlikely to have been substantial. The lack of an autograph source for the varied key-sequence – including Pavans {42} and {49} – need not imply that they were late additions. The only thing we can say with certainty is that they were separated from Lawes’s main sequence in B.3. This sepa-ration may have been due to an abstraction from the scorebook, or those pieces may have been composed in another volume. B.3 ends with the Royall Consort sequence, notwithstanding the several leaves abstracted after what is now the last page.

62 Index for concordances.63 PintoFyV, 65.

LAWES.indb 147 19/03/2010 10:58


Many questions remain concerning the Royall Consort. The rescoring issue will perhaps never be fully resolved. One wonders at the lack of autograph

versions for the Tr–Tr–T–B versions and for the Tr–Tr–B–B versions of the varied key-sequence suites. Pinto has suggested that the latter were never included in autograph score, as they did not require the same revisions as did the pieces in D/d.64 Although the point is compelling, a lost autograph source (or sources) cannot be entirely discounted. For example, one wonders what were the contents of the gathering of ruled sheets abstracted from the start of B.3. The primary importance of the Royall Consort is its role in the development of the suite and in the development of the Tr–Tr–B–B scoring. Its changing function also highlights the various demands made on composers of consort music at the court of Charles I. Lawes’s incorporation of the fantasias, the increased use of division-writing and the more refined scoring of the new version of the Royall Consort demonstrates the direction in which he was attempting to bring the collection. It seems rea-sonable to suggest that the Royall Consort originated as functional dance music outside the court. Provision of this kind of music would have been bread and butter to a professional composer at the time, and may have helped advance Lawes’s application for a royal appointment. The need to incorporate or facilitate elaborate divisions, most of which were probably extemporized, appears to have inspired the change from Tr–Tr–T–B to Tr–Tr–B–B; the increased use of divisions is a trend that can be seen developing throughout much of Lawes’s major collec-tions composed after his royal appointment. This suggests an increased popularity of audience-based consort music at the court of Charles I and further suggests that the original demand for functional dance music remained. Where the Royall Consort was performed at court is unknown. If the old ver-sion was used largely to accompany functional dancing, the Presence Chamber or the Banqueting House would seem to be the most likely places, although such entertainments were also presumably heard in Privy Chamber (the most likely place for the ‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’ to perform); certainly one imagines that the Privy Chamber would provide an ideal setting for the new version. Most ambas-sadors and courtiers awaiting the royal summons were entertained in the Privy Chamber. The Royall Consort would seem to be the ideal background music to impress upon visitors the musical sophistication of the Caroline court: the music fashionable, the scoring innovative. Perhaps most importantly, the ensemble was highly portable, quick and easy to assemble and disassemble. The dances are never far from a cadence, which makes them eminently suited for court performances: they could be easily and promptly brought to a close on the command of the Lord Chamberlain; on the other hand, strains could be repeated as desired and complex

64 PintoNL, 268–9.

LAWES.indb 148 19/03/2010 10:58


divisions could be easily extemporized. It should come as no surprise that audi-ence-orientated concert music was being cultivated at the Caroline court given the high quality of consort music composers employed there, in addition to Charles’s own enthusiasm for cultivating that repertoire. Further, the character of Charles I should also be taken into account. Charles was obsessed by formality and cer-emony, from the greeting of ambassadors to the cleaning of the royal bottom. It is surely no great leap of faith that the audition of chamber music would be any less subject to formality and order.

LAWES.indb 149 19/03/2010 10:58

chapter 5

The Viol Consorts

Lawes’s music for viol consort is an impressive testament to his ability to compose flexible and imaginative pieces within a contrapuntal framework,

and perhaps best illustrates how he was able to transform traditional genres by applying his own compositional language and style. Thirty-three pieces for viol consort survive by Lawes (16 five-part and 17 six-part). They include fan-tasias, pavans, aires and (two six-part) In Nomines: many can be ranked with those of Orlando Gibbons, Ferrabosco II and Jenkins as among the best in the repertoire. Generally speaking, the viol consort fantasia can be seen as having developed along two main paths in early seventeenth-century England.1 On the one hand the fantasias of Coprario, Thomas Lupo and John Ward were strongly influenced by the Italian madrigal. By the turn of the century these composers were writing what were in effect textless madrigals for consorts of viols. During the first decade or so, however, they began to move away from vocally derived models and were composing more instrumentally conceived fantasias for viols.2 These composers, especially Coprario, show an affinity for the seconda prattica in their use of dissonance, chromaticisms and madrigalian textures and harmonies: they seem to have exerted the strongest influence on Lawes. The other main path is represented by Gibbons, Ferrabosco II and Jenkins. The bulk of Gibbons’s con-sort fantasias appear to have been composed by 1620. In them he experimented with triple-time sections and popular melodies, all interwoven within virtuosic counter point. Although Ferrabosco was largely unconcerned with madri galian techniques, his acquaintance with contemporary Italian music is demonstrated by his use of bipartite structures, fantasias built around a single theme, and use of sophisticated contrapuntal devices such as augmentation and diminution. Ferra-bosco’s fantasias are generally instrumental in character, and explore a greater range of modulations than his English contemporaries; a common fingerprint is

1 There is an excellent discussion of the development of the viol consort in AshbeeHM1, 108–41; see also O. Neighbour, The Consort and Keyboard Music of William Byrd (Berkeley, 1978); D. Pinto, ‘The Fantasy Manner: The Seventeenth-Century Context’ , Chelys 10 (1981), 17–28; Music in Britain: The Sixteenth Century, ed. R. Bray (Oxford, 1995); FieldCM.

2 See Bibliography for modern editions.

LAWES.indb 150 19/03/2010 10:58

the viol consorts 151

the use of tonic major and minors for structural effect.3 All of these traits were to exert a strong influence on Jenkins.4 Gibbons too influenced Jenkins, though the main signs of this are to be found in his three-part pieces, especially in the treat-ment of themes.5

Of course, such summaries greatly simplify matters. Although usually dis-cussed in opposition, Lawes and Jenkins clearly shared several influences, includ-ing each other: for example, David Pinto has noted several similarities between Jenkins’s six-part Fantazia {11} and Lawes’s six-part Fantazia in g {85}.6 Almost forty pieces by Jenkins for five and six viols have survived. They do not appear to have been widely available in manuscript copies before the late 1620s and several must have been composed around the same time as Lawes’s in the 1630s.7 More-over, the range of possible influences is not restricted to the few composers men-tioned above. Several later composers deserve mention. Five fine six-part fantasias by Charles Coleman survive; sources in which they are found appear to date from around the late 1620s.8 John Ward (d. 1638) was employed by Sir Henry Fanshawe at Ware in Hertfordshire, where he may have taught Lawes’s close contemporary Simon Ives, whose viol consorts appear to date from the first quarter of the cen-tury. Ives was one of a group of musicians working in St Paul’s in the first half of the century whose significance has yet to be fully investigated or understood. The group included William Cranford, Martin Peerson, Thomas Ravenscroft, John Tomkins and John Woodington. It seems likely that Lawes had some connection with them. He knew Ives by at least late 1633, when they collaborated on The Tri-umph of Peace, and both Tomkins and Woodington also held posts in the Royal Music. A handful of consorts in three to six parts survive by Cranford;9 four five-part fantasias survive by Ravenscroft. We need only look to the Shirley partbooks to glimpse some of the repertoire Lawes was familiar with as a young man: Coprario, Ferrabosco II, Ives, Lupo, Ward, Thomas Holmes, William White, Luca Marenzio, Claudio Monteverdi, Benedetto Pallavicino and Horatio Vecchi. Lawes’s first essays in large-scale viol

3 See G. Dodd, ‘Alfonso Ferrabosco II – The Art of the Fantasy’ , Chelys 7 (1977), 47–53.

4 See also, FieldJCH. 5 See A. Ashbee, ‘Jenkins’s Fantasias for Viols’ , in A Viola da Gamba Miscellany, ed.

J. Boer and G. van Oorschot (Utrecht, 1994), 41–54, esp. 48–9. 6 See AshbeeHM1, 167–73 and passim; PintoFyV, 104–7. 7 See AshbeeHM1. 8 PintoFyV, 87–8. Edition: Charles Coleman: The Six-Part Fantasias for Viol Consort,

ed. J. Jeffrey, PRBVCS 46 (Albany, CA, 2003). 9 Available in four volumes by PRB Productions.

LAWES.indb 151 19/03/2010 10:58


consort writing appear to be the two five-part fantasias in the Shirley partbooks, probably composed in the late 1620s or early 1630s. Even by this time large-scale viol consorts were somewhat old-fashioned and had been superseded by scorings requiring fewer instruments; the bulk of the five- and six-part fantasy repertoire appears to have been composed by around 1625. A key development in the genre was the shift from a graded Tr–A-T–Bar–B ensemble to an emphasis on a more modern two-treble scoring, which took place in the second decade of the cen-tury; David Pinto has linked this to increased interest in the madrigal.10 The shift represents the development of more polarized textures and finds full expression in Lawes’s music. Lawes also went a step further than his Jacobean predecessors by composing dances (pavans and almans or aires) in five and six parts. Although none of the sources agree on a set order, the evident intention was to form ‘suites’ with the fantasias. One model may have been Ferrabosco, whose five-part pieces mostly consist of pavans and almans, some of which appear to have been dis-seminated as pairs. Dances in six parts are, however, rare. Perhaps the only other significant examples were composed by Martin Peerson of St Paul’s.11 A set of six paired fantasias and almans are preserved in GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 17786–91; in a sec-ondary source, GB-Och, Mus. MSS 423–8, the first four fantasias are acrostically titled ‘Acquaintance’ , ‘Beauty’ , ‘Chowse’ and ‘Delicate’ .12 Despite his evident ambi-tion in tackling six-part writing (challenging to most composers), Peerson’s six-part pieces, while often charming, tend to reveal his compositional limitations. As with Lawes, there are moments of unconventional harmonies (use of dissonance, unexpected key shifts etc.), although with Peerson they are often rather unsubtle. Lawes avoids the modulations to remote keys, polished contrapuntal devices and bipartite structures found in Ferrabosco (and Jenkins), and also breaks from the style of the previous generation in his liberal use of strict counterpoint. He was clearly able to compose orthodox counterpoint (as the In Nomine in B b demon-strates), though extended passages of strict counterpoint are generally avoided. His daring use of expressive harmonic shifts, especially in codas, was a step further than even Coprario had managed. A perfect example of this is found at the end of Fantazy {93} in F which moves from a cadence in the tonic to a short coda intro-duced by an augmented chord in second inversion (Example 5.1).13

10 PintoMVC, 19.11 See A. Jones and R. Rastall, ‘Peerson, Martin’ , GMO (accessed 6 June 2009); Pro-

fessor Rastall has edited the first two volumes of Peerson’s complete works (Antico Editions; Devon).

12 Edition: Martin Peerson: Fantasias and Almaines for Six Viols, ed. V. Brookes, PRBVCS 39 (Albany, CA, 2000).

13 Bar nos. correspond to LawesCS. {68–71}, {74}, {96–100} are in LawesSCM: where bar numbers differ the LawesSCM numbering is given in square brackets. Tenor 2

LAWES.indb 152 19/03/2010 10:58


Example 5.1 Lawes, Fantazy {93}, coda

47

50

4

4

4

444

Perhaps the most notable differences between the viol fantasias of Lawes and the Jacobean composers, and indeed those of his near contemporaries, are his use of textures and the expansion of the role played by the organ. Throughout the viol consorts Lawes divides the ensemble for textural contrasts, exploiting an essentially Tr–B structure. Especially in the six-part setts we can hear much of the concertante-style writing prominent in the Royall Consort. His mastery of texture is perfectly illustrated by the six-part Fantazy in g {85) where the textures are used for structural effect. After the opening fugal section (bars 1–11) Lawes moves to the tonic major by restating the opening theme on the dominant in a brief three-part texture (bars 12–13; Example 5.2a). The next section also begins with a textural contrast, bar 21. A repeated-note motif is heard in the basses, which play a duet for four bars. This is answered by the upper strings (bars 26–9), basses, tenors, and

(i.e. line IV) of the five-part pieces and Tenor 1 (i.e. line III) of the six-part pieces were originally notated (in GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. B.2–3) in c4 and c2 clefs respec-tively; in the following examples both have been changed to a c3 clef. All examples in this chapter are taken from B.2–3, unless stated otherwise.

LAWES.indb 153 19/03/2010 10:58


Example 5.2 Lawes, Fantazy {85}: (a) bars 12–15; (b) bars 20–32

finally the trebles (Example 5.2b). A brief tutti introduces another bass duet, before a final section dominated by repeated-note figures. The expressive coda is seam-lessly introduced again with an augmented chord (bar 42). The traditional function of the organ in a viol consort was essentially to double the string parts.14 As we shall see below, although they are primarily reductions of the strings, many of Lawes’s organ parts (especially in the six-part pieces) include independent material to an unprecedented degree. Lawes’s scorebooks (GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. B.2–3) provide scores for all but one of his viol consorts; the scores do not include organ parts, which are found in his organbook (GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229). Although the scorebooks lack the organ part, they are not therefore incomplete:15 the organ part was never intended to be written as part of the score. English consort sources of the period do not preserve organ parts in score with string consorts unless there is some essential function that the organ fulfils beyond

14 See HolmanOA, esp. 373–4.15 Cf. PintoFyV, 74.

12

14

4

4

4

44

4

(a)

LAWES.indb 154 19/03/2010 10:58


20

23

27

30

4

4

4 4

4 4

(b)

LAWES.indb 155 19/03/2010 10:58


binding the consort together, what Thomas Mace described as ‘a Holding, Uniting-Constant-Friend; and is as a Touch-stone, to try the certainty of All Things; espe-cially the Well-keeping the Instruments in Tune, &c. ’ 16 Thus, when Lawes made scores of Fantazia {135} and the suites for bass viols he included the organ accom-paniment. The organ is, however, primarily obbligato in these pieces.17 The same could be said of the large-scale harp consorts, where again the accompaniment is included in the scores. The role of the organ in the viol consorts is fundamentally different: it is generally a short-score of the strings. This also had practical implica-tions. Even for the five-part consorts, to include a two-stave accompaniment limits one to a single system per page (given the twelve-stave pages), which would have been wasteful. A better solution was first to compose the main musical body of the piece (the strings) and then prepare the organ part by referring to the string score; a professional organist could easily have played from the scores without a separately written-out part. We can assume with reasonable certainty that Lawes composed most of his viol consorts for performance by members of the ‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’ (LVV) (see also below, and see Chapter 9). Judging from the evidence available in the court records and from records pertaining to masques and other entertainments, it seems that when Lawes (himself a viol player) joined the LVV there were sev-eral viol players associated with the group (years of service in parenthesis): Daniel Farrant (1607–42), John Friend (1615–42), Dietrich Stoeffken (1635–42), John Taylor (1628–42) and Thomas Ford (1625–42). Giles Tomkins was organist in the LVV from 1630 to 1642 and would most likely have been the accompanying organ-ist. To this list of viol players could perhaps be added the violinists, some of whom presumably also played the viol: Robert Kindersley (1626–36), John Wooding-ton (1618–42) and Theophilus Lupo (1625–42). Even without the violinists, there would have been just enough viol players to perform five- and six-part consorts. The group could even have been supplemented by people like Charles Coleman, who is listed among ‘The Consorte’ at the funeral of James I. No records survive of an official appointment, although Peter Holman has suggested that Coleman was associated with the household of Prince Charles (later Charles II) during the 1630s.18 Coleman, who played the treble viol and theorbo in The Triumph of Peace, was certainly active in court music circles. Lucy Hutchinson’s husband Colonel John Hutchinson studied and lodged with Coleman at his house in Richmond; in her diary Lucy noted that ‘The man [Coleman] being a skilful composer in music,

16 MaceMM, 242.17 Lawes also included the unfigured continuo in his draft score of Psalm 71, dis-

cussed below; it includes some doubling of the vocal parts (especially the bass).18 HolmanFTF, 252–3.

LAWES.indb 156 19/03/2010 10:58


the King’s musicians often met at his house to practise new aires and prepare them for the King’ .19 The tentative possibility of such a connection between Coleman and Lawes is especially interesting when one considers the apparent instances of cross-influence between them noted by Pinto.20

David Pinto has done some of the most significant research into Lawes’s consort music in the years since Lefowitz’s monograph.21 Part of this

research has explored the complex question of how and when Lawes’s viol consort suites came about.22 Pinto’s conclusions are founded on his interpretation of the way in which the viol consorts were added to the scorebooks (B.2–3) and the organ-book (D.229); they are worth quoting in detail. Lawes’s first viol consort composi-tions seem to have been the two five-part fantasias in g {68–9} also in the Shirley partbooks.

A revised version of these head the remainder of the five-part pieces laid out in [B.2], begun probably a couple of years later when vocal music for occa-sions datable 1634–8 was already present. The first four fantasies had been scored before Lawes thought of providing them with aires which, like most if not all of those following in five parts, were reworkings of older favourites. The further fantasies were doubtless new compositions. After completing the first two sets [in g and a] and probably while pro-ceeding with the remainder in five parts, Lawes began the six-part sets in [B.3]. Only three sets were entered [in C, g and F], the last two [in c and B b] being included, perhaps after some interval, grouped around the five-part sets in [B.2]. This order of composition is borne out by the composer’s organ-book [D.229]. … It further suggests in conjunction with [the John Browne partbooks] that the six-part sequence was completed and the whole circulated after 1640 and before 1642.23

This generally accepted chronology was supported by a close reading of the later non-autograph sources. The viol consorts are preserved in four main non- autograph sources, which can be divided into two groups.24 First, the set of parts GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 29410–15 and US-NHub, Osborn MS 515. MSS 29410–15 are a

19 Quoted in HolmanFTF, 253.20 PintoFyV, esp. 44–52, 87–8, 118–20.21 See Bibliography.22 PintoMVC; LawesCS; PintoFyV.23 LawesCS, viii–ix. For further elaboration of this topic, see also PintoFyV, passim.24 For a detailed discussion of the main non-autograph sources, see LawesCS, xv–xvi,

upon which much of the following paragraph is based.

LAWES.indb 157 19/03/2010 10:58


‘complete but highly corrupt’ source for all of the five- and six-part consorts, dating to the late 1650s.25 Osborn 515 is a guardbook, bound c. 1700, which includes a fascicle containing the bass part for all but one of Lawes’s five-part consorts.26 It is the sole survivor of the original set: a further two books were known until the mid-nineteenth century. Osborn 515 and MSS 29410–15 appear to have been copied from a common source. Second, and more importantly, there are two related manuscripts associated with John Browne, Clerk of the Parliaments 1638–49 and 1660–91:27 GB-Och, Mus. MSS 479–83 (also a source of the ‘new’ Royall Consort) and the ‘John Browne Partbooks’ together offer a complete text for the six-part consort setts.28 Significantly, these two groups of sources agree in many places with the revised readings found in the autograph bass partbook GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17798 that clearly update those in the autograph scorebooks.29

Whereas Osborn 515 and MSS 29410–15 offer little evidence for establishing a date of composition for the consorts, the Browne sources provide important evidence of the consorts’ early dissemination as he had access to the complete collection. The research of Andrew Ashbee and David Pinto suggests that it is unlikely that Browne acquired these consorts after the outbreak of Civil War in the autumn of 1642. Browne was strongly Parliamentarian, and much of his library ‘probably passed out of his ownership when his lands in Northamptonshire beyond the King’s war-time court at Oxford had become inaccessible’ .30 Never-theless, the evidence for this assertion, while compelling, is not conclusive. It remains possible that Browne became separated from his collection at a later time, which means that he could have copied the viol consorts later than 1642. More-over, the terminus post quem of c. 1640 is based on an erroneous dating of Lawes’s organbook.31

25 LawesCS, xvi.26 See R. Ford, ‘Osborn 515: A Guardbook of Restoration Instrumental Music’ , FAM

30 (1983), 174–83; PintoFyV, 173–4; P. Holman, Henry Purcell (Oxford, 1994), 63–5; ShayThompsonPM, 292–4.

27 For Browne, see AshbeeJB; N. Fortune with I. Fenlon, ‘Music Manuscripts of John Browne (1608–91), and from Stanford Hall, Leicestershire’ , in Source Materials and the Interpretation of Music, ed. I. Bent (1981), 155–68; A. Ashbee, ‘Manuscripts of Consort Music in London, c. 1600–1625: Some Observations’ , VdGSJ 1 (2007), 1–19; D. Pinto, ‘Pious Pleasures in Early Stuart London’ , RMARC 41 (2008), 1–24.

28 The ‘Browne Partbooks’ are owned by Professor Franklin Zimmerman: microfilm copy at the Pendlebury Library of Music, University of Cambridge.

29 Although independent, many of the variants and revisions found in the Browne manuscripts are also found in Osborn 515 and MSS 29410–15.

30 LawesCS, xvi. See also AshbeeJB and PintoFyV, 160–70.31 See PintoMVC, 14.

LAWES.indb 158 19/03/2010 10:58


As with much of Lawes’s music, our understanding of the function of the autograph manuscripts is fundamental in establishing a chronology for

the viol consorts. If we accept B.2–3 as compositional drafts, as I think we must, several sections of B.2 can be dated with reasonable accuracy and in turn provide clues for dating much of the rest of the manuscript. I argued in Chapter 2 that The Triumph of Peace section was probably among the first music to be added to B.2, no later than January 1634; see Chapter 2 also for a discussion of the time needed for the composition of masque music. This implies that Lawes began composing the masque music almost half way into B.2 (on p. 38), and suggests that he planned to have another type of music at the start of B.2; there is a gathering of ruled sheets missing before what is now p. 1. The Triumph of Peace music is followed by music for another masque, The Triumph of the Prince d’Amour presented on 24 February 1635/6 (pp. 41–4). Again, we can assume that this music would have been com-posed by the end of the previous year. The next datable music (pp. 16–18) is for another masque, Britannia Trium-phans, presented on 7 January 1637/8. Here we can assume that composition of the music began during December 1637. Much, if not all, of the five-part sequence on pp. 45–75 was probably also in place by the time Lawes came to compose the Britannia Triumphans music, prompting him to fill up unused pages towards the front of B.2 (see Chapter 2). The two five-part fantasias in g {68–9} reworked from the Shirley partbooks,32 the four-part consorts {108–13} in C/c, and some miscel-laneous vocal music separate it from The Triumph of Peace (pp. 38ff). The implica-tion is that the music on pp. 19–37 – {68–9} and {108–13} – was already entered by the end of 1637. After the Prince d’Amour music there is a partsong on p. 44, the end of which is missing due to the abstraction of two gatherings. Thus, a substan-tial amount of music may have occupied the pages between this partsong and the main sequence of five-part viol consorts beginning on what is now p. 45. Unlike the five- and six-part pieces, which achieved limited circulation, none of the six four-part viol consorts {108–13} are found outside B.2.33 As with nearly all of the

32 Fantazia {69} is titled ‘Iñomine’ (which it is not) in the Shirley partbooks; in B.2 it is more accurately titled ‘On the Playnsong’ (seemingly a newly composed one). A single leaf was abstracted after p. 18. Both fantasias in g (B.2, pp. 19ff) have the second tenor part written in a c3 clef (as have these pieces in the Shirley part-books), whereas the next aire in g (pp. 45ff) has this part in a c4 clef which is used for the second tenor thereafter, suggesting the use of a slightly larger instrument, either a large tenor or a small bass: see PintoMVC, 21 n. 8; and PintoFyV, 165–6. This perhaps suggests an early stage in Lawes’s move towards a two-bass scoring, which finds full expression in the revised ‘new’ version of the Royall Consort (see Chapter 4).

33 Edition: William Lawes: Suite No. 1 in C minor and Suite no. 2 in C major for Two Treble and Two Bass Viols, ed. R. Taruskin (Ottawa, 1983). See also PintoFyV, 157–9.

LAWES.indb 159 19/03/2010 10:58


five-part dances, however, two of the six were reworked from earlier versions.34 Aires {109–10} in g are also found (also in four parts) in the Shirley partbooks. The Shirley versions (also Tr–Tr–B–B) are close to those in B.2, although {110} is in d; the revisions are mostly in the basses, with some swapping of material in the trebles. Their position in B.2 and their association with the Shirley partbooks implies that the four-part pieces were among the first to be added to B.2. They are not explicitly grouped as two suites, but it would seem that Lawes intended them as such.35 Each ‘suite’ comprises a fantasia followed by two aires. (Although ‘Fantasia’ is not used in B.2 to describe these pieces they are through-composed imitative compositions.)36 The fantasias are stylistically similar to Lawes’s large-scale viol consort fantasias. They are sectional in structure, mixing imitative counterpoint with homophonic passages; both fantasias are built around engaging dance rhythms. Although not well known today they are well worth investigating (Example 5.3).37

The Tr–Tr–B–B fantasias of Thomas Lupo mentioned in Chapter 4 may have provided Lawes with a model. Despite the scoring and some passages that antici-pate the Royall Consort fantasias (cf. Fantazia {108} bars 37–9 and Royall Consort Fantazia {36} bars 22–4), they do not appear to have any connections with the Royall Consort. The aires are highly imitative. The most interesting are the pair in C. The first aire has a passage with a melodic idiom also found in Lawes’s five-part Fantazy {72} and in Fantazy {191} for harp consort (see Chapter 7, Example 7.10a-c). The second is a three-strain alman, with the second strain in triple time, followed by a duple-time close; such time changes are unusual in Lawes’s aires. These pieces are more episodic than, say, the Royall Consort or in the larger-scale viol consorts. The texture is mostly four-part throughout, only occasionally are parts of the ensemble contrasted against each other. Most typically either the two trebles or basses are in pairs; there are also some passages pairing one treble and one bass. We can tentatively date the four- and five-part viol consorts on pp. 19–35 of B.2 to c. 1634–7, although one is inclined to date them close to Lawes’s official appointment to the Royal Music. Stylistically there is little to suggest that they are late compositions. After reworking the five-part Fantazias {68–9} in g Lawes continued the five-part sequence with the two fantasias in a, {71–2}. These fantasias are among Lawes’s

34 The various reworkings of the dances have been discussed in detail in PintoFyV.35 The four-part pieces are discussed in M. Davenport, ‘The Dances and Aires of

William Lawes (1602–1645): Context and Style’ (PhD diss., University of Colorado, 2001), 250–67; Davenport’s analyses are largely anachronistic and unconvincing.

36 The fantasia in C is titled ‘Aire’ .37 There is an excellent recording of all six pieces by Phantasm, William Lawes:

Consorts in Four and Five Parts. Channel Classics, CCS 15698 (2000).

LAWES.indb 160 19/03/2010 10:58


earliest essays in the form; a brief examination of {71} will be useful at this point. The fantasia is in two main sections: bars 1–34 and 35–58. The opening section recalls the double fugue favoured by Coprario.38 Lawes does not, however, strictly maintain the countersubject given in the bass (Example 5.4a). The juxtaposition of raised and natural sixths and sevenths in the opening create false relations and clashing dissonances.39 After the initial exposition the themes are fragmented and a rising figure (recalling the opening bars of the bass) is developed until the Phrygian cadence on E at bars 25–6. Throughout the first twenty-five bars, ten-sion is maintained (in the tonic) through the melodic minor chromatic inflections and secondary dominants (including the brief use of the tonic major at bar 20). Bars 26–34 act as a transitional episode; it begins with the canonic introduction

38 See also PintoFyV, 78–9; and A New Way of Making Fowre Parts in Counterpoint by Thomas Campion and Rules how to Compose by Giovanni Coprario, ed. C. Wilson (Aldershot, 2003), 114–15.

39 A point made in PintoFyV, 78–9; see also Pinto’s discussion of the suite ibid., 74–80.

Example 5.3 Lawes, Fantazia {108}, ‘For the Violls’ , opening

3

5

LAWES.indb 161 19/03/2010 10:58


5

34

37

4

4

4

4 4

Example 5.4 Lawes, Fantazia {71}: (a) bars 1–8 [1–16]; (b) bars 34–9 [67–78]

(b)

(a)

LAWES.indb 162 19/03/2010 10:58


of a falling figure which begins imitatively in Treble 1 and the Bass, with each of the remaining parts entering in turn; the figure is combined with an inverted variant from bars 31–4 as the tonality prepares for a cadence on G at bar 35. This introduces the second section, which begins with an off-beat arpeggio figure on G leading to another expression of the G triad through the introduction of a fall-ing motif (again on a weak beat) on d" (Tr1), g (T2), and b' (Tr2) respectively. This figure dominates the texture until bar 45. At bar 46 a repeated-note anapaest figure rhythmically derived from bars 26ff enters and swiftly pervades the entire tex-ture; once again the texture is dominated by arpeggiation. This idea is continued, albeit more sparingly, until the cadence on E at bar 54. The fantasia ends with an extended cadence referencing the descending figure that opened the second sec-tion. In B.2 there is a lengthy and rather diffuse section of twenty-nine semibreves crossed out between present bars 48 and 49: excision evidently took place some time after composition of the entire series (see below). Only after composing these fantasias did Lawes decide to add the dances, first the Aire in g {70} then the Aire in a {73} (pp. 52 and 53, respectively). As Pinto notes, ‘The fantasy–alman linkages were obviously a second thought, betrayed by the different key-signature for the alman in g: two flats, compared to the normal one flat as found in the fantasy movements’ .40 Aire {73} is an excellent example of how Lawes recast some of his older compositions in many of the five-part dances; it also serves as a good example of Lawes’s approach to the five-part dances gener-ally. The two-part version in US-NH, Filmer MS 3 appears to be an early one, later worked into the larger setting.41 The skeletal version was disseminated widely: arrangements are found for keyboard and solo lyra-viol. It is also found as the song ‘Corinna false! It cannot be’ attributed to Henry Lawes in Low and Banister’s New Ayres and Dialogues (1678).42

It is difficult to say whether Lawes got the idea of linking fantasias and aires from Martin Peerson. Fantazias {68–9} are also found in the Shirley partbooks (and slightly modified in GB-Ob, Tenbury MS 302.43 These seem to be among the first stages in the compositional process. Lawes did not extensively revise the fantasias in B.2. The inner parts were occasionally refined, most notably with the exchange of tenor parts at bar 36 of {69}.44 Pinto dates these pieces in the Shirley partbooks to c. 1635; based on the evidence from the signatures presented

40 PintoFyV, 74.41 The version in Filmer 3 (fol. 82v) was probably copied c. 1639: a lyra-viol arrange-

ment of the famous ‘Whitelocke’s Corant’ on fol. 20v is dated ‘May 9th. 1639’ .42 PintoFyV, 75–7: includes transcriptions of the keyboard and song settings.43 See PintoMVC; PintoFyV, 16–17.44 See also, PintoMVC, 13.

LAWES.indb 163 19/03/2010 10:58


in Chapter 2, however, it is more likely they date to before 1633, possibly as early as c. 1630. The similarities between the Shirley and B.2 versions may suggest that relatively little time elapsed between the versions, unlike many of the reworked dances which undoubtedly were early compositions and which do contain signifi-cant variants between versions. Thus, we can perhaps slightly refine our dating of Fantazias {68–9} in B.2 to c. 1634. On p. 101 of B.2 there is Lawes’s three-part elegy in memory of John Tomkins, who died on 27 September 1638; there is no reason to think that this was com-posed any later than the winter of 1638, which assists in dating the music entered between the end of the five-part viol consorts and the elegy (pp. 76–100): this was Fantazia {135} and the suites for two bass viols and organ {101–7}. It seems these pieces were entered into B.2 largely in order, implying a compositional date of c. 1638; supported by the strong possibility that the lute duets on p. 86 were also composed c. 1638 (see Chapter 3). Assuming then that the main five-part sequence was entered sometime after the music for the Prince d’Amour (i.e. late 1635) but before Britannia Triumphans, we can tentatively date the composition of the main five-part sequence to c. 1636–8. On the verso side of the page containing the crossed-out Tomkins elegy Lawes entered the six-part In Nomine in c {99}, suggesting that it also dates to around late 1638. The In Nomine finishes half-way down p. 105; on the second half of that page Lawes began another (unidentified) piece: Example 5.5. The clefs, g2–c2–c4, and position on the page (one unused stave between this and the previous piece, two unused staves below it) suggest that it may have been planned in five parts. The clefs do not, however, correspond to those used otherwise used by Lawes. He uses g2–g2–c3–c4–F4 clefs throughout the five-part pieces (with the exception of Fantazias {68–9}, g2–g2–c3–c3–F4); the six-part pieces all use g2–g2–c2–c3–F4–F4. The clefs correspond to those in many of Ferrabosco II’s four-part pieces, g2–c2–c4–F4 (suggesting a Tr–T–T–B viol consort).45 Whatever the case, this gives us a strong indication that Lawes composed from the top voice(s) down or entry by entry. On p. 106 is the opening of a setting of Psalm 71 for three voices and (unfig-ured) organ continuo.46 Lawes informs us that he took his text from ‘Mr Sands’ , i.e. George Sandys’s Paraphrase upon the Psalms and Hymns dispersed throughout the Old and New Testaments, first published in 1636. The psalm text is given only

45 See Alfonso Ferrabosco the Younger: Four-Part Fantasias for Viols, ed. A. Ashbee and B. Bellingham, MB 62 (1992).

46 Edition: LawesCVM3, 235–8. The continuo is written on a single bass stave and labelled ‘Thorough Base’ . It provides a bass line throughout (sometimes with a tenor-range line), which sometimes doubles (or gives a simplified version of) the lowest vocal part but contains much independent material.

LAWES.indb 164 19/03/2010 10:58


in incipits and there are many signs of revisions, indicating that this was a com-positional draft; it is crossed out and now lacks the ending, as at least three pages were abstracted following p. 106. The Sandys attribution dates this piece to c. 1636. Sandys’s volume was reprinted in 1638, in a folio edition that included tunes with ‘a thorow Base, for Voice, or Instrument’ by Henry Lawes.47 In the 1638 edition Sandys divided the text into three ‘parts’ (as he did throughout the volume).48 Lawes titled his setting as being of the ‘First Part’ , which suggests that he was working from the folio edition (or closely related source), perhaps encouraged by his brother’s involvement. This dates the piece to c. 1638.49

The six-part consorts at the start of B.2 are more difficult to date. Pinto suggests they were added after those in B.3 when Lawes ran out of room. I argued in Chap-ter 2 that B.3 was compiled roughly in the order it survives (probably beginning towards the end of 1638), which implies that Lawes did not run out of room. Some

47 One tune is assigned to all verses in the same metre. It has been suggested that these pieces were ‘probably for performance by the Chapel Royal’: J. Ellison,

‘Sandys, George’ , ODNB (accessed 29 January 2009). See also RobinsonCP.48 In the print it is set to the tune for Psalm 34.49 There are settings of almost 60 Sandys texts in Choice Psalmes by both William and

Henry: see also, RobinsonCP.

[sic]

[erased]

[sic]

[erased]

Example 5.5 Lawes, incomplete, crossed-out [four-part?] piece: GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2, p. 105

LAWES.indb 165 19/03/2010 10:58


aspects of Lawes’s hand (discussed below) suggest that the six-part pieces at the start of B.2 had already been entered (even in part) when Lawes came to compose the music for Britannia Triumphans. Thus, I suggest that Lawes composed the bulk of the five- and six-part pieces between c. 1636 and 1639. This reinforces Pinto’s assertion that at least some of the six-part pieces were composed at the same time as the five-part pieces (Table 5.1).50

Table 5.1 Summary of proposed chronology of Lawes’s viol consorts in GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. B.2–3

4-part 5-part 6-part Source Suggested dates

{108–13} {68}, {69} B.2 c. 1634–5

{71}, {72}, {70}, {73}, {74}, {76}, {75}, {77},

B.2 c. 1636–8

{78}, {79}, {80}, {81}, {82}, {81}, {83}

{97}, {98}, {94}, {96}, {95} B.2 by end of 1637

{99} B.2 c. late 1638

{87}, {88}, {89}, {85}, {84}, {86}, {91}, {92}, {90}, {93}

B.3 c. late 1638 to 1639

The only source of Lawes’s viol consort organ parts is D.229.51 They appear to have been compiled in a similar order to the scorebooks, but not at the

same time. There are two main reasons for thinking this is so. First, there is the argument (presented in Chapter 2) that the function of D.229 changed over time from the ‘formal’ presentation style of the fantasia-suites and bass viol suites to the ‘informal’ and ‘compositional’ styles of the harp consorts and viol consorts. Second, the viol consort parts in D.229 largely follow the order in which they are found in the scorebooks. The organ parts ‘seem to have been added after the other autograph sources (including [MS 17798]) were complete; most of the signs of alterations to note values in them have no counterparts [in D.229]’ .52

50 See PintoMVC; PintoFyV.51 The only other source to refer to an organ part is MSS 29410–15, e.g. ‘5. p.ts of Mr

Will: Lawes Fantazies and aires to the Organn’ (MS 29410, fol. 2r). The six-part section is similarly titled but without reference to the organ.

52 LawesCS, xv; also PintoFyV, 94. The same can also be said of the six-part pieces: e.g. in the six-part Fantasy {90} in F Lawes again halved the note-values in the scorebook, B.3, but the organ part in D.229 shows no such signs of alteration: see LawesCS, xxiii and PintoFyV, 122–3.

LAWES.indb 166 19/03/2010 10:58


All the five-part pieces appear to have been added to D.229 around the same time, and with one exception follow the order found in B.2 (cf. the inventories in Appendix 1). First there are the two early fantasias in g {68–9}. The next five-part consorts in B.2 are the suite in a {71, 72 and 73}. In B.2 the last two pieces are inter-rupted by Aire {70} from the preceding suite in g. In D.229 Lawes added {70} to the suite in g, followed by the suite in a. As previously mentioned, a lengthy section in Fantazia {71} was crossed out in both B.2 and D.229; there is no sign of the omit-ted section in later sources.53 The page containing Fantazia {71} in MS 17798 is a replacement, which suggests that before the collection circulated this manuscript set also contained the excised section. B.2 and D.229 continue with the five-part suite in c. Again, D.229 slightly revises the order found in the scorebook: {74, 76, 75, 77} to {74, 75, 76, 77}.54 The next two suites – in F and C, {78–83} – are in the same order in scorebook and organbook. In B.2 Lawes began the Fantasy in C {81} on p. 69 and completed it on pp. 72–4, with the five-part pavan in C entered on the intervening pages. The two leaves (i.e. containing pp. 69–72) were evidently joined; whether they were unopened or simply stuck together is unclear, the heaviness of the paper could have allowed this solecism go unnoticed. It is likely that Lawes only realized that several pages had been skipped after he had entered the Fantazy. Into these skipped pages he entered the pavan. (This also seems to have happened in B.3, where Royall Consort Corant {18} was begun on p. 75 and continued on p. 78, with two pieces entered in between.) Thus, Lawes appears to have worked out the organ part for the five-part pieces by moving systematically through B.2, after the string scores of (at least) the five-part sequence as a whole were complete. The last viol consort piece in B.2 is the six-part In Nomine in c {99}, pp. 102–5. This is also the next piece in D.229 after the five-part pieces; it heads the main sequence of six-part pieces on fols 58v–51v (INV.). The In Nomine is, however, fol-lowed in D.229 by the suite in g {84–6}, after which Lawes entered Aire {100} in c and the suites in C {87, 89, 88} and F {91, 90, 92, 93}. The rest of the six-part suite in c, probably added after the In Nomine, is found at the start of B.2 (see below). After In Nomine {99}, the string scores are found in B.3, which opens with the suite in C in a slightly different order to that in D.229 {87, 88, 89}. In B.3 the opening suite in C is followed by the suites in g and F, both in slightly different orders to D.229, {85, 84, 86} and {91, 92, 90} respectively. Aire {100} is not found in either autograph scorebook (but is in D.229, MS 17798, and non-autograph sources). Its position in

53 See LawesCS, xix. Pinto (PintoFyV, 79) notes the resemblance of this passage to the six-part fantasias in C {87} and c {97}. The omitted section is given in LawesSCM, 15–16.

54 For a discussion of this set, see PintoFyV, 80–7.

LAWES.indb 167 19/03/2010 10:58


D.229 suggests that it may originally have occupied one of the pages abstracted from B.3 (either after p. 18 or before p. 1). The first six-part sequence in D.229 (fols 70r–67v (INV.)) appears to have been added after the main five-part sequence but before some of the second six-part sequence (see below). The corresponding string scores of the first six-part sequence is found at the start of B.2, in the same order as in D.229 {97, 98, 94, 96, 95}. In D.229 the sequence was begun by a second person, who entered the first and most of the second fantasia in c, {97, 98}. (The end of {98} is missing from B.2, which finishes mid-way through bar 58; the next page was removed at some point. The end of {98} would only have taken up half a page, leaving enough room for a piece the length of Aire {100}.) As we saw in Chapter 2, David Pinto convincingly suggested that this copyist may have been Giles Tomkins. It is difficult neverthe-less to explain the presence of the ‘Tomkins copyist’ . He appears to have worked closely with Lawes, who titled the pieces, finished the second and signed his name to both. It is unclear why Lawes finished-off the second fantasia (from bar 24); it may simply be that he decided on an independent organ part for the second half of the piece. Lawes also numbered the pieces ‘1’ and ‘2’ , which simply refers to their position within the manuscript; the pieces after them are not numbered. Whether the Tomkins copyist was working under Lawes’s supervision is unclear, but the implication is that he was briefly responsible for making out the organ scores. The parts entered by the Tomkins copyist are largely a reduction of the string scores and incorporate little independent material. Assuming that these viol consorts were performed at court, Tomkins would most likely have been the accompanying organist, which would explain why the task fell to him; it also explains the inclu-sion of several unmanageable stretches, i.e. he was used to accompanying from scores, adapting the material in front of him in performance. After completion of {98} Lawes seems to have begun working out the organ part for the suite in B b, beginning with {94}. However, at the top of fol. 68v (INV.) – where the B b suite begins – we find the last part of the third strain of Aire {89} in C crossed out. This is in the same ink as the B b pieces, which suggests that they were entered around the same time. Although the binding of the manuscript makes evidence of an abstracted page impossible to see, it is the only plausible answer.55 This implies that at least one of the six-part pieces in C, but probably more, was originally in this portion of the manuscript. For whatever reason, the page con-taining much of the Aire was removed, the end of the piece (on fol. 68v (INV.)) crossed out, and below it was begun the Fantazia in B b followed by the In Nomine. Another possibility does emerge: Aire {89} and the pieces in B b were already in place before the Tomkins copyist began work on {97–8}, the leaf containing Aire

55 It does not seem to have been caused by a transposed bifolium.

LAWES.indb 168 19/03/2010 10:58


{89} was then excised, with {89} later re-entered in the main six-part sequence. This may have been done precisely to follow the layout of the pieces in the score-books (cf. the inventories of D.229 and B.2–3 given in Appendix 1). The last piece in B b, Aire {95}, was written over a large form of Lawes’s signature at the end of the Inominy on fol. 67r (INV.) (Fig. 5.1). This strongly suggests that the five-part Fantazy in g {68} was already entered on the next page before the suite in B b was completed, and that Aire {95} was an afterthought. It is worth noting that Aire {95} begins on a verso leaf in B.2: Lawes may have entered the In Nomine in D.229 and having forgotten about Aire {95} wrote his signature. Upon realizing his error (perhaps after turning the page of the scorebook) he squashed in the Aire over his signature. It is strange that the Tomkins copyist began this six-part sequence at this point in the manuscript. The first three pieces of the second six-part sequence were prob-ably already entered into D.229 by this time. This is suggested by the change in bass clef in the fourth piece of the main six-part sequence. The last nine pieces were all written using the large ‘2’ bass clef, also found in the harp consort sequence (D.229 and D.238; see Chapter 2, Fig. 2.16a); both sets of pieces were entered using the same ink. This apparently late clef is also found throughout B.3, in most of the six-part pieces in GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17798, and MS 31432 (see Chapter 2). The clef, combined with the ink, strongly suggests that these pieces {88, 91, 90, 92, 93}

Fig. 5.1 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229, fol. 67r (INV.), detail

LAWES.indb 169 19/03/2010 10:58


were the last viol consort pieces to be added to D.229, but that they were entered before the harp parts, mirroring the structure of the scorebooks. Even if the first three pieces of the main six-part sequence were not in place, one wonders why the Tomkins copyist returned to the limited space near the end of the manuscript (between the bass viol suites and the five-part suites) when he could simply have continued making out the organ part in the unused pages after the six-part suite in F, preserving the sequence of six-part pieces. The six-part suite in F ends on fol. 51v (INV.), and fols 36v–51r are unused. Pinto has suggested that the ‘lack of adjustments’ in the suite in c {97–9} may indicate that Lawes ‘had reached a new impressive level of certainty’ , or that this, taken with the presence of the Tomkins copyist, could indicate ‘that time was running out for the composer for whatever reason, and that further revision might have taken place under the right circumstances’ .56 One is inclined to opt for the first suggestion. Fantazia {97} is a remarkable piece, and one of Lawes’s finest achievements, but this does not necessarily imply that it was one of his last. The fantasia is in three main sections. The first (bars 1–21) is based on a theme also found in his setting of penitential Psalm 6;57 there is nothing to suggest that this setting postdates the vocal setting, based on Sandys’s 1638 text. The section ends with a perfect cadence on the tonic major, from which a new theme flows through brief tonic arpeggiations (bar 21); the descending crotchet theme quickly brings us to the relative major. The theme is treated imitatively by each of the voices before arriving back in c for the final two bars of the section. The third and final section (35–42) is a slow-moving coda full of chromaticisms; it begins on the dominant with a repeated-note motive exposed in a three-part texture (Tr1, T2, B1).58 Although the suite in c contains fewer corrections or revisions than many of the viol consorts it is not entirely free of them, especially Fantazia {98}. The pieces in B b that follow the suite in c in B.2 are full of emendations indicating that Lawes had both time and circumstance for revision, where necessary. For example, roughly half-way through the In Nomine Lawes revised the counterpoints to the cantus (in Tr2) to include more divisions; the original lines in Treble 1 and Tenors 1–2 were scraped off (leaving heavy indentations in the manuscript) and written over: the original lines are only partly distinguishable, see Example 5.6.59 This was

56 PintoFyV, 132.57 Identified by Pinto: PintoMVC, 17, and PintoFyV, 133–4.58 LawesCS, 136–7.59 The reconstruction in Example 5.6 was done without the aid of UV-light etc. Sug-

gested notes are based on visible noteheads and stems. Most note values are esti-mates; indistinguishable rhythms are given as filled-in noteheads without stems. Alignment of notes/noteheads reflects that in Lawes’s score as closely as possible;

LAWES.indb 170 19/03/2010 10:58


evidently done close to the time of composition as the ink is the same throughout the piece. The crossed-out ending of the Aire {89} begins in the same place as (and is identical in length to) the final stave of the complete piece on fols 55r–54v (INV.), suggesting that the complete version is a close reproduction of the ‘original’ . The complete version is three (two-stave) systems long (fols 55r–54v (INV.)), implying that the piece was originally begun half-way down the abstracted page (before fol. 68v (INV.)). This would have left ample room for the preceding fantasia to have also been on this abstracted page. There may have been some delay between the first entry of Aire {89} and its replacement. In the first instance it was entered using the small bass clef; the complete version is one of the nine pieces added using the large bass clef. That said, Lawes changed between the two bass clefs within a single piece in MS 31432 (fols 60r–60v). There is only one textual change in {89} from fols 68v to 54v (INV.): the first half of the right hand of bar 53 (originally doubling T1) was slightly revised to give only the harmony notes underlying the quaver figuration. Whatever the reason behind the displacement of the suite in C, it implies that at least some of the six-part suite in C was in place in the scorebooks before the organ parts for the first six-part sequence in D.229 were made out. This could in turn imply that the six-part pieces at the start of B.2 were composed after those in B.3, although this is not supported by the rest of the evidence. More likely (as with the five-part pieces), Lawes waited until most, if not all, of the six-part pieces were composed before working out the organ accompaniments.60

At the start of each of each of the viol consorts in B.2, except In Nomine {99}, there is a short horizontal short line (c. 1–2 mm) below the lowest line of the top stave.61 The marks are contemporary and found nowhere else in the autographs (see Chapter 2, Fig. 2.1d, staves 1–2 of Fantazia {98}). Their meaning is unclear. They may represent a checking shorthand, perhaps signifying that parts had been copied out. One suspects that they refer to the organ part; if they were for string parts we would perhaps expect to see them elsewhere. It is worth noting that these pieces are the only ones in the scorebooks requiring an accompaniment based largely on the string scores. Elsewhere, the keyboard/harp accompaniments are largely obbligato and would need to be composed with the string parts rather than

the original manuscript has pre-ruled barlines and vertical alignment is not always exact.

60 If an organist was using Lawes’s scorebooks to accompany, even occasionally, it may explain why Lawes continued to revise the draft scores.

61 On pp. 3 (Fantazia {98}) and 7 (Fantazia {94}) and there is a single mark below each of the top two staves; on p. 10 (In Nomine {96}) there are two parallel marks below the top stave. For Fantasy {81} the mark is found on p. 74 (top stave) where the piece is continued. The significance, if any, of these variants is undetermined.

LAWES.indb 171 19/03/2010 10:58


Example 5.6 In Nomine {96}, bars 29–35 [57–70]: partly recovered lines from GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2, p. 12

[Treble 1original]

[TREBLE 1]

[TREBLE 2]

[Tenor 1original]

[TENOR 1]

[Tenor 2original]

[TENOR 2]

[BASSES 1 and 2]

29

31

? ?

worked out from them. The marked pieces are found in sequence from fols 70r–59r (INV.) in D.229. Of course this sequence is interrupted by {89}, removed from that section; the string score of {89} in B.3 contains no such markings. The marks are not found in In Nomine {99} (the last viol consort piece in B.2) nor anywhere in B.3, indicating either that the shorthand system or the project it represents was abandoned.

LAWES.indb 172 19/03/2010 10:58


34

Although the organ accompaniments Lawes composed for the viol consorts largely fulfil a doubling function, one can observe throughout the suites an increasingly independent role for the organ. In a 1976 article, Pinto identified ‘not a few instances where the organ has vital independent material that makes per-formance without it meaningless’; the examples given are two six-part fantasias: {93} in F, bars 28–31, and {85} in g (the series of accompanied duets), bars 20–40, and the five-part pavan in C {82}, bars 28–30.62 ‘Meaningless’ perhaps overstates the case slightly, but these passages suggest that as his exploration of the genre continued, Lawes on occasion composed the string scores with independent organ material in his head. Increasingly one can see greater freedom for the organ within this traditional role, especially in the six-part pieces.63 It seems significant that this increased freedom is more pronounced in the second sequence, although it must be reiterated that two of the first sequence pieces were added by the Tomkins copy ist, so we cannot take them as conclusive evidence of Lawes’s intentions. Never theless, Lawes evidently worked closely with the copyist which gives them a good degree of ‘authority’ . Although Lawes’s scorebooks provide little irrefutable evidence of the order in which they were compiled, it is unlikely they were compiled in quite the hap hazard

62 See PintoAS, 14; the last example is given as Fig. 1 but is mislabelled as from suite IV in F.

63 See the discussions in PintoMVC and PintoFyV.

LAWES.indb 173 19/03/2010 10:58


Table 5.2 Proposed order of copying for Lawes’s viol consorts in GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229

Folios (INV.) No. Title Key VdGS Comments

[Five-part viol consorts]66v–66r ‘Fantazy’ g {68}66r–65v ‘Playnesong’ g {69}65r ‘Aire’ g {70}65r–64v ‘Fantazy’ a {71}64r–63v ‘Fantazy’ a {72}63v ‘Aire’ a {73}63r–62v ‘Fantazy’ c {74}62v ‘Aire’ c {75}62r ‘Pauen’ c {76}61v ‘Aire’ c {77}

61v–61r ‘Fantazy’ F {78}

60v ‘Pauen’ F {79}60r ‘Aire’ F {80}60r–59v ‘Fantazy’ C {81} Inner parts in bars

1–2 of fol. 59v added in a different ink

59v–59r ‘Pauen’ C {82}59r ‘Aire’ C {83}

fashion previously suggested.64 For example, there is no evidence that Lawes ran out of room; none of the pieces are squashed in, a typical sign that a compiler worked backwards and inaccurately estimated the space required. This is less of a problem when copying than when composing. The evidence strongly suggests that Lawes used B.2–3 for compositional drafts, in which case estimating the amount of pages required would be reasonably difficult, especially with large-scale contra-puntal pieces. According to the chronology tentatively suggested above, he began composition of the viol consorts in earnest c. 1636; the project appears to have been complete (in the scorebooks) by c. 1639. He appears to have worked out the organ parts in the rough order they are found in both scorebooks, beginning with the five-part pieces followed by the six-part suites in g, c and B b, ending with the last five pieces of the main six-part sequence. The organ parts were evidently worked out after much, if not all, of the string scores had been composed, and after

64 See, for example, PintoFyV.

LAWES.indb 174 19/03/2010 10:58


intermediary sources (such as MS 17798) had been copied. As we saw in Chapter 2, MS 17798 was apparently copied in two main stages – first the five-part pieces then the six-part pieces – demonstrated by the change in ink and the change from the small to large bass clef, which reinforces the suggestion that D.229 was compiled in a similar manner.

The central issue of chronology forces us to consider briefly two other impor-tant questions: why did Lawes compose these pieces, and for whom?65 The

proposed chronology suggests that they were mostly composed in the years fol-lowing Lawes’s royal appointment, a time when the court was becoming more isolated and inward-looking. What little we know of the music performed at Charles’s court suggests that the court repertoire approached something like a modern canon of favoured musical works. This is demonstrated by the 1635 order

65 The issue is discussed in PintoFyV, passim.

Folios (INV.) No. Title Key VdGS Comments

[Six-part viol consorts]58v–58r ‘Inominy’ c {99}58r–57v ‘Pauen’ g {84}57r–56v ‘Fantazy’ g {85}

70r ‘1’ ‘Fantazia’ c {97} Hand D69v–69r ‘2’ ‘Fantazia’ c {98} Hand D/Lawes

68v [Aire] C {89}68v–68r ‘Fantazia’ B b {94}67v–67r ‘Inominy’ B b {96}67r ‘Aire’ B b {95}

56r ‘Aire’ g {86}55v ‘Aire’ c {100}55r–54v ‘Fantazy’ C {87}54v ‘Aire’a C {89}54r–53v ‘Fantazy’ C {88}53v ‘Aire’ F {91}53r–52v ‘Fantazy’ F {90}52v ‘Aire’ F {92}52r–51v ‘Fantazy’ F {93}

Note: Further copying stages implied by changes in ink colour are indicated by grey bars.

a Originally titled ‘Fantazy’ . Lawes erased this and over it wrote ‘Aire’ .

LAWES.indb 175 19/03/2010 10:58


to recopy ‘a whole sett of Musicke Bookes … wth all Coperaries & Orlando Gib-bons theire Musique, by his Mats speciall Comand’ .66 Lawes himself contributed to this ‘canon’ through his viol consorts and fantasia-suites, which for all their innovations followed his predecessors in outward guise, if in little else. Lawes was a royal servant subject to the whims and tastes of the King. It is easy to imagine Charles playing an active role in influencing the kind of music composed and per-formed at court, especially when it came to chamber music. In this context one can perhaps see a motive for Lawes composing in almost every form used by Coprario. Of course, Coprario’s influence on Lawes was strong in the teacher-student sense, but Coprario’s music was also highly popular at court even if some of the forms were rapidly becoming old-fashioned by the early 1630s. Ability to contribute music in recognizable forms such as viol consorts and fantasia-suites would have been advantageous in securing a court post in the 1630s. Nevertheless, the court tastes were not entirely restrictive. New genres such as the Royall Consort and the harp consorts were evidently in demand alongside compositions in recognizable forms. The fact that Lawes was still exploring the viol consort in the late 1630s demon-strates a transition towards a more audience-centred music at court. As we shall see in the remaining chapters, this transition was the fundamental, defining char-acteristic of Lawes’s consort music during the 1630s, but it was multi-faceted: these contrapuntal consorts were composed hand-in-hand with the exuberant divisions of the later harp consorts. In the five- and six-part viol consorts we see strong influences of the dance suite in the juxtaposition of contrapuntal fantasy with dance forms, a juxtaposition devised for mixed consorts that included violin: the transference of this idea to the viol consort was significant. One can see possible models in the five-part pavan–alman pairs by Ferrabosco and in the fantasy–alman pairs of Peerson, but Lawes was the first to attempt to realize the implications of the dance suite in the viol consort tradition. If bolder and grander in conception, they are governed by a similar impetus shown in his fantasia-suites composed several years earlier. Both genres demonstrate Lawes’s masterful subversion of tra-dition and the forward-looking nature of the cultural milieu for which they were created.

66 RECM, iii. 150.

LAWES.indb 176 19/03/2010 10:58

chapter 6

The Fantasia-Suites

‘Fantasia-suite’ is a relatively modern term, first brought into common currency by Helen Joy Sleeper in the 1930s to describe a somewhat hybrid

genre first developed at the English court by John Coprario.1 The model estab-lished by Coprario consisted of three movements: a fantasia, an alman and a gal-liard (usually ending with a common-time ‘close’), scored for one or two violins, bass viol and organ. Twenty-three fantasia-suites by Coprario survive complete: fifteen for one violin, eight for two.2 They appear to have been composed in the household of Prince Charles (later Charles I) in the early 1620s, and represent several important developments in the history of English consort music. First, the grouping together of the movements was new, and influenced the development of the dance suite. Second, they are the first English contrapuntal pieces to specify the violin, expanding the traditional use of the instrument beyond dance music. Third, they are among the first English consort pieces to include independent parts for organ: especially in the fantasias for one violin, the organ goes beyond the traditional role of doubling the strings by containing extra melodic and har-monic material; indeed, each fantasia begins with the organ, and many have solo interludes. Despite their historical importance, however, Coprario’s fantasia-suites are somewhat uneven in quality, a fact reflected by the lack of a complete modern recording. No autographs are known for Coprario’s suites. The sources suggest that he composed the one-violin suites with a fully written-out organ part. GB-Lbl, MS R.M.24.k.3, an organbook of court provenance copied c. 1625, contains such an organ part;3 in Coprario’s suites the bass viol mostly doubles the organ bass and may not have been given a separate stave in his original score. The organ parts for the two-violin suites are more problematic.4 The sources suggest that Coprario wrote the suites in a three-stave string score, with essential material for organ

1 C. D. S. Field, ‘Review: Coprario: Fantasia-Suites, ed. R. Charteris’ , ML 66 (1985), 65–7; FieldFR, 239 n. 21.

2 John Coprario: Fantasia-Suites, ed. R. Charteris, MB 46 (1980). Only the organ part for a further one-violin suite survives.

3 See C. D. S. Field, ‘Stephen Bing’s Copies of Coprario Fantasia-Suites’ , EM 27 (1999), 311–17.

4 This issue is discussed in Coprario: Fantasia-Suites, Introduction; see also Field’s review in ML.

LAWES.indb 177 19/03/2010 10:58


given in cues: the manner in which the first suite is preserved in R.M.24.k.3. This was practical because in the two-violin suites the organ doubles the strings to a greater extent. As Christopher Field has noted, ‘Such “compressed” scores con-tained all the essential information an organist needed. They could be used to play from, and they were the basis from which all “realized” two-stave organ parts were derived’ .5 Examples of such ‘realized’ organ parts for the two-violin suites are those made out by John Jenkins for Nicholas Le Strange (GB-Lbl, Add. MS 23779), apparently made from a lost autograph manuscript belonging to Coprario’s execu-tor Richard Ligon. Ligon’s manuscript seems to have been a compressed score.6

According to the oft-quoted Playford anecdote, Coprario’s one-violin suites were particularly favoured by Charles I, 7 which may partly explain the popularity of the fantasia-suite into the second quarter of the century. Of the next generation of composers, Lawes and Jenkins were the most significant contributors. Both were heavily influenced by Coprario.8 Lawes composed sixteen fantasia-suites {114–61}, eight suites for each scoring.9 Each suite follows Coprario’s three-movement plan; Lawes, however, adopted a more systematic tonal approach. Each scoring set is divided into eight keys, ascending through the Gamut, g/G, a/C, d/D, d/D: the intention was, perhaps, to be able to play them individually, as pairs or as a com-plete set. Coprario had a well-enough developed sense of major–minor tonality and key relationships, but he had also a random approach to key selection. His suites are in the following tonics: g, g, G, G, C, a, A, D, C, C, C, d, d, D, D.10 Three suites have almans in the relative minor; suite 7 for two violins has a fantasia in d, an alman in D (with a close in d) and a galliard in D. Lawes avoided these kinds of larger-scale tonal relationships, as well as Coprario’s fondness for modulating between tonic major and minor keys within movements. Scholars generally agree that Lawes’s fantasia-suites are early works, although estimates of an approximate date of composition vary, from the mid-1620s to

5 Field, ‘Bing’s Copies’ , 314. 6 See Coprario: Fantasia-Suites; Field, ‘Bing’s Copies’ . 7 J. Playford, A Brief Introduction to the Skill of Musick (4/1664), p. [xiii]. 8 For connections between the fantasia-suites of Coprario and Lawes, see FieldFR;

for Coprario and Jenkins, see AshbeeHM2, ch. 1. 9 Bar nos. correspond to LawesFS. Six of the suites are in LawesSCM: where bar-

numbers differ the LawesSCM numbering is given in square brackets. Although dated in places, for excellent stylistic overviews of the fantasia-suite, see J. T. John-son, ‘The English Fantasia-Suite, c. 1620–1660’ (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1971), ch. 4, esp. 147–230 for Coprario, Lawes and Jenkins; and C. D. S. Field, ‘The English Consort Suite of the Seventeenth Century’ (PhD diss., Oxford University, 1970).

10 The incomplete suite is in C.

LAWES.indb 178 19/03/2010 10:58

the fantasia-suites 179

mid-1630s (see below). Some of the fantasia-suite movements can regarded, on stylistic grounds, as reasonably early compositions. Modulations are less adven-turous than in some of the viol consorts, for example. Certainly some of the fan-tasias are simpler in conception than others. The first fantasia for one-violin in g {114} is probably the most conservative of the one-violin suites; in it we can hear the influence of Coprario, especially in the opening bars (Example 6.1).11

Each new section in Fantazia {114} is preceded by a short organ solo and cadence. Lawes flows from one theme to the next without exhausting any of them, often using quite modal harmonies. He also incorporates lots of subtle division-writing into the contrapuntal fabric, especially between the left hand of the organ and the

11 All examples of Lawes’s fantasia-suites are transcribed from GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40 and D.229, unless stated otherwise.

4

7

Example 6.1 Lawes, Fantazia {114}, bars 1–9 [1–18]

LAWES.indb 179 19/03/2010 10:58


bass viol; the divisions are well worked into the composition, a feature that can be seen throughout much of his later music. The middle section (bars 25–39) con-tains much dissonant writing, again reminiscent of Coprario but also quite typical of Lawes’s often pungent dissonances in minor mode movements (Example 6.2). Throughout, the organ plays an important role in the musical argument by provid-ing the harmonic basis, the bass line is often embellished by the bass viol. These roles are briefly interchanged at bar 31, an extended perfect cadence in B b where the descending semiquaver run in the bass viol is concluded in the organ. Lawes’s use of chromaticism is also quite assured; one example will serve for several: in bars 32–8 after cadencing in B b he shifts chromatically back to the tonic which is then briefly flavoured with the hint of f before resolutely cadencing back on the tonic (Example 6.2).

29

31

35

4

4

44


LAWES.indb 180 19/03/2010 10:58


By contrast, the second fantasia, in G {117}, is dominated by a single idea, the rising scale (Example 6.3a). Here Lawes follows a similar formal plan to the first fantasia: it too opens with the organ answered by the violin, then the bass viol. This is less sectional than the preceding fantasia, and the harmonies are much more straightforward and less dissonant (as is often the case in the major mode pieces). Gone are the interwoven divisions, but once again we can hear the concertante interplay between violin and viol. In the first half of the fantasia the strings are often used in hocket-like exchanges building up to a sustained tutti (bars 28–37) before the strings drop out for an organ interlude at bars 38–41. The final section begins at bar 42 with another variant of the rising scale motif in imitation. The basic motif remains prominent until the end, although a repeated-note figure is also introduced at bar 46 (Example 6.3b). In the two-violin suites we can hear something of the close writing for two violins found in the Royall Consort; the fantasia-suites, however, do not have the very tight canonic writing or restricted rhythms in phrases found in the Royall Consort. There is no way of telling whether there was any gap between composi-tion of the suites for one and two violins; none is evident from the sources. Lawes’s familiarity with Coprario’s suites, not to mention their tonal symmetry, suggests that the suites were conceived, if not composed, as a (sixteen-suite) unit. The first fantasia, {138}, opens with a repeated-note theme remarkably similar to that which

5

Example 6.3 Lawes, Fantazia {117}: (a) bars 1–8; (b, overleaf) bars 38–49

(a)

LAWES.indb 181 19/03/2010 10:58


38

41

44

47

4

4

4

4

(b)

opens Fantazia {114} (Example 6.4).12 The repeated-note opening is then answered by an arpeggiated tonic chord; the theme is first heard in the first violin reinforced by the organ. The similarity of the opening themes is undoubtedly intentional, and reflects, perhaps, Lawes’s strengthening of the existing tonal symmetry of the collection.

12 In all the two-violin suites in D.229 the organ right hand is notated in a c2 clef.

LAWES.indb 182 19/03/2010 10:58


Perhaps the best illustration of the two-violin pieces is the sixth fantasia, in D {153}.13 The second half of the piece is notable for Lawes’s incorporation of divisions in the bass viol over an ascending tonic scale (itself an imitation of Violin 1). As the scale pattern is repeated in the bass Lawes introduces octave leaps over which the bass viol builds to a rapid division climax utilizing its upper range. In the auto-graph partbooks Lawes included a simplified version (no divisions) of the bass

13 See also LefkowitzWL, 115–18.


4

7

LAWES.indb 183 19/03/2010 10:58


viol part for bars 31–41.14 The evidence suggests that such refinements were late additions, presumably the result of performance; indeed, Lawes avoids extended divisions in all but one of the fantasias, Fantazia {135} (discussed below). In many ways Fantazia {153} is reminiscent of a Jacobean fantasia. In it, however, we hear a more Baroque harmonic language together with Lawes’s skilful use of instrumen-tal interplay especially between the paired violins and bass viol (Example 6.5). John Jenkins composed over seventy fantasia-suites and fantasia-air pairs for several combinations of instruments, generally designated in modern times as Groups I–VIII. Only the earliest fantasia-suites concern us here: Groups I (17 suites for treble, bass and organ) and II (10 suites for two trebles, bass and organ). Clearly modelled on Coprario’s suites, they seem to date from the 1630s and 1640s.15 They are relatively simple pieces, using the scorings and forms established by Coprario (and used by Lawes). Jenkins was, however, evidently keen to push the traditional boundaries of the genre by the inclusion of divisions in four of the pieces from Groups I and II (two in each); Coprario’s suites, while idiomatic, contain no virtu-osic passages, nor, with the exception of a single fantasia (see below), do Lawes’s. Andrew Ashbee suggests that Jenkins Groups I–II ‘were played in the Derham and Le Strange households alongside the suites of Coprario, and perhaps also those of Lawes’ .16 Elsewhere he cautions that ‘one senses that [Jenkins] had not really come into contact with the Lawes series (probably contemporary with his own), but only Coprario’s suites, when writing Groups I and II’ .17 Jenkins’s copying activities mentioned earlier firmly establish his familiarity with Coprario’s suites. A direct link between the suites of Jenkins and Lawes is harder to establish. We know little about the activities of either man in the early 1630s, although The Triumph of Peace is an obvious point of contact. Jenkins is likely to have been at least an occasional visitor to London in the 1620s and 1630s. As The Triumph of Peace shows, he was connected to courtly music circles by at least late 1633. The following Roger North anecdote may date to around this time: Jenkins ‘once was brought to play upon the lyra viol afore King Charles I, as one that performed somewhat extraordi-nary; and after he had done the King sayd he did wonders upon an inconsiderable instrument’ .18

14 LawesFS, 90.15 For a detailed discussion, see AshbeeHM2. Group I are due to be published in the

MB series (ed. A. Ashbee), Group II are nos. 1–10 of John Jenkins: Fantasia-Suites: I, ed. A. Ashbee, MB 78 (2001).

16 Jenkins: Fantasia-Suites: I, xxii.17 AshbeeHM2, 28.18 Roger North on Music, ed. J. Wilson (1959), 343–4. David Pinto has plausibly sug-

gested that Charles began to say ‘incomparable’ , which came out as ‘inconsider-able’ due to his stammer: see D. Pinto, ‘Review: John Jenkins, Lyra Consorts, ed. F. Traficante’ , ML 75 (1994), 129–31.

LAWES.indb 184 19/03/2010 10:58



17

20

23

26

4

4

4

4

4

LAWES.indb 185 19/03/2010 10:58


Assuming that Lawes and Jenkins were acquainted by 1634, Lawes’s fantasia-suites may have partly inspired Jenkins to experiment with the genre. Indeed, as Ashbee has noted, Jenkins Groups I–II ‘contain interesting harmonic writing with imaginative organization of tonality, occasional progressions of a startling kind and augmented chords perhaps inspired by the works of William Lawes’ .19 The earliest pieces, Group I, were composed on each of the tonics then in common use: F, g/G, a/A, B b, c/C, d/D and e/E, a similar but more extensive approach than that of Lawes. Lawes’s focus on the more traditional violin keys is indica-tive of regular access to court violinists. Jenkins was mostly employed in country houses which necessitated a more pragmatic approach to scoring. He gener-ally labelled the top parts ‘treble’ and composed in an idiom suitable for viol or violin; in the North household one suspects that the treble parts were played on viols, especially given Roger North’s testimony to his grandfather’s dislike of the violin.20

Two fantasias in particular from Jenkins Group I, {12} in d and {15} in D, seem to be related in some way to Lawes’s suites. Both are similar in form: opening fugal section, divisions, tripla section and close. Fantazia {15} begins with a ‘Lachrimae’ theme treated fugally in a solo organ introduction. Although settings of the ‘Lachrimae’ theme are commonplace in consort music of the period,21 the opening is remarkably similar to Lawes’s excellent Fantazia {129} from fantasia-suite no. 6 (cf. Examples 6.6a and 6.6b). In Jenkins’s fantasia the opening leads to a rhythmic-ally derived repeated-note figure introduced in the violin at bar 6. This kind of figure is commonly found in Lawes’s consort music (as is the figure in bars 9–10). Indeed, the opening section contains two further melodic motifs often encoun-tered in Lawes’s consort music: the ascending stepwise figure followed by a down-ward leap in bar 2 (Organ, right hand);22 and the leaping figure at bars 9–10.23 The latter figure features prominently in Lawes’s Fantazia {135} in the build-up to the tripla section (cf. bars 61–7; Example 6.6c). This opening section lasts until bar 56, where the divisions begin (Example 6.6d). The divisions are introduced in imita-tion and continue until the tripla section (bar 49). This section serves as a graceful foil to the division section and leads to the cut-common time close, which begins

19 A. Ashbee, ‘Jenkins, John’ , GMO (accessed 26 February 2009).20 Peter Holman has demonstrated that ‘viol’ was sometimes used in a generic sense

meaning either viol or violin: see HolmanFTF, esp. 136–8.21 One example: Lawes also used a ‘Lachrimae’ theme for the five-part Pavan in c

{76}, an apparent reworking of an earlier four-part version: see LawesCS, 30–2, and PintoFyV, 81–2.

22 For example, cf. LawesFS, 30 (Violin: bars 42–3, 46–9), 56 (Organ: bars 6, 13–14).23 For example, cf. LawesFS, 72 (Organ: bars 7–9), 88 (Violin 2; Bass Viol; Organ: bars

1–3).

LAWES.indb 186 19/03/2010 10:58


Example 6.6 (a) Jenkins, Fantazia {15} (Group I), bars 1–11: GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. C.81, no. 15; (b) Lawes, Fantazia {129}, opening; (c) Lawes, Fantazia {135}, bars 61–7; (d) Jenkins,

Fantazia {15} (Group I), bars 28–36

4

7

10

(a)

LAWES.indb 187 19/03/2010 10:58


5

61

64

4

4

4

4

(b)

(c)

LAWES.indb 188 19/03/2010 10:58


28

30

32

34

36

4

4

4

4

(d)

LAWES.indb 189 19/03/2010 10:58


by emphasizing the tonic minor. The organ continues to double the treble and bass throughout most of the divisions, even doubling the bass viol up an octave at bar 86, where it descants over the bowed treble. Jenkins’s Fantazia {12} follows the same formal pattern. It opens with a repeated-note figure; three of Lawes’s fantasia-suites begin with similar motives: Fantazias {114}, {138} and {144} (cf. Examples 6.1, 6.4 and 6.7a–b); such figures, however, are also relatively common, e.g. they are frequently found in Lawes’s fantasia-suites.24 Again the opening fugal section leads to paired divisions in the treble, bass viol, and organ, lasting until the tripla section (bar 74). The short and uneventful close also begins by emphasizing the parallel tonic. More importantly than thematic similarities, both Jenkins fantasias have strong parallels with another of Lawes’s fantasias, Fantazia {135}. Lawes’s Fantazia {135} from suite no. 8 in D for one violin is often cited by com-mentators, although it is hardly typical of the collection.25 In it Lawes appears to be attempting something quite new. It is found with the rest of the fantasia-suites in the autograph partbooks (no. 22 of the forty-eight-piece sequence in GB-Ob, MSS

24 See also Royall Consort fantasias discussed in Chapter 4, above.25 For example, J. Freeman-Attwood, ‘Baroque Distractions: 17th-Century English

Instrumental Music is of a Quality We Have Yet to Appreciate’ , MT 133 (1992), 174–8.

5

Example 6.7 (a) Jenkins, Fantazia {12} (Group I), bars 1–8: GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. C.81, no. 12; (b) Lawes, Fantazia {144}, bars 1–8

(a)

LAWES.indb 190 19/03/2010 10:58


4

7

Mus. Sch. D.238–40 and D.229), but significantly is also found in score in GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2 (pp. 76–81). The score comes immediately before the pieces for two bass viols and organ; no pages appear to have been abstracted either side of {135}.26 Christopher Field has noted that

The lone presence of the fantasia [{135}] … in score in Mus. Sch. B.2, together with stylistic differences between it and other suites – the brilliant figuration

26 Several leaves were abstracted after p. 76, but this was apparently done before entering Fantazia {135}.

(b)

LAWES.indb 191 19/03/2010 10:58


for violin and viol, the long tripla section – raise suspicion that it might have been composed after the rest of the group [of fantasia-suites], but there is nothing in the autograph partbooks to suggest that this was the case, and there are tell-tale signs in Mus. Sch. B.2 that Lawes’s score may have been copied from partbooks.27

David Pinto has suggested that this ‘single movement was copied some time after the other autograph parts had been made out’ , noting that the B.2 version ‘discloses both omissions and additions in the organ part as well as eliminating glancing parallel octaves between lines I [Violin] and organ bass at bar 71’ .28

Although the ‘glancing parallel octaves’ are in a score compiled from D.239 (Violin), D.240 (Bass Viol) and D.229 (Organ) but not in the B.2 score (Example 6.8), it does not necessarily follow that B.2 represents a revision post-dating the partbooks. On the contrary, as I argued in Chapter 2, Lawes’s scorebooks appear to contain compositional drafts. There would be little reason for Lawes to include the fantasia in one of these volumes purely for posterity or to correct fleeting con-secutives. The consecutives simply seem have been an oversight. The quaver e" at the end of bar 71 could easily have been added for melodic reasons when the piece was copied into D.239, without realizing the harmonic implications. There are minimal differences between the B.2 score of Fantazia {135} and the autograph string parts. Most discrepancies are found between the organ parts, with several additions and omissions in both B.2 and D.229. Most common are additions found

27 FieldFR, 246 n. 64; see also Field, ‘English Consort Suite’ , 124–7.28 LawesFS, 114.

VIOLIN

BASSVIOL

ORGAN

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.239

3

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2

3

3

3

3

Example 6.8 Lawes, Fantazia {135}, bars 69–75: comparison of GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.239 and B.2, violin parts

(Small notes: upper notes of organ, left hand, bars 69–70 are in D.229 but not in B.2)

LAWES.indb 192 19/03/2010 10:58


in D.229 (usually as newly composed tenor-range parts). Fantazia {135} appears to have undergone revision of some kind, which seems to have been linked to Lawes’s increased preoccupation with division-writing (Example 6.9). Despite suggestions to the contrary, there are several indications that Fantazia {135} was not composed with the original fantasia-suite sequence; the evidence implies that it was composed later and added to the existing alman and galliard. It is impossible to tell whether Lawes was reworking an existing fantasia by incorpo-rating divisions or whether he simply replaced it with Fantazia {135}. The fantasia defies easy simplification of the divisions, especially given the independence of the organ. A more likely solution is that Lawes took the opening theme as his start-ing point for recomposition. Of the fantasia-suite pieces in D.238–40 and D.229, it is the only one not to be copied using Lawes’s ‘formal’ presentation style (see Chapter 2). The decorative ending is the ‘informal’ style, and the extra lines writ-ten by Lawes near the end of the piece in D.229 are messy additions inconsistent with the style in the rest of this section of the manuscript. Although the initial evidence seems to suggest that no. 22 (Fantazia {135}) was added later, there is no sign of abstractions or insertions in the partbooks: it is copied on the reverse sides of the pages containing nos. 21 and 23. The shades of ink further suggest that Fantazia {135} was added to D.239–40 at a different time to the rest of the sequence. Throughout D.238–40 the inks in the various sections correspond. On fols 16v–17r the ink is a faded black; on fols 17v–18r (Fantazia {135}), it is brown/black, followed by a return to the ink of the previous folios on fols 18v–19r. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that, for whatever reason, during the copying of the fantasia-suites into D.238–40 Lawes decided to revise Fantazia {135} while retaining the rest of the suite. After no. 21 he appears to have left two pages for copying the revised ver-sion and continued with the copying of no. 23 on the verso side of the next page. There are no obvious corresponding ink changes in D.229. Never the less, it seems that Lawes again left two pages to copy no. 22 and came back to the piece after the remainder of the fantasia-suite sequence was copied.29 It is significant that Fan-tazia {135} is the only piece of the D.229 fantasia-suite sequence to give the impres-sion of running out of space. Towards the end of the piece Lawes squeezed 4/2 bars into the pre-ruled bars whereas previously he generally has only 2/2 bars in the same space; an extra bar was handwritten into the margin at the end of the second last stave. (Another line of enquiry must briefly be examined: is it possible that the eighth suite was not composed until it appears in B.2, i.e. that Lawes initially planned only seven suites for one violin? This seems highly unlikely. As noted, the alman and galliard were already copied before Lawes came to enter Fantazia {135}

29 Lawes similarly left space for pieces to be copied in the Shirley partbooks (see Chapter 2).

LAWES.indb 193 19/03/2010 10:58


49

52

55

58

4

4

4

4

Example 6.9 Lawes, Fantazia {135}, bars 49–60: GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40, D.229 and B.2

(Small notes: bars 49–50, 52–3, organ, left hand, upper line are in D.229 but not in B.2; bar 53, notes 8–10 of the organ, right hand, are from D.229 (crotchet rest in B.2).)

LAWES.indb 194 19/03/2010 10:58


into the partbooks, which suggests that the suite was already composed. Moreover, the symmetry of the collection, even within the scoring sub-divisions, strongly suggests that Lawes intended eight suites.) Judging from the many passages containing emendations and revisions (and of course the score format), the reworking of Fantazia {135} appears to have taken place in B.2. Indeed, we can perhaps briefly glimpse the compositional process. The final bars of the right hand of the organ in the autograph score were clearly revised, with the original line erased and another written in its place; the terminal barlines were written, and also erased. The ‘original’ is only partially decipherable from the palimpsest. Lawes appears to have originally written much of the lower line of the bass viol in the right hand of the organ, transposing the pitches up a thirteenth (Example 6.10; cf. Fig. 2.10c, which shows the organ part).30 This may suggest simply that he accidentally copied the lowest line of the bass viol into the organ’s treble stave and, realizing his mistake, erased the line, placing it in the correct stave above: whereas much of the line works in both clefs, note 2 of bar 139 does not fit if a treble clef applies. Another answer may be that Lawes origi-nally intended submediant harmony later abandoned in favour of a tonic chord. If we rule out copying error the implication is that Lawes originally intended the leaping motive to be in the right hand of the organ, which would provide a con-trary motion to the left hand: perhaps this was the ‘original’ version. This idea was evidently abandoned in favour of putting the overlapping contrary motion between the two bass parts, thus providing a much more effective solution. The position of Fantazia {135} in B.2 suggests that it was probably entered (i.e. reworked) c. 1638, around the same time as Lawes’s composition of the pieces for two bass viols and organ. Indeed, in the autograph partbooks the bass viol pieces and Fantazia {135} are all in a remarkably similar hand. This carries the further implication that most if not all of D.238–40 was copied around this time: i.e. c. 1637–8. Although the use of the ‘informal’ presentation style implies that the revised Fantazia {135} was added sometime after the bass viol suites (in the ‘formal’ style), the terminal barlines do not provide conclusive evidence. For example, Lawes used his ‘informal’ terminal bar in D.240 (fol. 32r) for the first violin part of Fantazia {156} (no. 43), whereas the other partbooks have the ‘formal’ style: yet another apparent example of Lawes’s ‘consistent inconsistency’ discussed in Chapter 2. It is also significant that in all three partbooks (D.239, D.240 and D.229) Lawes signed Fantazia {135} with the same ‘short L’ signature consistent with later portions of the autograph sources: the surrounding pieces in all three

30 In Example 6.10 the reconstructed line (done without the aid of UV-light etc.) is based partly on the direction of visible stems. Although the second note in bar 140 is not distinguishable, a b' or c" is implied by the stem.

LAWES.indb 195 19/03/2010 10:58


partbooks are variants of the ‘mature’ signature; the score is signed with an unusual ‘W: Lawes’ , the only other example of which is found in the first lyra-viol piece in GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432, a manuscript that dates to c. 1639–41 (for signatures, see Chapter 2). Finally, Fantazia {135} is also the only piece in the fantasia-suite sequence to consistently use the c-clef with two vertical strokes (also found in the B.2 score). In the rest of the sequence, the c-clefs are the single-stroke form (see Chapter 2).31

To what extent Lawes recomposed Fantazia {135} is unclear: unless one could count the revised organ part discussed earlier, there is no evidence of an ‘unrevised’ or original version. It seems significant, however, that in this piece Lawes was exploring the possibilities of elaborate divisions in both violin and bass viol, developments that reached a climax in the harp consort pavans (see Chapter 7). Elaborate division-writing is not generally found in consort fantasias before this, especially for the violin, which was still primarily associated with simple dance

31 This only applies to clefs at the start of staves.

Example 6.10 Lawes, Fantazia {135}, bars 139–47: comparison of organ original and revision from GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2, p. 81

139

VIOLIN

BASSVIOL

ORGANR-H (Orig.)

ORGAN

143

4

4

4

?

4

4

LAWES.indb 196 19/03/2010 10:58


music.32 The few examples of violin divisions dating to before the 1630s are based on simple dance strains, or relate to the bastarda tradition. There are important early examples of elaborate division-writing in two six- and two five-part fantasias by Thomas Lupo and in some of William White’s six-part fantasias.33 Perhaps the closest comparisons to Fantazia {135}, however, are the fantasias from Jenkins’s nine ‘middle-period’ fantasia-suites for treble, two basses and organ (Group III), and the seven fantasia-air sets for two trebles, bass and organ (Group VI): both groups apparently composed in the 1640s and 1650s. Fantazias {12} and {15} men-tioned above anticipate the developments in these fantasias, especially in terms of organ solos and tripla sections, as does the formal division into four sections (some later fantasias have five and three sections).34 As Andrew Ashbee notes,

the first [section] consists of a fugal texture in duple metre and moderate tempo; the second, of light, brilliant, rapidly moving divisions, flowing uninterruptedly into a short movement in triple metre – a movement derived from the dance. This third section cadences in turn on the first notes of a duple-time section of homophonic texture, but with slow harmonic rhythm – a section frequently featuring chromatic progressions, and always adding breadth and dignity to the close. Short interludes for the keyboard instrument alone may separate the earlier sections.35

Although there are differences between this formal outline and that of Lawes’s Fantazia {135} there are also similarities. Fantazia {135} also begins with a fugal-type section, although the divisions flow gradually out of it, building to the short ‘question and answer’ passage (bars 61–7), and leading to the tripla section. The tripla section ends with a perfect cadence on the tonic, before the duple-time metre returns. The duple-time section opens with an organ solo, gradually joined by the bass viol, answered by the violin, both joining at bar 128 in mostly semi-quaver divisions. The short close moves gracefully over an ascending sequence of thirds in the left hand of the organ (a common feature of both Lawes and Jenkins). It is difficult to say who first developed this kind of ‘division-fantasia’ . Jenkins’s surviving compositions are especially difficult to date given the large quantity he

32 HolmanFTF, 262–5 and passim.33 Thomas Lupo: The Five-Part Consort Music, vol. 2, ed. R. Charteris (1998), nos. 33

and 34; Thomas Lupo: The Six-Part Consort Music, ed. R. Charteris (1993; r/1999), nos. 9 and 10. William White: The Six Fantasias in Six Parts, ed. D. Beecher and B. Gillingham (Ottawa, 1982), no. 2.

34 Group VI is published in John Jenkins: Seven Fancy-Air Division Suites for Two Trebles, Bass and Organ, ed. R. Warner, rev. A. Ashbee (1993); Group III will be published as John Jenkins: Fantasia-Suites: II, ed. A. Ashbee, MB 90 (forthcoming).

35 Jenkins: Seven Fancy-Air Suites, ii.

LAWES.indb 197 19/03/2010 10:58


composed throughout his long life. Apart from several two-part pieces published by Playford, and by Banister and Low, none of his consort music was printed, and the dates in the various manuscript sources seem to relate to the copyists rather than the composer. A similar problem is found with Lawes, but within a shorter period and with fewer pieces. Fantazia {135} seems to represent a new point of departure for Lawes, one that evidently continued through the reworking of the Royall Consort, the later harp consorts (HC26–30), and the bass viol and organ suites. Lawes also incorporated elaborate divisions into his Fantazia {476} for three lyra-viols, which probably also dates to c. 1637–8; unfortunately only one part survives (Example 6.11).36

It seems likely, however, that the Jenkins Group I was composed around the mid-1630s or early 1640s, by which time Lawes’s fantasia-suites are likely to have been composed. As we have seen, Jenkins began to experiment with the formal boundaries of the consort fantasia with Fantasias {12} and {15}. If a later date of c. 1638 is accepted for Lawes’s ‘revised’ Fantazia {135}, is it possible that the revision (and especially the formal plan) was inspired by the two Jenkins Group I division-fantasias? There are many differences between the two Group I Jenkins fantasias and Fan-tazia {135}: the organ is an obvious one. Lawes’s organ parts (especially in the fan-tasias) are much more independent than in Jenkins’s early fantasia-suites, where the organ mostly shadows both strings (even the divisions) with occasional solo interludes.37 Lawes’s organ parts, especially in the fantasias for one violin, contain a significant amount of independent material, with some doubling of the string parts (especially the viol). In Lawes’s dances (for both one and two violins) the left hand of the organ generally doubles the bass viol, with new material in the right hand; this is similar to Coprario, although with Coprario the organ essen-tially doubles the strings in the dances. (It should also be added that of the three composers only Jenkins incorporated divisions into the accompanying dances.) Doubling of the strings (especially the viol) is more common in Lawes’s two- violin fantasias. Coprario generally doubled the bass viol in all of his fantasia-suites; doubling of all string parts is more common in the two-violin suites. In Fantazia {135} (but not the accompanying alman and galliard) the organ is wholly inde-pendent with almost no doubling of the strings; in general the organ provides the foundation for the divisions, but it also plays an integral part in the contra puntal fabric. This is an entirely different approach to Jenkins. The fully independent

36 The anon. Fantazia {9424} on pp. 212–13 of II.B.3 also contains similar divisions (though less elaborate).

37 On the issue of organ accompaniment, see HolmanOA; for Lawes’s organ parts, see LawesFS, Introduction; for Jenkins’s organ parts, see AshbeeHM2, ch. 1.

LAWES.indb 198 19/03/2010 10:58


organ part in Fantazia {135} (unlike that in the rest of the suites) also reinforces the suggestion that the piece was composed after the entire sequence had been made out. Nevertheless, Lawes and Jenkins follow a remarkably similar formal pattern, not to mention the thematic resemblances discussed above. Apart from the overall formal pattern, two main similarities between Fantazia {135} and Jenkins’s Fan-tazias {12} and {15} seem to be significant. First, the divisions use similar tech-niques: frequent points of imitation, parallel movement, ‘question and answer’ phrases, and hocket-like interplay. Lawes’s divisions, however, are much more suc-cessfully incorporated into the compositional fabric. Jenkins uses the divisions to provide a sectional contrast and variety, whereas Lawes appears to be consciously working them into the contrapuntal framework and does not restrict them to one section. Lawes’s divisions are also more violinistic than those of Jenkins, and per-haps reflect the input of one of the court violinist such as Woodington, for whom the fantasia may have been reworked. Indeed, we may reasonably speculate that Woodington may have performed the virtuosic violin parts in Lawes’s later con-sort music. It may be no coincidence that in January 1638 Woodington was paid £12 ‘for a Cremona violin to play to the organ’ .38 Second, the inclusion of a triple-time section in a fantasia is highly unusual for Lawes although it is a prominent

38 RECM, iii. 96.

44

47

51

55

59

4

40

Example 6.11 Lawes, Fantazia {476} for three lyra-viols [incomplete; edfhf tuning], ending: GB-HAdolmetsch, MS II.B.3, pp. 272–3

LAWES.indb 199 19/03/2010 10:58


feature of many of the Jenkins fantasia-suites, especially the later ones. Only one other Lawes fantasia includes a time change: Fantazy {573} for three lyra-viols (of course, others may be lost). Jenkins may have inspired Lawes’s inclusion of a tripla section in Fantazia {135}, itself a reassertion of a common feature of Coprario’s fantasia-suite fantasias. It is unlikely that such links between Lawes and Jenkins can be established beyond doubt, and one must always be aware of a common musical language facil-itating independent use of similar motifs by different composers. Nevertheless, a greater degree of cross-influence between the two men than has been generally noted seems likely.39 The following is a possible order of composition for Lawes’s and Jenkins’s fantasia-suites:40

1 Coprario fantasia-suites: early 1620s2 Lawes fantasia-suites: early 1630s? (but copied into D.238–40, D.229

c. 1638)3 Jenkins fantasia-suites Groups I and II: 1630s, 1640s4 Lawes ‘revision’ of Fantazia {135}: c. 16385 Jenkins fantasia-suites (and fantasia-airs) Groups III, IV and VI:

1640s–1650s6 Jenkins fantasia-suites (and fantasia-airs) Groups V, VII and VIII: 1660s

This tentative chronology suggests (1) that Jenkins was initially inspired (at least partly) by Lawes’s fantasias-suites and (2) that Lawes in turn may have been inspired to revise Fantazia {135} in response to Jenkins’s Group I Fantazias in D/d; both men shared the model established by Coprario. Jenkins continued to explore the fantasia-suite in the later 1640s with his ‘middle period’ suites. The florid divi-sions – which are more developed than in Groups I–II – may in turn be a sign of influence from Lawes’s Fantazia {135}. Florid division-writing is also character-istic of Jenkins’s late fantasia-suites for two trebles, two basses and organ, which along with the fantasia-suites for three trebles, bass and organ, expand the scor-ings of the traditional fantasia-suite scorings:41 these pieces are likely to date to the 1660s.42

39 Pinto suggests several links between Lawes and Jenkins in the consort fantasia repertoire: PintoFyV, 104ff.

40 The Jenkins chronology is based on Ashbee’s in AshbeeHM2, passim.41 Counted with the division pieces should be Christopher Simpson’s ‘Seasons’ ,

which date to around the late 1650s or early 1660s; see also Johnson, ‘English Fantasia-Suite’ , 304–18.

42 HolmanFTF, 277–80.

LAWES.indb 200 19/03/2010 10:58


Establishing a date for Lawes’s fantasia-suites is key to understanding his role in the development of the division-fantasia. David Pinto’s Musica

Britannica edition of Lawes’s fantasia-suites represents some of the most recent and extensive work into the collection and its sources. Pinto concluded that they are early works, largely composed before or around Lawes’s court appointment in 1635 (but perhaps dating to the late 1620s or early 1630s), with the possibility of some reworking perhaps around 1637.43 He dates the autograph parts ‘in almost their final form’ to around 1635, based ‘partly on the view that non-autograph copies were in circulation by c. 1638, and partly on the relative maturity of Lawes’s hand compared with the style which he used later’ .44 This terminus ante quem was also suggested by the earliest non-autograph sources, John Browne’s organbook, GB-Och, Mus. MS 430 and the Layton Ring violin book, which Pinto dates to c. 1638. The unidentified copyist of Mus. 430 also compiled the related violin manu-script now in the possession of Layton Ring. The latter contains the second violin part for Coprario’s fantasia-suites for two violins, and the first violin part for all of Lawes’s.45 On the rear flyleaf of Mus. 430 there is the instruction ‘This for Robert Packer Esqr at Shellingford’ . Packer, Browne’s brother-in-law, was in Paris by Feb-ruary/March of 1639. From this Pinto concluded that the most probable date for Browne’s fantasia-suite manuscripts is 1636–8 (further implying that Lawes com-posed the fantasia-suites several years earlier).46 Packer was, however, back in England by 1640, and Pinto has also advanced the possibility that Mus. 430 was copied 1640–2. Taken in conjunction with the evidence presented above, the later date – of at least late 1638, but more likely c. 1640 – seems highly likely. It is worth bearing in mind that Browne had access to a substantial portion of Lawes’s music before the removal of the court to Oxford.47 He is one of the few contemporary owners of significant pieces by Lawes; in addition to the fantasia-suites, he owned copies of the five- and six-part viol consorts (see Chapter 5); several miscellane-ous consort pieces by Lawes (and other court composers) are also found in other manuscripts from his library.48 As noted in Chapter 5, Browne is likely to have amassed much of his collection after his rise to prominence in 1638. It is not clear when Browne acquired copies of Lawes’s viol consorts although it must have been

43 See LawesFS.44 LawesFS, xx; the ‘later’ hand is represented by the bass viol suites and harp consorts.45 AshbeeJB; LawesFS, 116.46 LawesFS, 116.47 For source descriptions, see LawesFS, 116–17; also AshbeeJB and PintoMVC.48 GB-Och, Mus. MSS 379–81 and 367–70: see IMCCM2, 233–7 and 241–4.

LAWES.indb 201 19/03/2010 10:58


after 1640; whenever this happened, one suspects that he acquired the fantasia-suites around the same time. If we leave aside for a moment the evidence from the dissemination of non-autograph sources, to establish in the first place a compilation date for the auto-graph parts of Lawes’s fantasia-suites is not straightforward. For example, the corresponding string parts of the fantasia-suite sequence in D.238–40 appear to have been (at least partially) compiled before the organ parts in D.229. The best illustration of this is Lawes’s insertion to Fantazia {144}, added to D.238–40 after the string parts had been made out but before the organ part was copied into D.229 (see below). Christopher Field has argued that this suggests ‘that these string part-books were copied by Lawes soon after composition’ .49 In general Lawes’s autograph sources do suggest the time of composition, as compilation and composition appear to have taken place around the same time. If, however, the fantasia-suites are indeed early compositions, and if a date of c. 1637–8 is accepted for compilation of the autograph parts, the implication is that (although they are the earliest surviving sources) the autographs are not the original sources. More-over, as we have seen, the isolated presence of Fantazia {135} in B.2 highlights the problematic questions surrounding the sources and their compilation. The proposed date of c. 1638 for copying of the fantasia-suites into the autograph partbooks raises further questions about their dissemination in non-autograph sources. As we can see from Table 6.1,50 the collection was generally disseminated either as a whole (suites 1–16) or divided into the suites for one or two violins (suites 1–8 or 9–16). Only the string parts for a singleton – Alman {118} from suite 2 – circulated independently of the collection. It was printed by Playford in Court-Ayres and Courtly Masquing Ayres; it was also copied by Edward Lowe in GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.236 and E.451 (important Royall Consort sources; see Chapter 4), where it is the second movement of a Pavan–Aire–Corant–Saraband suite (only the bass survives).51 The Lowe and Playford versions appear to have been derived from independent sources. Playford grouped the alman with a corant and sara-band from the Royall Consort, transposed from F to G.52 As Pinto notes, ‘Though showing no significant variant from the version used by Lawes, this almaine is the only dance in which he could be supposed in any way to have drawn on pre- existent material for the violin suites’ .53 Indeed, shortly after Pinto’s edition

49 Field, ‘English Consort Suite’ , i. 119; also FieldFR, 245–6 n. 64.50 For more detailed descriptions of these sources, see LawesFS, 113–17.51 {324}, {118}, {325}, {326}.52 Court-Ayres, nos. 70–2; Courtly Masquing Ayres, nos. 22–4: {118}, {57}, {61}; the last

piece in each suite survives in two different versions.53 LawesFS, 115.

LAWES.indb 202 19/03/2010 10:58


appeared, Richard Charteris discovered a four-part version of {118} in D-Hs, MS ND VI 3193, fols 32v–33r (no. 99) (Example 6.12a).54 The books, copied c. 1683–4, contain 113 four-part pieces, described as for two trebles and two basses (a continuo doubles Bass 2); the Bass 1 book is now lacking. The five Lawes pieces in the manu-script are arranged as a suite in G (Pavan–Aire–Corant–Aire–Saraband).55 The first piece is a four-part arrangement of the five-part viol consort Pavan {79} in F.

54 R. Charteris, ‘A Rediscovered Manuscript Source with Some Previously Unknown Works by John Jenkins, William Lawes and Benjamin Rogers’ , Chelys 22 (1993), 3–29; IMCCM2, 15–23.

55 {79, 320, 399, 118 and 400} respectively.

Table 6.1 Sources of Lawes’s fantasia-suites

Source Format Copied* Suites†

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2 Autograph score c. 1639 8a

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229 Autograph organbook c. 1637–8 1–16

GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40 Autograph string parts c. 1638–9 1–16

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. C.90 a–c String and organ parts c. 1650–60a 1–8

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. C.89 a–d String and organ parts c. 1650–60 9–16

GB-Och, Mus. MS 430 Organbook before 1642b 1–16

Layton Ring MS Violin before 1642 1–16

GB-Lbl, Add. MS 10445 Violin and bass viol parts c. 1655 1–8

F-Pn, MS Rés. F.770 String score c. 1654–64 9–16

GB-Lbl, Add. MS 29290 Organbook c. 1650–60 1–16

GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.236 and E.451c

Bass viol and continuo parts before 1682 2b

J. Playford, Court-Ayres (1655) Violin and bass viol parts 2b

J. Playford, Courtly Masquing Ayres (1662)

Violin and bass viol parts 2b

D-Hs, MS ND VI 3193 Alternative four-part version, parts (lacking Bass 1)

c. 1683–4 2b

* Where applicable, the suggested copying dates refer only to fantasia-suite portions.† Following the system in LawesFS, where suites are numbered 1–16 and internal movements a–c.a See M. Crum, ‘The Consort Music from Kirtling, Bought for the Oxford Music School from

Anthony Wood, 1667’ , Chelys 4 (1972), 3–10; IMCCM1, 122–5.b Cautiously dated c. 1630–45 in IMCCM2, 260–2; a date near 1642 seems most likely.c For E.451, see IMCCM2, 212–24.

LAWES.indb 203 19/03/2010 10:58


The pavan was associated with the ‘old’ Royall Consort; four other sources preserve it in G, the same key as in ND VI 3193.56 Several concordances for ND VI 3193 are found in Edward Lowe’s manuscript with music related to the ‘old’ Royall Consort, which suggests that the source from which ND VI 3193 was copied represents an

56 LawesRC.

6

11

16

21

Example 6.12 Lawes, Alman {118}: (a) D-Hs, MS ND VI 3193, fols 32v–33r, Bass 1 is lacking; (b) fantasia-suite version, strain 1

(a)

LAWES.indb 204 19/03/2010 10:58


4

8

[ ]

[ ]

(b)

early form of the pavan. The second aire, {320}, is found in two- and three-part versions in several manuscripts, including the Shirley partbooks which suggests that it too was an early composition. This is followed by two otherwise unknown pieces, {399} and {400}, between which Alman {118} is found. Only the first strain of {118} (Example 6.12b) is, however, concordant with the fantasia-suite version. As the first bass book is lacking it is impossible to determine the exact nature of the arrangement, and whether the missing part was indeed another bass as the manu-script’s contents list claims. One suspects that this is an early version of Alman {118} later recast for the fantasia-suites. Lawes frequently reused material in this manner, examples are found in the viol consorts, the Royall Consort and in the bass viol duos. Indeed, some passages of the second treble part of the ND VI 3193 version are remarkably similar to the organ of the fantasia-suite version.

LAWES.indb 205 19/03/2010 10:58


The non-autograph sources incorporate many, but not all, of the revisions and corrections found in the autograph partbooks, which implies (1) that the auto-graph parts were (directly or indirectly) behind all of the disseminated copies, what Pinto called the ‘archetype’; (2) that Lawes revised or amended several pieces before dissemination; and (3) that Lawes continued to amend pieces after circu-la tion of the archetype.57 One example will serve for several.58 Of the pieces that show signs of significant alteration only one – Fantazia {144} for two violins – seems to have been a revision, the rest appear to be omissions or copying errors (and corrections thereof). The revision in {144} consists of an insertion of eight 4/2 bars (bars 38–46) at the end of the piece in each of the string partbooks (Example 6.13). Evidently this was done before copying the organ part into D.229, which includes the passage as do all subsequent sources. Despite the possibility of copy-ing error, compositional revision is implied given that Lawes omitted a section in all three string partbooks at exactly the same place (and for the same duration). The bass viol part (D.238) certainly underwent revision. Lawes wrote the insertion on the last stave of the page, the last note of which was originally a breve e and semibreve E. Subsequently he erased the breve e, replacing it (in a different ink) with a semibreve e. At the same time, he also completely erased the semibreve E replacing it with the short division passage on the stave above, the first six notes of which were originally a third higher. Lawes also made some revisions to the end of the bass viol part; they are in the same ink as the written-out trill etc., which suggests that they were all done around the same time.

❧ Conclusions

As we have seen from this detailed examination of Lawes’s fantasia-suites, the evidence strongly suggests that they originated in some prior source

(probably an autograph score) from which Lawes copied the string parts in D.238–40. When this source was compiled (i.e. when the fantasia-suites were composed) is open to question. Christopher Field suggests that Lawes composed his fantasia-suites some time before 1635 with the knowledge of Charles’s musi-cal tastes and in hopeful anticipation of a court appointment, and that the auto-graph parts may have been used for private rehearsals with the ensemble known as ‘Cooperario’s Musique’ (see Chapter 1) and were perhaps made out c. 1634. D.238–40 certainly bear evidence of use: e.g. in D.240 (Violin), fol. 18v there are

57 See LawesFS, xx–xxi.58 Other notable examples occur in nos. 10 (4a) {123}, 27 (9c) {140}, 28 (10a) {141} and

40 (14a) {153}; see also LawesFS, xx–xxi, the Appendix (p. 112), and commentary for the individual pieces.

LAWES.indb 206 19/03/2010 10:58


38

40

42

4

4 4

4

4

Example 6.13 Lawes, Fantazia {144}, inserted section (bars 38–46)

(continued overleaf)

LAWES.indb 207 19/03/2010 10:58


contemporary marks grouping the (unbarred) opening of the second strain into groups of four crotchet beats. Field has further asserted that ‘Well in advance of completing the copying of these playing parts, Lawes had decided to make his two groups of pieces match one another closely in layout, so that each consists of eight fantasia-suites in exactly the same sequence of alternate minor and major keys. Such self-conscious symmetry strengthens the impression that we are dealing here with a carefully prepared presentation opus’ .59 Apart from the early dating of the autograph parts, Field’s assessment seems accurate. There is little to date the introduction of Lawes’s fantasia-suites to the court from much after his offi-cial appointment; as Field suggests, it is likely that the fantasia-suites were known (in one form or another) before 1635. Nevertheless, we do not necessarily have to date D.238–40 (and D.229) to this period. It is worth noting that in 1635 an order was issued ‘for a new sett of books for Cooperarios Musique’ ,60 suggesting that some parts of the court consort repertoire were recopied because of wear and tear.

59 FieldFR, 209.60 RECM, iii. 81.

44

45

Example 6.13 continued

LAWES.indb 208 19/03/2010 10:58


Lawes’s fantasia-suites may have been initially performed from other partbooks, with Lawes making out fresh copies c. 1638. This may partly explain why the ‘early’ bass clef is used in the stave margins of the first ten pieces in D.238: Lawes may have been copying from an earlier source in which he used this clef; this also seems to have happened in some of the four-part pieces in the Shirley partbooks (see Chapter 2). The revisions in Fantazia {144} (and other pieces) may simply have occurred to Lawes when recopying. This interval between composition and (re)copying may also explain the impetus for the proposed reworking of Fantazia {135}, a piece evidently entered into the partbooks after the rest of the suites. Matters are complicated somewhat when we consider the organ parts, which unlike the string parts, rarely show signs of omissions or revision,61 implying that D.229 was compiled after D.238–40. The reason for this may be that the organist performed from Lawes’s original score and that any changes were made to this manuscript. Two possibilities arise as to the nature of Lawes’s score. The entire sequence of suites may have been composed in full score, similar to Fantazia {135} in B.2. Lawes may, alternatively, have used a string score with cues for the inde-pendent organ parts, perhaps similar to F-Pn, MS Rés. F.770 (a three-stave string score with cues for the organ).62 As mentioned above, Coprario appears to have used a string score for notating his two-violin suites; Lawes’s suites provide a much more independent organ part than Coprario’s and such a string score would be unnecessarily complicated. Of course, Lawes’s approach to the organ part may have changed, with the organ becoming more independent over time: hence the need for a separate organ book.63 Indeed, many of the independent inner lines may have been added during compilation of D.229, in the same way that Lawes expanded the organ inner parts of Fantazia {135} when copying the organ part from B.2 to D.229. This expansion process is also suggested by the non-autograph sources. In contrast to the organ parts for the viol consorts, Lawes’s organ parts for the fantasia-suites are relatively thin in texture, especially for the dances for one violin, which are often in Tr–B format. In general the organ parts of the two-violin pieces are fuller and more developed than those for the one-violin suites, with the excep-tion of Fantazia {135}. This may suggest that the two-violin works were composed later than those for one violin. Of course, it may also suggest that Lawes simply

61 Fantazia no. 43 (15a) {156} is the only fantasia-suite piece in D.229 to show signifi-cant signs of addition; much of the tenor-range inner parts are in a different ink to the rest of the piece.

62 Inter alia, Rés. F.770 contains scores of the two-violin suites by Coprario and Lawes, and Orlando Gibbons’s three-part fantasias for the double bass: see LawesFS, 116.

63 See Field, ‘Bing’s Copies’ .

LAWES.indb 209 19/03/2010 10:58


wanted a fuller texture for the two-violin pieces, perhaps to provide an effective balance with the violins; we observed a similar impetus in the Royall Consort where Lawes replaced the tenor viol with the second bass viol. In the fantasias generally the organ is fuller but rarely are there extended passages of thick texture. Indeed, in the solo interludes for organ Lawes tends to adopt a thin texture, perhaps implying elaboration of inner parts by the performer; there is a similar tendency towards thin texture before cadences, which are usually quite full.64 The question of whether to elaborate the inner parts is a difficult one. While acknowledging that the notation should not be regarded too literally, Peter Holman has argued that non-keyboard playing composers like Lawes and Jenkins (who also tended to composed sparse organ parts) generally wrote out their organ parts much as they wished them to be played.65 Nevertheless, copyists of Lawes’s fantasia-suites tended often to fill out the textures by adding organ inner parts. Pinto has noted that the organ parts seem to have been transmitted in two ways. First, Mus. 430 seems to have been compiled from a source close to D.229: the two sources generally agree apart from minor alterations, although Mus. 430 ‘omits much characteristic detail’ .66 A separate source appears to have been behind GB-Lbl, Add. MS 29290 and the organ part of the North manuscripts (GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. C.89–90), both of which expand upon the inner lines (rather sketchily notated in D.229) of the essentially four-part texture.67 It is unclear whether these expansions came from Lawes, although some resemble his previously mentioned expansions of the organ part of Fantazia {135} in D.229. Less likely to be by Lawes is the otherwise unique accompaniment for Fantazia {150}, bars 40–5 found in MS 29290. In the autograph the organ is silent during this passage. The main copyist of MS 29290 also had rests in these bars; a later scribe added the additional accom-paniment (to be substituted for the silent bars) at the bottom of the page. Thus, at least two now lost copies of the organ part circulated; both contained Fantazia {135} in its ‘revised’ state, which implies that they were copied after the fantasia-suite sequence was made out in D.229. This cannot, however, be interpreted as evidence that a prior organ part existed before D.229, and consequently that the organ part of Fantazia {135} was identical in its ‘original’ and ‘revised’ states. For example, the transmission of scant inner parts for the organ, simply suggests that Lawes augmented the organ parts after circulation of the archetype which was

64 See LawesFS, xxiii.65 See HolmanOA. He gives the example of Fantazia {135} where there are ‘several

places that involve stretches of a tenth or more, and several others where the con-tinuation of written lines is indicated by directs’ , ibid., 377.

66 LawesFS, 115.67 LawesFS, xx–xxi.

LAWES.indb 210 19/03/2010 10:58


derived from D.229 (cf. the bass viol suites in Chapter 8). The manner in which the organ parts were transmitted strongly indicates that the accompanist was expected to extemporize (if to a limited extent) in performance.68 The MS 29290 expanded inner parts may also have been the work of an intermediary (or a scribe who was also a performer) and may simply reflect contemporary practice in the realization of scant inner parts (as, for example, one often finds with Jenkins).69

Finally, a comment on the survival of fantasia-suite sources generally. In MB 46 Richard Charteris lists twenty-two sources of Coprario’s suites, including some later seven teenth-century copies; scribes include John Browne, Nicholas Le Strange and Roger North. For Lawes there are twelve, with the autographs featur-ing prominently; again scribes include Browne, Le Strange and North, but also Edward Lowe and a possible Salisbury source. The Jenkins Groups I–II survive in only three main sources: autograph and North for Group I, and North only for Group II. This suggests that the court circle was very important. It is immedi-ately noticeable that the fantasia-suites of Jenkins, who worked outside the court, achieved limited circulation and exerted no influence in the first half of the seven-teenth century. We can also see the important role played by John Browne in the dissemination of the genre.

The fantasia-suite has been often likened to the trio sonata. The parallel appears to have been first drawn by Thurston Dart, who observed that Coprario’s suites

were ‘trio-sonatas in all but name’ .70 There is, however, nothing to suggest that Coprario knew of the sonatas of, say, Salamone Rossi or Biagio Marini. Indeed, the term ‘sonata’ is misleading when discussing the fantasia-suite and betrays an unnecessary anxiety about English consort music. Only the scoring is similar. In both genres, scoring developed from the same impetus of reducing larger-scale pieces, but this apparently happened independently. The juxtaposition of contra-puntal fantasia and lighter dances was developed on a much grander scale by Lawes in the viol consorts, the Royall Consort and in the harp consorts, all unfettered by Coprario’s three-movement form. Fantazia {135} seems to be a pivotal piece in this development; indeed, it is perhaps the pivotal piece in Lawes’s œuvre. In it one cannot fail to appreciate the sense of innovation and invention. Lawes’s exploration of divisions for violin and bass viol finds fullest expression

68 See also the discussion of the fantasia-suite organ parts in J. Butt, ‘Towards a Genealogy of the Keyboard Concerto’ , in The Keyboard in Baroque Europe, ed. C. Hogwood (Cambridge, 2003), 93–110, esp. 100–2.

69 For a discussion of Lawes and Jenkins’s organ parts, see HolmanOA.70 T. Dart, ‘Jacobean Consort Music’ , PRMA 81 (1954–5), 63–75, at 69. Lawes’s

fantasia-suites were termed ‘violin sonatas’ by Lefowitz: LefkowitzWL, esp. 106–25.

LAWES.indb 211 19/03/2010 10:58


in the ‘new’ Royall Consort, but especially in the large-scale harp consorts. The harp consorts can in some ways be seen as a development of the fantasia-suites, with the organ replaced by the harp and the bass viol freed from doubling the fundamental bass by being doubled by the theorbo. The fantasia-suites were disseminated (and survived) beyond the rarefied courtly environment because of their accessible scoring (a treble viol could easily be substituted for the violin) and recognizable concept. The harp consorts, as we shall see in the next chapter, were a heady wine in too new and expensive a bottle to be accepted beyond the court environment that gave rise to them.

LAWES.indb 212 19/03/2010 10:58

chapter 7

The Harp Consorts

The thirty-piece collection Lawes composed ‘For the Harpe, Base Violl, Violin and Theorbo’ is best known today as the Harp Consorts. This titling may be

somewhat anachronistic; the earliest source referring to the collection as the ‘Harp Consort’ is Henry Playford’s Sale Catalogue of 1690.1 The Harp Consorts are unique in the English consort music repertoire. They are the only (relatively) complete extant consort music with a part specifically composed for the harp. Despite containing some of his finest instrumental writing, Lawes’s harp con-sorts remain in relative obscurity.2 This situation arises from two main issues: the partially incomplete harp parts; and the contentious issue of whether Lawes composed for gut-strung triple harp or wire-strung Irish harp. The latter issue is compounded by the problems surrounding the stringing of an Irish harp with a suitable range for a modern performance. The harp consorts survive complete, except that there are no harp parts for HC21–5. The violin, bass viol and theorbo parts survive in Lawes’s autograph part-books, GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40. HC26–30 are also in full score in GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3.3 There are three sources for the harp parts (Table 7.1). The first eight pieces (in Tr–B score) are in Lawes’s organ scorebook (GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229: e.g. Chapter 2, Fig. 2.18). In addition, twenty-one pieces from the collection, mostly in Tr–B score, are preserved in GB-Och, Mus. MS 5.4

The issue of ‘Lawes’s harp’ is one of the most contentious areas of debate surrounding the collection. When Murray Lefowitz published the first in-depth survey of the collection, he concluded that Lawes composed for the triple harp.5 This view was broadly accepted by scholars and performers such as Joan Rimmer and Cheryl Ann Fulton. Indeed, Rimmer asserted that ‘Close

1 PlayfordCC, no. 117. 2 HC1–4 and HC27–9 are in LawesSCM; the only complete edition is LawesHC. 3 For non-autograph concordances see Index. 4 Many of the MS 5 parts also contain passages from the violin line transposed to

act as a tenor-range filler. For a detailed discussion of MS 5, see J. Cunningham, ‘ “Some Consorts of Instruments are sweeter than others”: Further Light on the Harp of William Lawes’s Harp Consorts’ , GSJ 61 (2008), 147–76.

5 LefkowitzWL, 88–105.

LAWES.indb 213 19/03/2010 10:58


examination shows that they are playable only on a triple or double harp’ .6 There matters largely rested until Peter Holman approached the issue in

6 J. Rimmer, ‘James Talbot’s Manuscript (Christ Church Library Music MS 1187): VI. Harps’ , GSJ 16 (1963), 63–72, at 69; also C. A. Fulton, ‘For the Harpe, Base Violl, Violin and Theorbo: The Consorts of William Lawes (1602–1645)’ , AHJ 10 (1985), 15–20.

Table 7.1 Harp sources for Lawes’s harp consorts

HC Piece ‘Suite’ * Key VdGS Harp Sources

1 Alman 1 g {162} D.229/MS 52 Corant 1 g {163} D.229/MS 53 Corant 1 g {164} D.229/MS 54 Saraband 1 g {165} D.229/MS 55 Aire 2 g {166} D.229/MS 56 Corant 2 g {167} D.229/MS 57 Corant 2 g {168} D.229/MS 58 Saraband 2 g {169} D.229/MS 59 Alman 3 G {170} MS 5

10 Corant 3 G {171} MS 511 Corant 3 G {172} MS 512 Saraband 3 G {173} MS 513 Aire 4 d {174} MS 514 Aire 4 d {175} MS 515 Corant 4 d {176} MS 516 Saraband 4 d {177} MS 517 Alman 5 D {178} MS 518 Corant 5 D {179} MS 519 Corant 5 D {180} MS 520 Saraband 5 D {181} MS 521 Alman 6 D {182} -22 Alman 6 D {183} -23 Corant 6 D {184} -24 Corant 6 D {185} -25 Saraband 6 D {186} -26 Aire 7 G {187} B.3/MS 527 Pavan 8 G {188} B.328 Pavan 9 D {189} B.329 Pavan 10 g {190} B.330 Fantazy 11 d {191} B.3

* The ‘Suite’ designation is modern; Lawes does not use the term. It is, however, a convenient term to describe the arrangement of these pieces by key in the autograph partbooks.

LAWES.indb 214 19/03/2010 10:58

the harp consorts 215

1987.7 By using a range of archival and musical sources, Holman was able to sug-gest convincingly that the Irish harp was the likely candidate for original perform-ances of Lawes’s collection. The arguments for the triple harp do not hold up to much scrutiny.8 Indeed, by the 1690s, James Talbot (quoting David Lewis) noted that the triple harp was ‘seldom used in Consort generally alone’ .9 Rimmer con-ceded that the ‘triple harp has a pungent tone and is difficult to play; it is therefore not surprising to find the statement by Lewis that it was seldom used in consort’ .10 Talbot’s comments should be noted with some caution as they were made several decades after Lawes’s death, and should not be taken as evidence that the triple harp had not been used in consort music. Nevertheless, they seem to confirm (if in the negative) the sentiment recorded by Francis Bacon earlier in the century when he observed that ‘some Consorts of Instruments are sweeter than others (a thing not sufficiently yet observed;) as the Irish-Harp and Base-Vial agree well’ .11 I have recently argued that Lawes’s harp contained at least thirty-eight strings (seven of which are retuneable between keys) and was mostly chromatic throughout its four-octave range, D to d'''; there were few, if any, unison strings. Such a harp resembles the size of the Dalway harp (Example 7.1).12

Peter Holman first suggested that the harp consort scoring developed from the substitution of the harp for a keyboard instrument in the accompaniment

of divisions, noting that this transition ‘has an exact parallel in the development

7 L. Ring, ‘A Preliminary Enquiry into the Continuo Parts of William Lawes for Organ, Harp and Theorbo’ (MA diss., University of Nottingham, 1972), also argues for a wire-strung Irish harp for Lawes’s harp consorts. See also T. Robson, ‘The Irish Harp in Art Music, c. 1550–c. 1650’ (PhD diss., Durham University, 1997).

8 See Fulton, ‘For the Harpe’; also LawesHC and my review in VdGSJ 2 (2008), 84–98. 9 Rimmer, ‘Talbot: Harp’ , 63.10 Rimmer, ‘Talbot: Harp’ , 69.11 F. Bacon, Sylva Sylvarum (1627), Century iii, 61, no. 278.12 Slurs indicate strings that may have been re-tuned between pieces in different keys:

see Cunningham, ‘Further Light’ . Cf. the proposed ranges given for the Dalway harp in M. Billinge and B. Shaljean, ‘The Dalway or Fitzgerald Harp (1621)’ , EM 15 (1987), 175–87.

Example 7.1 ‘Lawes’s harp’

LAWES.indb 215 19/03/2010 10:58


of the first English mixed consort’ , as outlined by Lyle Nordstrom.13 (Nord strom convincingly argued that, during the last third of the sixteenth century, the mixed consort ensemble developed from an earlier repertoire of treble and ground lute duets.) The esoteric scoring of Lawes’s harp consorts suggests that the form origi-nated and developed primarily at court: few other patrons could have employed such an ensemble. One of the few was Robert Cecil. He employed the court musi-cians Cormack MacDermott (an Irish harper), Nicholas Lanier and John Coprario on a part-time basis,14 and ‘owned at least two virginals, three organs, an Irish or wire-strung harp, a bass violin and several lutes and viols’ .15 Although there is nothing to suggest that these instruments were played as an ensemble, a nascent form of harp consort could have developed in Cecil’s household during the first decade of the century. The main development of the harp consort is likely to have happened at court. There was a long tradition of harpers employed at the Eng-lish court, stretching back several centuries. MacDermott, however (appointed in 1605), was the first of a series of Irish harpers to be appointed that performed and composed ‘art’ music. This represented a significant break with harpers of the pre-vious century, who belonged to the minstrel tradition.16 MacDermott seems to be the key figure in the early development of the harp consort; indeed, Lawes based one of his harp consort pavans on a piece by MacDermott, hinting at his influ-ence.17 It is likely that the harp consort developed gradually in the first decades of the century with the addition of improvised (or informally composed) treble, bass or continuo lines to a harp used to accompany divisions on the bass viol. Perhaps the most tantalizing documentary evidence for the development of the harp consort comes from a letter from Sir Gerald Herbert to Sir Dudley Carleton dated 24 May 1619:

After supper they [the French Ambassador and attendants, being enter-tained by the Duke of Lennox] were carried to the Queenes privie chamber, where French singinge was by the Queenes musitians; after in the Queenes Bedd Chamber they hearde the Irish–harpp, a violl, & mr [Nicholas] Lanyer, excellently singinge & playinge on the lute.18

13 HolmanH, 191–2, at 192; also L. Nordstrom, ‘The English Lute Duet and Consort Lesson’ , LSJ 18 (1976), 5–22.

14 See R. Charteris, ‘Jacobean Musicians at Hatfield House, 1605–1613’ , RMARC 12 (1974), 115–36; L. Hulse, ‘The Musical Patronage of Robert Cecil, First Earl of Salis-bury (1563–1612)’ , JRMA 116 (1991), 24–40.

15 Hulse, ‘Cecil’ , 30.16 HolmanH, 188.17 See HolmanH, 192–3.18 RECM, viii. 80.

LAWES.indb 216 19/03/2010 10:58


The exact ensemble described in Herbert’s letter is difficult to ascertain; was he describing an ensemble or a series of solo performers? The description of Lanier as ‘excellently singinge & playinge on the lute’ suggests that he was doing so alone. It is, however, tempting to imagine Lanier as providing a continuo on the lute to bass viol divisions by Alfonso Ferrabosco II, accompanied by Philip Squire on the Irish harp.19 The Herbert extract is ambiguous, but it shows the Irish harp, (a bass?) viol and lute being played in close proximity, lending support to Holman’s proposed development of the scoring. The harp consort may have progressed from largely improvised ensembles based around divisions to more serious consort music, where again the harp substituted for the organ. The Irish harp was traditionally played with long fingernails, producing a melting sound ‘rich and resonant, with something of both bells and guitar’ .20 In the words of Francis Bacon, ‘no Instru-ment hath the Sound so melting and prolonged, as the Irish Harp’ .21 Although it is unclear whether the Irish harpers at the English court would have used the fingernail technique, the sound of the instrument would have been quite powerful. The sustaining tone of the Irish harp would have given a resonance similar to a chamber organ.22

The first documentary evidence of a harp consort dates from 1634. The group known as ‘the Symphony’ , which provided accompaniment for the vocal music in the Inns of Court masque The Triumph of Peace, consisted of a harp, a violin, and several lutes and viols.23 The ‘Symphony’ appears to coincide roughly with the establishment of a regular ensemble of this kind in Queen Henrietta Maria’s household, ‘the consort of Mons. Le Flelle’ . There is only one document relating to le Flelle’s consort, which was probably assembled for a masque performance.24 There is no evidence of when the group was formed, nor that it was even a harp consort: its relevance to Lawes’s harp consorts appears to be little more than coin-cidence. Lawes’s court appointment in 1635 made an Irish harp available to him as a regular resource. He may have been introduced to some form of harp consort before his appointment, but could not count on the harp as a regular composi-tional resource. Indeed, the instrumentation of Lawes’s harp consorts probably

19 Squire replaced MacDermott upon his death in 1618.20 J. Rimmer, ‘The Morphology of the Irish Harp’ , GSJ 17 (1964), 39–49, at 41.21 Sylva Sylvarum, Century iii, 53, no. 223.22 See J. Cunningham, ‘ “Irish harpers are excellent, and their solemn music is much

liked of strangers”: The Irish Harp in Non-Irish Contexts in the Seventeenth Cen-tury’ , in Music, Ireland and the Seventeenth Century, ed. B. Boydell and K. Houston, IMS 10 (Dublin, 2009), 62–80.

23 See WallsM, 172–5.24 RECM, iii. 83. Jean le Flelle is discussed in HolmanH, 196–8.

LAWES.indb 217 19/03/2010 10:58


became fixed only after 1635. Many of the first twenty-five dances probably origi-nated in two-part (Tr–B) versions, easily arranged for whatever instruments were available. Although there is often a tendency to ignore the authority of two-part set-tings, increasingly in the first half of the century composers appear to have used them as the basis for more complex arrangements, and they gradually appear to have become a distinct compositional entity. The Index currently lists over 120 miscellaneous aires by Lawes transmitted in two-part sources.25 Many of these pieces survive incomplete in sources that were originally in two parts. One of the most interesting is GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.220, a bass partbook containing over 500 pieces including several from the harp consorts.26 Its contents are similar to those published by Playford in A Musicall Banquet (1651), Court-Ayres (1655), and Courtly Masquing Ayres (1662); indeed, many Playford pieces have concordances in D.220. The title-page of D.220 states that it was ‘For the Bass & Treble Violls’ and gives the date ‘1654’ . Lawes’s two-part aires that have survived complete are primarily preserved between three main sources:

1 Playford published 45 different aires by Lawes in four publications (not includ-ing arrangements of known consort pieces): 7 in A Musicall Banquet; 34 in Court-Ayres; 33 in Courtly Masquing Ayres; 4 in Musicks Hand-maide (1663).27

2 Edward Lowe’s partbooks (GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D233–6 and E.451): D233–6 contains 37 two-part pieces by Lawes; E.451 contains an unfigured continuo part for most of these pieces: the continuo essentially doubles the bass. Twelve of the D.233–6 pieces are incomplete (bass only). Although there is some overlap between Lowe’s partbooks and the Playford publications, the variants (usually rhythmic) between the nine concordant pieces suggest that Lowe was not copy-ing from the prints.

3 US-NH, Filmer MS 3: Filmer 3 consists of three partbooks (‘Treble’ , ‘Meane’ and bass), compiled by one of the Filmer family’s household musicians, Fran-cis Block, over a substantial period in the middle of the seventeenth centu-ry.28 The manuscript contains (inter alia) 16 two-part aires by Lawes: several

25 ‘Miscellaneous’ is here used to describe pieces that do not appear to be part of a ‘collection’; it does not include two-part versions of other known consort pieces, such as the harp consorts etc. published by Playford.

26 For a detailed account of D.220, see ThompsonEMM, i. 221–6.27 Index for concordances. The symphony from The Triumph of Peace was published

in J. Banister and T. Low, New Ayres (1678), no. 27.28 For the Filmer collection, see R. Ford, ‘The Filmer Manuscripts: A Handlist’ , Notes,

34 (1978), 814–25; HolmanFTF, 241–3.

LAWES.indb 218 19/03/2010 10:58


are anonymous, and one attributed to ‘D[r] Colman’ . There are also 7 three-part aires by Lawes, the (rather incompetent) tenor part of which appears to have been added by Block. Although it is a unique source for two of the aires, {225} and {353}, most have concordances in Court-Ayres, Courtly Masquing Ayres, D.220 and D.233–6.29 Copyist error is a problem in Filmer 3. The textual variants suggest that the Filmer pieces are not derived from any of the other sources.

It seems clear from Lawes’s miscellaneous aires that there was demand for two-part music and that much of this repertoire was composed as two-part music. Apart from the harp consorts, relatively few of Lawes’s consort pieces are found in two-part versions. Several of the miscellaneous aires were disseminated in ver-sions for different numbers of instruments (generally in three parts, of question-able authority), but overall two-part versions seem to have been a distinct entity by the 1640s.30 This is demonstrated by GB-Och, Mus. MS 1005, which contains 122 two-part (and eighty-four three-part) holograph airs by Jenkins: the largest collec-tion of holograph two-part compositions.31 The manuscript appears to have been bound in 1645, by which time most of the pieces are likely to have been copied.32 Some are found elsewhere in three- or four-part versions; others are likely to have been scored for ensembles. The important point to note is that Jenkins placed value his two-part collection; the manuscript was carefully copied in a formal calli-graphic style. Further, many of the pieces appear to have been composed and dis-seminated only as two-part pieces. Matthew Locke’s suites ‘For Several Friends’ is perhaps the most significant collection of two-part compositions, and represents a pinnacle of the Tr–B compositional form. Though difficult to date, composition may have begun in the early 1650s.33 The significance of Locke’s collection lies in his inclusion of fantasias and pavans in addition to the lighter dances that usually comprise two-part collections. ‘For Several Friends’ demonstrates the developing sophistication of two-part music and its continued importance into the second half of the century. Lawes’s two-part aires are generally short, simple dance pieces. None has

29 Index for concordances.30 The Tr–B genre is also discussed in J. Cunningham, ‘A Meeting of Amateur and

Professional: Playford’s “Compendious Collection” of Two-Part Airs, Court-Ayres (1655)’ , in Concepts of Creativity in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. R. Herissone (forthcoming).

31 Also IMCCM1, 210–26.32 See AshbeeHM2, ch. 11: Ashbee discusses this source and gives an inventory, at

169–73.33 See P. Holman, ‘Locke, Matthew’ , GMO (accessed 2 March 2009).

LAWES.indb 219 19/03/2010 10:58


survived in autograph sources. This is true of most composers and suggests that they considered two-part pieces to be ephemera until they became used in fixed ensembles. It is interesting to note that Henry Lawes made no specific reference to his brother’s stock of two-part compositions in his oft-quoted appraisal (see p. 90 above). The lack of autograph sources is paralleled by the solo lyra-viol repertoire (see Chapter 3). Both genres are similarly flexible; notwithstanding the Jenkins autograph Mus. 1005, neither genre appears to have been disseminated through autograph sources. This makes manuscripts such as D.220 even more significant, as it provides evidence that (like lyra-viol music) two-part pieces were antholo-gized and disseminated in manuscript copies by, or for, amateurs. Two-part pieces were flexible and adaptable. They could be used for several purposes, such as teaching, publication or as the basis for arrangements or divisions. Like much of the solo lyra-viol repertoire, two-part aires are generally short simple dances that could be readily mastered by amateurs, with ornaments and divisions added according to the player’s ability; again like the lyra-viol, the realization of orna-ments or addition of improvised or arranged parts could transform a basic outline. Another important aspect of the popularity of two-part aires is their adapt-ability for performance on a variety of instruments. This would have been useful for professional ensembles which used them as the basis for improvisation or as arrangements for two or more instruments. A repertoire of easily performed music to which embellishments could be improvised would have been extremely useful at court, or in the service of any household. Large households (especially the court) required a substantial amount of music to fulfil a variety of functions: e.g. accompaniment of dancing, entertainment of visiting dignitaries, Tafelmusik, or concert-like settings. It is likely that some of this music was composed using a technique similar to parties de remplissage, where outer parts were composed by one person and inner parts arranged by another, as happened in masques of the period. As Peter Holman notes, the two-part composition would be sufficient for rehearsals as the ‘full dance band would only have been needed near the time of the performances. Someone would then have been employed to make arrange-ments for the required ensemble’ .34 Similar techniques could have been used to provide some of the consort music required at court, especially music required at short notice and adaptable by whatever group of musicians was to hand: parallels with modern jazz ensembles immediately spring to mind. Such outlines may have been the basis for collections such as the Harp Consorts. Larger ensembles could be assembled with relative ease from a two-part outline: a suggestive parallel is the apparent development of the lyra-viol consort from two-part Tr–B outlines (see Chapter 3). Inner parts only fill out the harmony and could be easily composed

34 HolmanFTF, 193; for a discussion of parties de remplissage, see ibid., 193–4.

LAWES.indb 220 19/03/2010 10:58


even by a musician with little knowledge of part-writing. Divisions could be extemporized, and if required, a second treble added; these additional parts would ‘be added to suit the ensemble at hand, sometimes by the composer, sometimes by other musicians. This explains why popular items in the two-part repertoire sometimes survive in settings with one or more extra but different parts’ .35 Extem-porized arrangements of two-part pieces provided an opportunity for composers to experiment with various instrumental combinations, such as the harp or lyra consorts. If the harp consorts originated as two-part pieces, it may help to explain why there are no harp parts for HC21–5: perhaps they were never composed. The only information omitted from the Tr–B versions is the extra melodic part usually con-tained in the top line of the harp, which mostly shadows the violin. The addi-tional melodic material usually takes the form of a simple descant, which could be easily extemporized. On the first statement of a strain the theorbo (and bass line of the harp) doubles the bass viol (with only occasional minor differences), and on the repeat, the theorbo (and harp) repeat the bass line over which the bass viol usually adds divisions. (Of the first twenty-five pieces, only HC12 deviates from this format, although it retains an underlying two-part texture.) Thus, a Tr–B ver-sion does not omit a great deal, as bass viol players would have been expected to extemporize divisions, and inner parts for the harp could be realized according to the ability of the harper (or harp). An essentially extemporized (or adaptive) approach to harp parts is further implied because Irish harps of the period were not standardized. They ranged in size, and therefore in range and modulation abil-ities. There are several accounts of large chromatic Irish harps (‘chromatic’ is used here as shorthand to describe non-diatonic notes necessary for modulation etc.).36 The point is that rudimentary harp consorts could easily have been extempor-ized from Tr–B outlines, with the harp acting as a continuo etc., according to the capabilities of the harp (although one would assume some modulating notes). The lack of standardized Irish harps probably reinforced the tradition of improvisation, resulting in few surviving harp parts, historical accident notwithstanding. The fact that Lawes was composing elaborate harp parts for HC26–30, suggests that he was familiar with and composing for a particular instrument. Another explanation may be that Lawes’s HC1–25 were originally composed in a string score with cues for the independent treble lines found in the harp. When it came to making out the string parts in D.238–40, Lawes evidently decided to make out a separate harp part in D.229. It is worth remembering that these parts appear to have been made out quite late, c. 1639–40, most likely after the string scores in B.3 were completed

35 HolmanFTF, 243.36 See Cunningham, ‘Further Light’; and Cunningham, ‘ “Irish harpers” ’ .

LAWES.indb 221 19/03/2010 10:58


(or at least around the same time). Thus, Lawes may have decided to make out more complex harp parts in D.229 – perhaps in the style of those in B.3 – but for whatever reason was interrupted. It is not difficult to imagine that he had other priorities by c. 1640. The basic two-part texture of Lawes’s harp consorts ensured their survival in various Playford publications. He published sixteen pieces from the collection in Tr–B versions between A Musicall Banquet (nos. 8–12), Court-Ayres (nos. 92–5, 97–101), Courtly Masquing Ayres (nos. 5–8, 25–31, 37–9) and Musicks Hand-maide (1663; nos. 7–8).37 Of course, this is not proof that the harp consorts developed from Tr–B outlines. These publications contain two-part versions of other con-sort pieces, several of which may have been derived from the outer parts of the originals. It is highly unlikely that the published versions of harp consorts were performed using the original instrumentation (to which Playford made no refer-ence), but if they were, the result would probably not have been far removed from Lawes’s versions, especially if divisions were extemporized. The same Tr–B layout is used in the only published instance of a harp con-sort. At the end of Christopher Simpson’s A Compendium of Practical Music in Five Parts (1667; 2/1678) there are ten two-part pieces, mostly attributed to Francis Forcer (1649–1705), titled ‘lessons by Sundry Authors for the Treble, Bass-Viol, and Harp’ . The first and last of these pieces are given in Tr–B score, suggesting that the harpist was meant to double the string parts or to realize a part based on the Tr–B outline; all the intervening pieces are laid out with the treble on one page and the bass on the opposite (and inverted) page. Thus, the harpist could only sight-read one of the lines, presumably the (unfigured) bass, suggesting that the harp functioned as a continuo. Another possibility is that a harp part circulated in manuscript, as was the case for the organ parts for Orlando Gibbons’s Fantazies of III Parts.38 It is unlikely that the pieces in Simpson’s Compendium were origi-nally composed for harp consort. As with many of the Lawes pieces, the suggested instrumentation probably applied retrospectively. Whether or not this is the case, the fact that Simpson included such compositions in both editions (1667 and 1678) is notable, given that the harp generally, and the Irish harp particularly, had declined in popularity by this time. The way in which Lawes’s harp consorts survive in the sources has led some modern commentators to assume that the collection was composed in two dis-tinct phases. The first phase encompasses the six ‘suites’ (HC1–25), which were apparently followed later by the last five pieces of the collection (HC26–30).39 The

37 See Index.38 See HolmanOA, esp. 372.39 For example, see HolmanFTF, 262; and PintoFyV, 153–4.

LAWES.indb 222 19/03/2010 10:58


evidence certainly suggests that HC26–30 were composed at some chronologi-cal remove from HC1–25. HC26–30 are more complex than the previous pieces, some with elaborate divisions composed for the bass viol and violin. There is also a change in texture. HC1–25 are composed in three real parts (Tr–B with harp), probably originating as two-part (Tr–B) pieces before 1635 (possibly as early as the mid-1620s), but only acquiring their fixed instrumentation, with fully composed divisions etc., between c. mid-1635 and c. 1637. The last five pieces appear to have been composed together. They are written in four real parts (Tr–B–B with harp),40 and appear to have been specifically composed for the ensemble. In D.238–40, HC1–25 are apparently arranged into six suites (consisting of one or two almans, one or two corants and a saraband), in four keys: two in g and D, one in d and G. All suites retain a similar internal structure, fundamentally Alman–Corant–Saraband (A–C–S) progressing from the slowest to the fastest movement. In general the six suites have been grouped together due to their simi-larities, especially when compared to HC26–30. As the ink is broadly consistent throughout the sequence HC1–20, however, it seems that Lawes only copied the parts for the first twenty pieces (Suites 1–5) at the same time. The ink then changes with HC21–30 and is consistent throughout that sequence. This implies that they too were copied at around the same time, but after the initial twenty pieces. Judg-ing by the hand, the chronological gap was not very great. Thus, matters are com-plicated. If the chronological division actually begins with HC21 (and not with HC26) we are forced to re-examine Suite 6 (HC21–5): the only group of pieces in the collection for which no harp parts survive. Although in Suite 6 Lawes was clearly still thinking along similar formal lines as in Suites 1–5, he hints at the later formal expansions of HC26–30, expansions clearly intended to incorporate more complex divisions. Thus, Suite 6 seems to represent a transitional phase in the development of the collection, which implies that HC1–20 (i.e. Suites 1–5) were composed first, followed by HC21–5 (Suite 6) and the pieces also found in B.3 (HC26–30). It is likely that Lawes composed Suite 6 and the HC26–30 around the same time, as they all appear to have been added to D.238–40 at the same time. Although apparently copied in two stages, this three-stage development of the col-lection is supported by an analysis of the overall structure of the collection, and by the development of the division-writing. Throughout the collection the theorbo plays the bass line, usually doubled by the bass viol on the first statement of strains. The bass viol performs divisions on the repeats. The lowest line of the harp part also doubles the bass line in the sources. The harp parts contain several passages of divisions noticeable throughout

40 Although this is not always true of the division strains of the pavans, it is true of the A, B and C strains.

LAWES.indb 223 19/03/2010 10:58


the collection, usually in quavers and often imitating the violin or bass viol, per-haps suggesting that the harper was free to extemporize divisions on the repeated strains. Suites 1–5 are broadly consistent as a group and share some formal dis-crepancies with Suite 6; a comparison will prove instructive. Most of the almans in the first five suites have the same structure: ||A||A1||B||B1||, where the bass viol doubles the theorbo on the A and B strains, followed by bass viol divisions on the A1 and B1 strains. The structure of both almans in Suite 6 (HC21–2) is slightly dif-ferent. In HC21 an extended structure is adopted, which had previously only been applied to the corants and sarabands: ||:A:||:B:||A1||A2||B1||B2||; Aire HC5 is in a similarly extended structure ||:A:||:B:||:A1:||:B1:||. In HC21, the bass viol doubles the theorbo on A and B, both of which are repeated. This is followed by two sets of bass viol divisions (A1–2 and B1–2) which are more complex and elaborate than in the previous pieces. The second alman (of Suite 6) acts as a foil to its predecessor. The structure is ||:A:||:B:||, the same as HC21 without the division strains. HC22 is the only alman in the collection with no divisions, prompting the suggestion that they were lost, along with the harp part. This is highly unlikely given that the source for the bass viol (D.240) is autograph, and shows no sign of such omission. In all six suites, except the fourth, there are two corants. The structure of the corants varies, even within suites. Again the ‘foil pattern’ is evident. Usually one corant has a more extended structure, to facilitate divisions. For example, in Suite 1 the first corant is in ||:A:||:B:||A1||A2||B1||B2|| form, where the bass viol doubles the theorbo on A and B and then performs two sets of divisions on either strain. This is followed by the second corant in a more condensed form: ||A||A1||B||B1||, with bass viol divisions on the A1 and B1 strains. A similar, although incon-sistent, structure is found in Suites 2, 3 and 5 where one corant acts as a foil to the other. There is only one corant in Suite 4, which is in the extended corant form: ||:A:||:B:||A1||A2||B1||B2||. Suite 6 follows yet another formal pattern. Both corants are in the extended form (||:A:||:B:||A1||A2||B1||B2||), with divi-sions in the bass viol and, significantly, in the violin. Each of the six suites cul-minates with a saraband, each containing divisions to a greater or lesser extent. Three have the usual two strains (HC12, HC16 and HC25), three have three (HC4, HC8 and HC20). Three-strain sarabands are quite rare, and provided a loose model for Locke’s sarabands in the Broken Consort.41 In the harp con-sorts there does not appear to be much significance to the extra strain. It was probably added for balance as these sarabands are quite short and played at a fast tempo. Overall, one can discern a clear relationship between the formal layout of the first five suites, and a distinction between them collectively and the sixth suite.

41 See Matthew Locke: Chamber Music I, II, ed. M. Tilmouth, MB 31, 32 (1971–2).

LAWES.indb 224 19/03/2010 10:58


Many of these differences may appear trivial but when taken together they are suggestive of a transitional period in the development of the collection. Although there is no corresponding expansion in strain lengths, Suite 6 was certainly con-ceived on a larger scale than the first five suites, where the basic AB form was elaborated through repetition and the repetition varied through divisions. The dif-ference in internal arrangement within the suites is also reflected by the divisions in the individual movements. Lefowitz first noted the similarities between Lawes’s division style in the later harp consorts and the division rules as exemplified in Simpson’s Division-Violist (1659): ‘So accurately do Simpson’s rules for “division” mirror Lawes’ style of writ-ing that one might suspect that Simpson had arrived at his precepts through a thorough study of Lawes’ music’ .42 Although possible, it is more likely that the formal and stylistic conventions behind the division style were already well estab-lished when Lawes was composing his large-scale division pieces. Lawes must have been known to Simpson, though he is not mentioned in the Division-Violist; rather Simpson singled out (his friend) John Jenkins, Daniel Norcombe (d. 1655) and Henry Butler (d. 1652) for praise. This is hardly surprising. Unlike Jenkins, Butler and Norcombe, Lawes does not appear to have composed solo bass viol divisions. Further, Lawes’s consort pieces with the most elaborate divisions were not widely disseminated; the large-scale harp consorts are not found beyond the autographs. The relation between Lawes’s division style and Simpson’s precepts is evidence of a well-established and highly formulaic practice, in which both men were versed. One can see the general precepts laid out by Simpson in the music of other composers, especially Jenkins.43 A brief overview of Simpson’s main rules will be useful at this point.44

The first part of Division-Violist deals with music theory. The second part gives instructions on the practical application of division techniques.45 Simpson identi-fied three main types of division: ‘breaking of the ground’ , ‘descant’ and ‘mixt divi-sion’ . ‘Breaking of the ground’ is the rhythmic or melodic alteration of a given line, without the use of multiple stops. Simpson’s rules for breaking the ground involve rhythmic diminution, octave displacement, scalar transitions, chordal skips, neighbour notes, arpeggiations, arpeggiations filled in with passing notes,

42 LefkowitzWL, 96.43 Cf. Ashbee’s analysis of Simpson’s division rules in the consort music of John

Jenkins in AshbeeHM2, ch. 12.44 There is a similar summary in LefkowitzWL, 96–102. A comprehensive account

of Simpson’s rules can be found in T. Conner, ‘The Groundbreaking Treatise of Christopher Simpson’ , JVdGSA 36 (1999), 5–39.

45 In the following discussion only the 1659 edition is used, preferred over the 1665 edition because of the closer chronological proximity to Lawes.

LAWES.indb 225 19/03/2010 10:58


and scalar transitions in conjunction with chordal skips (also known as ‘running division’).46 In more rapid divisions, Simpson recommends that there should be more stepwise movement, adding a rule about avoiding consecutive octaves at cadences. This rule appears to relate to performance practice: ‘Although this run-ning down by degrees, seem worse in Playing a Consort Basse, then in a Division to a Ground; yet, in This also, it doth not want its bad Consequence; the Organist commonly joining such Parts unto his Ground, as the Composer doth unto his Basse. ’ Simpson then outlines his rules for ‘descant’ division, which involves the addition of a part above the bass, forming consonances with the bass while avoid-ing the bass notes. Descant is subject to the rules of voice-leading and must form a third, fifth or octave above the bass note; however, a sixth may also be admitted when the chord is in first inversion (this relates to Simpson’s ideas of the funda-mental bass).47 ‘Mixt Division’ is the most common form of division found in compositions. It involves the admixture of descant and techniques of breaking the ground, to which are added multiple stops and dissonances. ‘This; as it is more excellent then the single wayes of Breaking the Ground, or Descanting upon it; so it is more intricate; and requires something more of Skill, and Judgement, in Com-position; by reason of certain Bindings, and Intermixtures of Discords, which are as frequent in This, as in Other Figurate Musick’ .48

To these rules, Simpson added advice on the structure of divisions, ‘Concern-ing the ordering, and disposing of Division’ .49 He advises that the first set of divi-sions on a strain should break the ground in crotchets and quavers, or be a slow-moving descant. The next set of divisions are to be ‘of a Quicker Motion; driving on some Point, or Points’ and then ‘you may fall off to Slower Descant, or Binding Notes [suspensions], as you see cause; Playing also Sometimes Lowd, or Soft, to express Humour and draw on Attention’ . If more divisions are required, ‘After this, you may begin to Play some Skipping Division, or Points, or Tripla’s, or what your present Fancy, or Invention shall prompt you to; changing still from one Variety to another; for, Variety it is, which chiefly pleaseth’ . A similar cumulative build-up of divisions can be seen throughout Lawes’s harp consorts, especially in the pavans. In pieces such as almans, where the strains are usually only repeated once, the divisions are usually quite slow-paced ‘Mixt Division’ . Where several strains are repeated the divisions become gradually more complex with each repetition. Overall, Simpson’s theory of ordering divisions can be understood as a gradual build towards a climax, which finds parallels in

46 LefkowitzWL, 96.47 SimpsonDV, 28–9; Conner, ‘Simpson’ , 20–2.48 SimpsonDV, 29.49 SimpsonDV, 47; all quotations in this paragraph are from this passage.

LAWES.indb 226 19/03/2010 10:58


the development of the dance suite in England. The gradual building of musical intensity places emphasis on the audience. It allows the listener to become familiar with the music before it becomes obscured by the increasingly complex divisions. Never theless, the emphasis on the audience is not solely for its enjoyment, it is to allow the virtuosity of the player to be appreciated. Simpson noted that divisions were generally played over a ground bass consist-ing of one or more strains, but also over ‘A Continued Ground, used for Playing, or Making Division upon, [which] is (for the most part) the Through-Basse, of some Motett, or Madrigall, proposed, or selected, for That purpose’ .50 As noted in Chapter 4, divisions in three parts ‘are not usually made upon Grounds; but rather Composed in the way of Fancy: beginning with some Fuge; then falling into Points of Division; answering One Another; sometimes Two answering One, and some-times, All joyning Together in Division; But commonly, Ending in Grave, and Harmonious Musick’ .51 This description is most closely related to Pavans HC28 and HC29 where the bowed strings gradually build the intensity of their divisions, almost recomposing the piece with new contrapuntal points (in the divisions). Similar formal devices are found in many of Jenkins’s fantasias, especially those for treble and two basses and organ, and two trebles and bass.52

The layout and style of divisions in the first five harp consort suites can be illustrated by a brief description of Suite 1. Although many of the movements only have one set of divisions, they exemplify the basic structure of Simpson’s precepts. The fundamental idea of gradual progression is clear. Alman HC1 is typical of the almans in Suites 1–5. (Only Aire HC5 differs from the usual ||A||A1||B||B1|| form, Lawes instead opting for a slightly extended version with the initial A and B strains repeated initially with no variations and then with division variations in the bass viol.) HC1 is in two strains, the second slightly longer than the first. The first strains of the almans end in either the relative major (as here) or in the dominant. On the A and B strains the bass viol doubles the bass line of the theorbo, then on the repeat varies the ground with divisions. The divisions are typical of the almans in Suites 1–5. They are in ‘Mixt Division’: mostly in a slow (crotchet and quaver) descant above the bass, but with some doubling of the bass line, scalar transitions, chordal skips, repeated notes and occasional multiple stops. The divisions also occasionally cross below the bass line. Simpson noted that simple dances were also used frequently for divisions citing their similarity to ground bass patterns. Although he only names almans, it seems likely that he would have also intended other dances: ‘These Aires, or Allmains, Begin like Other Consort-Aires; after

50 SimpsonDV, 47.51 SimpsonDV, 49; the same passage is discussed in Chapter 4, above, pp. 141–2.52 Bibliography for modern editions.

LAWES.indb 227 19/03/2010 10:58


which they Repeat the Strains, in divers Variations of Division; One Part answer-ing Another, as formerly mentioned’ .53

The first corant (HC2) is an example of the extended corant discussed earlier, ||:A:||:B:||A1||A2||B1||B2||. On the A and B strains the bass viol doubles the theorbo. The first sets of divisions (A1 and B1) are similar to those in the preceding alman. The A2 and B2 variations build on the first division strains and rely more heavily on ‘mixt’ divisions in a fast tempo (‘running division’); both are in almost con-tinuous quaver movement, occasionally punctuated by multiple stops (usually minims or dotted minims). The second corant (HC3) acts as a foil, exemplifying the shorter corant type. This corant is more similar in terms of form to the alman than to the previous corant. Both strains are repeated. The bass viol doubles the bass on the A and B strains, and performs divisions on the A1 and B1 strains. The divisions are again ‘mixt’ , mostly descanting above the bass. The suite ends with a three-strain saraband (Example 7.2).54 Each strain is repeated, with divisions on the repeats. In contrast to the previous pieces, these divisions are more heavily reliant on techniques for breaking the ground (octave displacement, scalar transi-tions, chordal leaps and neighbour notes) than descant and ‘mixt’ division. It is common for divisions in the sarabands to be less elaborate than in other dances because of their fast tempo. The layout of divisions exemplified by Suite 1 changes slightly in the fourth suite, where the second corant is replaced by an alman. The almans (both titled ‘Aire’) follow the same pattern as that in Suite 1. In this case it seems there was no need for contrast as neither contains extensive divisions. Corant HC15 is in the extended form described above. The significant change comes with the last movement of the suite, Saraband HC16, which Lefowitz identified as a reworking of one of Lawes’s most famous songs, ‘O My Clarissa’ .55 The consort version is in two repeated strains followed by four sets of variations, the most extended saraband form so far in the collection: ||A1||A2||B1||B2||A3||A4||B3||B4||. Whereas in the previous suites divisions were restricted to the bass viol, here (and in the sarabands ending Suites 5 and 6) they are shared between the bass viol and violin. As we saw in Chapter 6, extended divisions for violin were unusual in serious consort music as the violin were still primarily associated with dance music, ‘in general, rapid passage-work is conspicuous by its absence in the English violin repertoire before

53 SimpsonDV, 49.54 Bar numbers in the music examples do not always correspond to LawesHC (due

to the format of division strains in the edition), nor do they always correspond to LawesSCM (due to the barring); for ease of reference, all examples are identified by strains A, A1 etc.: such labelling is also found in both editions.

55 LefkowitzWL, 102, 167, 287.

LAWES.indb 228 19/03/2010 10:58


Lawes’ .56 In the A1 strain the violin performs a fast-moving descant above the bass (theorbo and harp), accompanied by a slow-moving descant in the bass viol. In A2 the divisions build on the quaver momentum gathered in the A1 strain. Again, the violin descants above the bass held by the theorbo and harp, although the bass viol now also performs (quaver) divisions. Here, Lawes introduces a concertante idiom. The violin and bass viol divide as a pair, with short antiphonal sections leading to the B1 and B2 strains. B1 and B2 follow the same pattern as A1 and A2. For the A3 strain Lawes reused the violin divisions from A1, now allowed to stand in relief as the bass viol doubles the theorbo. A4 sees the return of the concertante between bass viol and violin; the violin divisions are the same as A2, although the bass viol has new variations. The B3 and B4 strains follow the same pattern (Example 7.3).

56 HolmanFTF, 263.

3

3

3

3

3

3VIOLIN

BASS VIOL

THEORBO

HARP

3

[1st time]

4[2nd time]

Example 7.2 Lawes, Saraband HC4 {165}, A strain: GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40 and D.229

LAWES.indb 229 19/03/2010 10:58


The divisions in this saraband are the most complex in the collection hitherto. The formal extension of the movement, the violin divisions and the division partner-ship of the violin and bass viol anticipate many of the compositional techniques of the later pavans. Many of the formal expansions found in Suite 4 are also observable in Suite 5. Both suites have a similar layout. Although Suite 5 has two corants instead of the two aires, they fulfil the same contrasting function. Of note are the bass viol

33

36

39

4B3

3

43

43

43

43

B4

Example 7.3 Lawes, Saraband HC16 {177}, B3 and B4 strains: GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40 and GB-Och, Mus. MS 5

LAWES.indb 230 19/03/2010 10:58


divisions in Alman HC17, which become rather demanding in the B1 strain. The formal expansions are not paralleled in the strain lengths. Throughout the col-lection the second strains are the same length or longer than the first. Almans vary in strains of seven to fifteen (semibreve) bars and corants vary from five to nine (dotted semibreve) bars. The sarabands are mostly quite regular, having the usually four-bar strains. (HC4 has six bars in its third strain, and HC12 has five- and six-bar strains.) Also of note from Suite 5 is the extended formal structure of Saraband HC20: ||A||A1||B||B1||C||C1||A2||A3||B2||B3||C2||C3||, similar to that usually found in the corants and in the three pavans. Here, however, there are three sets of variations instead of two. In HC20 the formal expansion of the sara-band from Suite 4 is continued and developed. Each of the three strains is repeated with quite simple ground breaking divisions in the bass viol on the A1, B1 and C1 strains. This is followed by a full repetition of the saraband with varied divisions in the violin and bass viol. Again, the simple divisions are complicated by the fast tempo. The formal extension of the piece clearly shows the direction in which Lawes’s compositional impetus was heading. Although Suite 6 is composed in a similar style and format, there are several subtle differences between it and Suites 1–5, differences suggestive of a transitional stage. The first alman (HC21) is in a similar form to the corants of previous suites, and to Saraband HC20: ||:A:||:B:||A1||A2||B1||B2||. Here, however, the divisions are faster and more demanding than previously. The A1 divisions are in a continuous quaver movement largely comprised of lively ‘mixt’ divisions; the A2 divisions are, for the first time in the collection, in almost continuous semiquavers (Example 7.4). There are similarly fast divisions in Alman HC17, but they are pervasive in Saraband HC20. The B1 strain is an exact repetition of B with the bass viol dou-bling the theorbo; in B2 Lawes introduces triplet variations in the viol. The triplets are mostly fast ‘mixt’ divisions, giving way to fast-moving semiquaver divisions and written-out trills. To Simpson, tripla divisions are a means of ‘changing still from one Variety to another; for, Variety it is, which chiefly pleaseth’ .57 Tripla divi-sions are also found in the B1 strain of Pavan HC28. Alman HC22 is Spartan by comparison. It has no divisions, and thus provides an effective contrast to HC21. Both corants (HC23–4) in Suite 6 follow the same formal layout as the earlier extended corants, but the arrangement of their divi-sions is more similar to the extended sarabands. Here the violins also divide above the ground, developing quite simple elaborations of the previous violin melodies. The terminal two-strain saraband (HC25) follows the same formal design as the corants. The violin divides with, or against, the viol. The violin divisions are elaborate figurations on their original melodies. After the exuberance of the

57 SimpsonDV, 47.

LAWES.indb 231 19/03/2010 10:58


Example 7.4 Lawes, Alman HC21 {182}, A1 and A2 strains: editorial harp part; GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40

3

6

[Bass Viol 1st time]

[Bass Viol 2nd time]

LAWES.indb 232 19/03/2010 10:58


initial alman, the divisions in Suite 6 are mostly quaver-based. The quite different arrangement of divisions in the remaining pieces in this suite, however, points to a different compositional conception. Continuing from HC20, this suite anticipates the formal expansion of the suite (to incorporate more division-writing) that can be seen in HC26–30. It is unclear whether HC26–30 were intended to be played as freestanding individual pieces, or added to the initial six suites. Lefowitz first suggested that they may have been intended to act as elaborate initial movements to the existing suites.58 Given Lawes’s development of the consort suite, it seems unlikely that he would compose elaborate freestanding movements especially by the late 1630s. Indeed, Aire HC26 is a simple two-strain alman without elaborate divisions and individually quite unremarkable. HC26–30 should rather be seen within the over-all context of Lawes’s apparent favouring of larger, more elaborate forms incorpo-rating divisions: where the divisions are intended to change or adapt the function of the pieces (or collections). This is also evident, for example, in the Royall Con-sort (see Chapter 4). Aire HC26 and Pavan HC27 are in G, Pavan HC28 is in D, Pavan HC29 in g, and Fantazy HC30 is in d. The pieces in G and the fantasia seem to be intended as optional extras for Suites 3 and 4 respectively, whereas HC28 and HC29 could be appended to several suites; HC26 is unlikely to have fulfilled the same role as the other four large-scale movements. This raises a question: why did Lawes not compose an elaborate first movement for each of the six suites? This line of thought implies that each of the suites was intended to be played right through as they are numbered in the partbooks. These pieces may, however, have served two formal roles. First, HC1–25 could be played as they are, in short suites, where the duplicated dances were perhaps optional. Second, larger suites could have been formed by combining pieces in the same key, while retaining a fundamen-tal A–C–S structure (as with the Royall Consort suites in B.3). It could be said that the addition of the large-scale pieces would make the harp consort suites a little ‘top-heavy’ . A similar pattern, however, emerges from the Royall Consort, especially in the suite in C, where Pavan {49} has elaborate divisions, whereas the rest of the movements are short, simple dances (see Chapter 4). In other words, the large-scale pieces could be seen as having added variety to the shorter dances. Textural variety was an important feature of the initial dance suites (HC1–25). For example, when there are two dances of the same type within a suite (either almans or corants), one is more extended and contains more complex divisions than the other. It is likely that the function of the harp consorts was a key factor in deter-mining the format. HC1–25 were probably initially intended as Tafelmusik. But the

58 LefkowitzWL, 92; PintoFyV, 154.

LAWES.indb 233 19/03/2010 10:58


composition of HC26–30 clearly evinces a new function for the set. The least we can say is that the complex divisions in these movements suggest the domain of concert music. A (less likely) alternative is to read these movements as belonging to other suites, unfinished or now lost. HC26–30 are in a slightly different order in B.3 and D.238–40. They appear to have been composed in the order HC26, HC30, HC27, HC28 and HC29. In B.3, HC26 is in a different colour ink from the other four, and may even have been an afterthought placed before the group on an unused page. Although similar in form to the earlier almans, it is stylistically similar to the fantasia. HC26–30 are in four real parts, rather than three. The divisions in Aire HC26 pervade the texture of the piece in a similar style to the viol consort aires, or Fantazy HC30. HC26 is similar in length to many of the harp consort almans, but stylistically it is significantly different from any of the previous aires or almans. In HC26 there is a more imita-tive texture than before, and, for the first time, a solo passage for harp; the only other solo harp passage comes in the Fantazy. The change in texture reinforces the earlier suggestion that the last five pieces were specifically composed for the ‘harp consort’ ensemble, whereas the first twenty-five were adapted from two-part originals. The three pavans are all in a similar style, consisting of three repeated strains followed by two sets of divisions on each: ||:A:||:B:||:C:||A1||A2||B1||B2|| C1||C2||. In the A, B and C strains the main pavan melody is in the treble register of the harp, accompanied by slow-moving countermelodies in the violin and bass viol, as the theorbo and the lowest line of the harp hold the bass. In B.3 the harp part is not rewritten for the division strains of the pavans. The harper obviously repeated the original strain on the repeats, possibly with some variation, which is suggested by the doubling of the harp bass line in the theorbo and the main pavan melody being taken by the violin, usually on the first division strain. In the three pavans, Lawes experimented with a slightly different formal approach to the division strains, developing to the full the formal expansions of Suites 4 and 6. Pavan HC27 is the only one of the pavans apparently not based on a pre- existing composition. In the A1 and A2 strains the violin takes the pavan melody with the harp, against the bass viol divisions: the theorbo doubles the lowest line of the harp (Example 7.5). For A1 the bass viol performs ‘mixt’ divisions in almost continuous quavers using chordal skips, transitions, occasional double stops and passing notes. As Simpson recommends, the intensity and speed of the divisions intensifies in the A2 strain. Here the bass viol plays fast ‘mixt’ divisions in almost continuous quavers and semiquavers; most of the divisions consist of fast scalar transitions. Lawes used the same structure for B1 and B2, but a slightly different one for C1 and C2. The overall format of the C strain is the same as the division strains of the A and B sections: gradually intensified series of divisions in the bass

LAWES.indb 234 19/03/2010 10:58


Example 7.5 Lawes, Pavan HC27 {188}, A1 and A2 strains: GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3

28 ‘DiVisyon Uppon the Pauen’

29

31

4A1 and A2

4[Bass Viol 1st time]

4[Bass Viol 2nd time]

4

4

4

continued overleaf

LAWES.indb 235 19/03/2010 10:58


viol; here the violin plays a slightly modified version of the pavan melody. HC27 is the only pavan where the violin does not have elaborate divisions. This seems to be of significance given that the other pavans are based on compositions by Cormack MacDermott and Coprario, respectively (see below). It is difficult to know what inspired Lawes to compose the ‘homage pavans’ . In the autograph theorbo part (D.238), he attributed HC28 to ‘Cormacke’ and HC29 to ‘Coprario’ (though he signed his own name to the companion violin and bass viol parts), suggesting that they are based on pre-existing compositions.59

‘Cormacke’ is undoubtedly the Irish harper Cormack MacDermott. Upon the ‘Cormacke’ pavan Lawes composed the most elaborate divisions of the collection. Lefowitz suggested that the ‘Coprario’ pavan was an elaboration of Coprario’s

59 Lawes originally began to sign his own name to HC29 (D.238, fol. 43r), ‘Coprario’ is written over an effaced ‘Wj’ .

33

35


LAWES.indb 236 19/03/2010 10:58


Fantazia {7} for two bass viols and organ.60 The opening phrases of both pieces share the same bass line (in different octaves), harmony and melodic motifs; the opening melody of the B strain of the pavan may also be derived from the open-ing syncopated figures of Coprario’s fantasia. As Holman suggested, however, it is more likely that Coprario composed a now lost pavan also beginning with that theme, and that it was this composition from which Lawes was quoting.61 Annette Otterstedt has identified the opening three bars of the bass viol theme of HC29 as containing ‘a stowaway Ferrabosco theme’ .62 This seems to have been an uncon-scious reference. The theme is from Ferrabosco’s five-part Pavan {2} in C, which Lawes used as the organ part for one of his bass viol duos (see Chapter 8). On the subject of these attributions, Holman noted that

the example of Lawes’s pavan and alman for two bass viols and organ based on Ferrabosco (ii) makes it likely that [the] harp parts [of HC28–9] contain the original pieces more or less complete. Lawes presumably attributed the theorbo parts to Cormack and Coprario because they double the bass of the harp parts, while the violin and bass viol parts consist throughout of newly-composed descant and division material.63

The way in which Lawes attributed the parts in the harp consorts and in the bass viol duos is revealing. As in the harp consort pavans, in the ‘Ferrabosco’ pavan and alman for two bass viols and organ Lawes attributed the organ part to Ferrabosco (D.229) but signed his own name to the string partbooks (D.238 and D.240); the score in B.2 reads ‘Pauen: and Almane of Alfonso. sett to the Organ and 2 diuison BaseViolls by:∙ Wjllawes’ . This seems to confirm Holman’s suggestion that only the theorbo part of HC29 contains the original composition. HC28 and HC29 explore slightly different approaches to structuring the divi-sions. In the A, B and C strains the main pavan melody is in the treble register of the harp, accompanied by slow-moving countermelodies in the bowed strings; the theorbo doubles the lowest line of the harp. For the A1 strain of HC28 the violin plays a slightly modified version of the pavan melody while the bass viol performs ‘mixt’ divisions in almost continuous quavers and semiquavers. On A2 the violin abandons the pavan melody for fast ‘mixt’ divisions using descant, scalar

60 LefkowitzWL, 103–4; PintoFyV, 154. Coprario’s fantasia for two bass viols and organ is edited in CoprarioBV, 26–9, and in JacobeanCM, 182.

61 HolmanH, 203 n. 27.62 A. Otterstedt, ‘Lawes’s Division Viol: Pedigree of an Instrument’ , trans. H. Reiners,

in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 307–39, at 328.

63 HolmanH, 193.

LAWES.indb 237 19/03/2010 10:58


transitions, chordal skips, dissonances and neighbour notes. The bass viol doubles the bass line. In B1 the violin again plays a new melody, incorporating tripla vari-ations. Against this, the viol plays ‘mixt’ divisions in almost continuous quaver triplets. Lawes again employs the concertante idiom as the violin and viol trade phrases. In B2 the violin begins slowly, contrasting the semiquaver scalar transi-tions in the bass viol (Example 7.6). After about four bars the bass viol and violin join in fast divisions (quavers, semiquavers and demisemiquavers). In C1 both violin and bass viol begin in quaver ‘mixt’ divisions (using all techniques), ending the strain by playing antiphonally. Again, the bowed strings divide together on the C2 strain, trading phrases in mostly fast ‘mixt’ divisions, using all devices but mostly scalar transitions and neighbour notes. The strain ends in fast demisemi-quavers in a manner similar to what Simpson called ‘driving the point’:

it renders the Division more Uniforme, and also more Delightfull: provided, you do not cloy the Eare with too much repetition of the same thing; which may be avoyded by some little Variation, as you see I have done in carry-ing on some of the before-going Points. Also you have liberty to Change your Point, though in the Midst of your Ground; or Mingle One Point with another, as best shall please your Fancy.64

The divisions in this pavan demonstrate a new conception of the violin and viol working as division partners, now performing in turn and simultaneously. This general idea appears to have been taken up by Simpson but his later precepts differ greatly in detail. Although the overall structure of HC29 is similar to the previous pavans, there are subtle differences. The instrumental arrangement of the A, B and C strains is the same as in the other pavans. In A1 the violin takes over the dividing role from the bass viol and performs divisions in a quite fast descant, in mostly quaver and semiquaver movement, under which the bass viol doubles the theorbo. For A2 the violin begins with the bass viol’s A strain melody up an octave but abandons this after two bars to play the pavan melody with the harp. In this section the bass viol plays quite fast divisions using chordal skips, neighbour notes, scalar transitions and consonant suspensions, mostly quavers and semiquavers. B1 is similar in style to A1, except that the bass viol now performs divisions with the violin (‘driving the point’). The violin and viol brilliantly complement each other, using imitation and parallel movement building to a (demisemiquaver) climax. The B2 strain provides relief from the duelling bass viol and violin. Here the violin doubles the pavan melody of the harp as the bass viol plays quaver and semiquaver divisions. C1 and C2 combine the division structure from the previous two division strains. C1 is the

64 SimpsonDV, 47.

LAWES.indb 238 19/03/2010 10:58


same as A1: the violin divides as the bass viol doubles the theorbo (Example 7.7). This violin division is quite excellent, using transitions, neighbour notes and many chordal leaps/consonant skips mostly in quavers and semiquavers. This leads bril-liantly to C2, where the violin and bass viol combine to end the movement in ‘mixt’ divisions. Both instruments work well together, trading phrases and motifs, and playing antiphonally in mostly fast ‘mixt’ divisions. Simpson recommended that when two trebles are dividing together ‘they move in Quick Notes, Both Together; their most usuall passage will be in 3ds. or 6ths. to One Another; sometimes, an

Example 7.6 Lawes, Pavan HC28 {189}, opening of B2 strain: GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3

55

57

58

4

4 4

4

4

LAWES.indb 239 19/03/2010 10:58


intermixture with other Concords’ .65 Such parallel motion is not always evident in Lawes’s passages where the bass viol and violin divide together. Lawes does use parallel movement but he tends to vary the rhythms and melodies to create complementary lines. Apart from the bass viol pieces, the closest comparison (for divisions) is Pavan {49} from the Royall Consort. In the autograph partbooks the harp consorts conclude with Fantazy HC30, which in style and structure is closely related to the Royall Consort fantasias. All three explore a similar problem of form against medium. Like the Royall Consort instrumentation, the combination of violin, bass viol, theorbo and harp is rather unsuitable for a fantasia (see also Chapter 5). In HC30 Lawes does not rely upon the use of antiphonal groups, but instead often contrasts the upper strings with the harp. His textural approach to the harp in HC30 is often similar to the organ in his fantasia-suites for single violin (as are the solo introduction and solo passages for harp; cf. for example, the harp and organ parts in HC30 and Fantazia {135}). HC30 contains similarities to many of the important motivic elements that form

65 SimpsonDV, 49.

59

60


LAWES.indb 240 19/03/2010 10:58


62

VIOLIN

BASS VIOL &THEORBO

HARP

64

65

67

69

4

4

4 4

Example 7.7 Lawes, Pavan HC29 {190}, C1 strain: GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3

LAWES.indb 241 19/03/2010 10:58


the basis of the Royall Consort fantasias. It is also clearly sectional. In the Royall Consort fantasias, however, the sections usually correspond to textural changes or developments, whereas in HC30 the sections are clearly defined by motivic developments: each section usually indicated by an obvious cadence. HC30 can be divided into six main sections:

1 bars 1–16 Opening imitative section based on a repeated-note motif; ends clearly with imperfect cadence in d (vi–V)

2 bars 16–21 Imitative section based on a short arching motif; ends clearly with imperfect cadence in d (i63–V)

3 bars 21–9 Free-imitative section based initially on a repeated-note motif; ends with imperfect cadence in g (i–V)

4 bars 29–36 Imitative section; faster movement (quavers and semiquavers): division-esque passage; ends with inverted perfect cadence to D

5 bars 36–44 Imitative section based on a descending, repeated-note chromatic motif; no clearly defined final cadence (overlaps with coda)

6 bars 45–53 Serene coda; slower, crotchet and minim movement with lots of block-chords; ends with extended plagal cadence

HC30 opens with a repeated-note motif in the bass register of the harp, which has thematic resemblance to the opening theme from the Royall Consort fantasia in D and a rhythmic resemblance to the fantasia in d (Example 7.8). Both move-ments in d present their opening points in the plucked strings: the fantasia in D begins in the (second) bass viol. The opening imitative section is comprised of both real and tonal answers as Lawes quickly introduces new statements of the theme. In this section (and throughout the piece) Lawes takes advantage of both hands of the harpist to create often as many as five real parts. What often results is a three-part texture in the violin, bass viol and theorbo against a three-part texture in the harp. The opening section is dominated by rhythmic motifs similar to those found in the

Example 7.8 Comparison of opening themes: (a) Royall Consort, Fantazy {1}; (b) Royall Consort, Fantazy {36}; (c) Harp Consort, Fantazy HC30 {191}

(a)

(b)

(c)

LAWES.indb 242 19/03/2010 10:58


Royall Consort fantasia in d, especially the dotted crotchet/three-quaver motif. In addition, the ‘sighing’ motif (minim or dotted minim falling to a quaver or a crotchet; see Chapter 4, Example 4.1) so prevalent in the Royall Consort fantasias is also found in this opening section: Example 7.9. The ‘sighing’ motif is echoed in the many dotted crotchet suspension figures, notable throughout the passage.

Example 7.9 Lawes, Harp Consort Fantazy HC30 {191}, bars 6–11: ‘sighing’ motif: GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3 (bar nos. as LawesHC)

6

8

444

4

4

10

LAWES.indb 243 19/03/2010 10:58


The complexity of the counterpoint in this passage (and throughout the fantasia) is also noteworthy; it suggests a deliberately formal and learned, even retrospective, style for a cultivated audience. Section 2 begins after the imperfect cadence from bars 16–21 and opens with the violin and theorbo with just the bass of the harp. This light texture is con-trasted quickly with a tutti until the end of the section with a four- and five-part texture in the harp. This brief section centres on an arching motif modulat-ing freely through the subtonic, tonic, subdominant and tonic, ending with an inverted imperfect cadence (bar 21). The following section (section 3) explores free contrapuntal imitation, and again employs a pithy repeated-note motif. Here the ‘sighing’ motif is explored fully: especially bars 26–9. As in the two Royall Consort fantasias, the ‘sighing’ motifs are contrasted with divisions in the next sec-tion. Section 4 embraces the imitative qualities of the preceding sections and com-bines them with a division-based style of writing (in quavers and semiquavers).

31

33

4 4

4

4

4

Example 7.10 (a) Lawes, Fantazy HC30 {191}, bars 31–4: GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3; (b) Lawes, Fantazia {156} for two violins, bass viol and organ, bars 47–9:

GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40 and D.229; (c) Lawes, Fantazy {72} for five viols and organ, bars 33–5: GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. B.2 and D.229

(a)

LAWES.indb 244 19/03/2010 10:58


The texture in the fourth section is wonderfully intricate, with an anti phonal assemblage of the whole ensemble resulting in as many as seven contra puntal parts. The harp accompaniment at bars 31–4 is built on a figure also found in Fan-tazia {156} from Lawes’s fantasia-suite for two violins, and in his five-part viol con-sort Fantazy {72} (Example 7.10a–c).66

Section 5 begins at bar 36 (Example 7.11). Although the descending chromatic figure comprises fewer notes than the chromatic figures in the Royall Consort fantasias, it is easy to see the relationship between the two. Rather than treat the chromaticism as a bass line to be harmonized, here Lawes treats the descending chromatic figure contrapuntally and explores it imitatively, using the chromati-cism to pass through keys as remote as f. The chromatic motif is shorter than those found in the Royall Consort fantasias to allow Lawes to control it imitatively without undermining the clear tonal direction. The final section is a serene coda

66 LawesFS, 96–9; and LawesCS, 17–22.

47

4

44

4

4

33

4

4

4

44

4

4

(b)

(c)

LAWES.indb 245 19/03/2010 10:58


36

40

48

51

444

44

Example 7.11 Lawes, Fantazy HC30 {191}, bars 36–42 and 48–53: GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3

LAWES.indb 246 19/03/2010 10:58


in which the rhythm slows to crotchets and minims as the gently arching coun-terpoint moves softly to the extended plagal cadence completing the movement. Here the chromatic theme reappears, a technique also used in the Royall Consort fantasia in the same key.

❧ Conclusions

Lawes’s harp consort does not seem to have survived in its original form beyond the court environment in which it developed. Many of the first twenty-

five pieces, however, remained relatively popular in two-part (Tr–B) versions until the 1670s, largely through various Playford publications.67 The poor representa-tion of HC26–30 in non-autograph sources has been used to suggest that the addi-tion of these five pieces to D.238–40 took place ‘when copies had already been cir-culated’ .68 Of HC26–30, however, only HC26 is found in a non-autograph source: MS 5. Moreover, HC21–30 were all copied into D.238–40 around the same time, and HC21–5 are also preserved in the two-part manuscripts D.220 and GB-Och, Mus. MS 599. Thus, it seems that (much like the Royall Consort fantasias) although copyists had access to HC26–30 they chose not to copy them on purely stylistic grounds. It is also significant that the selections of the collection surviving in later sources are all Tr–B, or Tr–B arrangements for keyboard. The fact that only selec-tions from the first twenty-five pieces are represented is probably due to the four-part texture of the later pieces. In Aire HC26 and Fantazy HC30 four real parts are required throughout, with both pieces containing solo passages for the harp. Although these passages could have been adapted for keyboard this would not have suited the Restoration amateur taste for the kind of short, light dances popu-larized by the Playford collections. The presence of an obbligato accompaniment with solo passages was probably considered too cumbersome to adapt for two-part performance (presumably with a realized continuo part). A similar explanation can be advanced for the pavans, which were certainly considered old-fashioned by the 1660s. The task of arranging was made more complex by having the actual pavan in the harp part and by the countermelodies in the strings also containing essential material. The above analysis of the harp consorts suggests that the compositional process was more complex than previously thought. Lawes composed the collection in three distinct phases, which do not correspond to the way in which the collection was copied into the surviving autograph sources. Once this distinction between composition and copying is made, the evolution of the collection becomes clearer.

67 Index for individual concordances.68 PintoFyV, 154.

LAWES.indb 247 19/03/2010 10:58


First Lawes composed Suites 1–5, followed by Suite 6 and then by the five pieces in B.3. Even within these phases Lawes’s compositional thought was gradually devel-oping, best represented by the way in which he subtly expanded the formal bound-aries of the individual pieces (and whole suites) to accommodate division-writing. This further suggests that the first phase was unlikely to have been completed all at once. The extent of the division-writing in the later harp consorts is compa-rable to that in the bass viol and organ suites, Fantazia {135} and in parts of the Royall Consort. The parallels between the Harp Consort and the Royall Consort are many and suggestive. One certainly notes a similar impetus behind the formal expansion of both collections: divisions. Division-writing in the harp consorts is more elaborate than in the Royall Consort (Pavan {49} notwithstanding), which suggests differing functions. I argued in Chapter 4 that the Royall Consort was rescored with more divisions to bring it from the realm of functional dance music to a more concert-like situation, most likely as a form of Tafelmusik. From their inception, however, the harp consorts seem to have been composed as Tafelmusik. The inclusion of more elaborate division pieces – culminating in the homage pavans – appears to have been part of Lawes’s intention to bring the harp con-sorts to an audience whose main attention was the music and the performers. The exquisite Fantazy HC30 is a case point. It perfectly encapsulates this wonderfully esoteric genre: the tension between form and medium is played out, and resolved, through Lawes’s supreme handling of contrapuntal textures; the essential diatoni-cism brilliantly juxtaposed with a typically Lawesean feeling for chromatic colour. Were it not for the disruption of the Civil War Lawes could well have developed the harp consort further; it is our loss that he did not.

LAWES.indb 248 19/03/2010 10:58

chapter 8

The Suites for Two Bass Viols and Organ

Lawes’s development of formal structures to accommodate elaborate divisions is perhaps best observed in his pieces for two bass viols and organ. Seven

survive, one of which is incomplete.1 Both autograph scores (GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2) and parts (GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238, D.240 and D.229) have for-tunately survived. In the string partbooks the pieces appear to be arranged into suites: a suite in g (pavan and two aires); then four pieces in C, although it is unclear whether Lawes intended these as two pairs – Pavan {104} and Alman {105}, and Aire {106} and Corant {107} – or as one suite. The relationship between these pieces in the autograph sources is complex. In B.2 they are in the following order: Pavan {101}, Aire {102}, Aire {103}, Corant {107}, Pavan {104}, Alman {105} and Aire {106}, with the lute suite between Pavan {101} and Aire {102}. In the partbooks they come in the order suggested by the VdGS numbers. Moreover, the bass viol parts of Aire {106} are complete in D.238–40, but only the bass line of the first strain of the organ is in D.229; the organ and some of the second viol part is missing in B.2.

Compositions for two equal bass viols with organ accompaniment appear to have begun with Coprario. Although the genre is likely to have largely devel-

oped from the tradition of setting solo bass viol divisions to an organ accompa-niment (see below) the equal lute duets that developed in the late sixteenth cen-tury may also have served as a model.2 Twelve pieces by Coprario for two bass viols and organ survive.3 They are through-composed, essentially bi-sectional fantasias, formally similar to many fantasias by Ferrabosco; they contain only occasional, and undemanding, division passages.4 Andrew Ashbee has suggested that Coprario probably composed the duos between 1617 and 1625 for perform-ance in the Prince Charles’s household.5 This seems likely, given that they are

1 {101–3} published in VdGS Supplement, no. 91; {104–5} published in LawesSCM. Bar nos. of LawesSCM are given in square brackets where they differ.

2 For lute duets, see SpringL, 149–56. 3 Index for concordances. All published in CoprarioBV. 4 See CoprarioBV; also J. Richards, ‘A Study of Music for Bass Viol Written in Eng-

land in the Seventeenth Century’ (BLitt diss., Oxford University, 1961) i. 70–94. 5 AshbeeHM2, 191. Elsewhere they have been dated to as early as 1610: see, Richards,

‘Bass Viol’ , i. 71–2; CoprarioBV, vii.

LAWES.indb 249 19/03/2010 10:58


compositionally more mature than his viol consorts or lyra-viol trios.6 Coprario’s duos also appear to be the earliest examples in England of consort music with an independent organ accompaniment conceived as a harmonic foundation.7 There are no concordances to suggest that they were arrangements of larger con-sort pieces; indeed, they are stylistically comparable to Coprario’s other two-part (Tr–T) pieces.8 Six fantasias for two equal trebles survive by Orlando Gibbons. They contain more divisions than the Coprario pieces, but have more in common with the Renaissance tradition as exemplified by Thomas Morley’s two-part fantasias; no organ part survives, although one was probably extemporized by Gibbons in performance. At court the bass viol duos does not seem to have been greatly developed until Lawes, although the lyra-viol duo appears to have remained quite popular throughout the period (see Chapter 3). In the years between Coprario’s death (1626) and Lawes’s royal appointment (1635) the genre appears to have flourished outside the court. There are two fantasias for two bass viols in GB-Ckc, MSS Rowe 112–13 attributed to William White (fl. c. 1620). Because they have few rests and lack clearly defined sections, Janet Richards suggested they were composed before Coprario’s bass viol duos.9 Although sectional fantasias are generally later, it does not necessarily follow that all composers developed at the same pace. It is quite likely that provincial composers were composing non-sectional fantasias after the development of the more instrumentally conceived and sectional ones. The White fantasias are essentially vocally derived; no organ parts have survived, though they may have been extemporized. There are also six fine pieces for two bass viols and organ by John Ward. These mostly two-strain homophonic ayres are heavily influenced by dance forms and apparently modelled on Coprario’s.10 The viols are of equal importance, and although the parts cross frequently they are not as closely spaced as in Coprario’s fantasias. The organ is fully written out, supplying harmonies omitted from the strings. Nine bass viol duos by Simon Ives were copied in GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31423. Whether they too were originally per-formed with an organ accompaniment is unclear: none has survived. Although copied after 1638 they appear to be early compositions, but later than Coprario’s

6 CoprarioBV, vii–viii. 7 CoprarioBV, vii. 8 See John Coprario: The Two-, Three- and Four-Part Consort Music, ed. R. Charteris

(1991). 9 Richards, ‘Bass Viol’ , i. 101. The second of White’s fantasias is published in

JacobeanCM, no. 5.10 All six are edited in John Ward: Consort Music of Four Parts, ed. I. Payne, MB 83

(2005), see also ibid., pp. xxviii–xxix. Richards (‘Bass Viol’ , i. 106) dates them to c. 1620.

LAWES.indb 250 19/03/2010 10:58

the suites for two bass viols and organ 251

duos: they were perhaps composed in the mid- to late 1620s.11 Ives appears to have been one of the first to experiment with setting one viol against the other for variety. There are simple divisions in many of his pieces; more elaborate divi-sions may have been extemporized on repeats. There are also several (poor qual-ity) bass viol duos by Michael East (c. 1580–1648), apparently dating to the late 1630s.12 Composers continued to write pieces for two bass viols and organ around the middle of the century. Matthew Locke’s twelve bass viol duos (in four three-movement suites) are dated 1652 in his autograph scorebook (GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17801). Locke’s idiomatic viol parts are self-sufficient and do not need accompani-ment; as an organist, Locke could have extemporized one in performance.13 John Hingeston also composed sixteen pieces for two bass viols, arranged in four suites of Fantasia–Alman–Alman–Corant. Hingeston’s duos are quite well composed. They do not require virtuoso technique, although elaborate divisions again may have been extemporized. As with Locke, there is no organ part for Hingeston’s bass viol duos, although he too was an organist capable of improvising one as required. John Jenkins was one of the most prolific composers of bass viol music. The Index currently attributes over fifty pieces for one or two bass viols to him, many of which are difficult to date accurately. They are mostly in a mature instrumen-tal style, with technically demanding divisions. Several are stylistically similar to Christopher Simpson’s lessons in The Division-Violist (1659).14 Over forty pieces for two bass viols and organ are attributed to Jenkins. Many lack an organ part, but are likely to have had one originally.15 Andrew Ashbee suggests that the duos of Coprario and Ward were Jenkins’s immediate models.16 Indeed, two duos (now lacking an organ part) in Rowe MSS 112–13 (Aires {1} and {2}), ‘remain sufficiently close [in general style] to the Ward and Coprario models to imply that they were composed no later than the 1630s’ .17 Neither piece contains any of the florid divi-sion-writing common to the pieces in the Jenkins holograph GB-Lcm, MS 921. MS 921 is one partbook of an original set of three, containing the second bass viol part to twenty-one bass viol duos, and the treble part for seventeen of his pieces

11 These pieces are discussed in Richards, ‘Bass Viol’ , i. 113–22. See also P. Willetts, ‘Autograph Music by John Jenkins’ , ML 48 (1967), 124–6.

12 All published by East in The Seventh Set of Bookes (1638).13 See HolmanOA.14 Especially those copied by Francis Withy in GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. C.59–60.15 See AshbeeHM2, ch. 8; the information relating to Jenkins in this paragraph is

based primarily on Ashbee’s account.16 AshbeeHM2, 195.17 AshbeeHM2, 194–6, at 196.

LAWES.indb 251 19/03/2010 10:58


for treble, bass, and organ.18 Most of the pieces in MS 921 date to c. 1640. The first six pieces certainly appear to have been in circulation as a group by the late 1630s. Ashbee suggests that Nicholas Le Strange probably acquired them before the arrival of Jenkins at Kirtling; annotations in MS 921 show that they circulated as a group.19 As Ashbee notes,

Each of the first six pieces is a two-strain air with florid divisions in place of repeats. All have a similar plan: an initial phrase of 4–6 bars, cadenc-ing strongly (usually on the dominant), then a longer answer incorporat-ing imitative writing and closing variously in the tonic (Nos. 38, 37, 63), the relative major (Nos. 45, 44), or the dominant (No. 46). The second strain, except in No. 38, is longer with imitative writing predominating and with little emphasis given to inner cadences.20

Lawes and Jenkins appear to have been first to compose elaborate divisions for a pair of bass viols. This is likely to be primarily an outgrowth of the solo bass divi-sions that developed during the first quarter of the century. Some of the earliest examples of solo bass viol divisions are found in John Merro’s partbooks, GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.245–7. Two were composed by Daniel Norcombe on a pavan and alman by the harper Cormack MacDermott. As Peter Holman notes,

the unusual feature of these divisions … is that they are not written on short ground basses but on complete dances, performed with their normal repeats. … Clearly these examples tell us that when bass viol divisions were written on consort dances, the accompaniment was normally a reduction for keyboard of some or all of the parts of the original.21

The Merro partbooks also contain seven sets of bass viol divisions in bastarda style, which must be among the earliest examples. Holman has noted that at least four of them must be by English composers as they are based on madrigals and motets found in the English vocal repertoire.22 For example, there are divisions on Palestrina’s ‘Sound out my voice’ attributed to ‘Alfonso’; this is more likely to refer to Ferrabosco II than to his father. In light of these bastarda pieces, it is interesting

18 See P. Willetts, ‘Sir Nicholas Le Strange and John Jenkins’ , ML 42 (1961), 30–43; also IMCCM1, 85–9.

19 AshbeeHM2, 197–8. They are {45}, {46}, {38}, {37}, {63} and {44}: published in Six Airs and Divisions for Two Bass Viols and Keyboard, ed. D. Beecher and B. Gilling-ham (Ottawa, 1979).

20 AshbeeHM2, 199.21 HolmanH, 191.22 See HolmanFTF, 207.

LAWES.indb 252 19/03/2010 10:58


to recall Christopher Simpson’s statement that ‘the Through-Basse, of some Motett, or Madrigall’ was often used as the basis for divisions.23

Although there are no surviving examples of divisions composed for bass viol duos before those by Lawes and Jenkins, it seems likely that elaborate

divisions were improvised, especially when professional musicians performed pieces based on simple dance strains. Some of the divisions in Lawes’s bass viol duos are quite demanding; they are idiomatic and lie easily under the fingers, although often complicated by the intense speed of the rapid passages of semi-quavers and demisemiquavers. The technical difficulties presented by these pieces are evidence that Lawes was composing in this medium for court performances: a list of viol players at court is given in Chapter 5; again Giles Tomkins is likely to have played the organ. In B.2 (p. 93) Lawes titled Pavan {101} in g ‘For 2 Base Violls and Organ’ . The aires follow, but without reference to instrumentation. Pavan {104} and Alman {105}, which are based on pieces by Ferrabosco, Lawes titled ‘Pauen: and Almane of Alfonso. sett to the Organ and 2 diuison BaseViolls by:∙ Wjllawes’ . This pattern is followed in the partbooks, with slight variations. These are the earliest refer-ences to a ‘division viol’ . It is unclear whether Lawes was describing the function of the bass viol, the smaller sized bass viol known to Simpson and later observers,24 or both. Whether referring to a specific type of viol or not, the difference in titling relates to the more complex division-writing found in the homage pieces; Ferra-bosco’s pavan and alman provide the basis for the most technically difficult divi-sions in the suites. They are perhaps Lawes’s most demanding divisions. Elabo-rate divisions seem to have been a way in which Lawes sought to highlight his musical tributes. The Ferrabosco pieces can be compared to the pavans from the Harp Consort based on compositions by MacDermott and Coprario. The homage pavans also stand out from the rest of the harp consorts by virtue of their elaborate divisions (see Chapter 7). Indeed, this raises the question of whether Lawes’s Fan-tazia {135}, discussed in Chapter 6, could also have been intended as an homage, although this seems unlikely given the lack of attribution to another composer as found in the other tribute pieces. Lawes’s composition of elaborate divisions for two bass viols seems to be closely linked to the development of the division style generally. Indeed, Murray Lefowitz noted that

23 SimpsonDV, 47.24 SimpsonDV; J. Playford, A Brief Introduction to the Skill of Musick (4/1664), 88;

R. Donnington, ‘James Talbot’s Manuscript (Christ Church Library Music MS 1187), Part II: Bowed Strings’ , GSJ 3 (1950), 27–45, esp. 32; T. Salmon, A Proposal to Perform Musick in Perfect Mathematical Proportions (1688), 21.

LAWES.indb 253 19/03/2010 10:58


The formal scheme of [Lawes’s] ‘division’ viol suites adheres almost identi-cally to the instructions set forth by Christopher Simpson in his Division-Violist. … Likewise, it should be noted that the ‘division’ types, i.e. ‘breakinge base’ , ‘descant’ , ‘mixt’ , ‘skipping division’ , ‘running division’ , ‘tripla’ , etc., are the same as those in the ‘Harpe’ Consorts, as are the ‘ordering’ of these types in the repeated strains.25

As noted in Chapter 7, this suggests a well-established tradition, within which both composers were working. It does not imply that all divisions were of the same standard, or that composers such as Lawes and Jenkins did not push the bound-aries. Rather, by the time Lawes composed his bass viols pieces the art of divi-sion had reached a sufficiently mature stage where composers were moving away from improvisation and beginning to use divisions as a compositional resource. Simpson specifically described the performance of divisions when composing for two bass viols and organ in a passage titled ‘Of two Viols Playing together to a Ground’ .26 One can see a parallel between Lawes’s use of divisions (particularly in the harp consorts and the bass viol duos) and the precepts laid out by Simpson, especially in this passage. Nevertheless, Simpson’s examples and descriptions are quite different in their details to Lawes’s music.

❧ The Suite in g

Six of the seven Lawes bass viol duos are arrangements of consort pieces. The suite in g has close links to the early version of Royall Consort. Pavan {101}

and Aire {103} are found in four-part versions in the miscellaneous sequence in g from the two main sources for the ‘old’ version, GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. E.431–6 and F.568–9 (see Chapter 4). A two-part version of Aire {102} is in a sequence of pieces in another Royall Consort source, GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.233–6. This sequence comes after two suites in D from the Royall Consort and before the mis-cellaneous suite in g containing Pavan {101} and Aire {103}. The two-part version contains noticeable differences to the version for bass viols and organ. Playford published Aire {102} in Court-Ayres (1655); there are enough variants to suggest that the D.233–6 version was not derived from the print. Pavan {101} and Aire {103} are also found in four-part versions in GB-Och, Mus. MSS 367–70 (nos. 43 and 46, respectively). Aire {103} is incomplete in MSS 367–70, as is the preceding piece,

25 LefkowitzWL, 142.26 SimpsonDV, 48–9. The passage (from the 1667 edition) is reproduced in

LefkowitzWL, 262–4; its relationship to Lawes’s division style in the bass viol and organ pieces is discussed below.

LAWES.indb 254 19/03/2010 10:58


Corant {339}. In Corant {339}, the Altus part was not copied (MS 369), suggest-ing that the copyist, John Browne, was working from an incomplete or two-part source, or that he simply did not finish these pieces. Neither the Altus nor the first treble parts were copied for no. 46. This only occurred for one other piece in the manuscript, no. 53, Maurice Webster’s Echo {11}, where again the Altus part was not copied. In each instance, Browne numbered and titled the pieces omitting the music. Aire {103} (Example 8.1)27 appears to be a relatively early piece. With Corant {339}, it is found near the end of the four-part pieces in the Shirley partbooks (Appendix 1, p. 282). Of the consort versions of Aire {103}, the version for bass viols and organ is closer to the version from the Royall Consort sources than to that in the Shirley partbooks. However, several passages in the bass viols version seem to have derived from the Shirley partbooks. For example, the Shirley part-books is the only source of the consort version to have dotted (not straight) qua-vers in the opening figure in the first bar of the treble: this is also in the organ part in D.229, but not in B.2. If (as argued in Chapter 2) Lawes were finished with the Shirley partbooks by 1633, this would be the earliest version of Aire {103}; it is the only autograph source for the consort version. In the duo arrangement of Aire {103} Lawes often has one of the viols playing the bass of the consort version (usually doubled by the organ) with the other viol and organ playing other parts from the consort version. There are, however, several bars where the treble line of the organ has newly composed lines not in the consort sources. Given that there seems to be a good deal of overlap from the two consort versions of the aire in the version for bass viols and organ, it seems probable that Lawes composed the latter version from a (now lost) source intermediate between the two consort versions.

❧ The Suite in C

Ferrabosco’s five-part pavan in C is one of the finest pavans in the consort repertoire. Judging from the sources, Ferrabosco’s alman also set by Lawes was

originally paired with the pavan.28 Lawes’s composition of his own (organ) inner parts for the pavan and alman suggests that he may not have used the original five-part versions, and may have worked from two-part versions. It is evident from two sources copied by John Merro that Ferrabosco’s pavan and alman dissemi-nated in two-part settings. GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.245–7 is an important source of three-part consort music and lyra-viol music, but also contains a two-part

27 All music examples are transcribed from GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40 and D.229, unless stated otherwise.

28 See FerraboscoCM, nos. 15 and 13, and relevant commentaries.

LAWES.indb 255 19/03/2010 10:58


Example 8.1 Lawes, Aire {103}, opening: comparison of version for two bass viols and organ and consort versions: (a) version for two bass viols and organ;

(b) consort version 1: GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 40657–61 (Shirley partbooks), fol. 30r; (c) consort version 2: GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. E.431–6, p. 172

(concordances in GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.233–6 and F.568–9; GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 18940–4; GB-Och, Mus. MSS 376–70; GB-W, MSS Vicars Choral 5–6)

4

(a)

(b)

(c)

LAWES.indb 256 19/03/2010 10:58


sequence.29 The second source, GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17795 (of 17792–6), duplicates the two-part D.245–7 sequence; the pavan is also found in its five-part section.30 Merro’s two-part versions of the pavan and alman (in a section headed ‘Almains and Ayers for Base and Treble violls’; 17795, fol. 65v) combine the treble part with a contrived basso seguente from the tenor and bass parts. Whereas the alman does not suffer greatly in this arrangement, much of the contrapuntal detail is inevita-bly lost in the arrangement of the pavan; the editors of MB 81 concluded that ‘the adaptation is clumsy, and it is very unlikely that Ferrabosco himself was respon-sible for it’ .31 It is worth noting, however, that Lawes’s outer organ parts of both the pavan and alman do not differ greatly from the settings found in Merro’s part-books. Though there is no direct connection, both men may have had access to the same source, especially as Merro’s source is likely to have had a court provenance.32

Alternatively, Lawes may have chosen to omit the original inner parts from a five-part version. Analysis of the inks in D.229 confirms that he initially copied only the treble and bass, adding his inner parts later. Most of the organ parts for the bass viol suites appear to have been copied using the same ink; on fols 78v–78r (INV.) (i.e. the pieces in C), however, the inner parts were added in a darker ink than the outer parts. When the inner parts were added some of the downward stems were redirected, most evident in the first strain of the right hand of Alman {105}. Lawes redirected the (downward) stems of the outer lines where they con-flicted with his newly added inner parts. Indeed, the downwards stems suggest that Lawes did not originally intend to add inner parts, resulting in organ parts similar to the harp parts in D.229. This also suggests that the organ part in D.229 was the first draft of the piece: the implication being that it was arranged first in D.229 with inner parts subsequently added, and then the viols composed against this organ part in B.2, with the viol parts finally copied into D.238–40. There are only slight differences in the organ parts of these homage pieces between D.229 and B.2. A similar process appears to have been followed in Pavan {101} in g. In D.229 there are what look like unison doublings in the top line. These stems show that Lawes originally wrote the treble line with downwards stems, indicating that he initially did not intend to add an alto-range part. After completing the initial copy-ing, Lawes clearly decided to create a fuller organ texture by adding extra notes in the right hand which necessitated the redirection of the treble line stems. As with the homage pieces, this inner part differs from the consort versions. The pavan is

29 IMCCM1, 139–66; also Chapter 3, above.30 IMCCM1, 24–36.31 FerraboscoCM, 243.32 HolmanFTF, 205–11.

LAWES.indb 257 19/03/2010 10:58


the only one of the pieces in g to have such revisions (or additions) to the organ part. Unlike the homage pieces, however, these revisions seem to have been made around the same time as the initial copying, as the ink is the same throughout. Lawes also omitted one and a half 4/2 bars in the middle of the second strain. This kind of copying error is found several times with Lawes, where he appears to have copied the wrong bar because of the occurrence of a note of the same pitch. He appended the missing bars at the end of the piece. The error is most likely to have happened when copying from the consort version because at this point the main melody crosses between the two trebles. This again suggests that D.229 rep-resents the first compositional stage. Although Lawes’s initially sparse organ parts are noteworthy, a thin organ part was probably more favourable in these pieces as it allows the divisions to be heard more clearly (and reduces potential harmonic conflicts). Corant {107} was also originally copied (or arranged) in two-parts, with (scant) inner parts added later. David Pinto identified the duo as a transposed version of Corant {33} from Royall Consort.33 Lawes again took the outer parts of the consort version and set them as the organ accompaniment. According to Pinto:

It is true that the form of the corant (no. 33) employed is apparently more primitive than that in the ‘old’ version [Royall Consort]. This in turn was worked over before inclusion in the ‘new’; but that alone is not justification for giving the bass-viol divisions an early date. It is just as probable that Lawes found the extensive treble repartee that dictates the shape of the full version a distraction from the bass dialogue he was trying to elicit from the piece, and simply cut it out peremptorily.34

Corant {107} bears closer resemblance to the version in the ‘old’ Royall Con-sort sources (E.431–6 and F.568–9) than to the ‘new’ version source (B.3). This may imply that the organ reduction of Corant {33} is a transitional stage of the piece, in a similar manner to Aire {103}. In other words, Lawes may have compiled the organ part by reworking his version for Tr–Tr–T–B commonly found without much variation throughout the ‘old’ Royall Consort sources. The rescoring of the piece in B.3 (see Chapter 4) was most likely done soon after composition of the bass viol suites. Lawes’s approach to compiling the organ part of Corant {107} is also interesting. He did not simply score the two outer parts of the consort version. Rather, the treble line comprises an amalgam of the two trebles of the ‘old’ Royall

33 PintoFyV, 155; and LawesRC, commentary.34 PintoFyV, 155. Elsewhere Pinto has suggested that the organ part of the version for

bass viols and organ was ‘made from a shorter prior form, that pre-dates the extant old version’: LawesRC (‘New’ Version, vol. 1), xv.

LAWES.indb 258 19/03/2010 10:58


Consort version, necessitated by the crossing of parts and the antiphonal passages. The consort versions of Corant {107} are all in D; Lawes transposed the piece to C for the bass viol duo, which suggests that he specifically wanted the corant to complete the suite in C.

From the way in which these pieces are found in the sources some preliminary conclusions can be advanced. The evidence suggests that Lawes composed/

arranged the organ parts first in D.229. He appears to have begun with Tr–B out-lines for several of the pieces; inner parts were filled-in later. These organ parts were written in Lawes’s ‘formal’ style, but this does not necessarily invalidate the idea that they were the first stages in the compositional process, especially as arrangement appears to have played a large part. Given that Lawes generally used pre-existing pieces, it suggests that this kind of arrangement was relatively common practice; for example, three of Ives’s four-part dances are also found in versions for two bass viols, which seem to pre-date the consort versions.35 The bass viol duo may have developed in the early part of the seventeenth century by using score reductions of consort pieces against which divisions were improvised. Such pieces could have been arranged and performed with relative ease, and would have been perfectly suited to performance in the private areas of the court where we know there were several small chamber organs (see Chapter 1). From Lawes’s initial organ part (or arrangement), he seems to have then made the scores in B.2, where the divisions were worked out. Last, the bass viol parts were copied (with revisions) into D.238 and D.240. A small error in B.2 (p. 90), also suggests that Lawes generally began these pieces by working on the treble line of the organ. On the second to last stave Lawes erased his cadential chord (breve, g minor), complete with terminal barline flourish (boxed in Fig. 8.1a). This appears in bar 4 of the stave; it ends the first statement of the last strain, which would omit the division variations. Lawes erased the chord, went back and squeezed in the tonic chord into the previous bar, where he wrote it as a minim (probably to fit in with the other parts). Indeed, almost identical spacing can be seen on the facing page at the actual final bar. Further evidence of this process can be seen on p. 93 of B.2, where Lawes entered the second staves of BV1 and BV2 under the right-hand line of the organ; he even mistakenly wrote a brace connecting the organ part and BV1. The error was realized soon thereafter. Lawes wrote the left hand of the organ

35 Simon Ives: The Four-Part Dances, ed. P. Holman and J. Cunningham (Launton, 2008), nos. 9, 18 and 19. There is no conclusive proof that the consort versions are the arrangements (and not vice versa), although this does seem to be the case, especially for no. 18; the consort arrangement is attributed to ‘I. W. ’ and found elsewhere as a bass viol duo attributed to John Ward.

LAWES.indb 259 19/03/2010 10:58


below the two string parts, and connected the separated organ lines with another brace (see Chapter 2, Fig. 2.24). The exception to this pattern is Aire {106}, the only one of the bass viol duos for which no consort version is known. It survives incomplete: the B.2 score lacks the organ part (although space was left for it) and the second viol part suddenly stops mid-way through bar 33 (i.e. at the a: Example 8.3). The string parts are complete in D.238–40, but only the first strain of the organ was entered in D.229. From the string parts, we can see that the first strain of Aire {106} is well composed. There are several instances of unison or octave doubling between the viols, where the organ would presumably have supplied harmonic support, and (like the second strain) it ends with a feminine cadence (V–I, strong–weak). The carefully written

Fig. 8.1 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2: (a) p. 90, detail; (b) p. 91, detail

(a)

(b)

LAWES.indb 260 19/03/2010 10:58


partial organ accompaniment doubles Bass Viol 1 (as found in D.240 and B.2) but curiously omits the fourth bar. Although this may have been the result of a copy-ing error, the bar strengthens the bass line by the inclusion of dominant harmony (Example 8.2) and may suggest that the organ part pre-dates the other sources. The B and B1 strains present further problems. From Example 8.3 we can see that B1 contains a semibreve beat more than B. This is simply the result of Lawes writing breves rather than minims in the final bar, and easily corrected. It is harder to account for the fact that in the B1 strain the first bass viol also lacks a fur-ther minim beat. The error seems to have occurred through the omission of two crotchet beats at the start of bars 25 and 26: the first can be easily rectified by hold-ing over or repeating the e' from the previous bar. The missing crotchet from bar 26 is harder to explain: one solution is to have the first semiquaver group of that bar as quavers, although this is not entirely satisfactory. With the varying states of Aire {106} a rather confusing picture emerges. As we have seen, the organ part is incomplete and imperfect (D.229); the string parts are complete but imperfect (D.238–40); and the score (B.2) is also incomplete and imperfect. Thus, how do we explain the omission of an organ part, the incomplete string score in B.2, and (most importantly) the transmission of the error in the B1 strain (shown in Example 8.3) from the score to the parts? An obvious explanation is that Aire {106} was completed in a now lost source from which the parts were made out in D.238–40. The missing minim beat in the B1 strain could be explained as occurring during the copying of the parts; the same could also be said of the omitted bar from the organ part in D.229. The further implication is that the B.2 score was compiled from D.238–40, as they both contain the missing minim in the B1 strain. One could also point out that the BV2 part is abandoned in B.2 roughly after the point at which the error occurs, which could suggest that when Lawes was compiling the score (from the parts) he realized the error and abandoned the score. This theory does not explain, however, why the error was not corrected in either the score or the parts. Elsewhere Lawes was quick to amend copying errors, surely if he was compiling the score from the parts (or

Example 8.2 Lawes, Aire {106}, A strain

LAWES.indb 261 19/03/2010 10:58


even a related source) he would have made adjustments to them. Nor does a ‘lost source’ convincingly explain the (lack of the) organ part. Perhaps a more convincing solution is that – like many of Lawes’s other bass viol duos – Aire {106} is an arrangement of a pre-existing consort piece. This would explain how Lawes was able to compose the viol parts (including division strains) without notating the organ part in B.2. He may have been trying to save time, thinking that he had the organ part in his head. The string parts may also provide an explanation for the incomplete organ part. In the B and B1 strains there is frequent unison and octave doubling between the viols, and several instances

Example 8.3 Lawes, Aire {106}, comparison of B and B1 strains (BV2, B strain, bars 27–8: upper notes (small font) in B.2 but not in D.238–40)

21

21

29

29

B strain

B1 strain

B strain

B1 strain

23

31

23

31

34

34

26

26

4BASS VIOL 1

4

4BASS VIOL 2

4

[?]

[quavers?]

LAWES.indb 262 19/03/2010 10:58


of unresolved biting dissonances (especially bar 23) and fourths requiring the har-monic context of the organ. Unlike the A strain, simply doubling one of the string parts would not suffice for a bass line, Lawes would have had to provide a suffi-ciently independent organ accompaniment; this may be the reason for him work-ing directly from the consort version: i.e. planning to work out the organ part later. For whatever reason, the B.2 score was abandoned. Lawes appears to have entered the string parts into D.238–40 from B.2 and completed the second bass viol part as he copied. It is significant that the incomplete score in B.2 was not crossed out. Throughout B.2–3 Lawes consistently crossed out incomplete (and complete) pieces and fragments remaining after abstraction of leaves. The implication is that Lawes considered this a working score. It is suggestive of Lawes’s compositional process that in Aire {106} he was con-tent to compose only the string parts in score and then copy them into partbooks. The B.2 score further suggests that Lawes worked (at least in part) on one viol at a time. The implication is that Lawes did not always compose in score; although the apparent difficulties arising from Aire {106} make it unlikely that this was his usual habit. A more general conclusion, with wider implications, can also be inferred from Aire {106}. If Aire {106} was played directly from the autograph partbooks the B1 strain would simply not have worked; despite this, there are there no signs in D.238–40 that the error in the B1 strain was corrected by performers. The con-clusion to be drawn is that Aire {106} was not played from the D.238–40 parts; it was certainly not played from D.229. This fact, coupled with the ‘formal’ presenta-tion style in this section of D.238–40 and D.229, reinforces the suggestion made in Chapter 2 that the autograph partbooks were originally planned as ‘presentation’ volumes of sorts. This does not mean that the partbooks were not used in perform-ance – the fantasia-suites, at least, clearly were (see Chapter 6). It does, however, raise doubts that the bass viol suites were performed from the partbooks (in their entirety, at least).

The pavan appears to have been Lawes’s favoured form for elaborate divisions: as with the harp consorts, pavans provide the highlights of the bass viol suites.

Perhaps the most notable feature of the division strains is the way in which Lawes regularly keeps one viol silent as the other divides, usually in an antiphonal style. By adopting this approach Lawes generates new points of imitation and succeeds in creating a greatly contrasting varied repeat. He also composed divisions in pairs, again with points of imitation. An important point to note of Lawes’s division style is his ability to incorporate new contrapuntal ideas into the divisions usually in faster note values than the original counterpoint, almost resulting in a different version of the piece. Pavan {101} aptly demonstrates this technique. The A, B and C strains begin with simple divisions in the bass viols, usually descanting over the

LAWES.indb 263 19/03/2010 10:58


organ bass, although much of their material is derived from the consort version of the piece. The A1 strain begins with simple quaver divisions in imitation between the viols; this gives way to development, where the rhythmic intensity gradually builds. This is mostly in fast semiquaver ‘mixt’ divisions, but again short points of imitation are employed (e.g. bar 23) and frequently the viols move in thirds and sixths (as later recommended by Simpson).36 B1 uses similar techniques to the A1 strain, although there is no gradual rhythmic build-up here; the strain begins with imitative semiquaver scalar runs. A noticeable feature is the short question-and-answer passages between the viols from bars 47–8, resulting in literal repetition of the short figures between the viols (Example 8.4). The figures are short enough for the idiom to be effective, reinforced by Lawes’s quick abandonment of the idea. The C1 strain is similar in style to A1 with the gradual build up of intensity. Again, the strain begins with well-worked imitation, even including the organ in bar 67. The ‘mixt’ divisions continue to the end with both viols coming ‘together in a Thundering Strain of Quick Division’ to conclude.37

Aire {102} effectively contrasts the brooding intensity of the pavan. The pithy aire is quite short: with divisions, it runs to only thirty-five semibreves compared to the pavan’s seventy-eight breves. The division style is the same as the pavan (generally descant and ‘mixt’ division in quavers and semiquavers). There are many technically difficult passages; they lie quite easily under the fingers, however, and multiple stops and chords are rare. The suite in g ends with Aire {103}, which is rather more substantial than {102}, providing an effective formal balance to the suite. In this piece many of the imitative points are built around repeated-note figures (commonly found in Lawes’s consort music). Much material in the viols (A and B strains) is taken from the consort versions of the piece. The divisions are again conceived largely in imitation, with both viols crossing and exchanging phrases. The pieces in g work well as a suite, the three pieces providing an overall formal balance. Lawes’s divisions are complex but idiomatic, providing an effective contrast to the undivided strains paraphrasing the consort versions. The suite in C is more difficult to understand. It is unclear whether Lawes intended the four pieces to be grouped together as one suite or as two contrasting pairs.38 The Ferrabosco divisions were clearly written for virtuosi, the originals completely transformed and rejuvenated. The divisions are technically demanding, with frequent leaps and changes in register. The pavan is similar in style and form to the pavan in g, but far excels it as a composition. The viols are composed as a

36 SimpsonDV, 49.37 SimpsonDV, 49.38 Lefowitz concluded that the four pieces in C comprise two suites: see LefkowitzWL,

139–46.

LAWES.indb 264 19/03/2010 10:58


44

45

46

47

4

4

4

4

Example 8.4 Lawes, Pavan {101}, end of B1 strain, bars 44–50

continued overleaf

LAWES.indb 265 19/03/2010 10:58


pair throughout. Imitation and variety are the central ingredients. Lawes’s nota-tion is specific, with even trills written out. Antiphonal passages typically build to a studied climax. For example, in the B1 strain Lawes subtly begins the divisions in quavers and crotchets, gradually adding the (newly composed) antiphonal imita-tive points, building in tempo and intensity to a climax at the strain’s end (Example 8.5). Unlike the previous pieces, divisions are not demarcated to the repeat strains. The C strain begins with the slow descant in the viols, quickly taken over by semi-quaver divisions. The fast divisions are shared between the viols, which alternately play a simple quaver descant and semiquaver ‘mixt’ divisions. Tripla rhythms are briefly added to the end of the strain. C1 continues the semiquaver divisions, with frequent passages of parallel movement and antiphonal exchange building to an intense climax. Lawes extended the structure of Alman {105} to include second and third divi-sion strains: ||A||A1||B||B1||A2||A3||B2||B3||. Here he appears to be trying some-thing new. The alman stands in relief to the other bass viol pieces, which only have one division strain (as do the Royall Consort and harp consort almans). The formal extension of the alman is to allow for greater variety of divisions, and to match the structure of the pavan. The extra strains allow Lawes to explore a new texture. The B1 strain is played only by BV1, which then drops out; BV2 answers with solo divisions on A2. Both viols then join for the A3 strain, which opens

48

49


LAWES.indb 266 19/03/2010 10:58


33

35

37

39

4

4

4

4

C

Example 8.5 Lawes, Pavan {104}, end of B1 strain and start of C, bars 33–9 [60–72]

LAWES.indb 267 19/03/2010 10:58


imitatively with a triplet motif. Similar tripla divisions are also found in the B1 and B2 strains of Pavan HC28 and Alman HC21, respectively. The rhythmic intensity of the divisions builds in the next strain, which BV2 plays alone, introducing a descending sequential demisemiquaver motif. There is no answering solo strain for BV1. Rather, both viols join in another ‘Thundering Strain of Quick Division’ (Example 8.6) . The divisions in Corant {107} and Aire {106} are bland in comparison to the preceding homage pieces. This could imply that Lawes did not intend these pieces to be performed as a suite. The arrangement of these pieces in the partbooks, how-ever, where they are laid out continuously, argues against this. On fol. 78r (INV.) of D.229 Lawes entered the organ parts for Alman {105}, Aire {106} and Corant {107}. Alman {105} and Corant {107} appear to have been entered first, in two parts; this would be consistent with the apparent chronology of their composition evi-dent from B.2, although Aire {106} may have been partially entered after Alman {105} and before Corant {107}. Lawes ran out of space for Corant {107}, which he began on the last two staves of the page. He finished it off at the end of the two staves above (see Chapter 2, Fig. 2.19a). This suggests several things. First, Lawes was working from an already composed part (probably a consort version), as he was able to judge exactly the space needed to finish Corant {107} on the staves above. Second, he was carefully trying to maintain the ‘formal’ presenta-tion layout. Rather than write smaller notes to fit the part onto one line (as he often did when space was a consideration), Lawes retained the evenly spaced notes until the end of the piece. This also seems to have been done to allow room for Aire {106} on the same page. If Lawes had begun Corant {107} on the fifth and sixth staves (directly beneath Alman {105}) he would have taken up more room on the page, which would have left little space for entering another piece – i.e. Aire {106} – which was obviously intended to be inserted between Alman {105} and Corant {107}. When Aire {106} and Corant {107} are placed alongside the Ferrabosco pieces the contrast of styles is striking. Aire {106} is quite similar stylistically to Aire {102} from the suite in g. It is quite short (29 semibreves) and the division strains, although difficult in places, are not as elaborate as the previous pieces. Lawes again decreased the complexity of the divisions in the following piece, Corant {107}. If these four pieces were intended as a suite, it could be argued that the elaborate divisions of the first two pieces would result in a suite that was somewhat unbal-anced. This is not necessarily the case. With the exception of the suite in g dis-cussed above, we do not find whole suites by Lawes in which each piece contains elaborate divisions. It was more usual for Lawes to begin a suite with elaborate divisions, or to contrast pieces with simple (or no) divisions with elaborate divi-sion pieces. The suite in C from the (‘new’ version) Royall Consort (see Chapter

LAWES.indb 268 19/03/2010 10:58


73

75

77

79

4B3

4

4

4

Example 8.6 Lawes, Aire {105}, B3 strain

continued overleaf

LAWES.indb 269 19/03/2010 10:58


4) is a case in point. It consists of Pavan–Ayre–Alman–Corant–Corant–Saraband. Pavan {49} contains the most elaborate divisions of the collection, but is followed by five short movements containing no elaborate divisions (although they may have been extemporized in performance). Furthermore, it seems likely that Lawes intended the large-scale harp consort pieces as additional first movements for the existing suites (see Chapter 7). Again, some of these movements contain elabo-rate division strains, especially when compared with some of the first twenty-five pieces. Fantazia {135} is yet another example of this. It contains some complex divi-sions for violin and bass viol, although neither the alman nor galliard with which it is paired contains substantial divisions (see Chapter 6). Thus, variety seems to have been a major consideration in Lawes’s formal organ-ization of suites. The elaborate divisions also hint at the function of the pieces, sug-gesting a formal concert-type setting where the emphasis was on the performers. Moreover, it seems unlikely that Lawes would be composing paired dances in the late 1630s, by which time English composers were generally compiling suites. If the four pieces in C were intended as two pairs, the purpose of the Aire {106} and Corant {107} is rather more difficult to understand, as they really only make sense within the context of a larger suite. It could, of course, also be argued that Aire {106} and Corant {107} were the first movements of a larger suite left incomplete

81

83


LAWES.indb 270 19/03/2010 10:58


by Lawes. D.238 and D.240 suggest otherwise. In these partbooks the suite in g is physically separated from the pieces in C by several unused folios: there is no such demarcation within the pieces in C themselves. Tentative though this may be, the cumulative evidence suggests that Lawes was composing a four-movement suite.

The chronology of the Lawes suites is closely bound to a corollary question of whether Lawes or Jenkins was first to compose elaborate divisions in this

medium. As we saw, Jenkins’s earliest bass viol duos appear to date to the 1630s; those with florid divisions seem to be slightly later, probably composed closer to c. 1640. Establishing an accurate compositional date for Lawes’s bass viol pieces is difficult. From their highly developed divisions a date of late 1630s seems appro-priate: David Pinto has suggested c. 1638, which seems about right.39 1638 was the tenth anniversary of Ferrabosco’s death (buried 11 March 1627/8), which perhaps gave Lawes the impetus to compose the homage pieces. 1638 was also the year of John Tomkins’s death. Lawes’s elegy composed in B.2 has already been men-tioned; the physical proximity of the bass viol pieces to the elegy strongly suggests a chronological proximity. Further, in B.2 the duos were entered either side of the lute duets, which also appear to have been in place c. 1638 (see Chapter 3). If a compositional date of 1638 were accepted it would suggest that both Lawes and Jenkins were composing florid divisions in this medium around the same time; Jenkins’s group of six were certainly composed around this time (see above). As with the fantasia-suites, Lawes and Jenkins seem to have shared a common model in Coprario for their bass viol duos, although Jenkins seems also to have been heavily influenced by John Ward.40 It is difficult to say with certainty whether Jenkins or Lawes was the first to experiment with divisions in this form, or indeed, whether one man influenced the other. As with the fantasia-suites, however, it is unlikely to be a coincidence that both explored the same basic formal pattern in this medium: i.e. elaborate divisions replacing repeated strains. Whoever was the innovator, it seems clear that Lawes and Jenkins were increasingly interested in the use of divisions in serious consort music throughout the 1630s. The divisions used by both exemplify many of the rules later outlined by Simpson,41 suggesting that divisions were developing as a shared tradition with much cross-fertilization (see Chapter 7).42 Despite the similarities, Lawes and Jenkins used divisions in

39 See LawesFS, xx–xxi.40 See AshbeeHM2, 190–4.41 For the relationship between Simpson’s rules and Jenkins, see AshbeeHM2, ch. 12.

For Lawes and Simpson, see also Chapter 7, above.42 Cf. LefkowitzWL, 96.

LAWES.indb 271 19/03/2010 10:58


different ways.43 As with the fantasia-suites, divisions are generally better worked into the compositional framework of Lawes’s pieces than in those of Jenkins. For Jenkins, divisions tend to be somewhat sterile exercises in virtuosity (although often done with ingenuity and imagination). This is not true of all of his pieces, but in those he wrote during the 1630s and 1640s he tends to use divisions for sec-tional contrast or virtuosic display. Lawes’s divisions represent his development of this technique within serious chamber music, a development that can be traced throughout his main consort music collections. Lawes’s written-out divisions illustrate his use of divisions as a compositional resource. Divisions were staple fare for any bass viol player worth his salt and generally improvised by professionals.44 When Lawes began seriously to incor-porate divisions into the compositional fabric, however, improvisation was not an alternative, especially because of the way in which he often uses divisions to introduce new imitative points and contrapuntal ideas. Although the improvi-sation of new points was an established part of the art of division, in many of Lawes’s compositions the divisions generally add a new level to the composition. Accordingly, it is unsurprising that Lawes felt the need to compose specific divi-sions rather than to leave it to the performers. The notation of a once improvised idiom is a common occurrence: the English equal lute duet is another example of an improvisational medium that became a compositional genre. As the above discussion demonstrates, although Lawes composed only a handful of bass viols duos, they provide a rarely glimpsed insight into his compositional process.

43 The following remarks refer to Jenkins’s pieces that appear to be roughly contem-poraneous with those of Lawes: fantasia-suites Groups I-II and the bass viol pieces from MS 921.

44 See HolmanD, 30.

LAWES.indb 272 19/03/2010 10:58

chapter 9

Conclusions

Much of the music discussed in this book dates from after Lawes’s appointment to the ‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’ (LVV), and strongly suggests (1) that

the music was composed for members of that group and (2) that although Lawes did not hold an official place as a composer, composition was one of his duties. Between 1625 and 1642 there were three official composer posts associated with the LVV. The first was held (until 1642) by Thomas Ford. Alfonso Ferrabosco II held the second, replacing Coprario in 1626. After his death in 1628 Ferrabosco was replaced by his son Henry. Henry served until 1642, and no music by him has survived. Thomas Lupo held posts as composer to the LVV and to the violin band until his death, also in 1628. Stephen Nau filled the latter post. Lupo’s place as composer to the LVV does not appear to have been officially filled, despite the petitions of Robert Johnson (see Chapter 1). Nevertheless, this is unlikely to have had much bearing on the duties expected of members of the LVV; the official title of a court appointment did not always accurately reflect the functions of that post. The post of composer probably implied responsibility for compiling the group’s repertoire (in addition to actual composition); to some extent the posts may have been nominal. Lawes composed in many of the forms established by Coprario, whose music was still performed at the court in the 1630s. The music composed by Lawes after 1635, however, suggests that musical tastes were gradually changing. The most obvious result of this is Lawes’s incorporation of elaborate divisions into several of his consort pieces. Divisions were not new. The way in which Lawes used divisions as a compositional tool was new, and seems to be closely related to changing func-tions of many of his pieces. The Royall Consort seems to have begun as functional dance music before moving towards the realms of Tafelmusik by the incorpora-tion of the ‘two breakinge Bases’ . The ‘new’ version Royall Consort appears to have had a flexible performance function; one can easily imagine florid divisions being extemporized in a concert-like situation, prefaced by the fine fantasias and pavans. The harp consorts also appear to have been updated to modify the original function of the collection, probably beginning as Tafelmusik and brought into the realm of ‘concert’ (or ‘audience’) music with the addition of the elaborate divi-sions. At the Caroline court, emphasis seems to have gradually shifted towards the performer, largely through the popularity of the art of division. The perform-ance of Lawes’s music is crucial to understanding his growing fascination with

LAWES.indb 273 19/03/2010 10:58


division-writing, and suggests that concert-like performances were becoming the norm in the Caroline court in the late 1630s. The bass viol was the main vehicle for divisions, but with Lawes we see the development of the violin as a division instru-ment. As the development of the dance suite seems to have been closely linked to the ideals that governed the art of division – a build to studied climax – it is no sur-prise that Lawes’s development of the suite was intertwined with division-writing.

Closely connected to these questions of stylistic development in Lawes’s music is the question of chronology. Throughout this book I have attempted

to shed new light on the chronology of Lawes’s consort music, and any conclusions in this respect can be summarized as follows. With the early Royall Consort pieces, the contents of the Shirley partbooks seem to represent Lawes’s earliest surviving compositions. Apparently composed before 1633, they comprise several three- and four-part pieces, and two five-part fantasias. The majority of the fantasia-suites and the first twenty or so harp consorts are also likely to date to the early 1630s, although the autograph partbooks were not copied until c. 1638–40. The harp consorts probably originated in two-part versions, and were only given their harp consort instrumentation and written-out divisions c. 1635–6. Lawes then composed HC21–5 before composing the large-scale pieces, HC26–30. This seems to have happened c. 1638–9, around the time of the compi-lation of GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40 and D.229. Arguably the most signifi-cant piece from the post-1635 period is Fantazia {135}, the suggested ‘revision’ of which appears to have taken place c. 1638. For Lawes, Fantazia {135} appears to mark the beginning of his exploration of elaborate divisions. As David Pinto has suggested, the Royall Consort seems to have originated in the late 1620s in two large Tr–Tr–T–B groups in D/d. The presence of several Tr–Tr–B–B pieces in the Shirley partbooks suggests that Lawes was exploring Tr–Tr–B–B scoring by the early 1630s. The Royall Consort sequence in GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3 – roughly contemporaneous with HC26–30 – is, however, unlikely to date from before the end of 1638. The bass viol and organ pieces probably also date from around this time. The lyra-viol trios are relatively early works, probably composed during the early 1630s, and revised thereafter. Between c. 1633 and 1639 Lawes also worked on the five- and six-part viol consorts, although most of the work seems to have been done towards the end of this period, especially after 1636. This suggests that much of Lawes’s surviving consort music was composed within a period of about three years, c. 1637–40, implying something of a compositional lacuna for the remaining years of Lawes’s royal service. This does not, however, account for the solo lyra-viol music, the (now lost) lyra consorts, and the vocal music; nor does it account for the vast number of miscellaneous pieces, in two and three parts, attributed to Lawes.

LAWES.indb 274 19/03/2010 10:58

conclusions 275

It seems strange that more music has not survived from court composers of Charles I’s reign. Historical accident has no doubt played its part. One should,

nevertheless, be cautious in overestimating the amount of substantial new music produced at court. Charles appears to have enjoyed listening to a particular reper-toire, such as Coprario’s fantasia-suites and Gibbons’s fantasias. These pieces evi-dently had been regularly performed during the decade or more before Lawes’s appointment, which suggests something approaching a modern musical canon. The order in February 1635 to recopy partbooks containing this repertoire implies that it was to be performed regularly in the future. There also appears to have been a distinction between these ‘canonic’ pieces and the ephemeral music that must have been required at the court on an almost daily basis. I suggested in Chapter 7 that much of this daily demand for music at the court was met by the arrangement of two-part pieces by various ensembles, usually performing extemporized divi-sions. Improvisation and arrangement are likely to have played an important role in musical entertainment at court; it is significant that the LVV was mostly com-prised of some of the finest instrumentalists in the country, only a few of whom were composers. This perhaps forces us to consider the role played by musical notation in the per-formance of music at court. Although the issue is too complex to be fully explored within the context of the present discussion, a few observations can be made. Clearly much of Lawes’s music (for example) was not copied for dissemination. None of Lawes’s elaborate division-writing was widely disseminated. Performance seems to be an obvious motivation for notation. Lawes’s partbooks (D.238–40 and D.229) were undoubtedly used for performance, although they seem to represent (at least initially) an impetus to preserve. It is nevertheless rather anachronistic to suggest that the pieces therein were performed each time exactly as notated by Lawes. Indeed, the extent to which such partbooks were followed in perform-ance is unclear. Performance was a much more variable phenomenon than per-haps we imagine today: for example, dance strains were repeated as required often with divisions, which (according to Christopher Simpson) would have become more complex with each repetition of a strain. This is not to say that the harp consorts, for instance, were not performed as written on occasion, but we should perhaps bear in mind the fluidity of performance situations at court, and be aware that this must have entailed a certain flexibility in the authority of the musical notation that has come down to us. A related issue is the role of notation in the composition of consort music. Lawes certainly appears to have used notation in the process of composition and revision; evident from the many amendments made to the autographs. By understanding Lawes’s process of revisions we can afford ourselves that rare glimpse into ‘the composer’s workshop’ , to borrow Christopher Field’s apposite

LAWES.indb 275 19/03/2010 10:58


phrase.1 It is clear from the evidence presented throughout this book that Lawes did not compose his collections (Royall Consort, harp consorts etc.) from start to finish in one rush of creative energy. He appears to have composed quite quickly, but most of these collections were compiled in increments, and many show signs of significant stages of development and refinement (presumably through per-formance). Many of these increments overlapped. Thus, we find areas of cross- influence from one genre to another, especially in the pieces that appear to have been composed c. 1637–40. Of course, one must be cautious of applying a strictly unidirectional process to a composer like Lawes: several versions of pieces are likely to have existed in the composer’s imagination, as they must have done in performance. Indeed, Peter Holman has noted that the various settings of pop-ular English pavans (such as ‘Lachrimae’) in the late sixteenth and early seven-teenth centuries ‘usually have a common “gist” consisting of the tune, the bass, the implied harmonies in between, and any particularly striking contrapuntal or dec-orative features in the inner parts’ .2 It is plausible that composers such as Lawes thought of (at least some of) their music in ‘gists’ . The various instances of Lawes reusing pieces in different media confirms that notation in a ‘fully composed’ ver-sion was not always the final stage of a piece. Nevertheless, some of the reworkings of pieces suggest that Lawes may have worked from existing notation rather than simply a memorized ‘gist’ . However practical the performance or arrangement of (often quite formulaic) dance forms from ‘gists’ (or two-part outlines), one sus-pects that it would have been generally quite impractical to approach contrapun-tally complex music in the same manner. It is difficult to conclude that notation did not play some role in the composition of consort music in the early seven-teenth century; the extent of that role is perhaps debatable, and closely tied to performance. Whatever the role of musical notation in the performance of music at the Caroline court, it seems clear that improvisation and arrangement played a much larger part in the composition and supply of music than the surviving sources suggest. The relationship between notated music and everyday performance was undoubtedly a fluid one; for example, the increasing use of divisions in serious consort music by the mid-1630s must have been influenced by performance prac-tice and, to some extent, the notation of divisions must have had an influence on the standardization of what was essentially an extemporized practice. Regardless of the position occupied by surviving manuscripts within such a complex rela-tionship, we are fortunate to have collections such as the harp consorts complete

1 FieldCW. 2 HolmanD, 29. A similar idea is also discussed in the introduction to Music for

Elizabethan Lutes, ed. J. Ward (Oxford, 1992).

LAWES.indb 276 19/03/2010 10:58

conclusions 277

with Lawes’s own divisions. They afford us valuable insight into the perform-ance practice of the period, and allow a glimpse of how even humble two-part outlines could be transformed into some of the finest instrumental music of the period.

LAWES.indb 277 19/03/2010 10:58

appendix 1

Source Descriptions

The layout and style of this appendix largely follows that in IMCCM, to which the reader is referred for more details on watermarks etc. Each manuscript

was examined in person; descriptions of the manuscripts housed in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, were also aided by those given in CrumOMSC.

The following format is used for each manuscript:Description Number of leaves (Roman numerals indicate flyleaves, with modern

flyleaves in italics); details of foliation, abstractions, etc.Scribe(s) Where relevantInscriptions Transcriptions of any significant inscriptionsFormat and Dimensions Sizes of the paper and covers (height first, width second): all

measurements are given in millimetres and are approximate, as paper sizes often vary slightly. Covers measurements includes spine

Watermarks Where possible, watermarks are identified by names given in IMCCM, but the numbering system refers only to the Appendix given here

Rastrology A = number of staves per page; B = number of staves in the rastrum; C = overall span of the rastrum; D = width of individual staves and (in parenthesis) the distance between them (rastrum profile can be inverted). All measurements given in millimetres, variations of up to a millimetre should be allowed

Collation Collations are given where possible; the tightness of the binding, however, often obscures a detailed examination of the manuscript’s structure. All signatures are editorial, and are given in the form of A, B, C etc. followed by the number of leaves, with a note of any abstractions: ‘A6 [A3 removed]’ indicates that the first signature is a gathering of six leaves of which the third has been removed

Binding and decorationsProvenanceInventory The following conventions are used: – Material in inverted commas is in Lawes’s hand except where indicated – Editorial additions are given in square brackets – Original numbering systems are followed where given – First lines (or text incipits) are given for vocal music – Crossed-out material is indicated thus: ‘Aire’ – ‘Unused’ indicates a ruled page (as opposed to an unused flyleaf, described as

‘Blank’) – Where appropriate, scorings are given using the abbreviations in the List of

Abbreviations at the beginning of this volume – Line breaks are indicated with /

LAWES.indb 278 19/03/2010 10:58

appendix 1: source descriptions 279

london, british library, add. mss 40657–61Description1

Five partbooks from an original set of six (lacking Sextus, first bass).

40657 (‘Cantus’): i + iv + 109 + i + i. Modern pencil foliation: fols 1r–50r (first flyleaf num-bered); unnumbered folios: two between fols 15v and 16r, ten between fols 30v and 31r, twenty-three between fols 44v and 45r, and twenty-five after fol. 50v. No music entered on fols 15v, 29v, 44v, nor on any unnumbered folios. One leaf abstracted before fols 16r, 28r, 29r.

40658 (‘Altus’): i + iv + 100 + iii + i. Modern pencil foliation: fols 1r–50r (first flyleaf num-bered); unnumbered folios: one between fols 15v and 16r, eleven between fols 30v and 31r, twenty-two between fols 44v and 45r, and twenty-five after fol. 50v. No music entered on fols 15v, 44v, nor on any unnumbered folios. One leaf abstracted before fols 14r, 28r, 30r.

40659 (‘Countertenor’ ‘Tenor’): i + iii + 68 + i. Modern pencil foliation: fols 1r–35r (first flyleaf numbered); unnumbered folios: ten between fols 16v and 17r, twenty-four between fols 30v and 31r, twenty-three between fols 44v and 45r, and twenty-five after fol. 50v. No music entered on fol. 30v, nor on any unnumbered folios. One leaf abstracted before fols 13r, 14r, 16r.

40660 (‘Bassus’): i + iii + 103 + i. Modern pencil foliation: fols 1r–50r (first flyleaf num-bered); unnumbered folios: two between fols 15v and 16r, eight between fols 30v and 31r, twenty-one between fols 44v and 45r, and twenty-three after fol. 50v. No music entered on fols 15v, 44v, nor on any unnumbered folios. One leaf abstracted before fols 2r, 41r; at least one leaf abstracted before fol. 28r.

40661 (‘Quintus’): i + iv + 64 + iii + i. Modern pencil foliation: fols 1r–35r (first flyleaf numbered); unnumbered folios: one between fols 21v and 22r, seven between fols 24v and 25r, twenty-two between fols 30v and 31r. No music entered on fols 15v–16r, 21v–22r, 24v, 31v, nor on any unnumbered folios. One leaf abstracted before the third unnumbered leaf after fol. 24r, another abstracted before the sixth unnumbered leaf before fol. 31r.

ScribesA1: Lawes, early hand

A2: Lawes, later hand

B: unidentified scribe, who also contributed to US-SM, EL 25 A 46–51

C: unidentified scribe; eighteenth-century additions

Format and DimensionsUpright folios: 295 × 195–200

WatermarkFrance and Navarre I/1

RastrologyA 10; B 5; C 119; D 13(13)13(13)14(13)13.5(13)13.5

1 The following description and inventory are largely based on IMCCM1, 69–76.

LAWES.indb 279 19/03/2010 10:58


CollationNot possible due to tightness of bindings.

BindingBrown calf with ties; gold tooling with central coat of arms of the Shirley family of Staun-ton Harrold, Leicestershire.

ProvenanceAcquired by British Museum in 1922; previously owned by Angela Burdett (later Baron-ess Burdett-Coutts) (1814–1906) (sale catalogue 16 May 1922, lot 366). Christopher Field has suggested that Burdett may have been given them by Robert Shirley, seventh Earl Ferrers (1756–1827); Shirley’s second wife, Elizabeth, was a granddaughter of Burdett’s great-grandfather, Sir Robert Burdett, Bt (1716–97).2

Inventory

Fols

40657 40658 40659 40660 40661 Scribe No. Piece / Title Ascription* VdGS

1r–1v 1r–1v 1r–1v 1r–1v 1r–1v [Foliated flyleaf]

[Three-part]2r 2r – 2r – A1 1 [Fantazia] ‘Tho: Lupo’ {2}2v 2v – 2v – A1 2 [Fantazia] [Lupo] {3}3r 3r – 3r – A1 3 [Fantazia] [Lupo] {10}3v 3v – 3v – A1 4 [Fantazia] [Lupo] {13}4r 4r – 4r – A1 5 [Fantazia] ‘Mr Chetwoode’ {1}4v 4v – 4v – A1 6 [Fantazia] [Chetwoode] {2}4v 4v – 4v – A1 7 [Fantazia] [Chetwoode] {3}5r 5r – 5r – A1 8 [Fantazia] [Chetwoode] {4}5v 5v – 5v – A1 9 ‘Ayres’ ‘Will: Lawes’ {3205v 5v – 5v – A1 10 [Aire] [Lawes] {321}6r 6r – 6r – A1 11 [Aire] [Lawes] {75}6r 6r – 6r – A1 12 [Aire] [Lawes] {226}6v 6v – 6v – A1 13 [Aire] [Lawes] {83}7r 7r – 7r – A1 14 [Aire] [Lawes] {206}7v 7v – 7v – A1 15 ‘Ayres a 3 voc:’ ‘Tho: Holmes’ {1}8r 8r – 8r – A1 16 [Aire]a [Holmes] {2}8r 8r – 8r – A1 17 [Aire] [Holmes] {3}8v 8v – 8v – A1 18 [Fantazia] ‘Jo: Coprario’ {1}9r 9r – 9r – A1 19 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {2}9v 9v – 9v – A1 20 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {3}10r 10r – 10r – A1 21 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {4}

2 See FerraboscoCM, 217.

a 40658: ‘Ayres’

LAWES.indb 280 19/03/2010 10:58


Fols


10v 10v – 10v – A1 22 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {5}11r 11r – 11r – A1 23 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {6}11v 11v – 11v – A1 24 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {7}12r 12r – 12r – A1 25 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {8}12v 12v – 12v – A1 26 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {9}13r 13r – 13r – A1 27 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {10}13v 13v – 13v – A1 28 ‘Pavan’ ‘Tho: Holmes’ {4}13v 13v – 13v – A1 29 ‘Almaine’b ‘Tho Holmes’ {5}14r 14r – 14r – A1 30 [Fantazia] ‘Nich: Guy’ –14v 14v – 14v – A2 – [Aire] ‘Wj:Lawes’c {227}

14v–15r 14v – 14v – A2 – [Aire] ‘Wj:Lawes’ {207}15r 15r – 15r – A2 – [Aire] [Lawes] {342}15r 15r – 15r – A2 – [Aire] [Lawes]d {208}15v 15v – 15v – [Unused]

[Four-part]e

16r 16r 2r 16r – A1 1 [Fantazia] ‘John Warde’ {1}16v 16v 2v 16v – A1 2 [Fantazia] [Ward] {2}17r 17r 3r 17r – A1 3 [Fantazia] [Ward] {4}17v 17v 3v 17v – A1 4 [Fantazia] [Ward] {5}18r 18r 4r 18r – A1 5 [Fantazia] [Ward] {3}18v 18v 4v 18v – A1 6 [Fantazia] [Ward] {6}19r 19r 5r 19r – A1 7 [Fantazia] ‘Tho: Lupo’ {8}19v 19v 5v 19v – A1 8 [Fantazia] ‘Tho: Foord’ –20r 20r 6r 20r – A1 9 ‘Dulcis Memoriae’ [Sandrin] –

20v–21r

20v–21r

6v–7r 20v–21r

– A1 10 [Fantazia] ‘Sym: Ive’ f {4}

7r A1 – [Aire] ‘Wj:Lawes’g {110}21v–

22r21v–

22rh7v–8r 21v–

22r– A1 &

B11 [Fantazia] [Ives] {3}

22v 22v 8v 22v – A1 12 [Fantazia] ‘Jo: Coperario’ {1}23r 23r 9r 23r – A1 13 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {2}23v 23v 9v 23v – A1 14 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {3}24r 24r 10r 24r – A1 15 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {4}

b 40658: ‘Almane’ .c 40660: ‘WjL:’ .d 40660: ‘Wj:Lawes’ .e 40660: this section is numbered 1–22 only.f 40658: ‘Sim Ives’ .g This is the first bass part of Aire {110}, here crossed out and re-entered on fol. 13r.h 40658, Hand B; other books, A1.

LAWES.indb 281 19/03/2010 10:58


Fols


24v 24v 10v 24v – A1 16 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {5}25r 25r 11r 25r – A1 17 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {6}25v 25v 11v 25v – A1 18 [Fantazia] ‘Alfonso:’

[Ferrabosco II]{13}

26r 26r 12r 26r – A1 19 [Fantazia] [Ferrabosco II] {15}26v 26v 12v 26vi – B &

A120 [Fantazia] ‘Doc: Bull’ –

27r 27r 13r 27r – A2 21 ‘Aire’ ‘Wj:Lawes’ {110}27v 27v 13v 27v – A2 22 ‘Aires’ ‘Wj:Lawes’ {306}28r 28r 14r 28r – A2 25

[sic]j‘Aire’ ‘Wj:Lawes’ {336}

28v 28v 14v 28v – A2 26 ‘Aire’ ‘Wj:Lawes’k {109}29r 29r 15r 29r – A2 27 ‘Aire’ ‘WLawes’ l {318}– 29v 15v 29v – A2 [28] ‘Aire’ [‘Wj:Lawes’]m {319}

30r 30r 16r 30r – A2 [29] [Aire] ‘Wj:L:’n {337}30r 30r 16r 30r – A2 [30] [Aire] ‘Wj:L ’ o {103}30v 30v 16v 30v – A2 [31] [Corant] ‘Wj:Lawes’p {339}

[Five-part]q

31r 31r 17r 31r 2r B 1 [Fantazia] ‘Tho: Lupo’ {11}31v 31v 17v 31v 2v B 2 [Fantazia] [Lupo] {5}32r 32r 18r 32r 3r B 3 [Fantazia] [Lupo] {12}32v 32v 18v 32v 3v B 4 [Fantazia] [Lupo] {13}33r 33r 19r 33r 4r B 5 [Fantazia] [Lupo] {1}33v 33v 19v 33v 4v B 6 [Fantazia] [Lupo] {2}34r 34r 20r 34r 5r A1 7 [O com’e gran] ‘Cla:

Mounteverdie’{1}

34r 34r 20r 34r 5r A1 8 [La tra’l sangue] [Monteverdi] {1}34v 34v 20v 34v 5v A1 9 [Dove il liquido argento] ‘Jo: Coprario’ {45}35r 35r 21r 35r 6r A1 10 [Occhi miei con viva] [Coprario] {46}35v 35v 21v 35v 6v A1 11 [Io piango] [Coprario] {5}36r 36r 22r 36r 7r A1 12 [Ohime la gioia] [Coprario] {35}

i 40660, Hand A1; otherwise, Hand B.j Page containing nos. 23–4 removed from 40657–60.k 40660: om.l 40658–9: ‘Wj:Lawes’; 40660: om.m From 40658–9. Fol. 29v of 40657 is unused; 40660: om.n 40659: ‘W:L∙’.o 40658: ‘W:L:’; 40659: ‘Wj:L∙’; 40660: ‘Wj∙L∙’ .p 40658–60: om.q Numbering of the five-part sequence is taken from 40661; un-numbered in 40657–8 and

40660, and numbered 1–21 in 40659.

LAWES.indb 282 19/03/2010 10:58


Fols


36v 36v 22v 36v 7v A1 13 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {49}37r 37r 23r 37r 8r A1 14 [O voi che sospirate] [Coprario] {48}37v 37v 23v 37v 8v A1 15 [Fantazia] ‘Jo: ward’ {2}38r 38r 24r 38r 9r A1 16 [Fantazia] [Ward?] {4}38v 38v 24v 38v 9v B 17 [Fantazia] [Anon.] –39r 39r 25r 39r 10r B 18 [Fantazia] ‘Will: White’ {1}39v 39v 25v 39v 10v A1 19 ‘Arda: pur:’ ‘Luca Maurenzio’ –39v 39v 25v 39v 10v A1 20 ‘Rimonti in pace’ [Marenzio] –40r 40r 26r 40r 11r A1 21 ‘Ond’ei di mortier [Marenzio] –40r 40r 26r 40r 11r A1 22 ‘Caro dolce’ [Marenzio] –40v 40v 26v 40v 11v A1 23 ‘Che se[’]tu:’ [se’l cor

mio]s[Marenzio] –

40v 40v 26v 40v 11v A1 24 ‘Clorind’hai Vinto’ ‘Horatio. Vecchi’ –41r 41r 27r 41r 12r A1 25 ‘Saura tenere herbette’t ‘Monteuerdio’ –41v 41v 27v 41v 12v A1 26 ‘Deh poi ch’era:’ [Marenzio] –41v 41v 27v 41v 12v A1 27 ‘Com Viuro:’ ‘Be: Pallauicino’ –42r 42r 28r 42r 13r A1 28 ‘Quell[’]augellin’ ‘Luca. Maurenzio’ –42r – – – – A1 – [Textless; Cantus only] [Anon.] –42v 42v 28v 42v 13v A1 29 ‘Pauen’u ‘ Alfonso

Ferobosco’{1}

43r 43r 29r 43r 14r A1 – [Solo e pensoso] ‘Luca Maurenzio’v –43v 43v 29v 43v 14v A2 – [Fantazia] ‘Wj:Lawes’ {68}44r 44r 30r 44r 15r A2 – ‘Iñomine’ ‘Wj:Lawes’ {69}

[First & second violin parts] – – – – 16v–21r C – [18th-century addition: dances, songs & psalms]

22v–24r C[Six-part]w

45r 45r 31r 45r 25r A1 1 [Fantazia] ‘Tho: Lupo’ {1}45v 45v 30v 45v 25v A1 2 [Fantazia] ‘Alfonso:’

[Ferrabosco II]{2}

46r 46r 32r 46r 26r A1 3 [Fantazia] ‘Will: White’ {3}46v 46v 32v 46v 26v A1 4 [Fantazia] [White] {4}47r 47r 33r 47r 27r A1 5 ‘In nomine’ ‘Jo: warde’ {2}

r Recte ‘morte’ .s 40659: nos. 23–5 were originally given the titles and attributions of nos. 26–8; these were

crossed out and corrected.t Recte ‘Sovra’ .u 40659: title and attribution om.; 40660: title om.v 40659: om.w 40659: all attributions om. from the five-part section.

LAWES.indb 283 19/03/2010 10:58


Fols


47v 47v 33v 47v 27v A1 & B x

6 [Fantazia] ‘Alfonso:’ [Ferrabosco II]

{3}

48r 48r 34r 48r 28r A1 & B

7 ‘In nomine’ ‘Alfonso:’ [Ferrabosco II]

{1}

48v 48v 34v 48v 28v A1 & B

8 [Fantazia] ‘Will: White’z {1}

49r 49r 35r 49r 29r A1 & B

9 [Fantazia] [White] {2}

49v 49v 35v 49v 29v A1 10 [Fantazia] [White] {6}50r 50r – 50r 30r A1 11 [Fantazia] [White] {5}50v 50v – 50v 30v A1 12 [Fantazia] ‘Jo Coperario’ {2}

[Reversed end; from here all folios are INV.][Two-part]

– – – – 35v A1 1 ‘Duo’ ‘Jo: Coperario {5}– – – – 35r A1 2 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {1}– – – – 34v A1 3 [Fantazia] [Coprario] {2}– – – – 34r A1 – [Fantazia] [Coprario] {6}– – – – 33v A1 – [Fantazia] [Coprario] {4}– – – – 33r A1 – [Fantazia] [Coprario] {3}– – – – 32v A1 – [Fantazia] [Coprario] {7}– – – – 32r A1 – [Fantazia] [Coprario] {8}– – – – 31r C – [Fragment; melody

instrument][Anon.] –

* Titles and ascriptions are taken from MS 40657, with variants noted; minor variants in spelling, capitalization and punctuation have not been recorded.

x In the following four pieces 40657 and 40660–1 were copied by A1, 40658–9 by Hand B.z 40658: om.

LAWES.indb 284 19/03/2010 10:58


oxford, bodleian library, mss mus. sch. d.238–40Description

Each partbook repaired.

D.238: ii + 89 + i. Modern pencil foliation: fols 1r–92r (flyleaves foliated). No music entered on fols 1r–2v, 44v–84r, 88r–89r, 92r–92v. Leaves abstracted: one after fol. 89v. Fol. 3r contains unidentified tune, in pencil (later hand) (Example A.1).

D.239: ii + 40 + ii. Modern pencil foliation: fols 1r–44r (flyleaves foliated). No music entered on fols 1r–3r, 35v–44v. Leaves abstracted: at least three after fol. 28v.

D.240: ii + 82 + ii. Modern pencil foliation: fols 1r–86r (flyleaves foliated). No music entered on fols 1r–3r, 57v–76r, 80r–82r, 85r–86v.

Format and DimensionsUpright quarto: c. 224 × 173 mm (paper); c. 230 × 182 (covers). Coloured edges.

WatermarksFull measurements not possible because of the upright quarto format.

Ruled pages: Peacock 1 (pair identified)

Flyleaves: Grapes surmounted by crown with fleur-de-lys [Grapes 2]

RastrologyMarginal rulings on both sides. Extra hand-drawn staves: D.240, fol. 54v; D.238, fol. 90v (INV.). A 7 (1 + 3 + 3):

Rastrum 1: B 1; C 12

Rastrum 2: B 3; C 66; D 12(15)12.5(15)11.5

CollationDifficult to determine due to tightness of binding and repairs; probably quired mainly in eights.

BindingRepaired. Uniformly bound in brown calf leather with a gold central ornament (dia-mond shape; floral designs emanating from a central oval), enclosed within blind and gold filets and corner decorations on both covers; central ornament flanked by initials

‘W’ and ‘L’ . Gold tooling bordered by blind tooling at outer edges.

6

12

Example A.1 GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.238, fol. 3r: unidentified tune in later hand

LAWES.indb 285 19/03/2010 10:58


ProvenancePresumably given to the Music School by Henry Lawes, with GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229; in 1682 catalogue with D.229 (Music School A.4.31–3; Hake no. CVI).

Inventory

Fols

D.238 D.239 D.240 No. Piece / Title* Signature† Key VdGS

1r–2v 1r–2v 1r–2v [Blank pages: foliated flyleaves]

[Fantasia-suites for violin, bass viol & organ]

3r – 3r [Ruled page] ‘For One Violin / the Basse Viole / and Organ’ a

3v–4r – 3v–4r 1 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {114}

4v – 4v 2 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {115}

5r – 5r 3 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {116}

5v–6r – 5v–6r 4 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ G {117}

6v – 6v 5 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ G {118}

7r – 7r 6 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ G {119}

7v–8r – 7v–8r 7 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ a {120}

8v – 8v 8 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ a {121}

9r – 9r 9 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ a {122}

9v–10r – 9v–10r 10 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {123}

10v – 10v 11 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {124}

11r – 11r 12 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {125}

11v–12r – 11v–12r 13 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {126}

12v – 12v 14 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {127}

13r – 13r 15 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {128}

13v–14r – 13v–14r 16 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {129}

14v – 14v 17 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {130}

15r – 15r 18 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {131}

15v–16r – 15v–16r 19 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {132}

16v – 16v 20 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {133}

17r – 17r 21 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {134}

17v–18r – 17v–18r 22 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {135}

18v – 18v 23 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {136}

19r – 19r 24 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {137}

a D.240 has an ampersand.

LAWES.indb 286 19/03/2010 10:58


Fols


[Fantasia-suites for two violins, bass viol & organ]

– – 3r [Ruled page] ‘For 2 Violins / one Basse Viol / & Organ’

19v–20r 3v–4r 19v–20r 25 ‘For 2 Violins’ / ‘Fantazia’ b ‘Wjllawes’ g {138}

20v 4v 20v 26 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {139}

21r 5r 21r 27 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {140}

21v–22r 5v–6r 21v–22r 28 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ G {141}

22v 6v 22v 29 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ G {142}

23r 7r 23r 30 ‘Aire’c ‘Wjllawes’ G {143}

23v–24r 7v–8r 23v–24r 31 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ a {144}

24v 8v 24v 32 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ a {145}

25r 9r 25r 33 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ a {146}

25v–26r 9v–10r 25v–26r 34 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {147}

26v 10v 26v 35 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {148}

27r 11r 27r 36 [Aire]d ‘Wjllawes’ C {149}

27v–28r 11v–12r 27v–28r 37 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {150}

28v 12v 28v 38 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {151}

29r 13r 29r 39 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {152}

29v–30r 13v–14r 29v–30r 40 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {153}

30v 14v 30v 41 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {154}

31r 15r 31r 42 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {155}

31v–32r 15v–16r 31v–32r 43 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {156}

32v 16v 32v 44 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {157}

33r 17r 33r 45 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {158}

33v–34r 17v–18r 33v–34r 46 ‘Fantazia’e ‘Wjllawes’ D {159}

34v 18v 34v 47 ‘Aire’ f ‘Wjllawes’ D {160}

35r 19r 35r 48 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {161}

[Harp Consorts]

35v 19v 35v 1 ‘For the Harpe, Base Violl / Violin, and Theorbo / Almane’ g

‘Wjllawes’ g {162}

35v 19v 36r–36v 2 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {163}

36r 20r 37r 3 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {164}

36r 20r 37v 4 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {165}

36v 20v 38r 5 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {166}

36v 20v 38v 6 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {167}

b D.239: ‘Fantazia’ .c D.239: om.d D.239–40: ‘Aire’ .e D.239–40: om.f D.239: om.g D.240 lacks the serial comma.

LAWES.indb 287 19/03/2010 10:58


Fols


37r 21r 38v–39r 7 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {168}

37r 21r 39v 8 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {169}

37v 21v 40r 9 ‘Almane’ ‘Wjllawes’ G {170}

37v 21v 40v–41r 10 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ G {171}

38r 22r 41r 11 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ G {172}

38r 22r 41v 12 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ G {173}

38v 22v 42r 13 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {174}

38v 23r 42v 14 ‘Aire’h ‘Wjllawes’i d {175}

39r 23r 42v–43r 15 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {176}

39r 23v 43v 16 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {177}

39v 24r 44r 17 ‘Almane’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {178}

39v 24r 44v–45r 18 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {179}

40r 24v 45v 19 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’k D {180}

40r 24v–25r 45v–46r 20 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {181}

40v 25v 46v–47r 21 ‘Almane’l ‘Wjllawes’ D {182}

40v 26r 47v 22 ‘Almane’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {183}

41r 26v–27r 47v–48r 23 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {184}

41r 27v–28r 48v–49r 24 [Corant]m ‘Wjllawes’ D {185}

41v 28v–29r 49v–50r 25 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {186}

41v 29r 50r 26 ‘Aire’n ‘Wjllawes’ G {187}

42r 29v–30r 50v–52r 27 ‘Pauen’ ‘Wjllawes’ G {188}

42v 30v–32r 52v–54r 28 ‘Pauen’ ‘Cormacke’o G {189}

43r 32v–34r 54v–56r 29 ‘Pauen’ ‘Coprario’p g {190}

43v–44r 34v–35r 56v–57r 30 ‘Fantazy’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {191}

44v–84r 35v–42v 57v–76r [Unused]

[Reversed end; folios are INV.]

[Suites for two bass viols & organ]

92v–92r 44v–43r 86v–85r [Blank pages: foliated flyleaves]

91v–90v – 84v–83v ‘For the Organ:∙ and 2 Base Viols / Pauen’

‘Wjllawes’ g {101}

90r – 83r ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {102}

h D.240: ‘Almane’ .i D.240: ‘short L’ signature.k D.240: om.l D.239: ‘Alman’ .m D.239–40: ‘Corant’ .n D.239–40: om.o D.239–40: ‘Wjllawes’ .p D.239–40: ‘Wjllawes’ .

LAWES.indb 288 19/03/2010 10:58


Fols


89v – 82v ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {103}

89r–88r – 82r–80r [Unused]

87v–86v – 79v–78v ‘Pauen’ q – C {104}

86r–85v – 78r–77v [Alman] – r C {105}

85r – 77r ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {106}

84v – 76v ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {107}

* Titles and ascriptions are taken from D.238, with variants noted; minor variants in capital ization and punctuation have not been recorded.

† Signatures in bold indicate the ‘short L’ form, the rest are in the ‘mature’ form.

q D.240: ‘Pauen:∙ Sett for 2 Deuision Basses / to the Organ by Wjllawes’ .r D.240: ‘Alman:∙ Set for 2 Deuision / Basses to the Organ. By / Wjllawes’ .

LAWES.indb 289 19/03/2010 10:58


oxford, bodleian library, ms mus. sch. d.229Description

Much repaired (binding and leaves). ii + 77 + ii. Modern pencil foliation: fols 1r–81r (flyleaves foliated). No music entered on fols 1r–3r, 36v–51r, 70v–77v, 80r–81v. Leaves abstracted: ‘a number of leaves were removed and cancels were pasted to their stubs during copying’ ,1 abstractions difficult to determine due to repairs and binding.

Additional ScribesHand D (?Giles Tomkins): fols 70r–69v (INV.)

InscriptionsFol. 81v (INV.): ‘I haue’ (Lawes)

Format and DimensionsOblong folio; c. 225 × 343 mm (paper); 230 × 350 mm (cover). Coloured edges.

WatermarksRuled pages: Peacock 2

Flyleaves: Arms of France and Navarre I/2

RastrologyMarginal rulings on both sides; staves grouped in pairs by pre-ruled barlines, nine bars per stave.

A 8; B 2 (6-line staves); C 38; D 12(14)12

CollationDifficult to determine due to tightness of binding and repairs; seems to have been origi-nally quired in mainly sheets of six; several abstractions.

BindingRepaired. Calf leather with blind and gold filets, gold corner decorations and the royal arms (SRA VII) on both covers; arms flanked by the initials ‘W’ and ‘L’ . Gold tooling bordered by blind tooling at outer edges.

ProvenancePresumably given to the Music School by Henry Lawes, with D.238–40: in 1682 catalogue with D.238–40 (Music School A.4.10; Hake no. XCVII).

1 CrumOMSC, 5.

LAWES.indb 290 19/03/2010 10:58


Inventory

Fols No. Piece / Title Signature* Key VdGS Comments

1r–2v [Blank pages: foliated flyleaves][Fantasia-Suites, for violin, bass viol & organ]

3r [Ruled page] ‘The Organ part:∙ / For the Violins:∙ / & Basse Violl:∙’3v–4r 1 ‘Fantazia’ – g {114}

4r 2 ‘Aire’ – g {115}4v 3 [Aire] – g {116}

4v–5r 4 ‘Fantazia’ – G {117}5v 5 [Aire] – G {118}6r [6] [Aire] – G {119}

6v–7r 7 ‘Fantazia’ – a {120}7v 8 ‘Aire’ – a {121}8r 9 ‘Aire’ – a {122}

8v–9r 10 ‘Fantazia’ – C {123}9v 11 ‘Aire’ – C {124}10r 12 ‘Aire’ – C {125}

10v–11r 13 ‘Fantazia’ – d {126}11v 14 ‘Aire’ – d {127}12r 15 ‘Aire’ – d {128}

12v–13r 16 ‘Fantazia’ – D {129}13v 17 ‘Aire’ – D {130}14r 18 [Aire] – D {131}

14v–15r 19 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {132}15v 20 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {133}16r 21 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d {134}

16v–17r 22 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {135}17v 23 ‘Aire’ – D {136}18r 24 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {137}

[Fantasia-Suites, for two violins, bass viol & organ]18v–19r 25 ‘For 2 Violins’ /

‘Fantazia’– g {138}

19v 26 ‘Aire’ – g {139}20r 27 ‘Aire’ – g {140}

20v–21r 28 ‘Fantazia’ – G {141}21v 29 ‘Aire’ – G {142}22r 30 ‘Aire’ – G {143}

22v–23r 31 ‘Fantazia’ – a {144}23v 32 ‘Aire’ – a {145}24r 33 ‘Aire’ – a {146}

24v–25r 34 ‘Fantazia’ – C {147}25v 35 [Aire] – C {148}

LAWES.indb 291 19/03/2010 10:58



26r 36 ‘Aire’ – C {149}26v–27r 37 ‘Fantazia’ – d {150}

27v 38 ‘Aire’ – d {151}28r 39 ‘Aire’ – d {152}

28v–29 40 ‘Fantazia’ – D {153}29v 41 ‘Aire’ – D {154}30r 42 ‘Aire’ – D {155}

30v–31r 43 ‘Fantazia’ – d {156}31v 44 ‘Aire’ – d {157}32r 45 ‘Aire’ – d {158}

32v–33r 46 ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {159}33v 47 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {160}34r 48 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D {161}

[Harp Consorts]34v ‘For the Harpe, Base

Violl, Violin and Theorbo’

1 ‘Almane’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {162}2 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {163}

35r 3 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {164}4 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {165}

35v 5 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {166}6 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {167}

36r 7 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {168}[8] ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {169}

36v–51r [Unused][Reversed end; folios are INV.]

80r–81v [Blank pages: foliated flyleaves][Suites for two bass viols & organ]

79v ‘For the Organ:∙ and 2 Base Viols:∙’‘Pauen’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {101}

79r ‘Aire’ ‘W.L. ’ g {103}79r ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {102}78v ‘Pauen and Almane of

Alfonso:∙ Sett to the Organ and /2 division Base Violls. by Wjllawes’ / ‘Pauen’

C {104}

78r ‘Alman’ – C {105}78r [Aire; incomplete] – C {106}78r ‘Aire’ [Corant] ‘Wjllawes’ C {107}

LAWES.indb 292 19/03/2010 10:58


a Approximately the last half of the final strain.b Resembles ‘short L’ signature; the base of the ‘L’ is missing from under the ‘awes’ but is clearly

visible after it, which suggests that the pen simply did not make full contact with the page.c Squashed in and written over a large form of his signature from the previous piece.d Substantial crossing-out and revisions in the last stave.e The signature is written over an erased title (‘Aire’).f This title is written in large letters, covering two staves.g Written over the erased original title ‘Fantazy’ .


70v–77v [Unused][Six-part viol consorts]

70r 1 ‘a 6’ / ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {97} Hand D69v–69r 2 ‘a 6’ / ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {98} Hand D / Lawes

68v [Aire]a ‘Wjllawes’ C {89}68v–68r ‘a 6’ / ‘Fantazia’ ‘Wjllawes’b B b {94}67v–67r ‘a 6’ / ‘Inominy’ ‘Wjllawes’ B b {96}

67r ‘Aire a:∙ 6’c ‘Wjllawes’ B b {95}[Five-part viol consorts]

66v–66r ‘a. 5 ∙ Fantazy’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {68}66r–65v ‘Playnesong:∙ a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {69}

65r ‘Aire a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {70}65r–64v ‘Fantazy:∙ a ∙5’d ‘Wjllawes’ a {71}64r–63v ‘Fantazy:∙ a ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ a {72}

63v ‘Aire:∙ a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ a {73}63r–62v ‘Fantazy:∙ a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {74}

62v ‘Aire. a ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {75}62r ‘Pauen ∙ a ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {76}61v ‘Aire. a ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’e c {77}

61v–61r ‘Fantazy:∙ a ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {78}60v ‘Pauen ∙ a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {79}60r ‘Aire ∙ a∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {80}

60r–59v ‘Fantazy:∙ a ∙5’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {81}59v–59r ‘Pauen:∙ a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {82}

59r ‘Aire ∙ a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {83}[Six-part viol consorts]

58v–58r ‘Inominy ∙ a ∙ 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {99}58r–57v ‘Pauen ∙ a ∙6’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {84}57r–56v ‘Fantazy a ∙ 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {85}

56r ‘Aire ∙ A ∙ 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {86}55v ‘Aire A 6’ f ‘Wjllawes’ c {100}

55r–54v ‘A ∙6’ / ‘Fantazy’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {87}54v ‘Aire’g ‘Wjllawes’ C {89}

LAWES.indb 293 19/03/2010 10:58



54r–53v ‘A ∙ 6’ / ‘Fantazy’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {88}53v ‘Aire A ∙ 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {91}

53r–52v ‘A 6’ / ‘Fantazy’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {90}52v ‘Aire’ – F {92}

52r–51v ‘A ∙ 6’ / ‘Fantazy’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {93}

* Signatures in bold indicate the ‘short L’ form, the rest are in the ‘mature’ form.

LAWES.indb 294 19/03/2010 10:58


london, british library, add. ms 17798Description

Repaired. ii + ii + 25 + i + original vellum covers + ii. Modern pencil foliation: fols 1r–25r (ruled pages only). No music entered on flyleaves. Leaves abstracted between fols 3r–4r (replacement mounted on stub). Numbered throughout by Lawes: 1–16 (five-part) and 23–39 (six-part; confusion with page nos., no. 16 is also numbered [p.] 22); several leaves contain a second numbering sequence in ink (Lawes?): fols 1r–2v, numbered 1–3; fol. 10v–11v, numbered 13–15.

Additional ScribesHand E: fols 4r–4v

Format and DimensionsUpright quarto; c. 160 × 204 mm (vellum covers); 155 × 200 mm (paper)

WatermarksRuled pages: Basilisk throughout except fol. 4r (Peacock 3); measurements not possible because of the upright quarto format.

Flyleaves: Circles

RastrologyMarginal rulings on both sides.

Rastrum 1: A 8; B 2; C 32; D 11(10.5)10.5

Rastrum 2 (fol. 4r–4v only): A 8; B 2; C 33; D 11(11)11

CollationMounted on guards, giving rise to the following collation: a2 (flyleaves), A10 [A1–2? removed; A4 removed and fol. 4r pasted onto the stub in its place], B8, C6, D4? [D4? removed]

BindingModern British Museum binding (c. 1966); original limp vellum covers preserved at end: ‘BASSVS’ in gold lettering (front); central oval-shaped design in gold (both covers) enclosed by gold tooling, with gold fillets (at corners); outer gold tooling also.

ProvenancePurchased for the British Museum on 25 June 1849 at the sale of the library of Professor William Ayrton (Puttick and Simpson; lot 571). The sale catalogue boasted ‘rare and early editions of madrigals, antiquarian and ecclesiastical music, history, and theory treatises, including some very rare works’;1 MS 17798 and the unidentified lot 568 were described as Lawes holographs in the sale catalogue.

1 Music at Auction: Puttick and Simpson (of London), 1794–1971, ed. J. Coover (Warren, MI, 1988), 145–6, at 146. Coover does not give further information on the item descriptions; the catalogues are published on microfilm (copy in Cambridge University Library): Literature, Music and Art: The Annotated Sale Catalogues of Puttick and Simpson, 1846–1870. Parts 1–4 (Reading, 1989–90).

LAWES.indb 295 19/03/2010 10:58


Inventory

Fols No. Piece / Title Signature Key VdGS

[Five-part viol consorts]1r 1 ‘Aire:∙ A ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {70}

1v–2r 2 [Fantazia] – g {68}2v–3r 3 [On the Playnsong] – g {69}3v–4r 4 [Fantazia] ‘Wm Lawes’a a {71}4v–5r 5 [Fantazia] – a {72}

5v 6 [Aire] – a {73}6r 7 [Aire] – c {75}

6v–7r 8 [Fantazia] – c {74}7v 9 [Pavan] – c {76}8r 10 [Aire] – c {77}

8v–9r 11 [Fantazia] – F {78}9v 12 [Pavan] – F {79}10r 13 [Aire] – F {80}10v 14 [Fantazia] – C {81}11r 15 [Pavan] – C {82}11v 16/22 [Aire] ‘A ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {83}

[Six-part viol consorts]12r 23 [Aire] ‘A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {100}

12v–13r 24 ‘Fantazy:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {97}13v–14r 25 ‘Fantazy:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {98}14v–15r 26 ‘Inominy:∙ A ∙ 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {99}15v–16r 27 ‘Fantazia:∙ A 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {87}16v–17r 28 ‘Fantazy:∙ A ∙ 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {88}

17v 29 ‘Aire:∙ A ∙ 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {89}18r 30 ‘Aire:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ B b {95}

18v–19r 31 ‘Fantazy:∙ A ∙ 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ B b {94}19v–20r 32 ‘Inominy:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ B b {96}20v–21r 33 ‘Pauen:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {84}21v–22r 34 ‘Fantazy:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {85}

22v 35 ‘Aire:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {86}23r 36 ‘Aire:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {91}

23v–24r 37 ‘Fantazy:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {90}24v–25r 38 ‘Fantazy:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {93}

25v 39 ‘Aire:∙ A . 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {92}

a Later, non-autograph, addition.

LAWES.indb 296 19/03/2010 10:58


oxford, bodleian library, ms mus. sch. b.2Description

Repaired. i + viii + i + 114. Modern pencil pagination: pp. 1–114 (rear flyleaves, pp. 111–14); front flyleaves paginated i–viii; manuscript fragments (no music) mounted on an unnumbered partial leaf after p. viii. No music entered on pp. i–viii, 111–14. Leaves abstracted (number of abstractions is ‘at least’ in each case): one gathering before p. 1, one page after pp. 6, 8, 14, 18, three pages after p. 36, one page after pp. 38, 40, 42, two gatherings after p. 44, three pages after p. 76, two pages after p. 86, three after p. 98, one after p. 100, three after p. 106, several after p. 110.

InscriptionsP. viii: five letters, appear to be ‘a’ and ‘g’ , no pattern or word formed (Lawes?).

P. 114: ‘Regie Regis Regnum / Arcana Canto’ (Lawes).

Format and DimensionsUpright folio: c. 410 × 277 (paper); c. 416 × 285 (cover). Coloured edges.

WatermarksFlyleaves: Arms of Austria and Burgundy

Ruled pages: Grapes 1

RastrologyFive-line staves (12 per page; except pp. 26 and 37, which have thirteen) drawn one line at a time with a straightedge. Marginal rulings left and right. Pre-ruled barlines, 7 bars per stave (no breaks between staves). Extra hand-drawn staves at the bottom of p. 17 and top of p. 18.

CollationDifficult to determine; many abstractions, original gatherings appear to have been sheets of six (i.e. 12 pages).1 a4, A10 [removed], B8 [1, 5, 7, 8 removed], C10 [4–5, 8 removed], D12 [8–10, 12 removed], E10 [1, 3–6, 9–10 removed], F12–G8 [removed], H12 [1–4, 11 removed], J12 [10–12 removed], K12 [1, 5, 8–10 removed], L12? [1?, 3, 7–10, 12? removed],2 M8 [3, 5–8 removed], N6 [1, 4–6 removed], O2 (rear flyleaves).

BindingRepaired. Calf leather binding, blind and gold tooling at outer edges; SRA VII in gold, flanked by letters ‘W’ and ‘L’ (both covers).

ProvenancePresumably given to the Music School by Henry Lawes: in 1682 catalogue: MS XXX, 2 vols (i.e. with B.3) B.6.25–6 (with B.3).

1 Collation largely based on that given on a note pasted into the manuscript (before p. i), derived from visible stubs and information gathered when the manuscript was removed from its binding for repair.

2 Collation given in MS as L10 [2, 6–9 removed].

LAWES.indb 297 19/03/2010 10:58


InventoryGrey bars indicate abstracted pages.

Page Piece / Title* Scoring Signature† Key‡ VdGS Comments§ Abstractions

i–vii [Blank; paginated flyleaves]Several leaves

before p. 1[Six-Part Viol Consorts]

1–3 ‘Fatazia [sic] ∙ a 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {97}3–6 ‘Fantazia ∙ a.6’ – c {98} Incompletea

One leaf after p. 6

7–9 ‘Fantazia ∙ a 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ B b {94}One leaf after

p. 810–13 ‘Inominy:∙ a ∙ 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ B b {96}

14 ‘Aire ∙ a 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ B b {95}Several leaves

after p. 14[Royall Consort related]

15 ‘Alman. a 5∙ For the Violins ∙ of 2 ∙ trebles’b

‘Wjllawes’ D {38}

[Britannia Triumphans (1638); text by William D’Avenant]c

16(–18) ‘Part of the Kings Masque’

16 ‘Britanocles [the great and good]’d

5vv

‘Why move these Princes’

v + Bc (‘Fame’)

‘’Tis fitt you moue’e v + Bc (‘Fame’)

‘Soe pay ye expectation’ 2vv + Bc (‘Arts and Science’) f

‘Moue then in such’ 4vv‘O with what Joy’ 5vv (‘Full

Cho’)

a Lacks ending due to abstracted page.b Another version of Royall Consort Alman {38}: cf. B.3, p. 95.c All masque pieces in the manuscript are given in condensed form; texts given only in incipits,

all edited in LawesCVM4.d ‘Full Song:∙ a 5’ .e ‘Ciacona’ .f ‘2 Boyes’ .

LAWES.indb 298 19/03/2010 10:58



17 ‘Soe Well Britanocles’g v + Bc (‘Galatea’)

‘On euer mouing waues they dance’

3vv

‘But Now’ v + Bc (‘Galatea’)

‘When you he shall lead wth Harmony’

5vv (‘Cho’)

18 ‘Wise Nature’ / ‘May euery whisper’h

2vv + Bc

‘Were but to tempt’ 3vv‘To Bed to Bed’ 5vv (‘Grand

Chorus’)One leaf after

p. 18[Five-Part Viol Consorts]19–21 ‘Fantazya ∙ a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {68}22–5 ‘On the Playnsong:∙ a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {69}

[Four-Part Viol Consorts]26–7 ‘For the Violls:∙ a 4’

[Fantazia]‘Wjllawes’ c {108}

28–9 ‘Aire:∙ a 4’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {109}29–30 ‘Aire:∙ a 4’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {110}31–2 ‘Aire:∙ a 4’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {111}

33 ‘Aire:∙ a 4’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {112}34–5 ‘Aire:∙ a 4’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {113}

[Miscellaneous Poem Settings]35–6 ‘Cease warring

thoughts’i3vv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

36 ‘Goe bleeding hart’ j 3vv + Bc – FragmentSeveral leaves

after p. 3637 ‘Feare not deare loue’k 5vv ‘Wjllawes’ Fragment

g Begins with 3-part ‘Simfony’ .h Page headed ‘Valediction’; begins with 3-part ‘Simfony:’ .i Text by James Shirley, printed as part of his private masque The Triumph of Beauty (1646).

Text underlay in incipits only; full text given in blocks on p. 36.j Opening only. Text author unknown. Text underlay in incipits only.k Ending only. Text by Thomas Carew. Text underlay in incipits only; full text in block.

LAWES.indb 299 19/03/2010 10:58



[The Triumph of Peace (1634); text by James Shirley]l

38(–41) ‘The howres descending’ / ‘Simfony’m

Tr–B

‘Hence hence ye prophane’

v + Bc (‘Irene’)

‘Hence, hence ye prophane’

4vv (‘Cho’)

[‘Wherefore do my sisters stay?’]n

v + Bc (‘Irene’)

One leaf after p. 38

39 ‘See where she shines’o v + Bc‘In her Celestiall’ 3vv

39–40 ‘Thinke not’ p 2vv + Bc [Eunomia & Irene]

40 ‘Irene Enters like’ 4vv (‘Cho:’)[Here ends] ‘The first part of the / Inns of Court Masque’

‘Wjllawes’


41 ‘That all’ Fragment q

[Here ends] ‘The Last Part of the Inns / of Court / Masque’

‘Wjllawes’

[The Triumph of the Prince d’Amour (1636); text by William D’Avenant]r

41(–4) ‘Part of the Prince D’mour his Masque at the Middle Temple’ s

41 ‘Simfony’ Tr–B‘Behold how’t 2vv + Bc

42 ‘Come strew this ground’

4vv (‘Cho’) ‘Wjllawes’

l Text underlay in incipits throughout.m Page headed: ‘First Song of the Inns of Court Masque:’ .n No text given.o ‘3 Voc. From ye Cho:’ .p ‘Eunomia descends ∙ and Sings’ with Irene, first exchanging phrases then together; prefaced

by Tr–B ‘Simfony’ .q Ending only.r Texts given only in incipits.s Presented by the King on 24 February 1635/6; includes text. Begins with Tr–B ‘Simfony’ .t ‘The Banquet descends out of the/Sceane/the Songe’ .

LAWES.indb 300 19/03/2010 10:58



‘The last Song or / Valediction’‘Simfony’ Tr–B‘The Angry stead’u v + Bc‘Till you as Glorious’ 4vv (‘Cho:’)‘Last part of / the Simfony / Playes and / the Priests / of Venus / descend’

Tr–B


43 ‘The Balmes rich Sweet’ 2vv + Bc‘The Balmes’ 4vv (‘Cho’)‘Last part of the / Simfony And / the Priests of / Apollo descend / to the State’

Tr–B

‘And May your language’ 3vv + Bc‘Soe full of Wonder’ 4vv (‘Cho:’)‘the whole Sinfony / and all retire from / the State to ye Sceane and sing / the Grand / Cho:’

Tr–B

44 ‘May our three Gods’ 4vv (‘Grand Cho:’)

‘Wjllawes’

‘Simfony’v Tr–B c Complete[Partsong]

44 ‘Deere leve thy home’w 4vv + Bc Fragment2 gatherings after p. 44

[Five-Part Viol Consorts]45–8 [Fantazia] ‘a ∙ 5 for ye

Violls’x‘Wjllawes’ a {71}

48–51 ‘Fantazia:∙ a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ a {72}52 ‘Aire a ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {70}53 [Aire] ‘a :∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ a {73}

54–7 ‘Fantazia a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {74}58–9 ‘Pauen:∙ a 5’ – c {76}

60 ‘Aire:∙ a. 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {75}

u ‘Priests of Mars/descend from/the Sceane to the/State’/‘The Song’ .v In a different ink to the preceding masque music.w Opening only; text in incipits.x Most of p. 47 is crossed out.

LAWES.indb 301 19/03/2010 10:58



61 ‘Aire:∙ a ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {77}62–5 ‘Fantazy:∙ a ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {78}65–7 ‘Pauan:∙ a. 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {79}68–9 ‘Aire a ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {80}

69 ‘Fantazy:∙ a 5’ y ‘Wjllawes’ C {81}70–1 ‘Pauen a 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {82}72–4 [Fantasy {81}

continued]‘Wjllawes’ C {81}

74–5 [Aire] ‘a ∙ 5’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {83}[Fantasia-Suite Fantazia]76–81 ‘For the Organ:∙ Base

Viole and Violin’ / ‘Fantazia’

‘W: Lawes’ D {135}

Several leaves after p. 76

[Suites for two bass viols and organ]81–5 ‘Pauen’ / ‘For 2 Base

Violls and Organ’‘Wjllawes’ g {101}

[Lute Duets]86 ‘For 2 lutes’

‘Alman’ ‘Wjllawes’‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’


[Suites for two bass viols and organ, continued]87–8 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {102}88–91 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {103}91–2 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {107}93–9 ‘Pauen: and 2 Almane

of Alfonso. sett to the Organ / and 2 diuison BaseViolls by:∙ Wjllawes’

‘Wjllawes’ C {104} & {105}


100 [Aire] – C {106} IncompleteOne leaf after

p. 100

y Lawes revised the piece by halving the time values (filling noteheads etc.).

LAWES.indb 302 19/03/2010 10:58



[Miscellaneous]101 [Unidentified 3-part

fragment; vocal?; no text]

– a Fragment z

‘A 3 · Voc:∙ In the Memory of my Freind:∙ John. Tomkins’a

3vv ‘Wjllawes’ Complete

[Six-Part Viol Consort]102–5 ‘Inomine a. 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ c {99}

105 [Unidentified 5?-part piece]

– Incomplete

[Sacred Vocal]106 ‘Psalm:∙ 71: Mr Sands:∙

3 Voc:∙ to the Organ:∙ First Part’ /

‘I to thy Wing’ 3vv + Bc – Fragment b


[Catches & Songs]c

107 ‘Regi Regis Regnum’ d 4vv –‘Regi Regis Regnum’e 4vv –‘Some drink, Boy’ f 3vv –‘Harke Jolly Lads’ 3vv –

108 ‘Lord thou hast’ g 3vv ‘Wjllawes’‘Happy Sons [of Israel]’h

3vv ‘Wjllawes’

‘She Weepeth’ 4vv ‘Wjllawes’‘Call for the Ale’ 4vv ‘Wjllawes’‘Lets Cast away Care’ 3vv ‘Wjllawes’‘Stand still’ 3vv ‘Wjllawes’

z Ending only.a Printed in H. Lawes, Choice Psalmes (1648).b Opening only.c This begins a series of catches and canons, mostly for three or four voices; only the first few

bars are given for each piece. Several were published posthumously; see LawesCVM2–3 for concordances.

d Canon ‘in the 5. 8. and 5 below’; Lawes also erased another setting on p. 109 and wrote the first text lines on one of the back flyleaves.

e Canon ‘in the Vnison’ .f From Suckling’s play The Goblins performed at the Blackfriars by the King’s Men (c. 1637–41). g ‘Canon … in the Vnison’ .h ‘Canon … in the 4 and 8’; Psalm 66.

LAWES.indb 303 19/03/2010 10:58



109 ‘If we shall drink Canary’

3vv ‘Wjllawes’

‘I doe Confesse’ 3vv ‘Wjllawes’‘Whither go yee’ 3vv ‘Wjllawes’‘Re me re ut’i 3vv –‘Regi Regis Regnum’ [3vv?] j – Incomplete‘Come my Lads’ 2–6vv k ‘W. L. ’

110 ‘Tom Ned and Jack’ 3vv ‘W. L. ’‘Never Let a man’ 3vv ‘W. L. ’‘Though I am not Bacchus Priest’

3vv ‘W. L. ’

‘Brisk Clarett and Sherry’

3vv ‘W. L. ’

‘Warrs ar our delight’ 6vv ‘W. L. ’Several leaves

after p. 110111–14 [Blank; paginated flyleaves]

* Crossed-out pieces are shown thus; reasons for crossings-out are not always clear: they often appear to be linked to the excision of leaves.

† Signatures in bold indicate the ‘short L’ form, the rest are in the ‘mature’ form.‡ Given for consort music only.§ ‘Incomplete’ implies that a piece is unfinished in some way; ‘Fragments’ are due to abstractions.

All texts are given in inciptits only.

i ‘Canon in ye 5 and 8th’ .j One line of text, two bars of music (one stave only): mostly rubbed out; no indication of

scoring.k ‘For 2. 3. 4. 5. or 6 pts in One’; three parts written in score.

LAWES.indb 304 19/03/2010 10:58


oxford, bodleian library, ms mus. sch. b.3Description

Repaired. i + iv + 102 + i. Modern pencil pagination: pp. 1–102 (rear flyleaf, pp. 101–2); front flyleaves paginated i–iv; remnants of vellum covers before p. i and after p. 102 (unnumbered). No music entered on pp. i–iv, 101–2. Leaves abstracted (number of abstractions is ‘at least’ in each case): one gathering before p. 1, one page after pp. 18, 20, three pages after p. 22, two after p. 24, one after p. 78, three after p. 100, one after p. 102.

Inscriptions(Flyleaf) p. i: several signatures in light pencil, apparently authentic: ‘Leonard Tace[?]’ , ‘Monsieur’ , ‘Wjllawes’ and ‘Teodor Stoeffken’ . The identities of the first two persons are unknown.

The Lawes signature is his ‘mature form’ and appears to be genuine, as does that of Stoeff-ken comparable to his signature in the Longleat documents relating to The Triumph of Peace.1

The ‘vellum’ remnant at the rear end of B.3 contains an inscription (outside) apparently in the hand of Lawes: ‘Coh Cho / I C C / Brokgam[?]’ .

The inside of the corresponding remnant at the start of the manuscript reads (Lawes?): ‘Chos[?] / C— / Mr holmes / Chorus’ . ‘Mr Holmes’ is presumably Thomas Holmes (1606–1638), who took part in The Triumph of Peace in February 1634 (he was an excellent bass singer). The annotations may refer to The Triumph of Peace, wherein Holmes sang in the twenty-nine strong chorus and was one of the five ‘constellations’ (which also included Henry Lawes). The part of Amphiluche was originally intended for Holmes but was per-formed by a boy trained by William Lawes.2

Format and DimensionsUpright folio: c. 410 × 277 (paper); c. 416 × 285 (cover). Coloured edges.

WatermarksFlyleaves: Arms of Austria and Burgundy

Ruled pages: Grapes 1

RastrologyFive-line staves (12 per page) drawn one line at a time with a straightedge. Marginal rul-ings left and right. Pre-ruled barlines, 7 bars per stave (no breaks between staves).

CollationDifficult to determine: many abstractions, original gatherings appear to have been sheets of six (i.e. 12 pages).

BindingRepaired. Calf leather binding, blind and gold tooling at outer edges (as B.2); SRA VII in gold, flanked by letters ‘H’ and ‘L’ (both covers).

1 For Stoeffken see A. Ashbee, ‘Stoeffken, Dietrich/Theodore’ , BDECM, ii. 1049–52. His signa-ture is reproduced in Lefowitz, ‘Longleat Papers’ , plate I.

2 See Lefowitz, ‘Longleat Papers’ .

LAWES.indb 305 19/03/2010 10:58


ProvenancePresumably given to the Music School by Henry Lawes: in 1682 catalogue; see notes for B.2.

InventoryGrey bars indicate abstracted pages.

Page Piece / Title Signature Key VdGS Abstractions

i–iv [Blank; paginated flyleaves]At least one gathering before p. 1[Six-Part Viol Consorts]

1–3 ‘Fantazy:∙ A 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {87}4–7 ‘Fantazy:∙ A∙6’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {88}8–9 ‘Aire. A∙6’ ‘Wjllawes’ C {89}

10–13 ‘Fantazy:∙ A∙6’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {85}14–16 ‘Pauen:∙ A∙6’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {84}17–18 ‘Aire:∙ a 6’ ‘Wjllawes’ g {86}

One leaf after p. 1819–20 ‘Aire∙ A.6’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {91}

One leaf after p. 2021 ‘Aire∙ A∙6’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {92}

22–5 ‘Fantazy ∙ A∙6’a ‘Wjllawes’ F {90}At least 2 leaves after p. 22At least 2 leaves after p. 24

26–9 ‘Fantazy A∙6’ ‘Wjllawes’ F {93}[Harp Consorts]

30 [Aire] ‘Wjllawes’ G {187}31–4 ‘Fantazy:∙ For the Harpe Violin Base

Violl and theorbo’‘Wjllawes’ d {191}

35–8 ‘Pauen’ / ‘DiVisyon Uppon the Pauen’

‘Wjllawes’ G {188}

39–43 ‘Pauen’ / ‘Diuisions on the Pauen / for Violin and Base Violl’

‘Wjllawes’ D {189}

44–7 ‘Pauen’ / ‘Deuision on this Pauen / for the Violin and Base Violl’

– g {190}

[Royall Consort (‘new’ version)]48 ‘Aire’ – D 6/{37}b

49 ‘Corant’ – D 6/{39}50–3 ‘Fantazy’ / ‘For 2 Violins 2 Base

Violls and 2 theorboes’‘Wjllawes’ d 1/{1}

a Some passages were revised in half time values: note-heads are filled in, beams added, and minim rests changed to crotchet rests.

b For ease of reference, in the Royall Consort pieces the VdGS number is preceded by the modern sett/suite number (as in LawesRC).

LAWES.indb 306 19/03/2010 10:58


Page Piece / Title Signature Key VdGS Abstractions

54 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 1/{2}55 ‘Alman’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 1/{3}56 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 1/{4}57 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 1/{5}58 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 1/{6}

59–60 ‘Ecco’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 1/{7}61–2 ‘Ecco’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 6/{40}63–5 ‘Pauen’ / ‘For Two Violins, 2 Base

Violls / and 2 theorboes’‘Wjllawes’ d 2/{8}

65–6 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 2/{9}66–7 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 2/{10}67–8 ‘Aire’ [Corant] ‘Wjllawes’ d 2/{11}

69–70 ‘Corant ‘Wjllawes’ d 2/{12}70–1 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 2/{13}71–2 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 3/{15}

73 ‘Aire’ – d 3/{16}74–5 ‘Corant’ – d 3/{17}

75 ‘Corant’ [continued on p. 78] d 3/{18}76 ‘Alman’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 3/{19}77 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 3/{20}78 [Corant; continued from p. 75] ‘Wjllawes’ d

At least 2 leaves after p. 7879 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 3/{21}

80–1 ‘Pauen’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 4/{22}82 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 4/{23}

83–4 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 4/{24}84–5 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 4/{25}86–7 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 4/{26}

87 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 4/{27}88–9 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 5/{29}

89–90 ‘Aire’ – D 5/{30}90–1 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 5/{31}91–2 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 5/{32}92–3 ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 5/{33}93–4 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 5/{34}

94 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 5/{35}95 ‘Alman’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 6/{38}

96–9 ‘Fantazy’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 6/{36}99 ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wjllawes’ d 2/{14}

100 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ D 6/{41}At least 3 leaves after p. 100101–2 [Blank; paginated flyleaves]

LAWES.indb 307 19/03/2010 10:58


london, british library, add. ms 31432Description

Repaired. iii + i + 71 + iii. Foliated twice in modern pencil: (1) now crossed out: fols 1r–70r (ruled pages only; fol. 65r is repeated); (2) fols 1r–49r (begins on original flyleaf; used pages only). As the second foliation only covers the used pages, the original foliation has been favoured to allow the fullest description. Contemporary numeration of songs 1–20 (not Lawes), no. 12 is the middle of no. 11 (‘When Each Lynes a faithfull drinker’). No music entered on fols 5v–22r, 63v–[71]r, nor on any flyleaves. No obvious signs of abstractions due to tightness of the binding.

Additional ScribesHand F: fols 1v–5r, Jenkins elegy, c. 1645

Hand G: fol. [71]v (INV.), ?Jenkins bass viol pieces, ?c. 1650

InscriptionsInside cover: bookplate of William Gostling with ‘Triphook 1809 £3.3.0’ in ink; book-plate of Julian Marshall.

(First non-original flyleaf, recto) fol. i: ink stamp ‘purchased of / julian marshall, esq. / 10 july, 1880; 20 march, / 9 april, 1881’ .

Original flyleaf, recto (fol. 1r of second foliation): ‘Musick / Lawes’ (later hand; modern pencil); poem, ‘Sweetest Cloris lend a kisse’ (Lawes):1

Sweetest Cloris lend a kissethe more you spare the lesse you missewere it two, were it three were it tenthey may bee ouer done a genAnd when breathlesse you Can noe Moreyou Mai be sure of all my storelearne betimes liuing loues Misterieweall finde out still varietyetis Ignorance that makes you Coyto fly from what youd faine injoyT[-----] fares are fast as that wee maygiue [----------------] fly[--] a way2

Tis Louers food, tis bewtyes Charmescales up our loue and keeps it warmeConsider too that youth might wastHast Cloris and redeeme whats pastLoose noe tyme, in your prime for when you’r oldMen Neglect and loue grows ColdBest Apetites are soonest starudand such is myne if not preserud.Kisse, tis bewtyes food affections CharmScales up our loue and keeps it warme

1 Modernized text in ES1600–75, vol. 12, 224. 2 Some of this crossed-out text is difficult to decipher.

LAWES.indb 308 19/03/2010 10:58


Original flyleaf, verso:

(1) ‘Richard Gibbon his booke / giuen to him [originally ‘his’ but amended] by Mr Wil-liam / Lawes all of his owne pricking / and composeing’; (2) ‘Giuen to me J R by his widdow Mris Gibbon’ / ‘J R:’; (3) ‘a b c d e’; (4) ‘Borrowed of Alderman Fidge / by me Jo. Sargenson’; (5) ‘x35/x{40: Leaus in this book to spare; / to prick outt; L ://:}’ .

Format and DimensionsUpright folio: c. 336 × 225 (paper); c. 342 × 233 (covers)

WatermarksRuled pages: Peacock 4

Flyleaves: Pot I/1

RastrologyRuled margins on both sides. A 12; B 4; C 89.5; D 12.5(13)12(13.5)12.5(13.5)12.5

CollationDifficult to determine due to the tightness of the binding. Coloured edges.

BindingRepaired c. 1959. Brown calf leather, blind and gold tooling. Coat of arms (SRA VII) enclosed within rectangular gold tooling and corner decorations, bordered on both sides by two lines of blind tooling. Gold tooling (no corner decorations), bordered by blind tooling at outer edges.

Provenance3

Gibbon’s widow gave it to ‘J. R. ’ , after whom it belonged to Thomas Fidge. Fidge was born in Canterbury in January 1637/8.4 Willetts notes that he was appointed an Alderman of Canterbury in 1662, and was mayor for a year in 1671. The manuscript was ‘Borrowed of Alderman Fidge by me Jo. Sargenson’; John Sargenson (1639–84) was a minor canon of Canterbury from c. 1663. Rev. William Gostling (1696–1773) owned the manuscript in the eighteenth century. Gostling was also a minor canon of Canterbury and a son of John Gostling (1650–1733), the famous bass singer; he also owned Henry Lawes’s autograph songbook (GB-Lbl, Add. MS 53723).5 The London-based antiquarian bookseller Robert Triphook (1782–1868) purchased it in 1809. MS 31432 was subsequently part of the library of the bibliophile, publisher and music scholar (and husband of the composer Louise Farrenc, née Jeanne-Louise Dumont) Aristide Farrenc (1794–1865), sold in 1866. The British Museum acquired it with the Julian Marshall collection in 1881.

3 The notes on the flyleaf and the bookplate on the inside front cover give a detailed record of the manuscript’s provenance. The following account is largely based on that in Willetts,

‘Gibbon(s)?’ , 3–5. See also A. Hughes-Hughes, Catalogue of Manuscript Music in the British Museum, vol. 2 (1908), 473.

4 www.familysearch.org (accessed 3 March 2009). 5 See I. Spink, Henry Lawes: Cavalier Songwriter (Oxford, 2000), 9. For Gostling, see R. Ford,

‘Minor Canons at Canterbury Cathedral: The Gostlings and their Colleagues’ (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1984).

LAWES.indb 309 19/03/2010 10:58


InventoryMuch of the information in this table is collated from J. Cutts, ‘British Museum Addi-tional MS. 31432 William Lawes’s Writing for the Theatre and the Court’, The Library, 5th series, 7 (1952), 225–34; Crum, ‘Notes on the Texts of 31432’; M. Lefowitz, ‘Lawes, William’, New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 29 vols, ed. S. Sadie (1980), x. 558–66; WoodMfP; D. Pinto, ‘Lawes, William’, GMO. For additional concordances (texts and music) concordances, see Pinto, ‘Lawes’, GMO; LawesCVM1–2.

Fols No. Piece / Title Poet / Text source Setting Signature* / Composer

Suggested dates†

[i] [Unfoliated flyleaf][i recto] ‘Sweetest Cloris lend a kisse’ [Anon.] Text only –[i verso] [See Inscriptions]

1r ‘Sarabd’ LV ‘W: Lawes’1r ‘Corant’ LV ‘Wjllawes’1v ‘Tis Joy to see’ [Anon.] 3vv canona ‘Wjllawes’1v ‘Sarabd’ LV ‘W L ’

2r–5r ‘An Elegiack on the sad Losse of … M.r William Lawes … by Mr Jenkins’b

[Jenkins?] 2vv + Bc, 3vv

Chorus

[Jenkins] 1645?

5v–22r [Unused folios]22v–23v 1 ‘A hall a hall’ / ‘Whats at our

tongues End’d[J. Suckling, The Tragedy of Brennoralt]e

3vv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ 1639–41

23v–24r 2 ‘Now in the Sad declenshion’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’24v 3 ‘Virgins as I aduise forbeare’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’25r 4 ‘Dos’t see how vnregarded

Now’ f[Suckling]g v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

25v 5 ‘If you a Wrinkle on the Sea haue seane’

[Anon.] [v + Bc]h –

26r 6 ‘Aske Me noe More wher Joue bestowes’

[T. Carew]i v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ c. 1639

a ‘A∙3∙ -Canon- in the Unison and 5th belowe’ .b Printed in Choice Psalmes.d ‘Whats at our tongues End’ is part of Suckling’s poem. Lawes added this section (v + Bc; in

a different ink) after the final barline and over his signature; it should come before the line ‘Then it unlocks the breast’ .

e WoodMfP, 56.f Text (written first) is in different ink to the music and signature, the ink of which is consistent

to the end of fol. 27r.g Fragmenta Aurea (1646).h Complete text is laid out, but there are only notes for the first line or so.i Poems (1640).

LAWES.indb 310 19/03/2010 10:58



Suggested dates†

26v 7 ‘O thinke not Phoebe’ [J. Shirley]j v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ c. 1639?27r 8 ‘Upp Ladyes up’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

27v–29r 9 ‘Dialogue’ / ‘When death shall snatch us’

[A. Marvell]k 2vv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

29v 10 ‘Faith be noe longer Coy’ [Anon.]l v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’30r–30v 11–12‘When Each Lynes a faithfull

drinker’m[Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

31r 13 ‘Cupids wearie of the Court’ [W. D’Avenant?, The Platonick Lovers?]n

v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ 1635?

31v–32r 14 ‘It tis hir voice’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’32r 15 ‘Wher did you borrow that

last sigh’[W. Berkeley, The Lost Lady]o

v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ 1637–8

32v 16 ‘Why should great bewty’ [D’Avenant] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’33r 17 ‘Come take a Carouse’ [Anon.] v + Bc, 3vv

Chorus‘Wjllawes’

33v–34r 18 ‘what Hoe. Wee Come to be merry’

[J. Ford, The Lady’s Trial]p

3vv ‘Wjllawes’ 1638

34r 19 ‘Pleasures, Bewty, loue youth attend yee’

[The Lady’s Trial] v + Bc ‘W. L. ’ 1638

34v–35r 20 ‘Whieles I this standing Lake’ [W. Cartwright]q v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’35v–36r ‘Dialogue’ / ‘What Softer

sounds are these’[B. Jonson, Entertainment at Welbeck]r

2vv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ 1633

36v–37r ‘A Health, … a health to the Northerne lasse’

[Suckling, The Goblins]s

2vv + Bc, 3vv

Chorus

‘Wjllawes’ c. 1637–41

37r ‘To whome shall I Complaine’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

j Poems (1646); Carew, Poems (1640). Text plagiarized in S. Pick, Festum Voluptatis (1639).k Miscellaneous Poems (1681).l Wit’s Interpreter (1655).m ‘and ye full’ at the bottom of fol. 30r is in a different hand.n See J. Cutts, ‘Drexel Manuscript 4041’ , Musica Disciplina 18 (1964), 151–201, esp. 170; not

listed in WoodMfP.o Performed by the King’s Men, at the Blackfriars and at court, before 7 February 1638: Wood-

MfP, 47, 56.p Licensed 3 May: WoodMfP, 56.q Comedies, Tragi-Comedies, with Other Poems (1651), where the preface states that the ‘Ayres

and Songs [were] set by Mr Henry Laws, Servant to His late Majesty in his Publick and Private Musick’ . This could refer to a different setting, or (as suggested in Cutts, ‘31432’ , 231) that the printers duplicated the information from the 1651 edition of Cartwright’s plays.

r Given before the King on 21 May 1633, hosted by William Cavendish: WoodMfP, 54.s Performed by the King’s Men at the Blackfriars in 1638: WoodMfP, 45–6, 55.

LAWES.indb 311 19/03/2010 10:58



Suggested dates†

37v–38v ‘The Catts as Other Creatures’ [Anon.] 3vv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’39r ‘Had you but herd her Sing’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

39v–40r ‘Far Well faire Saint’ [T. Cary]t v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’40r ‘O draw your Curtaines’ [D’Avenant, Love

and Honour]u[v + Bc]v – 1634

40v ‘Loues a Child’ [H. Glapthorne, Argalus and Parthenia]w

v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ c. 1632–8

41r ‘Amphiluce:∙ in a Maske’ / ‘In Envye of the night’

[Shirley, The Triumph of Peace]x

v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ c. 1634?

41v–42r ‘Dialogue’ / ‘Come heauy hart’ [Anon.] 2vv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’42v–43r ‘Dialogue’ / ‘Tis Not Boy. thy

Amorous Looke’[Anon.] 2vv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

43v–44r ‘Erly in the Morne’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’44r ‘Thou that Excellest’y [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’44v ‘Perfect and Endles Circles

Are’[Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

45r ‘Can Bewtyes spring Admitt’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’45v ‘Tell me noe More her eyes’ [H. Moody]z v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’a

46r ‘God of winds’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’46v ‘I would the God of loue

would dye’[Shirley]b v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

47r ‘Ah. Cruell Loue must I endure’

[R. Herrick]c v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

47v ‘Persuasions Not to loue’ / ‘He that will not loue’

[Herrick] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

48r ‘To the Dewes’ / ‘I Burne, I burne’


t In R. Fanshawe, Il pastor fido (1647).u LawesCVM1, xiv.v Text only, no music; cf. fol. 54r below.w Performed by Beeston’s Boys at court, and at the Cockpit, Drury Lane: WoodMfP, 41, 55. Text

also printed in Glapthorne’s Poems (1639).x This may be a later setting as there are some textual differences; see Cutts, ‘31432’ , 232. No

setting in B.2.y Block text in different ink.z Wit’s Interpreter (1655). Lawes gives the text for 10 more stanzas; stanzas 3, 4, 7 and 8 are

crossed out (one of which is numbered ‘1’) and the remaining six numbered 2–7.a Similar to ‘short L’ signature; here ‘L’ curves back up towards the ‘awes’ .b Poems (1646).c The Herrick poems were all later printed in Hesperides (1648).

LAWES.indb 312 19/03/2010 10:58



Suggested dates†

48v ‘On the Lillyes’ / ‘White though yee be’


48v–49r ‘Gather ye Rosebuds’d [Herrick] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’49r ‘To the Secāmour’ / ‘Ime sick

of loue’[Herrick] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

49v–50v ‘Dialogue’ / ‘Charon O Gentle Charon’

[Herrick] 2vv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

51r ‘Louers rejoice’ [F. Beaumont & J. Fletcher, Cupid’s Revenge]e

v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ 1637

51r ‘That flame is borne of Earthly fire’

[Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

51v–52r ‘Beliza shade your shining eyes’


52v ‘Deerest all faire’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’53r ‘Be not proud’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’53v ‘Loue I obey’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’54r ‘O drawe your Curtaynes’ [Love and

Honour] fv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ 1637

54v–55v ‘Trialogue’ / ‘Orpheus, O Orpheus, gently touch thy Lesbyan lyre’

[Anon.] 3vv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

56r ‘O loue, are all those Arrowes gone’


56v–57r ‘Yee Feinds and Furies’ [D’Avenant, The Unfortunate Lovers]g

v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ 1638

57v–58r ‘On. On Compassion shall neuer Enter here’

[Anon.] v + Bc, 3vv Chorus

‘Wjllawes’

58r ‘Hence flattring hopes’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’58v–59r ‘Dialogue’ / ‘Come my

Daphnee’[Shirley, The Cardinal]h

2vv + Bc ‘Wjllawes’ 1641

59v–60r ‘Stay Phoebus Stay’ [E. Waller]i v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’60r–60v ‘Cloris, I Wish that Envye

were as Just’[Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

d Added after the other two songs, the setting runs across the bottom of the two pages.e Originally performed in 1611 by the King’s Revels (Cutts, ‘31432’ , 233); revived by Beeston’s

Boys on 7 February 1636/7 (WoodMfP, 43, 55); Cutts gives the date of the revival as 1639.f Performed by the King’s Men at the Blackfriars; WoodMfP, 47, 55 gives the date as 1 January

1636/7; Cutts, ‘31432’ , 233, gives 1634.g Licensed 16 April (WoodMfP, 49, 56).h Licensed 25 November (WoodMfP, 41–2, 57).i Poems (1645).

LAWES.indb 313 19/03/2010 10:58



Suggested dates†

61r–61v ‘Doris, See the Amorous flame’


61v–62v ‘Those Louers only Hapye are’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’62v–63r ‘Amarilis Teare thy haire’ [Anon.] v + Bc ‘Wjllawes’

63v–[71]r [Unused: fol. 65r is repeated on fol. 66r; thus, fol. 70r is actually fol. 71r][Reversed end; folio is INV.: mid-17th century additions for bass viol? in staff notation]j

[71]v [Aire] [BV?] [Jenkins?] c. 1650?[Aire] [BV?] [Jenkins?] c. 1650?[Aire] [BV?] [Jenkins?] c. 1650?[Aire] [BV?] [Jenkins?] c. 1650?[Aire] [BV?] [Jenkins?] c. 1650?

* Signatures in bold indicate the ‘short L’ form; those underlined indicate the ‘running’ form.† The dates refer to suggested compositional dates, largely based on correlation with collateral

evidence from literary or dramatic sources. In the case of plays, the dates refer to first performances as given in WoodMfP, 51–7; as Julia Wood notes, we do not have documentary evidence of all performances of these plays, and cannot assume to connect a Lawes setting with a specific performance. Indeed, it is possible that some of the settings may have no connection to the theatre.

j Willetts noted the suggestion by the late Dr Helen Sleeper that they may be by Jenkins: Willetts, ‘Gibbon(s)?’ , 12.

LAWES.indb 314 19/03/2010 10:58


cambridge, ma, harvard university, houghton library ms mus. 70

Descriptionii + Vellum + iii + 27 + i + Vellum + ii. The leaves within the vellum covers are foliated in modern pencil, fols 1r–30r (front inner-flyleaves foliated, but not rear inner-flyleaf, which would be fol. 31r). Partial contemporary numeration (Hand H): 1–8 (fols 4v–7r), 1–11 (fols 11v–16v; fols 13v and 14r mistakenly numbered as separate pieces). No music entered on: outer-flyleaves, fols 1r–3v (blank), 4r, 7v–11r, 20v–30v, [31r] (blank).

Additional ScribeHand H: fols 4v–7r

InscriptionsInside front cover: bookplate: ‘Robert Trollap (of Yorke and / Newcastle, Free-Mason) his / Booke, 1657’ . Under this is written in pencil [Cummings] ‘Binding for Charles I / 24 m. ’ . Below this is the Harvard College Library bookplate of William Inglis Morse, cura-tor of Canadian History and Literature.

Outer flyleaf 1, recto: note in pencil [Cummings], ‘Ancient Binding / with arms of Charles Ist on each cover / (Charles beheaded 1649)’ .

Outer flyleaf 2 (between calf and vellum covers): note in modern pencil, ‘Harvard Col-lege Library / gift of / William Inglis Morse / April 7. 1950’ .

Outside vellum cover [Cummings]: ‘Ancient Music / Mss. ’; [Lawes:] ‘Three Lyra Vialls’; [Cummings:] ‘Autograph Music / by / William Lawes’ .

Inside front vellum cover [Cummings]: ‘Pieces for the Lyra-viol / composed by William Lawes / in his Autograph. ’; ‘William Lawes. gentleman of the Chapel / Royal – took up arms during the Civil wars / in espousing the Royalist side and was / Killed at the siege of Chester 1645. / Charles 1st was so much affected at the / death of Lawes that he “put on / particular mourning.” ’ 1

Flyleaf 1, inside vellum covers (fol. 1r) [Cummings]: ‘“Upon m. William Lawes, The rare Musitian” / Sho’d I not put on blacks, when each one here / Comes with his cypresse, and devotes a teare? / Sho’d I not grieve, my Lawes, when every lute, / Violl, and voice is, by thy losse, strucke mute? / Thy loss, brave man! Whose numbers have been hurl’d, / And no less prais’d then spread throughout the world: / Some have call’d thee call’d Amphion; some of us / Nam’d thee Terpander, or sweet Orpheus; / Some this, some that, but all in this agree, / Musique had both her birth and death with thee. / Robert Herrick’ .

1 Cummings was confusing Lawes with an elder namesake and member of the Chapel Royal from 1603 to 1611 (see LefkowitzWL, 1–2 n. 1; also A. Ashbee, ‘Lawes, William (?1553–1624)’ , BDECM, ii. 709–10); he is quoting Thomas Fuller at the end of the passage: FullerW (‘Wilt-shire’), 157. This page is badly pasted, there are many air bubbles and creases. One large crease runs from the top left corner down through Cummings’s biographical note. Some of the letter ‘a’ in ‘William’ goes under the crease and is partially cut off by it, suggesting that the page was pasted after Cummings made his notes. A patch of discolouration suggests that another bookplate may be (or have been) between the vellum cover and the pasted leaf. (The flyleaf was also pasted on to the back vellum cover. Again, there are many creases and air bubbles.)

LAWES.indb 315 19/03/2010 10:58


Fol. 31r (rear flyleaf): ‘Rathe’[?].

Format and DimensionsUpright folio: c. 296 × 183 (pages); c. 303 × 194 (covers)

WatermarksFront inner flyleaves: Pillars II/1

Rear inner flyleaf: Pot I/2 (5 lobes)

Ruled pages: Pot I/3 (7 lobes), Pot I/2 (5 lobes)

Pot I/2 is found between fols 9r–16v and on a rear flyleaf (fol. 31v); Pot I/3 is found in the rest of the manuscript (ruled pages). Fols 9r–14v were ruled with a different rastrum to that used for the rest of the manuscript.

RastrologyA 8 (six-line staves), B 4. Ruled margins on either side; inner margin is approximately 21 mm. Inconsistent outer margins, vary between c. 20 mm (fols 4r–8v, 15r–30v) and c. 3 mm (fols 9r–14v).

Rastrum 1 (fols 4r–8v, 15r–30v): C 113, D 16(16)15.5(17)16(17)15.5

Rastrum 2 (fols 9r–14v): C 111 D 16(15)16(16)15.5(16)16.5

CollationDifficult to determine due to the tightness of the binding.

BindingOriginal limp vellum binding preserved within contemporary reversed calf covers, blind and gold tooling; SRA VII (cf. D.229 and MS 31432).

ProvenanceRobert Trollop owned Mus. 70 by 1657; thence until the early twentieth century, its where-abouts are unknown. Mus. 70 is likely to be the Lawes autograph reputed to be among the Nanki collection in Japan. In 1970, Lefowitz claimed that ‘At least fifteen books of William Lawes’s autographs are known to have survived .… the last is reported to be in the Nanki Library in Tokyo’ .2 (The Nanki Library was founded in 1917 by Yorisada Tokugawa (1892–1954), and is mainly comprised of some 400 volumes purchased at the sale of Cummings’s library.) The Lefowitz reference appears to be the ‘Pieces for the lyra-viol [in the autograph of the composer]’ listed in the Nanki Library Cummings cata-logue of 1925.3 This is presumably the Lawes manuscript advertised in the Cummings sale catalogue (lot 982): ‘Lawes (Wm.) Pieces for the Lyra-Viol, manuscript, in the autograph of the composer, rough calf, with the arms of Charles I on the sides, old vellum

2 LawesSCM, xvii. Lefowitz did not specify the manuscripts; he counted individual partbooks (which would give a total of fourteen) and then included the Nanki MS (although this now appears to be Mus. 70). For the Nanki collection, see H. McLean, ‘Blow and Purcell in Japan’ , MT 104 (1963), 702–5; O. Albracht, rev. S. Roe, ‘Collections (private): Japan’ , GMO (accessed 2 March 2009).

3 Catalogue of the W. H. Cummings Collection in the Nanki Music Library (Tokyo, 1925), 7.

LAWES.indb 316 19/03/2010 10:58


covers bound in folio’; the catalogue also describes to the Trollap bookplate.4 According to the annotated copy of the sale catalogue in the Library of Congress, Washington, DC, the manuscript was purchased by ‘Canning’ who appears to have been responsible for purchasing most of the items listed in the 1925 Nanki catalogue. Whether Mus. 70 was erroneously included in the catalogue or whether it subsequently passed out of the col-lection is unclear. Indeed, the 1925 catalogue may have been partly compiled from the sale catalogue, without first-hand examination of the collection, leading to the errone-ous inclusion of Mus. 70.5 Some time after the Cummings sale the Vienna-born rare book dealer Herbert Reichner, who lived in New York and Massachusetts, purchased the manuscript.6 William Inglis Morse (1874–1952) presented it to the Houghton Library in 1950.7

Inventory[See table on following page.]

4 Catalogue of the Famous Musical Library of Books, Manuscripts, Autograph Letters, Musical Scores, etc. the property of the late W. H. Cummings (Sotheby’s, 17–24 May 1917), 93. I am grateful to Susan Clermont, Senior Music Specialist (Music Division), Library of Congress (Washington, DC) for providing me with a copy of the annotated sale catalogue (US-Wc, ML 138.C9 (Case)).

5 No reference is made to the manuscript in Nanki Ongaku Bunko Tokubetsu KōKai (Tokyo, 1967), or in Catalogue of Rare Books and Notes: the Ohki Collection, Nanki Music Library (Tokyo, 1970).

6 See Music Manuscripts at Harvard, ed. Wolff, 96; I have been unable to trace Reichner’s owner ship of the manuscript.

7 A note in pencil on the inside flyleaf reads ‘Harvard College Library gift of William Inglis Morse April 7. 1950’ .

LAWES.indb 317 19/03/2010 10:58


Inventory

Fols* No. Title Composer Key Tuning VdGS

[Hand H]1r–3v [Blank flyleaves, including Cummings annotations]

4r [Unused]4v 1a [Corant] [Anon.] D fhfhf {555}4v 2 [Alman] [Anon.] d fhfhf {556}5r 3 [Aire] [Anon.] D fhfhf {557}5r 4 [Alman] [Anon.] d fhfhf {558}5v 5 [Alman] [Anon.] d fhfhf {559}6r 6 ‘The Trumpet’ [Anon.] D fhfhf {560}6v 7 ‘Fubeters Ayre’ [Anon.] g fhfhf {561}7r 8 ‘corant’ [Anon.] G fhfhf {562}

7v–11r [Unused][Autograph portion 1]

11v 1 ‘Pauen’ ‘Willawes’ d fhfhf {563}†

12r 2 ‘Alman’ ‘W Lawes’ d fhfhf {564}†

12v 3 ‘Corant’ ‘Willawes’ d fhfhf {565}13r 4 ‘Alman’ ‘Willawes’ d fhfhf {566}

13v–14r 5, 6 ‘Fancy’ ‘Willawes’ G fhfhf {567}†

14v 7 ‘Humour’ ‘Willawes’ G fhfhf {568}†

15r 8 ‘Sarabd’ [Lawes] D fhfhf {569}†

15v 9 ‘Alman’ ‘Willawes’ B b fhfhf {570}16r 10 ‘Corant’ [Lawes] B b fhfhf {571}16v 11 ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ g fhfhf {572}

[Autograph portion 2]17r ‘Corant’ ‘Wjllawes’ G defhf {443}‡

17v ‘Pauen’ ‘Wjllawes’ G defhf {441}‡

18r ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ G defhf {448}‡

18v ‘Sarabd’ ‘Wllawes’ G defhf {444}‡

18v–19r ‘Pauen’ ‘Wjllawes’ d fedfh {521}‡

19v ‘Aire’ ‘Wjllawes’ d fedfh {522}19v ‘Toy’ ‘Wjllawes’ d fedfh {523}20r ‘Thump’ ‘Wjllawes’ d fedfh {527}‡

20v–30v [Unused]31r–31v [Blank flyleaf]

* Foliation applies only within the vellum covers.

† Concordances with GB-Och, Mus. MSS 725–7.‡ Concordances with GB-HAdolmetsch, MS II.B.3.

a Also numbered ‘13’ by Hand H, in the same ink as the revisions: seems to relate to the time signature.

LAWES.indb 318 19/03/2010 10:58

appendix 2

Index of Watermarks

This index is designed for use with IMCCM, the standard reference text for watermarks in English music manuscripts.1 Watermark types are those given

in IMCCM. The specific numbering of individual marks (Arabic numerals) relates only to this study (and not to the numberings in IMCCM);2 pairs are indicated by the letters ‘a’ and ‘b’ . For example, ‘Pot I/1/b’ indicates that the mark is: of the IMCCM ‘Pot I’ type; here catalogued as no. 1 of that type (with no chronological implications); the second of an identified pair. Heawood nos. refer to E. Heawood, Watermarks, mainly of the 17th and 18th Centuries (Hilversum, 1950).

watermark measurement keysall measuring profiles are taken from IMCCM, vols 1 and 2

arms of austria and burgundy 3A width of main shield between upper cornersP distance from upper corner to chain line, eagle sideQ distance from upper corner to chain line, tower sideX distance from lower corner to chain line, eagle sideY distance from lower corner to chain line, tower side

arms of france and navarre i 4A overall height of markB, C distances from left and right extremities of quatrefoil at top to next chain

line outwards:D, E height and width of shield bearing fleurs-de-lysF, G height and width of cross at bottom of markH, J distances from left and right extremities of cross at bottom of mark to next

chain lines outwards

1 IMCCM gives an excellent bibliography for the study of watermarks etc.; ThompsonEMM is essential reading for this topic.

2 This system has been adopted from IMCCM but is not intended to collate with it except in identifying overall types of marks: e.g. except for broad similarities, ‘Pot I/1/a’ here has no relationship to the mark of the same name given in IMCCM1, 298.

3 See IMCCM2, 295–7. 4 See IMCCM1, 258–60.

LAWES.indb 319 19/03/2010 10:58


circles5

a overall heightB overall width of mark (all circles are approximately equal)C, D distances between left- and right-hand extremities of circle and adjacent

chain lines

grapes6

A number of rows of circlesB maximum number of circles in one rowC, D height and width of the ‘grapes’ pattern, excluding the stemE, F distances between left- and right-hand extremities of the ‘grapes’ pattern

and the adjacent chain lines

peacock7

A, B width and height of circleC, D distances between left- and right-hand extremities of circle and adjacent

chain line

pillars ii8

A number of rows of circles in ‘grapes’ patternB maximum number of circles in one rowC, D height and width of the ‘grapes’ patternE, F height of left and right pillarsG, H distances between the left and right pillars and the adjacent chain lines;

taken from the outer edge of the main part of the pillar at its closest point to the chain line. Obviously distorted sections are disregarded

pot i9

A overall height of markB, C maximum external and internal width of crescentD, E distances between outermost left- and right-hand points on crescent and

adjacent chain linesF maximum width of pot bodyG, H distances between outermost left- and right-hand point of the pot body

and the adjacent chain linesJ height of base of pot along imaginary centre-line

5 Not included in IMCCM; for illustration of the general type of watermark, see Heawood 317. I am grateful to Robert Thompson for his advice on this watermark.

6 IMCCM1, 284–5. 7 IMCCM1, 290–1. 8 IMCCM1, 294–5. 9 IMCCM1, 297–304.

LAWES.indb 320 19/03/2010 10:58

appendix 2: index of watermarks 321

ruled papers

Watermark MS Measurements from folios/

pages

Chains Measurements Lettering Comments

Basilisk 17798 30/30/29/29 below

Obscured by position

France and Navarre I/1/a

40658 fol. 30r/ii 22.5/24 along horizontal centre-line of cross

A: 91.5; B: 4; C: 12; D: 18; E: 29; F: 10.5; G: 10.5; H: 3.5; J: 10

DP

France and Navarre I/1/b

40658 fol. 44r/iii 24/24 along horizontal centre-line of cross

A: 92 (along mid-line); B: 14; C: 1; D: 16; E: 28; F: 9.5; G: 10; H: 10; J: 4

DP ‘Left-hand chain passes through left-hand decoration. Centre chain runs just left of centre of right-hand shield; quatrefoil and cross entirely to left of chain line’ (IMCCM1, 260)

Grapes 1/a B.2–3 B.3, p. 7 37/38 below A: 10; B: 7; C: 37; D: 30; E: +2; F: 8

AR Mark intersects with chain line on left side – and hangs over it by approx. 2 mm

Grapes 1/b B.2–3 B.2, p. 17 36 above A: 10; B: 7; C: 38; D: 31; E: 2; F: 2.5

AR

Peacock 1/a D.238–40 D.238, fol. 64r

28/29 above Obscured by position; circle between chain line

Peacock 1/b D.238–40 D.239, fol. 20r

27/28 above Obscured by position; circle intersects with chain lines

Peacock 2/a D.229 fol. 46r 26.5/28 above A: 54; B: 53; C: 0; D: 0

Peacock 2/b D.229 fol. 43r 28/27 above A: 52; B: 53; C: 2; D: 2

Peacock 3 17798 fol. 4r 28/28 below A: 51; B: not possible; C: 2; D: 1

Peacock 4/a 31432 fol. 10r 28.5/28 below A: 52; B: 53; C: 2; D: 1

Fol. 65r is given twice; here silently amended to fol. 66r (applies to following folios also).

LAWES.indb 321 19/03/2010 10:58



pages


Peacock 4/b 31432 fol. 12r 27/28 below A: 54; B: 52.5; C: 0; D: 0

Pot I/2/a Mus. 70 fol. 9v 21/20/21.5 above

A: 69 B: 9 C: 4 D: 5 E: 6 F: 18.5 G: 0 H: 1 J: 9

ET over

O

Pot I/2/b Mus. 70 fol. 15v 23.5/20/21.5 above

A: 66 B: 11 C: 6 D: 5 E: 3 F: 16 G: 4 H: 0 J: 10

PO(?)

(7-lobe)† Pot I/3/a

Mus. 70 fol. 29v 20/21/20 above

A: 71 B: 10 C: 5 D: 6 E: 5 F: 17 G: 3.5 H: 0 J: 7

PO Pot base distorted: leans left to right; variance of approx. 1 mm at extremities

(7-lobe)† Pot I/3/b

Mus. 70 fol. 28v 21/21/19 below

A: 71 B: 10 C: 5 D: 7.5 E: 3 F: 18 G: 3 H: –1 [i.e. goes over c-l; 19 to next c-l] J: 10

PO‡ Pot base distorted; leans left to right

† The watermark has seven rather than the usual five lobes; measurements are as for Pot I.‡ The PO is surmounting a short straight line (going towards the imaginary middle of the base

(the line and the PO are separated by a horizontal line).

LAWES.indb 322 19/03/2010 10:58

appendix 2: index of watermarks 323

flyleaf papers


pages


Arms of Austria and Burgundy

B.2–3 B.2, p. iii 28/27/25 above

A: 61; P: 3; Q: 14; X: 3; Y: 13.5

Arms of France and Navarre I/2

D.229 fol. 1r 20/18.5/19 above

A: 79; B, C: n/a; D: 19; E: 13; F: 13; G: 12.5; H: 2.5; J: 3

AR

Circles 17798 fol. ([i verso] (bottom);

fol. [ii recto] (top))

26/25.5 above A: 85; B: 24; C: 14; D: 14.5

CC(?) Middle of mark obscured. See Heawood 266 for an example of the type of watermark.

Grapes 2 [surmounted by crown with Fleur-de-lys]

D.238–40 Fleur-de-lys: D.240, fol. 1r, 2r (top only); D.239, fol. 1r.

Grapes: D.238, fol. 92v

Incomplete; obscured by position.

Pillars II/1 Mus. 70 fol. 3v 21.5/19.5/18.5 above

A: 5† B: 4 C: 16 D: 14 E: 31.5 F: 30 G: 8‡ H: 4‡

ML(?) IVL(?)

Distorted on right side

Pot I/1 31432 Original flyleaf, verso side

20/19.5/20 above

A: 67; B: 11; C: 6; D: 6.5; E: 2.5; F: 16; G: 3; H: 1; J: 9.5

Slight distortion on right side of pot body

Pot I/2/a Mus. 70 fol. 31v 21/20/21.5 above

A: 69 B: 9 C: 4 D: 5 E: 6 F: 18.5 G: 0 H: 1 J: 9

ET over

O

Also found on ruled fols 9v, 10v, 11v

† Grapes pattern is not symmetrical, no rows of two or one circles at the bottom.‡ Disregarding circles outside pillars.

LAWES.indb 323 19/03/2010 10:58

BibliographyPlace of publication is London, unless otherwise stated.

❧ Books and ArticlesAndrewes, R., ‘Hidden Treasure in Gloucester?’ , VdGS Bulletin 28 (January 1968),

13–14Ashbee, A. ‘Instrumental Music from the Library of John Browne (1608–1691),

Clerk of the Parliaments’ , ML 58 (1977), 43–59 —— ‘John Jenkins, 1592–1678, and the Lyra Viol’ , MT 119 (1978), 840–3 —— (ed.), Records of English Court Music, 9 vols (Aldershot, 1986–96) —— The Harmonious Musick of John Jenkins, vol. 1: The Fantasias for Viols

(Surbiton, 1992) —— ‘Jenkins’s Fantasias for Viols’ , in A Viola da Gamba Miscellany: Proceedings

of the International Viola da Gamba Symposium Utrecht 1991, ed. J. Boer and G. van Oorschot (Utrecht, 1994), 41–54

—— and P. Holman (eds), John Jenkins and His Time: Studies in English Consort Music (Oxford, 1996)

—— and D. Lasocki, assisted by P. Holman and F. Kisby, A Biographical Dictionary of English Court Musicians, 1485–1714, 2 vols. (Aldershot, 1998)

—— (ed.), William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work (Aldershot, 1998)

—— ‘William Lawes and the “Lutes, Viols and Voices” ’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 1–10

—— R. Thompson and J. Wainwright (compilers), The Viola da Gamba Society Index of Manuscripts Containing Consort Music, 2 vols (Aldershot, 2001, 2008)

—— ‘Manuscripts of Consort Music in London, c. 1600–1625: Some Observations’ , VdGSJ 1 (2007), 1–19

—— The Harmonious Musick of John Jenkins, vol. 2: Suites, Airs and Vocal Music (forthcoming)

Aubrey, J., John Aubrey on Education, ed. J. E. Stephens (1972)Austern, L., Music in English Children’s Drama of the Later Renaissance

(Philadelphia, 1992)Aylmer, G. The State’s Servants: The Civil Service of the English Republic, 1649–1660

(1973) —— The King’s Servants: The Civil Service of Charles I, 1625–1642 (2/1974)Bacon, F., Sylva Sylvarum (1627)

LAWES.indb 324 19/03/2010 10:58

bibliography 325

Baldwin, D., The Chapel Royal, Ancient and Modern (1990)Billinge, M., and B. Shaljean, ‘The Dalway or Fitzgerald Harp (1621)’ , EM 15

(1987), 175–87Blacker, C. V. R., and D. Pinto, ‘Desperately Seeking William: Portraits of the

Lawes Brothers in Context’ , EM 37 (2009), 157–74Bray, R. (ed.), Music in Britain: The Sixteenth Century (Oxford, 1995)Buch, D., ‘On the Authorship of William Lawes’s Suite for Two Lutes’ , JLSA 16

(1983), 12–14Burch, C. E. C., Minstrels and Players in Southampton, 1428–1635 (Southampton,

1969)Burney, C., A General History of Music (1776–89), ed. F. Mercer (1935; r/1957)Butler, C., The Principles of Musick (1636)Butler, M., The Stuart Court Masque and Political Culture (Cambridge, 2008)Butt, J., ‘Towards a Genealogy of the Keyboard Concerto’ , in The Keyboard in

Baroque Europe, ed. C. Hogwood (Cambridge, 2003), 93–110Carew, T., Poems (1640)Cartwright, W., Comedies, Tragi-Comedies, with Other Poems (1651)Catalogue of Rare Books and Notes: The Ohki Collection, Nanki Music Library

(Tokyo, 1970)Catalogue of the Famous Musical Library of Books, Manuscripts, Autograph Letters,

Musical Scores, etc. the property of the late W. H. Cummings (Sotheby’s, 17–24 May 1917)

Catalogue of the W. H. Cummings Collection in the Nanki Music Library (Tokyo, 1925)

Charteris, R., ‘Jacobean Musicians at Hatfield House, 1605–1613’ , RMARC 12 (1974), 115–36

—— ‘The Huntingdon Library Part Books, Ellesmere MSS EL 25a 46–51’ , HLQ 50 (1987), 59–84

—— ‘A Rediscovered Manuscript Source with Some Previously Unknown Works by John Jenkins, William Lawes and Benjamin Rogers’ , Chelys 22 (1993), 3–29

Clark, J. B., ‘A Re-emerged Seventeenth-Century Organ Accompaniment Book’ , ML 47 (1966), 149–52

Collins, F. (ed.), Register of the Freemen of the City of York from the City Records, II: 1559–1759 (Durham, 1900)

Conner, T., ‘The Groundbreaking Treatise of Christopher Simpson’ , JVdGSA 36 (1999), 5–39

Coover, J. (ed.), Music at Auction: Puttick and Simpson (of London), 1794–1971 (Warren, MI, 1988)

Coprario, J., Giovanni Coperario: Rules How to Compose (c. 1610), facsimile ed. M. Bukofzer (Los Angeles, 1952)

LAWES.indb 325 19/03/2010 10:58


Coral, L., ‘A John Playford Advertisement’ , RMARC 5 (1965), 1–12 —— ‘Music in English Auction Sales, 1676–1750’ (PhD diss., University of

London, 1974)Coward, B., The Stuart Age: England, 1603–1714 (3/2003)Crum, M., ‘Notes on the Texts of William Lawes’s Songs in B. M. MS. Add. 31432’ ,

The Library, 5th series, 9 (1954), 122–7 —— ‘Early Lists of the Oxford Music School Collection’ , ML 48 (1967), 23–34 —— ‘The Consort Music from Kirtling, Bought for the Oxford Music School

from Anthony Wood, 1667’ , Chelys 4 (1972), 3–10 —— The Oxford Music School Collection at the Bodleian Library, Oxford: A Guide

and Index to the Harvester Microfilm Collection (Brighton, 1979)Cuddy, N., ‘The Revival of the Entourage: The Bedchamber of James 1, 1603–1625’ ,

in The English Court, from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War, ed. D. Starkey (1987), 173–225

—— ‘Reinventing a Monarchy: The Changing Structure and Political Function of the Stuart Court, 1603–88’ , in The Stuart Courts, ed. E. Cruickshanks (Stroud, 2000), 59–85

Cunningham, J., ‘A Tale of Two Harps: Issues Arising from Recordings of William Lawes’s Harp Consorts’ , Early Music Performer 21 (2007), 13–24

—— ‘Music for the Privy Chamber: Studies in the Consort Music of William Lawes (1602–45)’ (PhD diss., University of Leeds, 2007)

—— ‘ “Let Them be Lusty, Smart-Speaking Viols”: William Lawes and the Lyra Viol Trio’ , JVdGSA 43 (2006; published 2008), 32–68

—— ‘Review: William Lawes: The Harp Consorts, ed. J. Achtman, et al. ’ , VdGSJ 2 (2008), 84–98

—— ‘ “Some Consorts of Instruments are sweeter than others”: Further Light on the Harp of William Lawes’s Harp Consorts’ , GSJ 61 (2008), 147–76

—— ‘ “Irish harpers are excellent, and their solemn music is much liked of strangers”: The Irish Harp in Non-Irish Contexts in the Seventeenth Century’ , in Music, Ireland and the Seventeenth Century, ed. B. Boydell and K. Houston, IMS 10 (Dublin, 2009), 62–80

—— ‘Lyra Viol Ecclesiastica: A Neglected Manuscript Source in Archbishop Marsh’s Library, Dublin’ , VdGSJ 3 (2009), 1–54 (available at http://www.vdgs.org.uk/files/VdGSJournal/Vol-03-1.pdf)

—— ‘A Meeting of Amateur and Professional: Playford’s “Compendious Collection” of Two-Part Airs, Court-Ayres (1655)’ , in Concepts of Creativity in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. R. Herissone (forthcoming)

Cutts, J., ‘British Museum Additional MS. 31432 William Lawes’s Writing for the Theatre and the Court’ , The Library, 5th series, 7 (1952), 225–34

—— ‘Drexel Manuscript 4041’ , Musica Disciplina 18 (1964), 151–201

LAWES.indb 326 19/03/2010 10:58

bibliography 327

Cyr, M., ‘Ornamentation in English Lyra Viol Music’ , Part I, JVdGSA 34 (1997), 48–66, and Part II, JVdGSA, 35 (1998), 16–34

Dart, T., ‘Jacobean Consort Music’ , PRMA 81 (1954–5), 63–75Davenport, M., ‘The Dances and Aires of William Lawes (1602–1645): Context

and Style’ (PhD diss., University of Colorado, 2001)Dawson, G., and L. Kennedy-Skipton, Elizabethan Handwriting, 1500–1650 (New

York, 1966)Dodd, G., ‘William Lawes: Royall Consort Suite No. 9 in F’ , Chelys 6 (1975–6),

4–9 —— ‘Alfonso Ferrabosco II – The Art of the Fantasy’ , Chelys 7 (1977), 47–53 —— (compiler), Viola da Gamba Society of Great Britain: Thematic Index of Music

for Viols, with revisions and additions by A. Ashbee (2/2004)Donnington, R., ‘James Talbot’s Manuscript (Christ Church Library Music

MS 1187), Part II: Bowed Strings’ , GSJ 3 (1950), 27–45Eighteenth Century Collections Online (www.galenet.galengroup.com)Erlebach, R., ‘William Lawes and His String Music’ , PRMA 59 (1932–3), 103–19Field, C. D. S., ‘The English Consort Suite of the Seventeenth Century’ (PhD diss.,

New College, Oxford, 1970) —— ‘Review: Coprario: Fantasia-Suites, ed. R. Charteris’ , ML 66 (1985), 65–7 —— ‘Consort Music I: Up to 1660’ , in Music in Britain: The Seventeenth Century,

ed. I. Spink (Oxford, 1992), 197–244 —— ‘Jenkins and the Cosmography of Harmony’ , in John Jenkins and His Time:

Studies in English Consort Music, ed. A. Ashbee and P. Holman (Oxford, 1996), 1–74

—— ‘Rehabilitating William Lawes’ , EM 25 (1997), 149–52 —— ‘Formality and Rhetoric in English Fantasia-Suites’ , in William Lawes

(1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 197–249

—— ‘Stephen Bing’s Copies of Coprario Fantasia-Suites’ , EM 27 (1999), 311–17 —— ‘The Composer’s Workshop: Revisions in the Consort Music of Alfonso

Ferrabosco the Younger’ , Chelys 27 (1999), 1–39Finet, J., Finetti Philoxenis: Som Choice Observations of Sr. John Finett (1656)Foot, M., ‘Some Bindings for Charles I’ , in Studies in Seventeenth-Century English

Literature, History and Bibliography: Festschrift for Professor T. A. Birrell on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. G. A. M. Janssens and F. G. A. M. Aarts (Amsterdam, 1984), 95–106

Ford, R., ‘The Filmer Manuscripts: A Handlist’ , Notes 34 (1978), 814–25 —— ‘Osborn 515: A Guardbook of Restoration Instrumental Music’ , FAM 30

(1983), 174–83 —— ‘Minor Canons at Canterbury Cathedral: The Gostlings and their Colleagues’

(PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1984)

LAWES.indb 327 19/03/2010 10:58


Fortune, N., with I. Fenlon, ‘Music Manuscripts of John Browne (1608–91), and from Stanford Hall, Leicestershire’ , in Source Materials and the Interpretation of Music: A Memorial Volume to Thurston Dart, ed. I. Bent (1981), 155–68

Freeman-Attwood, J., ‘Baroque Distractions: 17th-Century English Instrumental Music is of a Quality We Have Yet to Appreciate’ , MT 133 (1992), 174–8

Fuller, T., A History of the Worthies of England (1662/r); ed. P. Nuttall (1840/r)Fulton, C. A., ‘For the Harpe, Base Violl, Violin and Theorbo: The Consorts of

William Lawes (1602–1645)’ , AHJ 10 (1985), 15–20Furnas, P., ‘The Manchester Gamba Book: A Primary Source of Ornaments for the

Lyra Viol’ (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1978)Grove Music Online, ed. L. Macy (www.grovemusic.com)Harris, C., ‘The Viol Lyra-Way’ , Chelys 4 (1972), 17–21Hawkins, J., A General History of the Science and Practice of Music, 2 vols (1776;

r/1853 and 1963)Heawood, E., Watermarks, Mainly of the 17th and 18th Centuries (Hilversum,

1950)Herissone, R., ‘ “Fowle Originalls” and “Fayre Writeing”: Reconsidering Purcell’s

Compositional Process’ , Journal of Musicology 23 (2006), 569–619 —— ‘To fill, forbear, or adorne’: The Organ Accompaniment of Restoration Sacred

Music (Aldershot, 2006)Herrick, R., Hesperides (1648)Holman, P., ‘The Harp in Stuart England: New Light on William Lawes’s Harp

Consorts’ , EM 15 (1987), 188–203 —— ‘Music for the Stage I: Before the Civil War’ , in Music in Britain:

The Seventeenth Century, ed. I. Spink (Oxford, 1992), 282–305 —— Henry Purcell (Oxford, 1994) —— Four and Twenty Fiddlers: The Violin at the English Court, 1540–1690 (Oxford,

2/1995) —— ‘ “Evenly, Softly, and Sweetly Acchording to All”: The Organ Accompaniment

of English Consort Music’ , in John Jenkins and His Time: Studies in English Consort Music, ed. A. Ashbee and P. Holman (Oxford, 1996), 353–82

—— ‘Review: P. Walls, Music in the English Courtly Masque, 1604–1640’ , EMH 16 (1997), 328–35

—— Dowland: Lachrimae (1604), Cambridge Music Handbooks (Cambridge, 1999)

—— Life after Death: The Viola da Gamba in Britain from Purcell to Dolmetsch (forthcoming)

Houck, S., ‘John Playford and the English Musical Market’ , in ‘Noyses, sounds, and sweet aires’: Music in Early Modern England, ed. J. A. Owens (Washington, DC, 2006), 48–61

LAWES.indb 328 19/03/2010 10:58

bibliography 329

Hughes-Hughes, A., Catalogue of Manuscript Music in the British Museum, 3 vols (1906–9; r/1964–6)

Hulse, L., ‘The Musical Patronage of Robert Cecil, First Earl of Salisbury (1563–1612)’ , JRMA 116 (1991), 24–40

Johnson, J. T., ‘The English Fantasia-Suite, c. 1620–1660’ (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1971)

Jonson, B., Ben Jonson, ed. C. H. Herford and P. and E. Simpson, 11 vols (Oxford, 1925–62)

Jorgens, E. (ed.), English Song, 1600–1675: Facsimiles of Twenty-Six Manuscripts and an Edition of the Texts, 12 vols (1986–9)

Krummel, D. W., English Music Printing, 1553–1700 (1975)Lasocki, D., ‘Professional Recorder Players in England, 1540–1740’ (PhD diss.,

University of Iowa, 1983) —— ‘The Recorder Consort at the English Court, 1540–1673’ , The American

Recorder 25 (1984), 91–100, 131–5Lefowitz, M., ‘New Facts concerning William Lawes and the Caroline Masque’ ,

ML 40 (1959), 324–33 —— William Lawes (1960) —— ‘The Longleat Papers of Bulstrode Whitelocke: New Light on Shirley’s

“Triumph of Peace” ’ , JAMS 18 (1965), 42–60 —— ‘Lawes, William’ , New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. S. Sadie

(1980), x. 558–66Literature, Music and Art: The Annotated Sale Catalogues of Puttick and Simpson,

1846–1870, Parts 1–4 [microfilm series] (Reading, 1989–90)Loomie, A. (ed.), The Ceremonies of Charles I: The Note Books of John Finnet,

1628–1641 (New York, 1987)Love, H., The Culture and Commerce of Texts: Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-

Century England (Oxford, 1993)Mace, T., Musick’s Monument (1676)Marvell, A., Miscellaneous Poems (1681)McLean, H., ‘Blow and Purcell in Japan’ , MT 53 (1963), 702–5Munby, L. M., How Much is that Worth? (Salisbury, 2/1996)Nanki Ongaku Bunko Tokubetsu KōKai (Tokyo, 1967)Neighbour, O., The Consort and Keyboard Music of William Byrd (Berkeley, CA,

1978)Nixon, S., ‘The Sources of Musical Settings of Thomas Carew’s Poetry’ , RES 49

(1998), 424–60Nordstrom, L., ‘The English Lute Duet and Consort Lesson’ , LSJ 18 (1976), 5–22North, R., Roger North on Music, ed. J. Wilson (1959)Otterstedt, A., Die englische Lyra-Viol: Instrument und Technik (Kassel, 1989)

LAWES.indb 329 19/03/2010 10:58


—— ‘Lawes’s Division Viol: Pedigree of an Instrument’ , trans. H. Reiners in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 307–39

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, The, ed. L. Goldman (www.oxforddnb.com)

Oxford English Dictionary, The (Oxford, 2/1989)Owens, J. A., Composers at Work: The Craft of Musical Composition, 1450–1600

(Oxford, 1997)Philipps, G. A., ‘Crown Musical Patronage from Elizabeth to Charles I’ , ML 58

(1977), 29–42Pick, S., Festum Voluptatis (1639)Pinto, D., ‘William Lawes’ Consort Suites for the Viols, and the Autograph

Sources’ , Chelys 4 (1972), 11–16 —— ‘William Lawes’ Music for Viol Consort’ , EM 6 (1978), 12–24 —— ‘The Fantasy Manner: The Seventeenth-Century Context’ , Chelys 10 (1981),

17–28 —— ‘William Lawes at the Siege of York, 1644’ , MT 127 (1986), 579–83 —— ‘The Music of the Hattons’ , RMARC 23 (1990), 79–108 —— ‘Thomas Tomkins and a Copyist Associated with Him’ , ML 72 (1991), 517–18 —— ‘Music at Court: Remarks on the Performance of William Lawes’ Works for

Viols’ , in A Viola da Gamba Miscellany: Proceedings of the International Viola da Gamba Symposium Utrecht 1991, ed. J. Boer and G. van Oorschot (Utrecht, 1994), 27–40

—— ‘Review: John Jenkins, Lyra Consorts, ed. F. Traficante’ , ML 75 (1994), 129–31 —— For ye Violls: The Consort and Dance Music of William Lawes (Richmond,

1995) —— ‘New Lamps for Old: The Versions of the Royall Consort’ , in William Lawes

(1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 251–82

—— ‘The True Christmas: Carols at the Court of Charles I’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 97–120

—— ‘Pious Pleasures in Early Stuart London’ , RMARC 41 (2008), 1–24Playford, H., ‘A Curious Collection of Musick-Books …’ (1690), GB-Lbl, Harl.

5936, nos. 419–20Poulton, D., John Dowland (2/1982)Richards, J., ‘A Study of Music for Bass Viol Written in England in the

Seventeenth Century’ (BLitt diss., University of Oxford, 1961)Rimbault, E. (ed.), The Old Cheque-Book or Book of Remembrance of the Chapel

Royal from 1561 to 1744 (1872; r/1966)

LAWES.indb 330 19/03/2010 10:58

bibliography 331

Rimmer, J., ‘James Talbot’s Manuscript (Christ Church Library Music MS 1187): VI. Harps’ , GSJ 16 (1963), 63–72

—— ‘The Morphology of the Irish Harp’ , GSJ 17 (1964), 39–49Ring, L., ‘A Preliminary Enquiry into the Continuo Parts of William Lawes for

Organ, Harp and Theorbo’ (MA diss., University of Nottingham, 1972) —— ‘The Harp for Lawes’ , EM 15 (1987), 589–90 —— ‘Wednesday, 24 September, 1645 – The Death of William Lawes during the

Battle of Rowton Heath at the Siege of Chester’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 155–74

Robinson, A., ‘ “Choice Psalmes”: A Brother’s Memorial’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 175–98

Robson, T., ‘The Irish Harp in Art Music, c. 1550–c. 1650’ (PhD diss., Durham University, 1997)

Sabol, A., ‘New Documents on Shirley’s Masque “The Triumph of Peace” ’ , ML 47 (1966), 10–26

Sacks, D., The Alphabet (2003)Salmon, T., A Proposal to Perform Musick in Perfect Mathematical Proportions

(1688)Sawyer, J., ‘Music for Two and Three Lyra-Viols’ , JCAUSM 1 (1971), 71–96 —— ‘An Anthology of Lyra Viol Music in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Manuscripts

Music School d. 245–7’ (PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1972)Sayce, L., ‘Continuo Lutes in 17th and 18th-Century England’ , EM 23 (1995),

667–84.Shackleton, R., Fine Bindings 1500–1700 from Oxford Libraries (Oxford, 1968)Sharpe, K., ‘The Image of Virtue: The Court and Household of Charles I,

1625–42’ , in The English Court, from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War, ed. D. Starkey (1987), 226–60

Shaw, W., The Succession of Organists of the Chapel Royal and the Cathedrals of England and Wales from c. 1538 (Oxford, 1991)

Shay, R., and R. Thompson, Purcell Manuscripts: The Principal Musical Sources (Cambridge, 2000)

Shirley, J., Poems (1646) —— The Triumph of Beauty (1646)Slack, P., The Impact of Plague in Tudor and Stuart England (1985; r/Oxford,

1990)Slaughter, T. (ed.), Ideology and Politics on the Eve of Restoration: Newcastle’s

Advice to Charles II (Philadelphia, 1984)Smith, W. C., ‘Playford: Some Hitherto Unnoticed Catalogues of Early Music’ ,

MT 67 (1926), 636–39, 701–4

LAWES.indb 331 19/03/2010 10:58


Smuts, M., Court Culture and the Origins of a Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart England (Philadelphia, 1987; r/1999)

Spink, I., ‘Correspondence: William Lawes’ , ML 41 (1960), 304–5 —— ‘The Musicians of Queen Henrietta-Maria: Some Notes and References in

the English State Papers’ , AcM 36 (1964), 177–82 —— (ed.), Music in Britain: The Seventeenth Century (Oxford, 1992) —— ‘Review: D. Pinto, For the Violls’ , ML 79 (1998), 108–9 —— Henry Lawes: Cavalier Songwriter (Oxford, 2000)Spring, M., ‘The Lady Margaret Wemyss Manuscript’ , LSJ 27 (1987), 5–30 —— The Lute in Britain: A History of the Instrument and its Music (Oxford, 2001)Starkey, D. (ed.), The English Court, From the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War

(1987)Stephens, J. (ed.), Aubrey on Education: A Hitherto Unpublished Manuscript by

the Author of Brief Lives (1972)Stolzfus, I., ‘The Lyra Viol in Consort: An Example from Uppsala,

Universitetsbiblioteket Imhs 4:3’ , JVdGSA 17 (1980), 47–59Strong, R., Henry, Prince of Wales and England’s Lost Renaissance (1986)Suckling, J., Fragmenta Aurea (1646)Tarling, J., The Weapons of Rhetoric: A Guide for Musicians and Audiences

(St Albans, 2004)Thompson, R., ‘English Music Manuscripts and the Fine Paper Trade, 1648–1688’

(PhD diss., King’s College, London, 1988) —— ‘Paper in English Music Manuscripts: 1620–1645’ , in William Lawes (1602–

1645): Essays on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 143–54

Thurley, S., Whitehall Palace: An Architectural History of the Royal Apartments, 1240–1698 (1999)

—— Hampton Court: A Social and Architectural History (2003)Traficante, F., ‘The Mansell Lyra Viol Tablature’ (PhD diss., University of

Pittsburgh, 1965) —— ‘Music for the Lyra Viol: The Printed Sources’ , LSJ 8 (1966), 7–24 —— ‘The Manchester Lyra Viol Tablature: Further Information’ , JVdGSA 3 (1966),

52–5 —— ‘Lyra Viol Tunings: “All Ways have been Tryed to do It” ’ , AcM 42 (1970),

183–205, 256 —— ‘Music for Lyra Viol: Manuscript Sources’ , Chelys 8 (1978–9), 4–22 —— ‘Lyra Viol Music? A Semantic Puzzle’ , in John Jenkins and His Time: Studies

in English Consort Music, ed. A. Ashbee and P. Holman (Oxford, 1996), 325–51

LAWES.indb 332 19/03/2010 10:58

bibliography 333

Wainwright, J., ‘The Christ Church Viol-Consort Manuscripts Reconsidered: Christ Church, Oxford, Music Manuscripts 2, 397–408, and 436; 417–418 and 1080; and 432 and 612–613’ , in John Jenkins and His Time: Studies in English Consort Music, ed. A. Ashbee and P. Holman (Oxford, 1996), 189–242

—— Musical Patronage in Seventeenth-Century England: Christopher, First Baron Hatton (1605–1670) (Aldershot, 1997)

—— ‘The King’s Music’ , in The Royal Image: Representations of Charles I, ed. T. Corns (Cambridge, 1999), 162–75

Waller, E., Poems (1645)Walls, P., ‘New Light on Songs by William Lawes and John Wilson’ , ML 57 (1976),

55–64 —— ‘London, 1603–49’ , in The Early Baroque Era, From the Late 16th Century to

the 1660s, ed. C. Price (1993), 270–304 —— Music in the English Courtly Masque, 1604–1640 (Oxford, 1996)Willetts, P., ‘Sir Nicholas Le Strange and John Jenkins’ , ML 42 (1961), 30–43 —— ‘Autograph Music by John Jenkins’ , ML 48 (1967), 124–6 —— ‘John Barnard’s Collections of Viol and Vocal Music’ , Chelys 20 (1991), 28–42 —— ‘Who was Richard Gibbon(s)?’ , Chelys 31 (2003), 3–17Wilson, C. (ed.), A New Way of Making Fowre Parts in Counterpoint by Thomas

Campion and Rules how to Compose by Giovanni Coprario (Aldershot, 2003)Wilson, M., Nicholas Lanier: Master of the King’s Musick (Aldershot, 1994)Winternitz, E., Musical Instruments and their Symbolism in Western Art (1967)Wolff, B. (ed.), Music Manuscripts at Harvard (Cambridge, MA, 1992)Wood, J., ‘William Lawes’s Music for Plays’ , in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays

on his Life, Times and Work, ed. A. Ashbee (Aldershot, 1998), 11–68Woodfill, W., Musicians in English Society from Elizabeth to Charles I (Princeton,

NJ, 1953; r/1969)

❧ MusicBanister, J., and T. Low (eds), New Ayres and Dialogues (1678)Brade, W., Newe ausserlesene Paduanen (Hamburg, 1609); Pavans, Galliards, and

Canzonas, ed. B. Thomas (1982)Butler, H., Collected Works, ed. E. Philips, RRMBE 66 (Madison, WI, 1991)Coleman, C., The Six-Part Fantasias for Viol Consort, ed. J. Jeffrey, PRBVCS 46

(Albany, CA, 2003)

LAWES.indb 333 19/03/2010 10:58


Coprario, J., Fantasia-Suites, ed. R. Charteris, MB 46 (1980) —— Twelve Fantasias for Two Bass Viols and Organ and Eleven Pieces for Three

Lyra Viols, ed. R. Charteris, RRMBE 41 (Madison, WI, 1982) —— The Two-, Three-, and Four-Part Consort Music, ed. R. Charteris (1993)Dowland, J., Collected Lute Music, ed. D. Poulton and B. Lam (3/1981)East, M., The Seventh Set of Bookes (1638)Ferrabosco, A. [II], Lessons for 1. 2. and. 3 viols (1609) —— Four-Part Fantasias for Viols, ed. A. Ashbee and B. Bellingham, MB 62 (1992) —— Consort Music of Five and Six Parts, ed. C. D. S. Field and D. Pinto, MB 81

(2003)Fitzwilliam Virginal Book, ed. J. A. Fuller Maitland and W. Barclay Squire (1899),

corrected and revised by Blanche Winogron, 2 vols (New York, 2/1979)Ford, T., Musicke of Sundrie Kindes (1607); facsimile ed. D. Greer, ELS 21

(Menston, 1971) —— Lyra Viol Duets, ed. O. Timofeyev, RRMBE 90 (Madison, WI, 1998)Gamble, J., Ayres and Dialogues (1659)Hilton, J., Catch that Catch Can (1652)Hume, T., The First Part of Ayres (1605); facsimile ed. F. Traficante, ELS 25

(Menston, 1969) —— Captaine Hume’s Poeticall Musicke (1607); facsimile ed. F. Traficante, ELS 25

(Menston, 1969)Ives, S., The Four-Part Dances (GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 18940–4), ed. P. Holman and

J. Cunningham (Launton, 2008)Jacobean Consort Music, ed. T. Dart and W. Coates, MB 9 (2/1971)Jenkins, J., Consort Music of Four Parts, ed. A. Ashbee, MB 26 (1969; r/1975) —— Six Airs and Divisions For Two Bass Viols and Keyboard, ed. D. Beecher and

B. Gillingham (Ottowa, 1979) —— The Lyra Viol Consorts, ed. F. Traficante, RRMBE 67–8 (Madison, WI, 1992) —— Seven Fancy-Air Division Suites for Two Trebles, Bass and Organ,

ed. R. Warner, rev. A. Ashbee (1993) —— Fantasia-Suites: I, ed. A. Ashbee, MB 78 (2001) —— Fantasia-Suites: II, ed. A. Ashbee, MB 90 (forthcoming)Lawes, H., Choice Psalmes (1648) —— Second Book of Ayres and Dialogues (1655)Lawes, W., Four-Part Aire, ed. G. Dodd, VdGS Supplement 5 (1964; r/2003) —— Pavan and Two Aires a4 in G Minor, ed. L. Ring (1964) —— Select Consort Music, ed. M. Lefowitz, MB 21 (2/1971) —— Consort Sets in Five & Six Parts, ed. D. Pinto (1979)

LAWES.indb 334 19/03/2010 10:58

bibliography 335

—— Suite no. 1 in C minor and Suite no. 2 in C major For Two Treble and Two Bass Viols, ed. R. Taruskin (Ottawa, 1983)

—— Fantasia-Suites, ed. D. Pinto, MB 60 (1991) —— The Royall Consort (‘Old’ and ‘New’ Versions), 3 vols, ed. D. Pinto (1995) —— Collected Vocal Music, 4 vols, ed. G. Callon, RRMBE 120–3 (Madison, WI,

2002) —— The Three-Part Consorts, ed. M. Davenport (Boulder, CO, 2002) —— Lessons for Three Lyra Viols, ed. R. Carter and J. Valencia (Kritzendorf, 2006) —— The Harp Consorts, ed. J. Achtman, et al., PRBVCS 62 (Albany, CA, 2007)Locke, M., Chamber Music I, II, ed. M. Tilmouth, MB 31, 32 (1971–2)Lupo, T., The Four-Part Consort Music, ed. R. Charteris and J. Jennings (Clifden,

1983) —— The Six-Part Consort Music, ed. R. Charteris (1993; r/1999) —— The Five-Part Consort Music, 2 vols, ed. R. Charteris (1997–8)Mesangeau, R., Œuvres, ed. A. Souris (Paris, 1971)Morley, T., The First Book of Consort Lessons, ed. S. Beck (New York, 1959)Music for Elizabethan Lutes, ed. J. Ward (Oxford, 1992)Music for Mixed Consort, ed. W. Edwards, MB 40 (1977)Peerson, M., Mottects or Grave Chamber Musique (1630) —— Private Musicke, or the First Booke of Ayres and Dialogues (1620);

ed. R. Rastall, Antico Edition AB4 (Newton Abbot, 2008) —— Fantasias & Almaines for Six Viols, ed. V. Brookes, PRBVCS 39 (Albany, CA,

c. 2000)Playford, J., A Musicall Banquet (1651) —— Musicks Recreation on the Lyra Viol (1652) —— Court-Ayres (1655) —— Musicks Recreation on the Viol, Lyra-Way (1661) —— Courtly Masquing Ayres (1662) —— Musicks Handmaide (1663) —— A Brief Introduction to the Skill of Musick (1664–83) —— Musicks Recreation on the Viol, Lyra-Way (1669) —— Treasury of Musick (1669) —— Musicks Recreation on The Viol, Lyra-way (1682); facsimile ed. N. Dolmetsch

(1960)Puerl, P., Newe Padoan/Intrada. Däntz unnd Galliarda (Nuremberg, 1611)Schein, J., Banchetto musicale (Leipzig, 1617)

LAWES.indb 335 19/03/2010 10:58


Simpson, C., The Division-Violist (1659) —— A Compendium of Practical Musick (1667); ed. P. J. Lord (Oxford, 1970) —— A Compendium of Practical Musick in Five Parts (1678) —— The Little Consort, ed. I. Stoltzfus, 3 vols, PRBVCS 43 (Albany, CA, c. 2001–2)Simpson, T., Opus newer Paduanen (Hamburg, 1617); ed. H. Mönkemeyer,

Monumenta musicae ad usum practicum 7 (Celle, 1987) —— Taffel-Consort (Hamburg, 1621); ed. B. Thomas (1988)Taylor, R., Sacred Hymns (1615) —— Two Almaines for Three Lyra-Viols, ed. R. Carter and J. Valencia (Kritzendorf,

forthcoming)Ward, J., Consort Music of Five and Six Parts, ed. I. Payne, MB 67 (1995) —— Consort Music of Four Parts, ed. I. Payne, MB 83 (2005)Webster, M., Complete Consort Music, ed. P. Holman and J. Cunningham

(Launton, 2010)White, W., Six Fantasias in 6 Parts, ed. D. Beecher and B. Gillingham (Ottawa,

1982)Wilson, J., Cheerful Ayres (1660)

❧ DiscographyCDs, except where stated otherwise

A High-Priz’d Noise: Violin Music for Charles I, The Parley of Instruments, dir. P. Holman (Hyperion cda66806)

Celestial Witchcraft: The Private Music of Henry and Charles Princes of Wales, Fretwork, with M. Padmore and N. North (Virgin Veritas vc 5 45346 2)

Lawes, W., Consort Music for the Harpe, Bass Viol, Violin and Theorbo, C. A. Fulton, S. Richie, R. Weldon and R. Grossman (Focus Records 843. (LP))

—— Consorts in Four and Five Parts, Phantasm (Channel Classics ccs 15698) —— Consorts in Six Parts, Phantasm (Channel Classics ccs 17498) —— Consort Music for Viols, Lutes and Theorbos, Rose Consort of Viols, with

T. Roberts (organ), J. Heringman and D. Miller (lute and theorbo) (Naxos 8.550601)

—— and Purcell, H., Exquisite Consorts: Courtly Ensembles and Dramatic Music by William Lawes (1602–1645) and Henry Purcell (1659–1695), The Harp Consort, dir. A. Lawrence-King (Berlin Classics 001 1 552bc)

—— Fantasia-Suites for Two Violins, Bass Viol and Organ, London Baroque (Harmonia Mundi hma 1901423)

LAWES.indb 336 19/03/2010 10:58

discography 337

—— Fantasia-Suites for Two Violins, Bass Viol and Organ, The Purcell Quartet (Chandos Chaconne chan 0552)

—— Fantasia-Suites for Violin, Bass Viol and Organ, Music’s Re-creation (Centaur crc 2385)

—— For ye Violls: Consort Setts for 5 & 6 Viols and Organ, Fretwork, with P. Nicholson (organ) (Virgin Veritas vc 7 91187–2)

—— Harp Consorts, M. Eilander, Les Voix Humaines (Atma Classique acd2 2372) —— In Loving Memory: Psalms, Songs and Elegies, The Consort of Musicke, dir.

A. Rooley (Columns Classics 070972) —— Knock’d on the head: William Lawes, Music for Viols, Concordia, dir. M. Levy

(Metronome met cd 1045) —— and R. Johnson, Orpheus I Am, Tragicomedia (EMI Classics cdc 7 54311 2) —— Royall Consort Suites, Sonnerie, dir. M. Huggett (ASV Gaudeamus

cd gax 270 2) —— Suites pour une et trois lyra-violes, J. Dunford, S. Abramowicz, S. Moquet

(Adès 750 206502) —— The Passion of Musicke, Ricercar Consort, dir. P. Pierlot (Flora 1206) —— The Royal Consort and Lute Songs, R. Jacobs, S. Kuijken, E. Witsenburg.

G. Leonhardt (Sony Classical sbk 63179) —— The Royal Consort Suites, The Purcell Quartet, with N. North and P. O’Dette

(Chandos chan 0584/5)Pioneer Early Music Recordings: The Dolmetsch Family with Diana Poulton,

Volume 1, The Dolmetsch Family (Dolmetsch Foundation and Lute Society [c. 2005] lsdoL001)

LAWES.indb 337 19/03/2010 10:58

LAWES.indb 338 19/03/2010 10:58

Index of Lawes ’ s Works CitedWorks are primarily listed in the order suggested by their VdGS Index numbers.

❧ Royall Consort {1–67}Fantazia {1} 139–42 (Ex. 4.1), 143, 146–7,

242–3 (Ex. 7.8), 247Aire {10} 122 n.85, 133Corant {11} 133Corant {12} 133Saraband {13} 133Saraband {14} 138Corant {17} 133Corant {18} 167Corant {26} 133Saraband {27} 134 n.34Corant {28} 133Corant {33} 258

See also Bass Viol Duos Corant {107}Fantazy {36} 122 n.85, 138, 142–3, 146–7, 160,

242–3 (Ex. 7.8), 247Aire {37} 137, 138Alman {38} 137–8, 138

five-part version 63, 70Corant {39} 138 (2)Ecco {40} 138, 139Aire {41} 138 (2)Pavan {42} 146–7Saraband {48} 97 n.21Pavan {49} 143–5 (Ex. 4.2), 146 (2), 147, 233,

240, 248, 270Corant {57}, two-part versions 202 n.52Saraband {61}, two-part versions 202 n.52

❧ Miscellaneous pieces associated with early version of Royall Consort

Aire {70} See under Five-Part Viol ConsortsPavan {79} See under Five-Part Viol

ConsortsAire {80} See under Five-Part Viol ConsortsPavan {101} See under Bass Viol DuosAire {103} See under Bass Viol Duos Aire {264} 131Alman {320} 130, 133, 203–5Aire {321} 133Corant {322–3} 130Aire {337} 132 (2)Corant {338} 130Corant {339} 42, 44, 130, 131, 132 (2), 134,

254–5

❧ Five-Part Viol Consorts {68–83}Fantasia {68} 33, 40, 152, 157, 159, 160, 163–4,

166, 167, 169, 174Fantazia (‘On the Playnsong’) {69} 33, 40,

152, 157, 159, 160, 163–4, 166, 167, 174Aire {70} 163, 166, 167, 174

four-part version (early stage Royall Consort) 130, 132

Fantazia {71} 55, 160–3 (Ex. 5.4), 166, 167, 174Fantazia {72} 55, 160 (2), 166, 174, 245

(Ex. 7.10)Aire {73} 163, 166, 167, 174

arrangements of 95 n.18, 98Fantazia {74} 166, 174Aire {75} 166, 174

three-part version 133Pavan {76} 166, 174, 186 n.21Aire {77} 166, 174Fantazy {78} 166, 174Pavan {79} 166, 174, 203–5

four-part version (early stage Royall Consort) 130, 132–3

Aire {80} 166, 174four-part version (early stage Royall

Consort) 130, 132, 133Fantazy {81} 143, 166, 167, 171 n.61, 174Pavan {82} 166, 173, 174Aire {83} 166, 174

three-part version 133

❧ Six-Part Viol Consorts {84–100}Pavan {84} 166, 175Fantazia {85} 151, 153–5 (Ex. 5.2), 166, 173, 175Aire {86} 166, 175Fantazia {87} 166, 167 n.53, 175Fantazia {88} 166, 169, 175Aire {89} 166, 168–9, 171, 172, 175Fantazia {90} 166, 166 n.52, 169, 175Aire {91} 166, 169, 175Aire {92} 166, 169, 175Fantazia {93} 152–3 (Ex. 5.1), 166, 169, 173, 175Fantazia {94} 166, 168 (2), 171 n.61, 175Aire {95} 166, 169, 175In Nomine {96} 152, 166, 169, 171 n.61, 172–3

(Ex. 5.6), 175Fantazia {97} 50, 166, 167 n.53, 168 (2), 170,

175Fantazia {98} 50, 166, 168 (3), 171 n.61, 175In Nomine {99} 164, 166, 167, 171, 172, 175Aire {100} 167–8, 168

LAWES.indb 339 19/03/2010 10:58

the consort music of william lawes340❧ Bass Viol Duos {101–7}Pavan {101} 249, 253, 254–5, 257–8, 263–6

(Ex. 8.4)four-part version (early version Royall

Consort) 130, 131Aire {102} 249, 254–5, 264, 268Aire {103} 249, 254–6 (Ex. 8.1), 258

four-part version (early version Royall Consort) 130, 131, 132 (2), 255–6 (Ex. 8.1)

Pavan {104} 249, 253, 255–7, 264, 266–7 (Ex. 8.5)

See also Ferrabosco, Alfonso II, Pavan {2}Alman {105} 249, 253, 255–7, 266, 268–70

(Ex. 8.6)See also Ferrabosco, Alfonso II, Alman {1}

Aire {106} 249, 260–3 (Ex. 8.2–3), 268, 270–1Corant {107} 249, 258–9, 268, 270–1

See also Royall Consort Corant {33}

❧ Four-Part Viol Consorts {108–13}suites in C/c {108–13} 132, 159–60

Fantazia {108} 160–1 (Ex. 5.3)Aire {109} 132, 160Aire {110} 36 (2), 131–2, 160

❧ Fantasia-Suites {114–61}: One violin, {114–37}; Two violins, {138–61})

Fantazia {114} 179–80 (Ex. 6.1–2), 182, 190Fantazia {117} 181–2 (Ex. 6.3)Alman {118} 202–5 (Ex. 6.12)

two-part arrangement 202 n.51Fantazia {123} 206 n.58Fantazia {129} 186–8 (Ex. 6.6) Fantazia {135} 49, 59, 71, 115, 137, 140, 156, 164,

184, 186–8 (Ex. 6.6), 190–200 (Ex. 6.7–10), 202, 209 (2), 210, 211, 240, 248, 253, 270, 274

Fantazia {138} 181–3 (Ex. 6.4), 190Aire {140} 206 n.58Fantazia {141} 206 n.58Fantazia {144} 190–1 (Ex. 6.7), 202, 206–8

(Ex. 6.13), 209Fantazia {150} 210Fantazia {153} 183–5 (Ex. 6.5), 206 n.58Fantazia {156} 195, 209 n.61, 245 (Ex. 7.10)

❧ Harp Consorts {162–91}Alman HC1 {162} 214, 227Corant HC2 {163} 214, 228Corant HC3 {164} 214, 228Saraband HC4 {165} 214, 224, 228–9 (Ex. 7.2),

231Aire HC5 {166} 214, 224, 227Corant HC6 {167} 214Corant HC7 {168} 214Saraband HC8 {169} 214, 224Alman HC9 {170} 214Corant HC10 {171} 214Corant HC11 {172} 214Saraband HC12 {173} 214, 221, 224, 231Aire HC13 {174} 214Aire HC14 {175} 214Corant HC15 {176} 214, 228Saraband HC16 {177} 214, 224, 228–30

(Ex. 7.3)See also Vocal Music ‘O My Clarissa’

Alman HC17 {178} 214, 231 (2)Corant HC18 {179} 214Corant HC19 {180} 214Saraband HC20 {181} 214, 224, 231 (2), 233Alman HC21 {182} 214, 223, 224, 231–2

(Ex. 7.4), 268Alman HC22 {183} 214, 224, 231Corant HC23 {184} 214, 231Corant HC24 {185} 214, 231Saraband HC25 {186} 214, 224, 231Aire HC26 {187} 214, 223, 233 (2), 234, 247Pavan HC27 {188} 214, 233, 234–6 (Ex. 7.5)Pavan HC28 {189} 214, 227, 231, 233, 234, 236,

237–40 (Ex. 7.6), 268Pavan HC29 {190} 214, 227, 233, 234, 236, 237,

238–41 (Ex. 7.7) Fantazy HC30 {191} 160, 214, 233, 234, 240–7

(Ex. 7.9–11), 247, 248

❧ Two-Part ConsortsCorant {57} See under Royall ConsortSaraband {61} See under Royall ConsortAlman {118} See under Fantasia-SuitesAire {225} 219Pavan {324} 202 n.51Corant {325} 202 n.51Saraband {326} 202 n.51Aire {353} 219

LAWES.indb 340 19/03/2010 10:58

index of lawes’s works cited 341❧ Three-Part ConsortsAire {75} See under Five-Part Viol ConsortsAire {83} See under Five-Part Viol ConsortsAire {206} 33Aire {207} 36Aire {227} 41

❧ Four-Part ConsortsAire {306} 33, 132Aire {318} 132Aire {319} 132

❧ Miscellaneous Four-Part ConsortsCorant {399} 203–5Saraband {400} 203–5

❧ Lyra-Viol SolosGB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432 pieces 73–4, 95–7

(Ex. 3.1)Aire {73} See under Five-Part Viol ConsortsSymphony {343} 95 n.18Saraband {345} 95 n.18Alman (‘faire fidelia’/‘Elizium’) {346} 95 n.18,

98 (2)See also Vocal Music ‘Clorinda, when I go

away’Country Call {421} 97Jig {422} 97Alman {464} 97Corant {465} 97Saraband {466} 97Almain {511} 97–8Corant {512} 97Corant {513} 97Saraband {514} 97Corant {545} 98

❧ Lyra-Viol Duo (incomplete)Corant {541} 95 n.19

❧ Lyra-Viol TriosPavan {441} 121–2Corant {443} 121–2Saraband {444} 80, 121–2Aire {448} 121–2, 122–3 (Ex. 3.6) Fantazia {476} 198–9 (Ex. 6.11) Pavan {521} 121–2Toy {523} 86Thump {527} 86, 121–2Pavan {563} 112, 117, 118Alman {564} 80, 117 (Ex. 3.4), 118Fantazy {567} 108, 112, 115–17, 118Humour {568} 85, 108, 117, 118–19 (Ex. 3.5)Saraband {569} 117, 118Alman {570} 97 n.24Fantazy {573} 112, 115–16 (Ex. 3.3), 125, 200

❧ LuteLute duet suite 73–4, 82–4, 104–5, 106, 110,

164, 249, 271

❧ Vocal Music‘A Health, … a health to the Northerne lasse’

(Suckling) 66‘Cease warring thoughts’ (Shirley) 63–6‘Clorinda, when I go away’ (anon.) 98

See also Lyra-Viol, Solo Alman (‘faire fidelia’/‘Elizium’) {346}

‘Cloris, I Wish that Envye were as Just’ (anon.) 74

Elegy on the death of John Tomkins (‘Music, the master of thy art is dead’) 112, 164, 271

‘Goe bleeding hart’ (anon.) 64‘If you a Wrinkle’ (anon.) 73‘O draw your Curtaines’ (D’Avenant) 73‘O My Clarissa’ (anon.) 228

See also Harp Consorts Saraband HC16 {177}

‘Pleasures, Bewty, youth attend yee’ (Ford) 41Psalm 6 170Psalm 71 156 n.17, 164–5

‘Secresie protested’ (Carew) 64‘Some Drink, Boy’ (Suckling) 66‘Sweetest Cloris lend a kisse’ (anon.) 73‘Warrs ar our delight’ (anon.) 66

LAWES.indb 341 19/03/2010 10:58

General IndexReferences to pages with illustrations appear in bold.

Anne of Denmark, Queen 2musical performance in Bedchamber of

16, 216–17musicians of 6

Anonymous‘Consort For 2 Treble Viollins 2 Basses and 2

Theorboes’ 128Fantazia {9424} (lyra-viol trio) 198 n.36

Ashbee, Andrew 15, 99, 158, 184, 186, 197, 249, 251–2

Aubrey, John 91Auditor’s Debenture Books 29Aylmer, Gerald 22Ayrton, Professor William 295

Bacon, Francis 215, 217Bailes, Anthony 105 n.51Bales, Alfonso 5Ball, Richard 11Ballard, John 5Ballard, Pierre, Tablature de luth de different

autheurs 105Banister, John and Thomas Low, New Ayres

and Dialogues 163, 198, 218 n.27Banqueting House, the 15–16, 148Barley, William 106Barnard, John 112Bassano family 9, 21Bassano, Andrea 17bastarda 197, 252Bedchamber, the 2, 6–7, 16bindings and cover stamps 24, 47–8, 48, 58,

76, 86–7, 108, 280, 285, 290, 295, 297, 305, 309, 316

Bing, Stephen See under copyistsBlock, Francis 98 n.27, 218–19Brade, William 126Brewer, Thomas 130 n.25Britton, Thomas, sale catalogue of (1714) 91,

101Browne, John See under copyistsBull, John 32, 131Burdett, Angela 280Burdett, Sir Robert 280Burwood, John 17–18Butler, Henry 225Butler, Martin 21Byrd, William 106

Caccini, Giulio, Le nuove Musiche 140–1Callon, Gordon 60, 64 n.57, 65 n.60Carew, Thomas

Poems 64‘Secresie protested’ 64

Carleton, Sir Dudley 216Cawse, John 120, 121

Cecil, Robert 216Chapel Royal, the 2, 3, 10, 13, 14, 21, 58, 135,

315 n.1attendance on the king 14Children of 11–12

Charles I, Kingcharacter 1, 149households of 4–6, 6–7, 21–2, 99, 249Jenkins performing for 184musical tastes 1, 14, 148–9, 175–6, 178, 206,

273–4, 275pupil of Coprario 1stammer 184 n.18

Charles II, Kinghousehold of as Prince of Wales 156payments to musicians 22

Charteris, Richard 108, 203, 211citterns 98Cockpit-at-Court, the 15Cofferer of the Household, the 8Coleman, Charles 126–7, 129, 135, 151, 156–7,

219Confesse, Nicolas 60consort music, scorings 99–100, 102, 126–8,

132, 134, 152, 211consort, terminology 3–4‘Consorte, the’ 3, 4–5, 17, 20, 156contreparties 104–6, 114, 124Cooke, Henry (Captain), Master of the

Children of the Chapel 11–12Coprario, John 22, 31, 92, 109, 176, 216, 273

bass viol duos 249–50, 251, 271Fantazia {7} 236–7

‘Cooprario’s musique’ 10, 14, 206, 208court posts 5, 99fantasia-suites 139, 177–9, 180, 181

chronology 200influence on Jenkins 178, 184, 198, 200influence on Lawes 115, 178, 184, 198, 200popularity at court 14, 178, 275sources 108, 112, 177–8, 201, 209, 211

LAWES.indb 342 19/03/2010 10:58

general index 343

(Coprario, John continued)hand (text)/signature 29, 30

influence on Lawes 176lyra-viol music 98, 99, 107, 113, 125teacher of Charles I 1teacher of William Lawes 10, 29two-part (Tr–T) music 250viol consorts 150, 151, 152, 161

copyistsBing, Stephen 134, 146 n.61Browne, John 96, 126, 157, 158, 201–2, 211,

255Cartwright 96Charteris ‘Scribe A’/Willetts ‘Hand B’ 108,

110–14, 110, 111, 115

Ellis, William 129 n.21Hand B (Shirley partbooks) 32, 35, 36, 44,

131, 279Hand C (Shirley partbooks) 32, 279Hand D (D.229) See ‘Tomkins copyist’Hand E 55, 295Hand F 308Hand G 308Hand H (Mus. 70, anon. copyist) 76, 77,

84, 315Leycester, Peter 96Lilly, John 96Marsh, Narcissus 96Merro, John 96, 98, 114–15, 124, 252, 255,

257Myriell, Thomas 50–1Read, Henrie 96

‘Tomkins copyist’ (Hand D) 50–1, 51, 168–70, 173, 175, 290

Withy, Francis 251 n.14cornetts 3, 13, 18Corporation of Music, the 19–20cost of living 18–19court

administrative structure of 1–2performance of music at 2–3, 7, 15–17, 125,

148–9, 156, 175–6, 273–4court musicians

acquisition of posts 8–12administrative structure of 2–3admissions process 8–9apprentices to 10–11attendance at court 6diet 12–13, 20, 22employment outside court 18–19, 21payments to 8, 10, 22pluralism 6, 10privileges of 18–21reversion of posts 8, 9sharing of posts 17wages 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 19, 60

cover stamps and bindings 24, 47–8, 48, 58, 76, 86–7, 108, 280, 285, 290, 295, 297, 305, 309, 316

Craddock, Thomas 17Cranford, William 151Crum, Margaret 129Cuddy, Neil 6Cummings W. H., 76, 78, 315–17

Dallam, Robert 17Dart, Thurston 211Davis, Mr 135Day, Thomas 5 n.28, 11Derham, household 184Dering, Richard 6, 14, 127division-fantasia 197–200divisions 92, 97, 98, 127, 136, 215–17, 225, 227,

259accompaniment of 252–3extemporization of 15, 106, 148–9, 220–1,

222, 223–4, 251in bass viol duos 251, 253, 272

Jenkins’s use of 197–200, 225bass viol duos 251–2, 253, 271–2fantasia-suites 186–90 (Ex. 6.6), 198–200

Lawes’s use/incorporation of 15, 176, 211–12, 248, 249, 273–7bass viol duos 252–3, 253–4, 263–71

(Ex. 8.4–6), 271–2fantasia-suites 179–80 (Ex. 6.2), 183–4,

186, 193–200 (Ex. 6.9), 206Harp Consorts 223–4, 227–41 (Ex. 7.2–7),

244, 247–8Royall Consort 137–8, 140, 141–6

(Ex. 4.2), 148viol consorts 170

solo bass viol 252–3terminology 4See also Simpson, Christopher, Division-

Violist, TheDodd, Gordon 32 n.13, 42, 136, 137Dolmetsch, Arnold 121Dowland, John, ‘Lord Willoughby’ (lute duet)

106Dowland, Robert 9Drew, William 127Duvall, Nicholas 6

East, Michael 251Edwards, Warwick 4Elizabethan mixed consort 139, 216Eltham Ordinances, the 7Evans (Williams), Lewis 11Exchequer, the 8

LAWES.indb 343 19/03/2010 10:58


extemporization 224, 253, 275–6of consort ensembles 216–17, 220–2of contreparties 104, 106, 124of divisions 15, 106, 144, 146, 148–9, 220–1,

222, 223–4, 251, 259, 270, 272, 273of organ accompaniments 211, 250–1from tablature 97

Fanshawe, Sir Henry 151Farnaby, Giles 106Farnaby, Nicholas 19Farrant, Daniel 5, 14, 156Farrenc, Aristide 309Farrenc, Louise 309Ferrabosco, Alfonso I 93Ferrabosco, Alfonso II 21, 22, 31

anniversary of death 271court posts/activities 5, 6, 14, 60, 99, 217,

273teacher to Prince Henry 7

divisions on Palestrina’s ‘Sound out my voice’ 252

lyra-viol music 92, 98, 99, 107, 113, 125Lessons for 1. 2. and 3. Viols 94, 99, 104,

106purchaser of instruments 18, 107viol consorts 150–1, 151, 152, 164, 176, 249

Alman {1} (five-part) 253, 255, 257Pavan {2} (five-part) 237, 253, 255, 257

Ferrabosco, Alfonso III 9, 14Ferrabosco, Henry 9, 273Fidge, Thomas 309 (2)Field, Christopher 49 n.28, 104 n.50, 178,

191–2, 202, 206, 208, 275, 280Filmer family 218–19Flelle, Jean le, consort of 217flutes 3Foot, Mirjam 48Forcer, Francis 222Ford, Robert 32Ford, Thomas 5, 6, 156, 273

Musicke of Sundrie Kindes 99, 104Fox, John 10Friend (or Frend), John 4–5, 14, 156Friend (or Frend), Lucretia 4Fuller, Thomas 3, 315 n.1Fulton, Cheryl Ann 213

Gamble, John, Ayres and Dialogues 65Gaultier, Jacques 6, 10Gibbon(s), Richard 71, 309Gibbons, Orlando 14, 22, 176, 275

Fantazies of III Parts 209 n.62, 222popularity of his music at court 14treble viol duos 250viol consort fantasias 150–1

Giles, Nathaniel 11gists 276–7Gloucester Cathedral, catalogue 101Goodge, Thomas 97Gostling, John 309Gostling, William 308, 309Grabu, Louis 133Great Chamber, the 2, 15Greenbury, Richard 18Groom of the Stool, the 7Guard Chamber, the 2, 15–16

Hampton Court 1, 17Children of the Chapel, schooling at 12

harp consort, development of 215–18harpers 11, 216–17, 236, 252, 253

at court 3, 5harps 3, 213

Dalway harp, the 215Irish harp 11, 213–15, 216–17, 221, 222

‘Lawes’s harp’ 215 (Ex. 7.1)triple harp 213–15

harpsichords 12, 100, 101–2 n.42Hawkins, Sir John 57hayle 4Henlake, Robert 17Henrietta Maria, Queen, musicians of 6,

17–18, 217Henry, Prince of Wales

household of 11, 99musical taste 1pupil of Ferrabosco 7

Herbert, Sir Gerald 216–17Herne, Jeremy 60Herrick, Robert 72, 315Hilton, John, Catch that Catch Can 66Hingeston, John 17, 128, 251Holman, Peter 8, 10, 11, 12–13, 14–15, 15, 100,

114 n.77, 126–7, 129, 144, 156, 186 n.20, 210, 214–15, 217, 220, 237, 252, 276

Holmes, John 21Holmes, Thomas 21, 113, 151, 305Hume, Tobias 98–100

The First Part of Ayres 99–100Poeticall Musicke 100

Hutchinson, Colonel John 156Hutchinson, Lucy 156–7

Iles, William 96Ives, Simon 92, 112

Aire {50} (solo lyra-viol) 95 n.18–19bass viol duos 250–1

arrangements of consort pieces 259consort music 151lyra-viol trios 98, 108, 109, 110, 121, 125‘Mris Mary Brownes Choyce’ 114, 115

LAWES.indb 344 19/03/2010 10:58

general index 345

Jackson, Thomas 129James I, King

death of 1household of 1–2, 6–7musicians of 4–5

Jenkins, Johnbass viol music 225, 251–4, 271–2, 308

Aire {1} (duo) 251Aire {2} (duo) 251

consort music 133, 135, 150–1, 152fantasias 227Fantazia {11} (six-part) 151four-part 128influenced by Gibbons 151two- and three-part 219–20

copying activities 178divisions, use of 197–200, 225

bass viol duos 251–2, 253, 271–2fantasia-suites 186–90 (Ex. 6.6), 198–200

Elegy on death of Lawes 71, 308fantasia-suites 178, 184, 211

chronology 200Group I: Fantazia {12} 186–90 (Ex. 6.7),

197–200; Fantazia {15} 186–90 (Ex. 6.6), 197–200

Group III 197Group VI 197influenced by Coprario 184, 200relationship to Lawes’s fantasia-suites

186–90, 197–200use of organ in 198–9

lost sources 91, 101–2 n.42, 102–3lyra-viol music 99, 100–3, 121, 125performing for Charles I 184

Johnson, Robert 5 (2), 10, 273Jonson, Ben

Cynthia’s Revels 93See also under masques

Kelly, John 5keyboards/keyboard players 3, 5, 14, 21, 100,

171, 197, 215arrangements for 98, 163, 247, 252

Kindersley, Robert 4–5, 156

Lanier family 9, 21Lanier, John 9Lanier, Nicholas 5, 9, 216, 216–17

Marshall of the Corporation of Music 20‘Master of the Musick’ 5, 6, 12–13, 21

Lasocki, David 3, 13Lawes, Henry 5, 9, 309

activities/posts at court 10–11, 58, 112appraisal of William Lawes 90, 220Choice Psalmes 71, 90, 112, 165 n.49consort music 135

(Lawes, Henry continued)‘Corinna false! It cannot be’ (H. Brandreth)

163payments to 29, 75 n.77possession of William Lawes’s manuscripts

47, 55, 57–8, 286, 290, 297, 306settings of Sandys’ Paraphrases 165Triumph of the Prince d’Amour, The 60

Lawes, William (?1553–1624) 315 n.1Lawes, William 5, 9, 22, 31

activities at court 71and Jenkins

bass viol duos 252–3, 271–2fantasia-suites 186–90, 197–200viol consorts 151

and Simpson 225–8, 253–4compositional process 73, 147–8, 195–6,

275–6bass viol duos 257–63Harp Consorts 222–3, 247–8incorporation of divisions 137, 183,

191–200, 211–12, 249, 273revisions 57, 73, 95, 147, 275–6; fantasia-

suites 191–200, 201–6; lyra-viol trios 117–25; Royall Consort (rescoring) 124, 126, 135–7, 258–9; Shirley partbooks 42–4; viol consorts 167, 170–3

viol consorts 55, 164–5, 166–70, 255copying activities 32, 78–82, 86copying errors 36–8, 65, 73, 169, 195–6,

206, 258court appointment 10, 148divisions, use/incorporation of 15, 176,

211–12, 248, 249, 273–7bass viol duos 252–3, 253–4, 263–71

(Ex. 8.4–6), 271–2fantasia-suites 179–80 (Ex. 6.2), 183–4,

186, 193–200 (Ex. 6.9), 206Harp Consorts 223–4, 227–41 (Ex. 7.2–7),

244, 247–8Royall Consort 137–8, 140, 141–6

(Ex. 4.2), 148viol consorts 170See also Simpson, Christopher, Division-

Violist, Thehand 25–7, 48–51, 58–60, 66–70, 87, 110–13,

131–2, 195accidentals 25beamings 38, 42, 59clefs: bass 36, 38, 49–51, 55, 68–9, 74,

169–70, 171, 209; c-clefs 33, 36, 44–5, 50, 66–8, 164, 196; treble 32–3, 66

crossings-out 36, 38, 55, 73, 131, 163, 164–5, 167, 168, 171, 263

final barlines 38, 51–3, 66, 86, 195, 259key signatures 33, 163

LAWES.indb 345 19/03/2010 10:58


(Lawes, William continued)(hand continued)

numbering 26–7, 55‘rushed’ 44–5, 89, 132tablature 73–4, 76, 82–5, 110–13text 84–5, 110time signatures 27titling 25, 76, 112–13, 253

homages 236–7, 253, 257–8incomplete pieces 164–5 (Ex. 5.5)key associations 142–3lost sources/pieces 85–6, 90–1, 95,

101–2 n.42, 102–3, 122, 129, 134, 148, 200, 206, 210, 255, 261–2, 274

masque music 58, 59–66, 98, 159musical influences 113, 115, 150, 152, 160,

161, 271–2Coprario 176, 178, 184, 198, 200

organ, use ofbass viol duos 255–9, 263fantasia-suites 180, 193, 198–9, 209–11viol consorts 153–6, 166–8, 173–5

payments to 29–31, 75presentation styles in the autographs 85,

87–9, 166, 193, 195‘compositional draft ’ 55, 57, 59–60, 70, 84,

88, 166‘formal’ 45, 49, 53–4, 55, 57, 66, 70, 85,

88–9, 166, 193, 195, 259, 263‘informal’ 45, 53–4, 66, 72–3, 84, 88, 89,

166, 193, 195professional activities (outside Court) 71,

75quotations, musical 105, 216

See also Lawes, homagesrearrangements of existing pieces 98, 131–4,

163, 170, 254–63shorthand symbols (viol consorts) 171–2signature 28–31, 38, 40–1, 42, 44, 47, 49, 51,

55, 74, 78–80, 89, 132, 169, 279–318initialling 41–2, 41

‘mature’ 28, 29, 31, 49, 55, 57, 72, 79, 80, 89, 196

‘running L’ 72, 73, 79‘short L’ 29, 31, 49, 72, 89‘un-joined’ 28–9

sources, chronology 24, 25, 42, 45, 47, 48–9, 53–5, 57–60, 63–6, 66, 69–71, 72, 74–5, 80–2, 86–7, 89, 90, 105, 117, 134–5, 157–60, 163–6, 173–5, 195–6, 201–2, 206–11, 221–2, 271–2, 274–5

student of Coprario 10, 29suites 268–71

bass viol duos 268–71fantasia-suites 178, 181

(Lawes, William continued)(suites continued)

Harp Consorts 223–5Royall Consort 128–30, 134, 138–9viol consorts 152, 160, 167–71, 176

text settings 63–6, 72–3works

canons 71, 95catches and drinking songs 41, 66chronology 48–9, 55, 63–6, 74–5, 122–3,

131–2, 134–5, 157–60, 163–6, 173–5, 178–9, 200, 201–2, 206–11, 217–18, 221–2, 223, 271–2, 274–5

Harp Consorts: formal structure 224–5three-part music 133–4two-part (Tr–B) music 218–221, 276–7See also Index of Lawes’s Works Cited

Lawrence, John 5Le Strange household 184Le Strange, Nicholas 101, 178, 211, 252Lefowitz, Murray 23–4, 57, 63, 76, 90, 95,

125, 126, 135–6, 157, 213, 225, 228, 233, 236–7, 253–4, 264 n.38, 316

Lennox, Duke of 216Lewis, David 215Ligon, Richard 178livery 8, 19, 21Locke, Matthew 22, 25, 135

bass viol duos 251Broken Consort, the 224For Several Friends 219sources 91, 103

London Waits 5, 18, 113Lord Chamberlain 3, 7, 15, 17, 148

authority over musicians 2 (2), 12, 13Philip Herbert, fourth Earl of Pembroke and

first Earl of Montgomery 2Lord Steward 2, 6Low, Thomas and John Banister, New Ayres

and Dialogues 163, 198, 218 n.27Lowe, Edward 57, 64 n.55, 65, 128, 135, 147,

202, 204, 211, 218Royall Consort, rescoring 135–6

Lully, Jean-Baptiste de 133Lupo family 9, 21Lupo, Theophilus 9, 14, 156Lupo, Thomas 10, 14, 21, 22, 31, 273

fantasia-airs 115, 128, 160viol consorts 150, 151, 197

Fantazia {11} (five-part) 44lute duets 104 n.48, 106, 164, 216, 249, 271,

272lutenists 3, 5, 6, 9–10, 10, 99, 104–5, 129,

216–17lutes 3, 12, 17, 18, 93, 98, 100, 104–5, 216,

216–17

LAWES.indb 346 19/03/2010 10:58

general index 347

‘Lutes, Viols and Voices’, the (LVV)associated groups/sub-sections 5attendance at court 14, 21composers to 273cost of 21–2daily duties 15diet 20formation of 5–6new places in 10personnel 5–6, 273, 275Private Music, the 3, 22repertoire 5–6, 14, 16, 148–9, 156, 253, 275status 7, 20–1wages 5, 19

lyra-viol See under viols

MacDermott, Cormack 11, 216, 217 n.19, 236–7, 252, 253

Mace, Thomas, Musick’s Monument 97, 100, 156

madrigal, influence on consort fantasia 150–1, 152

Major, Roger 5manuscripts

A-ET, Goëss MS B, seq.(93) 96Cecil Family and Estate Papers, Box U/60

30

D-Hs, MS ND VI 3193 128 n.14, 203–5F-Pcnrs, ‘Bullen Reymes’ lute book’

105 n.53F-Pn, MS Rés. F.770 203, 209GB-Cfm, Mu. MS 168 (Fitzwilliam Virginal

Book) 106GB-Cfm, Mu. MS 734 57 n.42GB-Ckc, MSS Rowe 112–13 250, 251GB-Ctc, MS 0.16.2 105 n.53GB-CHEr, MS DLT/B 31 96GB-En, Sutherland papers, Dep. 314 no. 23

105 n.53GB-En, MS 9449 105 n.53GB-Eu, MS Dc. I. 69 65GB-HAdolmetsch, MS II.B.3 85–6, 103, 107,

118, 120–4, 121, 198 n.36GB-Lam, MS 600 96GB-Lam, MS 602 106GB-Lbl, Add. MS 10445 135, 146, 203GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 17786–91 152GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 17792–6 133, 257GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17798 23, 24, 25, 26, 28,

29, 45, 46, 55–7, 56, 59, 68, 70, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 158, 166, 167, 169, 175, 295–6, 321–3

GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17801 57 n.42, 251GB-Lbl, Add. MS 23779 178GB-Lbl, Add. MS 29290 203, 210–11

(manuscripts continued)GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 29410–15 157–8,

166 n.51GB-Lbl, Add. MS 29996 51GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31423 113, 133, 250GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31429 133GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31431 135, 146GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31432 23, 25, 28, 40, 41,

45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 59, 60 (2), 64, 65–6, 66 (2), 67, 68, 70, 71–5, 73, 74, 75, 76 (2), 79, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 95, 96, 111, 134, 169, 171, 196, 308–14, 316, 321–3

GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31433 135, 146GB-Lbl, Add. MS 36993 126GB-Lbl, Add. MSS 40657–61 (the Shirley

partbooks) 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31–47, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 49, 51, 59, 67, 68–9, 70, 80 (2), 85–6, 87, 88, 89, 90, 108, 110, 113, 131–4, 151–2, 157, 159–60, 163–4, 193 n.29, 205, 209, 255–6, 274, 279–84, 321

GB-Lbl, Add. MS 53723 72 n.74, 309GB-Lbl, Add. MS 59869 95 n.17–18, 96GB-Lbl, Add. MS 63852 96, 98GB-Lbl, C.83.k.1 48GB-Lbl, MS R.M.24.k.3 23, 57 n.42, 108,

110, 112, 177–8GB-Lbl, Mus. MS 249 96GB-Lcm, MS 921 251–2, 272 n.43GB-Lcm, MSS 1045–51 108GB-Lcm, MS 1146 128GB-Lpro, E403/2187–98 29GB-Lpro, E405/543 29GB-Lpro, E407/10 29GB-Mp, MS BrM832Vu51 (Manchester lyra-

viol book) 96, 97, 98GB-Ob, MS Mus. D.238 65GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.2 23, 24, 25 (2), 27,

28, 38, 40, 41, 45, 49, 50, 53, 55 (2), 57–71, 58, 61–2, 69, 73, 74, 76, 82, 83, 84–5, 85, 87, 88, 90, 104, 110, 132, 133, 138, 154, 157, 159–60, 163–6, 167–9, 170–1, 171–3, 174, 191–3, 195–6, 202, 203, 209, 237, 249, 253, 255, 257, 259–63, 260, 268, 271, 297–304, 305, 306, 321, 323

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. B.3 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 38, 44, 45, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57–71, 59, 67, 70, 74, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 110, 128, 134, 138–9, 147, 148, 154, 157, 159, 165–6, 167–9, 171–2, 174, 213, 214, 221–2, 223, 233, 234, 248, 258, 274, 297, 305–7, 321, 323

GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. C.59–60 251 n.14GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. C.89–90 203, 210GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. C.93 51GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.220 218, 219, 220,

247

LAWES.indb 347 19/03/2010 10:58


(manuscripts continued)GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. D.229 23, 24, 26, 28,

34, 38, 41, 44, 45, 47–55, 51, 54, 55–7, 56, 57, 59, 66, 68, 69, 71, 76, 85, 87, 88–9, 90, 154, 157, 166–70, 169, 171, 172, 174–5, 191–3, 193, 195, 200, 202, 203, 206, 208, 209–11, 213, 214, 221–2, 237, 249, 255, 257–8, 259–61, 263, 268, 274, 275, 286, 290–4, 316, 321, 323

GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.233–6 133 n.32, 135, 138, 146, 147, 202, 203, 218–19, 254

GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.238–40 23, 26, 28, 37, 45, 46, 47–55, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 57 (2), 59, 66, 68, 69, 71, 84, 85, 87, 88–9, 90, 169, 190–5, 195, 200, 202, 203, 206, 208–9, 213, 221, 223, 224, 234, 236–7, 247, 249, 257, 259–63, 271, 274, 275, 285–9, 290, 321, 323

GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.241–4 135, 146GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. D.245–7 (Merro

partbooks) 96, 98, 107, 114–15, 133, 252, 255, 257

GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. E.431–6 128 n.14, 129, 129–30, 131, 133 (2), 138, 146, 254, 258

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. E.451 64 n.55, 133 n.32, 135, 146, 202, 203, 218

GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch. F.568–9 128 n.14, 129, 129–30, 133 (2), 138, 146, 254, 258

GB-Ob, MS Mus. Sch. F.575 96GB-Ob, Tenbury MS 302 23, 108, 110, 112,

133, 163GB-Och, Mus. MS 5 213, 214, 247GB-Och, Mus. MS 62 51GB-Och, Mus. MS 67 51GB-Och, Mus. MSS 367–70 126, 131,

201 n.48, 254–5GB-Och, Mus. MSS 379–81 126, 201 n.48GB-Och, Mus. MSS 391–6 135, 146GB-Och, Mus. MSS 423–8 152GB-Och, Mus. MS 430 201, 203, 210GB-Och, Mus. MSS 479–83 135, 146, 158GB-Och, Mus. MSS 531–2 107GB-Och, Mus. MS 599 247GB-Och, Mus. MSS 725–7 23, 40 n.19, 76,

85, 107–15 (MS 727 inventory, 109), 110, 111, 115, 117–20, 125

GB-Och, Mus. MSS 732–5 108GB-Och, Mus. MSS 754–9 134, 146GB-Och, Mus. MS 1005 219, 220IRL-Dm, MS Z3.4.13, 95 n.19 115IRL-Dm, MS Z3.5.13 96Longleat House, Whitelocke Papers Parcel

II/9 item 6 31

US-CAh, MS Mus. 70 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 40, 45, 47–8, 48, 53, 72, 76–87, 77, 78–9, 80–1, 82, 87, 88–9, 90, 95 n.18, 97 n.24, 107, 108 n.67, 110–12, 112, 117, 117–20, 121–3, 124, 315–18, 322–3

(manuscripts continued)US-CAh, MS Mus. 181 98US-Cn, MS VM.1.A.18.J.52c. 101US-NH, Filmer MS 3 98 n.27, 133 n.31, 163,

218–19US-NHub, Osborn MS 515 157–8US-NYp, Drexel MS 4027 98US-NYp, MS Mus. Res. *MNZ (Chirk) 65US-SM, EL 25 A 46–51 32, 279US-Ws, Ms. V.b.280 106in the possession of Franklin Zimmerman

(the John Browne partbooks) 157–8in the possession of Layton Ring 201, 203

Marenzio, Luca 31, 151Marini, Biagio 211Marshall, Julian 308, 309Marshe, Robert 5masques

Britannia Triumphans (D’Avenant) 60–3, 61, 70, 138, 159, 164, 166

Gray’s Inn Masque (Beaumont) 109Oberon (Ben Jonson) 60Triumph of Beauty, The (Shirley) 63–6Triumph of Peace, The (Shirley) 19, 31, 58,

60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 70, 86 (2), 89, 151, 156, 159, 184, 217, 305

Triumph of the Prince d’Amour, The (D’Avenant) 60–3, 62, 65, 67, 159, 164

Master of the Great Wardrobe, the 8Matthew, Richard, Lute’s Apology, The 98Merro, John See under copyistsMesangeau, René 104–5Mico, Richard 127Monteverdi, Claudio 31, 151Morley, Thomas 106, 250Morse, William Inglis 315, 316Myriell, Thomas See under copyists

Nanki Library, the 316–17Nau, Stephen 13, 273Newcastle, Earl of 9–10Nixon, Scott 24Norcombe, Daniel 225, 252Nordstrom, Lyle 216Norgate, Edward 17North family/household 101, 186, 210North, Roger 184, 186, 211Notari, Angelo 5, 11

organ makers/repairers 17–18organ

continuo 129, 156 n.17, 164 n.46role of in

consort music 154, 173, 177Coprario’s fantasia-suites 177–8

LAWES.indb 348 19/03/2010 10:58

general index 349

(organ continued)extemporization of accompaniments

250–1Jenkins’s fantasia-suites 198–9Lawes’s bass viol duos 255–9, 263Lawes’s fantasia-suites 180, 193, 198–9,

209–11Lawes’s viol consorts 153–6, 166–8, 173–5

organs 12, 14, 100, 190, 216, 217at Whitehall Palace 15–18

orpharions 100Osborne, Thomas, sale catalogues of 102–3Otterstedt, Annette 237

Packer, Robert 201Paisible, James 133Pallavicino, Benedetto 151parties de remplissage 220Peerson, Martin, viol consorts 151, 152, 163,

176Pinto, David 15, 24, 32, 42, 48, 49, 50–1, 72,

76, 87, 97 n.21, 105, 108, 126, 127, 129, 130, 134, 136, 138, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152, 157, 157–8, 163 (2), 165–6, 168, 170, 173, 184 n.18, 192, 200 n.39, 201–2, 206, 210, 258, 271, 274

Playford, Henry, sale catalogue of (1690) 91, 101, 213

Playford, John 98, 106–7, 198, 247Brief Introduction to the Skill of Musick, A 1,

140–1 n.54Charles I anecdotes 1–3, 178Court-Ayres 126, 202, 203, 218–19, 222, 254Courtly Masquing Ayres 126, 202, 203,

218–19, 222Musicall Banquet, A 94, 106, 218, 222Musicks Hand-maide 218, 222Musicks Recreation on the Lyra Viol 94–5,

95, 96, 97 (2)Preaching Place 15Presence Chamber, the 2, 7, 15–16, 148Private Music, the See under ‘Lutes, Viols

and Voices’, the (LVV)Privy Apartments, the 2, 16Privy Chamber, the 2, 6–7, 16, 148Privy Galleries, the 7, 16Privy Lodgings, the 7, 15, 17, 18Privy Purse, the 8, 10

Keeper of 8Puerl, Paul 126Purcell, Henry 25, 69

Ravenscroft, Thomas 151Read, Roger 97recorders 3Reichner, Herbert 317Richards, Janet 250

Richmond Palace, keeper of the organs 17Rimmer, Joan 213–15Robert, Anthony 5, 6Rogers, Benjamin 129Rossi, Salamone 211Royal Music, the 1, 2–3, 9, 12–13, 18, 20–21royal musicians See court musiciansroyal progress, attendance of musicians 12,

13–14Rubens, Peter Paul 1

sackbuts 3, 13St James’s palace, keeper of the organs 17St Paul’s Cathedral, musical circle of 112, 151,

152Sandys, George, Paraphrase upon the Psalms

and Hymns 164–5, 170Sawyer, Valentine 99Schein, Johann Hermann 126scribal publication 107Seymour, Edward, Earl of Hertford 10, 29shawms 3, 13Shirley, James

Cardinal, The 72‘Cease warring thoughts’ 63–6See also under masques

Shirley family, Staunton Harrold, Leicestershire 32, 280

Shirley, Elizabeth 280Shirley, Robert, seventh Earl Ferrers 280Shirley, Sir Henry 32, 42, 45, 89Signet Office, the 8Simpson, Christopher 128, 143, 253

Compendium of Practical Music, A 222Division-Violist, The 127, 136, 141–2, 231,

234, 251, 254, 264, 271, 275rules for divisions 225–8, 238, 239–40

Little Consort, the 101lost sources 101–2 n.42Seasons, the 200 n.41

Simpson, Thomas 126Taffel-Consort 127

singer-lutenists 5, 99singers 3, 10, 129, 305

singing boys 11–12Sleeper, Helen Joy 177Slop, Abigail 91Smuts, Malcolm 21Spink, Ian 63Spring, Matthew 105Squire, Philip 11, 217Stoeffken, Dietrich/Theodore 94, 156, 305Suckling, Sir John

Goblins, The 66Tragedy of Brennoralt, The 72

suites, development of 126–7

LAWES.indb 349 19/03/2010 10:58


Talbot, James 215Tallis, Thomas 106Taylor, John 9, 14, 17, 103, 156

lost source 102–3Taylor, Robert 17, 98, 99, 103, 107, 108, 109,

112–14, 125Alman {25} (lyra-viol trio) 112, 113Alman {26} (lyra-viol trio) 112, 113–14

(Ex. 3.2), 117Sacred Hymns 106, 113

theorboes 15, 57, 100, 101–2 n.42, 128, 129, 137, 140, 156, 223

Thompson, Robert 47, 58, 108Thurley, Simon 16Tokugawa, Yorisada 316Tomkins, Giles 9, 14, 21, 51, 112, 156, 168, 253,

290See also copyists, ‘Tomkins copyist’ (Hand

D)Tomkins, John 14, 68, 112, 151, 164, 271

Elegy on the death of (W. Lawes) 112, 164, 271

Tomkins, Robert 4, 9, 112Tomkins, Thomas 50Traficante, Frank 92Treasurer of the Chamber, the 8Triphook, Robert 308, 309Trollap, Henricus 76Trollap, Robert 76, 315two-part (Tr–B) music 198, 218–23, 247

arrangements/reductions 254–5, 257, 258basis for extemporization/elaboration 15,

98, 100, 163, 217–18, 234, 274, 276–7two-treble scoring 152

development of 126–8

Vallet, Adam 6, 10, 14Van Dyck, Anthony 1Vecchi, Horatio 151Vere, Robert 18viol players 94, 129, 136–7, 156, 221

amateurs 120at court 3, 4–5, 10, 14, 99, 156, 253

viola 128, 136violin band, the 3 (2), 138

attendance at court 13provision of music by 3, 15–16

violinists 273at court 5, 10, 14, 156, 186, 199

violins 12, 15, 100, 101–2 n.42, 128 (2), 176, 177, 186, 192, 196–7, 211, 217, 228, 270, 274

(violins continued)bass 216cost of 18–19

viols 3, 10, 15, 17, 18, 124, 127bass 1, 14, 100, 104, 107, 128, 136, 159 n.32,

210, 218, 222, 223, 257, 274division 48–9, 92, 253lyra-viols 99, 101–2 n.42, 104, 107

arrangements for 95 n.18consorts (lyra consorts) 91, 99–101,

220–1, 274cost of 18, 107divisions 97, 98duos 104graces/ornaments 97, 98, 125repertoire 93–5, 220–1solo 73–4, 95–8, 124sources 94–6, 106–13, 120–1, 124–5; lost

102–3terminology 92–3trios 85–6, 98–9, 102–3, 107–20, 121–5tunings 82, 92–4

tenor 100, 128, 136, 159 n.32, 210treble 99, 100, 156, 186, 212, 218, 222, 257

virginals 16, 17, 100, 106, 216

Walls, Peter 18–19, 65, 75Ward, John 31

bass viol duos 250, 251, 259 n.35, 271viol consorts 150, 151 (2)

Warwick, Thomas 14Webb, John 120–1Webster, Maurice 22, 127

Echo {11} 255Webster, Noah 29White, William 31, 151, 197, 250‘Whitelocke’s Corant’ 163 n.41Willetts, Pamela 71, 108, 112, 309Wilson, John 5, 9–10, 65, 135wind bands, the 3, 15–16, 17

diet 20provision of music by 13, 15reorganization of 3, 13

Withdrawing Chamber, the 7, 15, 16Wise, Michael 12Wood, Julia 66Woodington, John 10, 14, 151, 156, 199Wormall, Edward 5, 11Wrench, Jonas 5

LAWES.indb 350 19/03/2010 10:58

an imprint of Boydell & Brewer LtdPO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF and668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester NY 14620, USA

www.boydell.co.ukwww.boydellandbrewer.com

The ConsortMusic of William Lawes1602–1645

The C

onsort Music of

William

Law

es 1602–1645

John Cunningham

John Cunningham

William Lawes is arguably one of the finest English composers ofthe early seventeenth century. Born in Salisbury in 1602, he rose toprominence in the early 1630s; in 1635 he gained a prestigious postamong the elite private musicians of Charles I (the ‘Lutes, Viols andVoices’). With the outbreak of civil war in 1642, Lawes took armsin support of the king; he died during the Siege of Chester inSeptember 1645.

This book is divided into three sections. The first is a contextualexamination of music at the court of Charles I, with specificreference to the arcane group of musicians known as the ‘Lutes,Viols and Voices’; much of Lawes’s surviving consort music appearsto have been written for performance of this group. The remainderof the book deals with William Lawes the composer. The secondsection is a detailed study of Lawes’s autograph sources: the first of its kind. It includes 62 black and white facsimile images, and complete inventories of all the autographs, and presentsground-breaking new research into Lawes’s scribal hand, thesources and their functions, and new evidence for their chronology.The third section comprises six chapters on Lawes’s consort music; in these chapters various topics are examined, such aschronology, Lawes’s compositional process, and the relationshipbetween Lawes’s music and the court context from which it arose.

This book will be of interest to scholars working on English musicin the Early Modern period, but also to those interested in sourcestudies, compositional process and the function of music in theEarly Modern court.

JOHN CUNNINGHAM is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the School of Music, University College Dublin.

Jacket: Circle of Pieter Jacobsz Codde(1599–1678), Portrait of a young man (believedto be William Lawes), c.1635–40, oil on canvas. © The Sullivan Collection/The Bridgeman Art Library.

JACKET DESIGN: SIMON LOXLEY

RELATED TITLES

Hermann Pötzlinger’s Music BookIAN RUMBOLD WITH PETER WRIGHT

A study of one of the most significantmedieval manuscripts containing music, andits owner, sheds light on many aspects ofcontemporary culture.

This is an excellent book. EARLY MUSIC REVIEW

Medieval Liturgical Chant andPatristic ExegesisEMMA HORNBY

A sensitive and detailed investigation of thecomplex relationship between text andmusic in medieval chant.

MUSIC IN BRITAIN SERIES 1600–1900

William Lawes:Layout 1 18/12/2009 16:11 Page 1

The Consort Music of William Lawes%2C 1602-1645

Documents

Transcript of The Consort Music of William Lawes%2C 1602-1645