Suites en concert: An Overlooked Performance Tradition*

Suites en concert:An Overlooked Performance Tradition*

MATTHEW HALLBoston University, August 2012

Introduction

Te prominent role of Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750) and George Frideric Handel (1685–1759) in the

development of the keyboard concerto has long been recognized. Bach’s ffh ‘Brandenburg’ concerto, BWV

1050, is ofen cited as the very frst keyboard concerto, and dates from as early as 1717. Beginning in 1726,

Bach included individual organ concerto movements, ofen adapted from music from the Cöthen period, in

the church cantatas as sinfonias.1 He completed his seven solo keyboard concertos with strings in the 1730s, all

based on revisions of earlier concertos for other instruments; his sons began composing keyboard concertos at

that time as well.2 Handel’s Opus 4 organ concertos were published in London around 1738; yet as early as

1707 he had written a ‘Sonata’ for organ and orchestra as a movement in the oratorio Il trionfo del Tempo e del

Disinganno, HWV 46a.3

Because of the importance of the contributions of the Bach family and Handel to the keyboard concerto, the

relationship between the ‘mature’ eighteenth-century keyboard concerto (of which the above-mentioned

examples are prototypes) and the earliest examples of the genre remains obscure. Investigations into the

* Tis article is a revision of the previously published ‘Charles Dieupart’s Six suittes (1701–1702) and the en concert Performance Tradition’, Te Viola da Gamba Society Journal 4 (2010): 6–35. I wish to thank John Cunningham, editor of Te Viola da Gamba Sosciety Journal, for his central role in refning the text and Prof. Peter Holman, under whose thoughtful guidance this paper began as a master’s thesis at the University of Leeds. Prof. Christopher Hogwood granted me access to GB-CAMhogwood, M1902, and Dr Andrew Woolley generously shared scans and photographs made in the course of his own research. Te following kindly assisted in procuring sources at their respective institutions: Julia Cavallaro and Dr Kevin Leong (Harvard); Dr Arne Spohr and Christian Hogrefe (Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel); Paul Kolb (Oxford); and Dr Helena Backman (Stifs- och landbibliteket, Skara).

1 See C. Wolf, Bach: Te Learned Musician (New York, 2000), 281–3, which includes a list of cantatas from the third annual cantata cycle, 1725–7, and a discussion of cantata sinfonias with concertato organ.

2 Te concertos of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (1714–88) are particularly numerous; the frst of these was Wq 1, written in 1733. Te Leipzig Collegium Musicum was an important early venue for the solo- and multi-keyboard concertos of the Bach family; key performers of these works would have been Sebastian Bach, Emanuel Bach, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach (1710–84), and Johann Ludwig Krebs (1713–80).

3 P. Holman, ‘Did Handel invent the English keyboard concerto?’, Te Musical Times 144/1883 (2003): 13–22.

1

‘origins’ or ‘invention’ of the keyboard concerto tend to overlook precursors to the genre not stemming from

Italy or Germany precisely because these Italo-Germanic types became so prevalent, even stereotypical,

through the infuence of Bach and Handel.4 In other words, scholarly attention has been retrospective rather

than prospective; examples which do not illustrate an inexorable development towards the concerto genre as

we now delineate it are excluded a priori.

Admittedly, to consider French or French-style repertoires in connection with the development of the

keyboard concerto could be problematic since ‘concerto’ usually denotes the specifcally Italian type of

ritornello concerto. Tere are no English examples of the genre prior to Handel, and the ritornello concerto

remained rare in French music throughout the eighteenth century.5 But this line of reasoning is circular. Just

because it was the Italian form of the concerto which gained prominence in the 1730s in Germany and

England and which became one of the most important generic forms (second only to the sonata, perhaps) of

the Rococo and Classic styles, there is no particular reason to suppose that non-Italian types of concert(o) did

not exist elsewhere and at diferent times.

One such non-Italian concert(o) genre is the French concert, which takes the form a suite of dances or

character pieces for obbligato keyboard or lute with instrumental accompaniment; Jean-Philippe Rameau’s

Pieces de clavecin en concerts (1741) are perhaps the best known examples. Troughout this article, I use the

word ‘concert’ almost always in a narrow sense to refer to this genre of French instrumental music; occasionally,

it will be obvious by context that I mean ‘concert’ in the modern sense of a public performance. My purpose is

to explore the non-Italian prehistory of the keyboard ‘concert(o)’ through French-style pièces en concert. Tis is

not to say that the French concert gave rise to the Italian concerto; on the contrary, the development of the

French concert performance tradition, which derives from the early seventeenth-century practice of improvised

ensemble performances of lute music and later of harpsichord music, is obviously unrelated to that of the

orchestral ritornello concertos of Rome and Northern Italy. Nevertheless, the French concert shares a

structural conception of instrumentation and doubling in common with the Italian concerto. While the two

4 Te genesis of the Bach-type keyboard concerto is explored in D. Schulenberg, ‘J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, and the Invention of the Concerto for Keyboard and Strings’, Early Keyboard Journal 25–26 (2010): 29–59; early Italian concertos are considered in D. Freeman, ‘Te Earliest Known Italian Keyboard Concertos’, Journal of Musicology 4 (1985–86): 121–45; P. Holman’s ‘Did Handel invent the English keyboard concerto?’ op. cit. discusses the English case.

5 Te exceptions prove the rule: Michel Corrette’s Opus 8 organ concertos (1733) are not true ritornello concertos, but rather are derived from the organ noël genre; the Opus 26 concertos (1756) are rather more Italianate, but are probably modelled afer Handel’s organ concertos. Boismortier’s many ‘concertos’ are not solo concertos but suites of dances and character pieces for varied instruments in much the same style of François Couperin’s Concerts Royaux (1722).

2

traditions arise independently (either as expansions of lute or harpsichord intabulations or of polyphonic string

music such as trio sonatas) and encompass divergent musical forms (either dance and character pieces or

ritornello forms), they represent equivalent developments within their respective musical styles. An appraisal

of the development of the French concert tradition is therefore not only relevant to French or French-style

repertoires; it will also bear on our understanding of its cousin the Italian concerto, and on what might be

called the ‘concert(o) principle’, broadly construed.

In the following pages, an overview of this concert tradition is undertaken through an investigation of the

meanings and uses ‘concert’ and related terms with reference to relevant musical sources. Ten, taking Charles

Dieupart’s Six suittes (1701–2) as a principle case study, a new description of the origins and stylistic

development of the concert tradition is proposed. Finally, the Dieupart suites are situated in the larger context

of music en concert from about 1650 to 1750, particularly music published by Estienne Roger (1665/6–1722)

of Amsterdam, linking the concert tradition to the rise of musical amateurism and the gradual demise of the

lute in favour of the harpsichord. Relationships among the concert and contrepartie traditions, continuo

practice, and the (Italian-type) keyboard concerto are also explored.

Charles Dieupart (c.1667–c.1740)

Charles Dieupart was a French-born harpsichordist, violinist, and composer active mainly in London from

about 1703 or shortly before. Little is known of his biography; even his name is somewhat in question. An

autograph letter in French is signed ‘F. Dieupart’, (see Appendix A) and Brunold and Dart have shown that

Dieupart’s frst name is usually given as ‘François’ in French-language sources; however, Holman and Fuller

have pointed out that Dieupart was known in England—and in particular to the music historian John

Hawkins (1719–89)—as ‘Charles’.6 His sole musical publication, the Six suittes de Clavessin (1701–2), gives his

name only as ‘Monsieur Dieupart’. It seems most likely that his name was ‘François Charles Dieupart’ afer his

father, using ‘Charles’ everyday and reserving ‘François’ for legal purposes.7 As his musical career was

principally conducted in England and those sources which give his name as ‘Charles’ outnumber and postdate

those that do not, I shall refer to him as ‘Charles Dieupart’.

6 See C. Dieupart, Collection, ed. P. Brunold (Paris, 1934); T. Dart, ‘Bressan and Schickhardt’, Galpin Society Journal 10 (1957), 85–6; P. Hardouin, ‘Une adresse de Dieupart à Londres’, Revue de musicologie 41 (1958): 99; D. Fuller and P. Holman, ‘Dieupart, Charles [François]’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012).

7 It seems unlikely that his name would have been reduplicative (‘Charles-François’ or, even less likely, ‘François-Charles’) as these are considered single names in French and are not usually separable.

3

Dieupart came to England from France, perhaps by way of the Netherlands, around the turn of the eighteenth

century. An English manuscript source of the Suittes not deriving from the Roger prints was completed no later

than 1702; Dieupart’s 1701 ornament table is labeled in both French and English (see Appendix B). Dieupart

is also known to have been the music tutor of Elizabeth, Countess of Sandwich (1674–1757) and the dedicatee

of the Six suittes, during her sojourn in France in the late 1690s. Taken together, this suggests that Dieupart was

in England by 1701, but probably not much before.

Te frst document which names Dieupart in England is from 1703.8 He was a prominent member of London

theatre establishments, performing regularly in the Teatres Royal at Drury Lane and the Haymarket.9

Evidently, he was an esteemed colleague; when he was dropped from the Haymarket orchestra in 1710—a

circumstance almost certainly connected with Handel’s arrival in England in 1710 and the forthcoming

premier of Rinaldo in 1711 at the Haymarket—a certain W. Armstrong (fl.1708–13), a violist in the

Haymarket band, refused to play, explaining, ‘I once gave my Word I wou’d not Play except our Old Master Mr

Du Parr was in also’.10 Dieupart remained prominent in London concert life as a harpsichordist and violinist in

the 1710s and 1720s. Hawkins reports that Dieupart organized concerts in York Buildings in 1711 and 1712

when Handel’s success with Rinaldo made competing theatre enterprises untenable.11 His last known concert

appearance was in Hampstead in 1724, where he played ‘Violin Concertino’ in pieces of his own composition.

It seems that the last ffeen years or so of his life were less productive, as Hawkins writes he died ‘in very

necessitated circumstances, about the year 1740’.12

Te Six suittes are pieces of exceptionally high quality. Trough Estienne Roger’s publishing frm they enjoyed a

broad distribution in print, and they also appear in several important manuscript copies (Tables 1 and 2). 13

8 Te Daily Courant, 10 February 1703. Gaspardo Visconti played several of Corelli’s sonatas accompanied by ‘Monsieur Dupar’. See M. Tilmouth, ‘A Calendar of Reference to Music in Newspapers Published in London and the Provinces (1660–1719)’, Royal Musical Association Research Chronicle 1 (1968): 47.

9 P. H. Highfll, Jr., K. A. Burnim, and E. A. Langhans, A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers, and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660–1800, xvi (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, 1973–1993) [BDA], iv:399–401.

10 J. Milhous and R.D. Hume (eds.), Vice Chamberlain Coke’s Teatrical Papers 1706–1715 (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, 1982) [Coke Papers], no. 93.; see also BDA, i:100.

11 J. Hawkins, A General History of the Science and Practice of Music, v (London, 1776) [Hawkins], v:169–170.

12 Ibid.

13 Copies survive in Britain, France, and Germany; see RISM, A/I/2, D 3042 and D 3044. See D. Fuller and B. Gustafson, A Catalogue of French Harpsichord Music, 1699–1780 (Oxford, 1990), 121, 253–255. For further description and contextual

4

J. S. Bach famously copied out Dieupart’s suites with the ornament table in the 1710s and quoted Dieupart

extensively in his own so-called English Suites, BWV 806–11, composed in Weimar perhaps around 1715.

Forkel’s claim that the English Suites were written for an English gentleman is almost certainly apocryphal; on

the contrary it seems likely that the moniker ‘English’ refers to Dieupart, who came to fame in England.

Dieupart’s collection is exceptionally forward-looking, making it an important—if understudied—record of

the transition in French harpsichord music away from the seventeenth-century style luthé and towards an

orchestral ideal more typical of eighteenth-century styles. Dieupart’s are the frst uniform suites, each

consisting of the same number and types of dances (Table 3).14 In particular, the systematic inclusion of an

overture is an innovation underscoring the suites’ tendency to combine an idiomatic keyboard style with the

French orchestral idiom.

Table 1: Surviving exemplars of Dieupart’s Six suittes (1701–1702)

Siglum Date Parts Title Provenance

D-W, 21.1 Musica div. 2º 1701 , Six suittes de clavessin … mises en concert …

Roger, Catalogue, 226;provenance unknown15

D-W, 21.2 Musica div. 2º 1701 Six suittes de clavessin … mises en concert …

GB-DRc, Pr. Mus. C. 31 1702 , Six suittes …propres a jouer sur …

Roger, Catalogue, 227; probably purchased by Falle in Amsterdam, 170216

GB-Cfm, MU. 435 1701 Six suittes de clavessin … mises en concert …

Roger, Catalogue, 229; inscribed ‘R. Fitzwilliam 1766’; acquired in Paris possibly through Duphly17

F-Pn, Rés VMA-6 1701 Six suittes de clavessin … mises en concert …

Roger, Catalogue, 229; unexamined

= keyboard book; = dessus partbook; = bass partbook

discussions, see G. B. Staufer, ‘Boyvin, Grigny, D’Anglebert, and Bach’s Assimilation of French Classical Organ Music’, Early Music, 21/1 (1993), 83–96 and A. Silbiger, ‘Tracing the contents of Froberger’s lost autographs’, Current Musicology, 54 (1993), 5–23.

14 Fuller and Holman, ‘Dieupart’, Grove Music Online [Grove] (accessed 1 August 2012).

15 H. Haase, Alte Musik in: Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel (Brunswick, 1989), 74–81.

16 R. A. Harman, A Catalogue of Printed Music and Books on Music in Durham Cathedral Library (London, 1968), ix–x and M. Urquhart, ‘Prebendary Philip Falle (1656–1742) and the Durham Bass Viol Manuscript A27’, Chelys 5 (1973–74): 7–20.

17 B. H. Blacker, ‘Fitzwilliam, Richard, seventh Viscount Fitzwilliam of Merrion (1745-1816)’, rev. J. D. Pickles, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Online [ODNB] (accessed 1 August 2012).

5

Table 2: Manuscript copies of the Six suittesSiglum Date Scribe Filiation

D-F, Mus. Hs. 1538 1709–14 Johann Sebastian Bach probably copied from a print

D-Bsb, Mus. MS Bach P 801 c.1712 Johann Gottfried Walther

D-Bsb, Mus. MS 8551 afer 1714 Aloys Fuchs probably copied from Bach P 801

A-Wm, Mus. MS XIV 743 afer 1708 unknown

GB-Lbl, Add. MS 39569 c.1702 Charles Babel Dieupart’s autograph (lost)

GB-CAMhogwood, M1902 c.1702 unknown Dieupart’s autograph (lost)

Table 3: Sequence of dances in the Six suittesDance Comments

1. Ouverture typically tripartite, with the slow dotted music returning afer the fast section;middle contrapuntal section may be in duple time, a more modern feature

2. Allemande stylistically forward-looking; reminiscent of Parisian styles 1700–1710

3. Courante heavy, virtuosic pieces in the old style; reminiscent of Marchand’s style (1690s)

4. Sarabande phrase structure is more modern (end on the downbeat rather than on the third beat);textures are more in the old style luthé, reminiscent again of Marchand

5. Gavotte typically light pieces in a forward-looking style; reminiscent of Parisian styles 1700–1710

6. Menuet may be substituted with a Passepied; one Menuet en rondeau

7. Gigue uniformly lacking the characteristic three-note pickup of Continental French gigues;always starting on the downbeat, more in the style of an English jig

Te instrumentation of the Six suittes has been a matter of some confusion in the history of their modern

reception. Te suites were published in 1701 by Roger in Amsterdam as a keyboard book with accompanying

instrumental parts under the title:

S S C | Divisées en | Ouvertures, Allemandes, Courantes, Sarabandes, Gavottes, | Menuets, Rondeaux, & Gigues | Composées et Mises en Concert | Par | M D | Pour un Violon & Flûte avec une Basse | de Viole & un Archilut | Dédiées à | M C S | A | Chez E R Marchand libraire. (Fig. 1.)

Te 1702 edition is a reprint of the instrumental parts only, published as:

S S | Divisées en | Ouvertures, Allemandes, Courantes, Sarabandes, | Gavottes, Menuets, Rondeaux, | & Gigues | Propres à jouer sur la Flûte ou le Violon | avec une Basse Continue | Composées Par | M D | A | Chez E R Marchand libraire. (Fig. 2.)

6

In the past it has been assumed that these two editions represent two distinct performing options sanctioned

by Dieupart; the 1701 edition seemingly corresponds to a solo-harpsichord version, and the 1702 edition to an

ensemble version.18 Modern performing editions have reinforced this perception;19 likewise, Dieupart’s works

list in Grove maintains a distinction between supposed instrumental and keyboard versions of the suites.20

Tis article re-evaluates this interpretation of the performing parts, arguing that the two separate impressions

do not correspond to two distinct performing ensembles sanctioned by the composer. Tis argument proceeds

from an examination of the contexts of performances of French-style repertoires en concert, from the earliest

instances of the use of this and related terms on the continent through about 1750. In particular, performance

considerations in evidence in Roger’s publications of lute and harpsichord concerts, starting with Dieupart’s

publication in 1701–2 and continuing through the frst the two decades of the eighteenth century, are

examined. In addition, the Dieupart suites are situated in the larger context of music en concert from c.1650–

c.1750.

18 Te prints themselves are undated. Te dates are taken from Lesure, Bibliographie des éditions musicales publiées par Estienne Roger et Michel-Charles Le Cène (Paris, 1969).

19 Te frst was Paul Brunold’s in 1934; this was an edition of the 1701 keyboard book to the exclusion of the instrumental parts. Kenneth Gilbert’s 1979 revision of Brunold’s edition included facsimiles of the original instrumental parts but still presented the main musical text as a distinctive ‘keyboard version’. Hugo Ruf prepared an edition of the ‘instrumental version’ in 1966. In 1999 Mieroprint Musikverlag issued facsimile reprints of both the keyboard book and the instrumental partbooks; again, the music was presented as two distinct versions. See Dieupart, Collection, ed. Brunold (Paris, 1934); Six suites pour le clavecin, ed. K. Gilbert (Monaco, 1979); Suite[n] für Querflöte oder Sopranblockflöte und Basso continuo, ed. H. Ruf (Celle, 1966); and 6 Suiten für Cembalo, ed. W. Michel (Münster, 1999); 6 Suiten für Blockflöte und Basso continuo (Münster, 1999).

20 Tis may merely refect the state of afairs as far as published editions are concerned, but it does serve to reinforce the consensus that there is a real distinction to be made between the supposed instrumental and keyboard ‘versions’.

7

Figure 1. Charles Dieupart, Six suittes (Amsterdam, 1701), titlepage,D-W, 21.2 Musica 2º.

By permission of Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel.

8

Figure 2. Charles Dieupart, Six suittes (Amsterdam, 1702), titlepage,GB-DRc, Pr. Mus. C. 31.

By permission of Durham Cathedral Library.

9

What is a consort/concert?

Although the term consort in modern usage refers to a small group of instrumentalists playing together,

typically one on a part, or to the group of instruments they play, it is clear that it originally referred to a mixed

ensemble, that is to say, an ensemble made up of instruments of disparate families.21 Te term frst appears in

English in the late ffeenth century with the general meaning of a fellowship or a company. 22 It is frst used in a

musical context in the late sixteenth century, though not necessarily to refer to an ensemble directly: Robert

Parke describes ‘divers instruments, whereon they played with great consort’ in 1588. 23 Even from this early

stage the specifcation ‘divers instruments’ implies that consort connotes a mixed ensemble. Similarly, a

description of a royal entertainment in 1591 records ‘the musicke of an exquisite consort, wherein was the

Lute, Bandora, Base-Violl, Citterne, Treble-violl, and Flute’, the usual Elizabethan mixed consort.24 Praetorius’s

description of the ‘Englisch Consort’ in the third part of the Syntagma musicum (1619) suggests that other

combinations of instruments were possible, but also assumes the mixed nature of such ensembles.25

By the middle of the century, ensembles of like instruments were also called consorts. Te use of the specifer

‘broken’ in Matthew Locke’s Te Broken Consort—written for a mixed consort including violins, bass viol,

organ and theorbo—suggests that by around 1660 ‘consort’ alone could no longer capture the meaning of a

mixed ensemble.26 Tis linguistic development is seen more clearly still in Tomas Mace’s use of the term

consort in Musick’s Monument (1676). Recalling the music of his youth before the Civil War, and lamenting

the present state of music, Mace writes:

21 P. Holman, Four and Twenty Fiddlers (Oxford, 1995), 131–2.

22 consort < Latin consors ‘colleague, partner, fellow soldier, companion, spouse’ < con+ ‘together’ sors, sortem ‘fate, luck’. See relevant entries in Te Oxford English Dictionary [OED], 2nd edn (Oxford, 1989).

23 R. Parke, J. G. de Mendoza’s History of the Kingdome of China (London, 1588), 173.

24 Te Honourable Entertainment … at Elvetham (London, 1591); repr. in R. H. St Maur, Annals of the Seymours (London, 1902), 474.

25 Praetorius, Syntagma musicum (Wolfenbüttel, 1619), iii:168.

26 Edwards argues that Te Broken Consort is actually for an unbroken (in the modern sense) ensemble of viols or violins. In Edward’s view, the use of ‘broken’ in this context denotes incompleteness, in contradistinction to a ‘whole consort’. Tus Locke’s pieces of three, four, and fve parts are ‘broken’ in the sense that they do not consistently employ the whole consort. Setting aside the question of mixing the violin and viol families, this view is problematic given the strong evidence for the use of organ and theorbo in the accompaniment of consort music: see footnote 60, below. Te date of c.1660 for Te Broken Consort is not uncontroversial: dates as early as 1650 and as late as 1672 have been proposed. For an extensive discussion of Te Broken Consort and Locke’s other consort music contained in GB-Lbl, Add. MS 17801, see M. Tilmouth, ‘Revisions in the Chamber Music of Matthew Locke’, Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 98 (1971): 89–100.

10

We had for our Grave Musick, Fancies of 3, 4, 5, and 6 Parts to the Organ … ; and Tese Tings were Performed, upon so many Equal, and Truly-Sciz’d Viols; Te Organ Evenly, Sofly, and Sweetly Acchording to All.…

But when we would be most Ayrey, Jocond, Lively, and Spruce; Ten we had Choice and Singular Consorts, either for 2, 3, or 4 Parts, but not to the Organ (as many nowadays Improperly, and Unadvisedly perform such like Consorts with) but to the Harpsicon…a most Excellent Kind of Instrument for a Consort. But the Organ far beyond It, for Tose other Performances before mentioned.27

Here we see Mace using the terminology of the 1670s to describe the musical practice of the 1630s or 40s. His

systematic inclusion of the phrases ‘to the Organ’ and ‘to the Harpsicon’ to describe the Jacobean practice of

accompanying consort music at the keyboard shows that by the 1670s the sense of consort had shifed towards

its modern meaning of a collection of like instruments of diferent size (‘equal and truly-sciz’d’). Tus, consort

meant a mixed ensemble from the Elizabethan period until the Restoration.28

At about this time the originally unrelated, French-derived term concert entered into English usage. Unlike

consort, it derives from the sixteenth-century Italian term concerto, namely an ensemble of voices to which

instruments have been added, either doubling or substituting for the vocal parts. 29 Te frst recorded use of this

latter term is Andrea Gabrieli’s Concerti ecclesiastici (1587); Schütz’s Kleine geistliche Concerte (1636/39) are

also in this tradition. Te French usage does not carry the associations with vocal music inherent in the Italian

term from which it derives, but the implication of a mixed ensemble is nevertheless clear from the late sixteenth

century when the term came into French through at least the mid-eighteenth century.30 Cotgrave’s Dictionarie

of the French and English Tongues (1611) equates the French ‘concert de musique’ with a ‘consort of musicke’,

presumably the Elizabethan mixed consort.31 Mersenne’s Harmonie universelle (1637) speaks of ‘Violes dans les

Concerts’, which suggests that other instruments were included in such ensembles as well. A rubric in Lully’s

Ballet Royal d’Alcidiane (1658) describes ‘un Concert Rustique’ comprised of ‘a group of futes and several

27 T. Mace, Musick’s Monument (London, 1676), 235.

28 W. Edwards, ‘Te Sources of Elizabethan Consort Music’, Ph.D. diss. (Cambridge, 1974), 40.

29 French concert < Italian concerto < Latin concertare, ‘to strive together,’ ‘to bring into agreement’. See relevant entries in OED.

30 J. R. Anthony, French Baroque Music: From Beaujoyeulx to Rameau, rev. edn (Portland, 1997), 345–7 and 366–9. For further references to seventeenth-century uses of concert, see From Renaissance to Baroque, ed. Wainwright and Holman, esp. B. Haynes, ‘Baptiste’s Hautbois: Te Metamorphosis from Shawm to Hautboy in France, 1620–1670’, 23-46, at 26; M. Spring, ‘Early Air de Cour, the Teorbo, and the Continuo Principle in France’, 173–190, at 205; and P. Holman, ‘From Violin Band to Orchestra’, 241–258, at 250–2.

31 Edwards, ‘Consort’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012).

11

other instruments’.32 Michel de La Barre, writing in c.1740 about improvements made to the hautboy which

allowed it to be included in string ensembles, uses concert to mean the mixed ensemble of strings and hautboys:

Mais son elevation [‘le celebre Luly’, supra] ft la chute totalle de tous les entiens istrumens, a l’exception du haubois, grace aux Filidor et Hautteterre, lesquels ont tant gâté de bois et soutenus de la musique, qu’ils sont enfn parvenus a le rendre propre pour les concerts.

Te rise of the famous Lully caused the fnal demise of the old instruments, except for the hautboy, thanks to the Philidors and Hotteterres, who, having spoiled so much wood and undertaken so much music, fnally succeeded in making [the hautboy] suitable for concerts.33

Tus, by coincidence if not common origin, consort and concert shared the meaning of mixed ensemble. It has

been suggested that consort is a ‘false representation’ of the Italian concerto;34 in fact it is a rather felicitous

rendering of the Italian term. It seems consort was confated with concert when the latter entered into English

afer the Restoration; the similarity in meaning and pronunciation allowed for a seamless integration of the

two. Troughout the 1680s and 90s, the terms were used more or less interchangeably in English to refer to

small, mixed instrumental ensembles or to performances given by such ensembles.35 Te old term consort

became increasingly rare in the eighteenth century and more closely associated with older music.

French concerts royaux, c.1670–1715

Te earliest printed concert collection is Livre de musique pour le Lut (1679) by Perrine.36 Perrine is known

only by his surname from this and his second publication, Pièces de luth en musique (1680); he was probably a

court lutenist. Te Livre is the frst lute book to advocate the use of score notation over the traditional

tablature (Example 1). It contains thirty-one partitura transcriptions of pieces by Ennemond Gaultier (1575–

1651) and Denis Gaultier (1603–72), all previously published for solo lute in their Livre de tablature

32 ‘un Choeur de Flustes & de plusieurs autres instruments’: A. Rowland-Jones, ‘Te Iconographic Background to the Seventeenth-Century Recorder’, in From Renaissance to Baroque: Change in Instruments and Instrumental Music in the Seventeenth Century, ed. J. Wainwright and P. Holman (Aldershot, 2005), 87–112, at 98.

33 See M. Ecochard, ‘A Commentary on the Letter by Michel de La Barre Concerning the History of Musettes and Hautboys’, in From Renaissance to Baroque, ed. Wainwright and Holman, 47–62, the letter is given in full (with translation) at 47–8.

34 W. Edwards, ‘Consort’, Grove (1 August 2012).

35 See Tilmouth, ‘References to Music in Newspapers’, passim.

36 Henri Dumont’s Meslanges (Paris, 1657) included several allemandes ‘pour l’Orgue ou le Clavecin & pour trois violes si l’on veut’ (for the organ or the harpsichord and for three viols ad libitum), so it is clear the concert tradition has earlier antecedents in print as well as in practice. See RISM, A/I/2, D 3701. A modern edition of the keyboard versions is available in H. Dumont, L’Oeuvre pour Clavier (Paris, 1956).

12

(c.1672).37 Perrine encourages the use of his partituras for those who would play the lute en concert with other

instruments:

Toutes les personnes qui toucheront ce noble jnstrument de cette maniere … pourront concerter avec toutes sortes d’autres jnstruments, ce qui ne s’est fait jusques à present qu’irregulierm[en]t à cause de la difculté qu’on à de tout temps trouvé à faire un juste rapport de la tablature du Lut à la musique, et de la musique à lad[i]te tablature.

All who will play the lute in this manner [using a partitura] will be able to play together with all sorts of other instruments, which is done only rarely now due to the difculty in relating lute tablature with score notation and vice versa.38

Example 1. ‘L’jmmortelle du vieux Gaultier. Courante’:Perrine, Livre de musique pour le Lut (1679), p. 1

What exactly might it mean for the lute ‘to play together (concerter) with all sorts of other instruments’?

Although the ease with which the lute might play continuo in an ensemble is part of Perrine’s concern,

concerter is unlikely to refer to instances in which the lute fulfls an accompanimental function.39 Crucially, the

trouble taken to transcribe these pieces shows that one of Perrine’s principal concerns was to overcome the

impediments specifc to performing solo lute music en concert with other instruments.40 Terefore, it seems that

Perrine’s usage of the term concerter is best understood as a description of ensemble performances of lute

37 M. Rollin, ‘Gaultier, Denis’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012). Ennemond Gaultier was ofen referred to as ‘Gaultier le vieux’ or ‘Gaultier de Lyon’ and his cousin Denis was known as ‘Gaultier le jeune’ or ‘Gaultier de Paris’; however, they were ofen confounded.

38 Perrine, Livre de musique pour le Lut (Paris, 1679), 15.

39 See also D. Ledbetter, ‘What the Lute Sources Tell Us about the Performance of French Harpsichord Music’, in Te Harpsichord and its Repertoire ed. P. Dirksen (Utrecht, 1992), 59–85; and Ledbetter, Harpsichord and Lute Music in 17th-century France (London, 1987), 60–1.

40 D. Ledbetter, ‘Perrine’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012).

13

repertoire in contradistinction to solo performances of such pieces, as opposed to ensemble performances of a

general kind in which the lute might play an accompanimental rôle.

Perrine’s observation that concert performances of lute music are undertaken ‘only rarely now’ is telling, for it

implies the decline of a once-prevalent practice. Indeed, Louis XIV’s weekly privy chamber concerts in the

1670s seem to be an early instance of this practice. Abbé Jean Le Gallois (1632–1707) reports that Jacques

Hardel (c.1640–1678) would play the pieces of Chambonnières on the harpsichord ‘de concert avec le Lut’

with a certain lutenist ‘Porion’, an otherwise unknown fgure who may be identifed with Perrine or a relative. 41

Tere is no mention of any difculties of the kind anticipated by Perrine’s Livre arising during Hardel and

Porion’s concerts between intabulated lute parts and scored harpsichord parts. It is easy to imagine why:

harpsichord and lute performance of this period was to a signifcant degree improvisatory, even with respect to

‘composed’ pieces.42 Le Gallois reminds us elsewhere that Chambonnières never played his compositions the

same way twice:

Toutes les fois qu’il joüoit une piece il y méloit de nouvelles beautés par des ports de voix, des passages, & des agémens diferens, avec des doubles cadences. Enfn il les diversifoit tellement par toutes ces beautez diferentes qu’il y fasoit toujours trouver de nouvelles graces.

Every time he played a piece he added to it new beauties by means of ports-de-voix, divisions, and various ornaments, including turned trills. In short he so varied the pieces by these several embellishments that he always made them show forth new graces.43

Le Gallois goes on to report that Hardel took down Chambonnières’s pieces by dictation as the master himself

played rather than copying from a written source.44 It seems unlikely, therefore, that written musical texts were

an essential part of an improvisatory performing tradition whose repertoire had been transmitted aurally. In

this context Perrine’s concerter must imply a kind of music-making where the delineation between solo and

accompanimental rôles is ambiguous.45 One can well imagine a fuid division of labour emerging as

harpsichordist and lutenist play a standard of their repertoire without a visual aide-mémoire: one might lead

41 J. Le Gallois, Lettre … à Madamoiselle Regnault de Solier touchant la musique (Paris, 1680), 73. Hardel bequeathed his library to a ‘Gautier’, which may indicate a connection between Hardel and the family of Denis Gaultier and so too with Perrine. ‘Gautier’ could also be Pierre Gaultier (?1642–96), also known as ‘Gaultier de Marseille’, who is known to have been in Paris in the 1680s.

42 B. Gustafson, ‘France’, Keyboard Music before 1700, 2nd edn, ed. A. Silbiger (London, 2004), 119.

43 Le Gallois, Lettre, 70.

44 D. Fuller and B. Gustafson, ‘Hardel’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012).

45 Gustafson, ‘France’, Keyboard Music, 122–123.

14

while the other accompanies for a strain; then they might swap rôles for a strain; now they might play fully

together.46

Te appearance of printed partitura lute books must also be seen in connection with the rise of musical

amateurism during this period.47 Amateur lutenists, without the professional advantage of having a memorized

repertory and therefore reliant on tablature, would fnd it difcult to perform their music en concert. Lute

tablature by defnition is only meaningful for lute playing; likewise for theorbo and guitar tablatures.

Specifcally, tablature does not encode the durations of notes, nor can it easily distinguish distinct contrapuntal

parts. Perrine’s second partitura book Pièces de luth en musique (1680) includes ‘regles pour les toucher

parfaitement sur le luth et sur le clavessin’, which emphasizes that the purpose of these prints was to make the

lute repertoire commutable to other instruments, particularly the harpsichord. Tus, in advocating score

notation, it is clear that Perrine was reacting to the fact the tablature hindered the adoption of the concert

performance practice among amateurs rather than advocating a novel notation in the interest of promoting an

equally novel practice.

Figure 3. Marginalia in the hand of Vaudry inde Visée, Pièces de Téorbe et de Luth (1716), F-B, Ms. 246.976, p. 7

46 Tis improvisatory practice must have been similar to the contrepartie practice for which there is notated evidence in the music for two lyra viols of William Lawes (1602–45), the Lautenkonzert of Jacques Saint-Luc (1616–c.1710) and others, and in the pieces for two harpsichords of Gaspard Le Roux (d.1707). For further discussion see ‘Musical style of concerts, c.1700–1741’, below.

47 See C. Guichard, ‘Taste Communities: Te Rise of the Amateur in Eighteenth-Century Paris’, Eighteenth-Century Studies 45/4 (2012): 519–47, C. Guichard, Les amateurs d’art à Paris au XVIIIe siècle (Seyssel, 2008), and L. Olivier, ‘Curieux, Amateurs, and Connoisseurs: Laymen in the Fine Arts in the Ancien Régime’, Ph.D. diss. (Te Johns Hopkins University, 1976). See also Music in the British Provinces, 1690–1914, ed. R. Cowgill and P. Holman (Aldershot, 2007).

15

Compelling evidence for the actual use of partitura lute books in concert performances is ofered by the

Besançon exemplar of Pièces de Téorbe et de Luth (1716) by Robert de Visée (c.1655–1732/3).48 Each piece in

this copy has an annotation in the hand of Jean-Étienne Vaudry de Saizenay (1668–1742) which provides the

key and instrument of the concordant pieces in Vaudry’s manuscript tablatures, known as the Saizenay

Manuscripts (Figure 3).49 Tis is particularly revealing in light of the fact that the medium for performance of

the partitura sources is ostensibly not the lute or the theorbo. De Visée’s preface to the 1716 print reads, in

part:

Plusieurs autres auroient peutêtre souhaité que j’eusse mis une troisieme portée sous la partition, ou la pièce eut été gravée en tablature: mais le nombre de ceux qui entendent la tablature est si petit que j’ay cru ne devoir pas grosser mon livre inutilement; d’ailleurs on me trouvera toujours disposé a les donner de cette maniere à ceux qui les désireront. Le but de cette impression est le clavecin, la viole, et le violon sur lesquels Instruments elles ont toujours concerté.

Many perhaps would have wished that I had put a third staf under the score where the piece might [also] have been engraved in tablature: but those who understand tablature are so small in number that I thought it unnecessary to needlessly enlarge my book [by including tablatures]; however, I shall happily provide them to those who shall desire them. Tis print is designed for the harpsichord, the viol, and the violin, upon which instruments these pieces have always been played in concert.50

Te reader is advised that to include a third tablature staf under the score would have been a ‘needless’

addition to the book, since few plucked-string players relied on tablatures any longer; in any case, the purpose

of the book was for use by non-tablature instruments. Yet the marginalia link the partituras with the tablatures,

and furthermore the systematic indication of key and instrumentation suggests that these concordances serve a

performance function. Importantly, there are no such concordances noted in the manuscript tablatures; in

connection with de Visée’s comment that these pieces had ‘always been played in concert’, it would seem that

the partitura marginalia designate the appropriate transposition to the staf-notation performer when the

partitura and tablatures are to be used together in concert performance.

Along with Perrine’s publications and Le Gallois’s accounts of performances the 1670s, the Saizenay sources

show how the en concert practice developed in royal privy chamber music throughout the 1690s and early

eighteenth century. De Visée is mentioned in 1680 by Le Gallois, and the preface to the Livre de guitarre dédié

48 F-B, Ms. 246.976

49 F-B, Ms. 279.152 and Ms. 279.153. See B. Prud’Homme, ‘A Source Study and Tematic Catalogue of the Robert de Visée Teorbo Works’, Ph.D. diss. (University of Colorado, 1992).

50 R. de Visée, Pièces de Téorbe et de Luth (Paris, 1716), 4.

16

au Roy (1682) suggests that by this time he was a regular performer in the King’s private music. Between 1696

and 1705, the diary of Philippe de Courcillon, Marquis de Dangeau (1638–1720), records several royal

concerts in which de Visée was a performer with the wind players René Pignon dit Descoteaux (c.1655–1728)

and Philippe Rebillé dit Philbert (1639–1717), the viol player Antoine Forqueray (1671–1745), and the

harpsichordist Jean-Baptiste Buterne (c.1650–1727).51 Dangeau’s accounts seem to indicate to the emergence

of a ‘standard’ four-player royal chamber concert ensemble during the period c.1695–1705 consisting of lute

(or possibly guitar or theorbo), harpsichord, bass viol, and a treble instrument (in this case, fute, oboe, or

possibly musette). Te development of a chamber ensemble which reinforced the melody and bass over the

other parts seems to be related to the development of a new ‘melodic style’ in lute and harpsichord music. 52 De

Visée is sensitive to this stylistic development in the preface to the Livre de guitarre (1682):

Tant de gens se sont appliqués à la guittare, et en ont donné des pieces au public que ie ne sçai si ie pourai en faisant imprimer les miennes, ofrir quelque nouveauté au goust des curieux. Cependant je n’ai travaillé que pour cela, et pour i reussir, je me suis attaché au chant le plus que j’ai pû.

So many people have devoted themselves to the guitar and have published their pieces for it, that I know not whether I could ofer any new thing for the delectation of amateurs by publishing my own pieces. Nevertheless I have worked only for this, and to succeed at this I have focused on the melody as much as I could.53

Tis new style can also be seen in the harpsichord music of Hardel and Jean-Henry d’Anglebert (1629–1691)

through their development of melodic bass-lines, which ‘tighten the harmonic logic and make a more modern

sound.’54 Tis style, coupled with the rising popularity of the harpsichord in the 1670s, shaped the emerging

concerts royaux and their characteristic performance practices; in turn, the development of a standardized

concert royal, in conjunction with the demise of the lute and the increasing popularity of amateur music-

making, stimulated the production of partitura lute prints aimed at amateur concerts.

51 E. Soulié, L. Dussieux, et al. (eds.), Journal du Marquis de Dangeau avec les additions du Duc de Saint Simon , xix (Paris, 1854–1860), v:112, ix:332, x:161, 428.

52 B. Prud’Homme, ‘A Source Study of the Robert de Visée Teorbo Works’, 15; see also A. Dunn, ‘Style and Development in the Teorbo Works of Robert de Visée: An Introductory Study’, Ph.D. diss. (University of California, San Diego, 1989), 135f.

53 R. de Visée, Livre de guitarre dédié au Roy (Paris, 1682), 4.

54 D. Fuller and B. Gustafson, ‘Hardel’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012).

17

English consorts, c.1650–1700

Te earliest examples of the concert practice in England are the ‘lute consorts’ in GB-Ob, MSS Mus. Sch.

E.410–14.55 Tese are a set of partbooks including a lute tablature, a treble part for viol or violin, a lyra viol

tablature, and two unfgured basses, ostensibly for a bass viol and a theorbo. Tere are thirty-two pieces in all,

six of which are almost certainly by John Birchensha (d.1681). Concordances with earlier lute sources show

that many of these consorts originated as solo lute pieces from as early as the 1630s. Matthew Spring has

argued that these books were assembled in the 1650s or 1660s for an Oxford lute consort.56 Te partbooks

show a fexibility of approach in adapting the solo lute versions as consort pieces.57 Te instruments will ofen

double the outer voices of the solo lute part, but in many cases contreparties have been added to the known lute

versions.58 Tis is similar to the duo practices of the early French concerts as described by Le Gallois. Like

French concerts, English lute consorts apparently derive from an earlier practice of lute duos. For example, the

two-lute version of John Dowland’s (1563–1626) ‘My Lord Willoughby’s Welcome Home’ probably

represents the Oxford lute consorts’ antecedent tradition.59

As an early source of keyboard music with instrumental accompanied, Parthenia inviolata (?c.1624) warrants

mention. Tis collection seems to be related to the earlier tradition of Renaissance instrumental music

accompanied by organ (of which Purcell’s consort music is perhaps the latest exponent),60 although it reverses

the structural relationship between the instruments: whereas the keyboard accompanies (i.e. doubles) the parts

in consort music, in Parthenia the keyboard is accompanied (i.e. ‘inviolated’) by the viol. Tis reinforces the

relationship between the seventeenth-century practice of continuo doubling and the eighteenth-century

concert practice. Parthenia inviolata therefore serves as a very early example of the concert principle.

55 For a full description with examples, see T. Crawford, ‘An Unusual Consort Revealed in an Oxford Manuscript’, Chelys 6 (1975–6): 61–8.

56 Spring, Lute in Britain, 344.

57 Ibid.

58 See J. Cunningham, Te Consort Music of William Lawes, 1602–1645, Music in Britain, 1600–1900, 5 (Woodbridge, 2010).

59 J. Dowland, Te Collected Lute Music of John Dowland, ed. D. Poulton and B. Lam (London, 1974), 199f [no. 66a].

60 For discussion of the continuo in early seventeenth-century consort music, see A. Ashbee, ‘Te Four-Part Consort Music of John Jenkins’, Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 96 (1970): 29–42; D. Pinto, ‘William Lawes’ Music for Viol Consort’, Early Music 6/1 (1978): 12–24; P. Holman, ‘Suites by Jenkins Rediscovered’, Early Music 6/1 (1978): 25–35; and Holman, ‘“Evenly, Sofly, and Sweetly Acchording to All”: the Organ Accompaniment of English Consort Music’, in John Jenkins and his Time, ed. A. Ashbee and P. Holman (Oxford, 1996), 353–82.

18

Dieupart’s Six suittes as concerts

Viewed in connection with the French concert royal, the meaning of Dieupart’s title, Six suittes de clavessin

mises en concert, becomes unambiguous. It cannot so readily be assumed to mean that the 1702 instrumental

parts are a transcription of the harpsichord ‘version’ and represent a distinct performance scenario. Rather, it

must be the case that both the 1701 and 1702 impressions represent diferent aspects of the concert

performance tradition.

What might these be? In principle, the published performance materials allow for three performance scenarios.

Tese are:

(1) performance by harpsichord solo using the 1701 harpsichord book alone;

(2) concert performance, using all the 1701 performing materials simultaneously; or

(3) solo-continuo performance, in which the 1702 partbooks are used by violin or voice fute

accompanied by bass viol and harpsichord or archlute.61

Te distinction between the latter two scenarios is important. In the solo-continuo arrangement, the keyboard

does not play the solo keyboard part, but would improvise an accompaniment from a bass part. In the concert

performance the keyboard plays the same composed part as in a solo performance, accompanied by additional

treble and continuo instruments.

Apart from the historical context of the French concert royal, the sequence of the publication of the two

Dieupart prints indicates that the Six suittes were designed from the outset as concerts. David Fuller has

claimed incorrectly that the keyboard and instrumental parts were published and sold separately, which would

weigh against the notion of these parts being intended for joint use. 62 In fact, all three books were available

from 1701 in the frst edition. Roger’s catalogue of 1716 lists a three-book set of parts consisting of a ‘Partition’

(keyboard part), a ‘Dessus separé’ (violin or fute part), and a ‘basse de Viole ou de Teorbe’ (continuo part):

61 David Fuller has enumerated these as ‘solo’, ‘treble and continuo’, and ‘accompanied’ scenarios. See D. Fuller, ‘Accompanied Keyboard Music’, Musical Quarterly 60/2 (1974): 222–45, at 233.

62 Ibid., 234. Te mistaken notion that the 1701 edition comprised only the keyboard book permeates the literature; see also A. Woolley, ‘English Keyboard Sources and their Contexts’, Ph.D. diss. (University of Leeds, 2008), 209f; Fuller and Holman, ‘Dieupart’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012). It seems to have arisen from an examination of only the sources in Britain. Fuller is aware of the existence of the Wolfenbüttel copies of the instrumental parts (D-W 21.1 Musica div. 2º) but fails to realize that they belong to the 1701 impression.

19

226 Six Suittes de Piéces de Clavecin, composées d’Allemandes, Gavottes, Rondeaux. Menuets & Gigues avec un Dessus separé & une basse de Viole ou de Teorbe ad libitum mises en Concert par Mr. Dieupart. f 9. 0

229 Le meme livre quand on ne veut que la Partition seule sans le dessus & la basse. f 6. 063

Importantly, only the keyboard ‘Partition’ is listed separately for individual sale. Te treble and bass partbooks

are not available separately; they are listed in the harpsichord section of the catalogue and are available for

purchase only with keyboard book. Tis is inconsistent with the notion that these partbooks might represent a

distinct ‘instrumental version’. Rather, it shows that the harpsichord book is the indispensable component.

Furthermore, the presentation of the catalogue entries makes it clear that the keyboard score by itself is an

abridgement of the three-book set; it is not the case that the three-book set is an expansion of the keyboard

book. Te three-book concert set is clearly the primarily intended, and perhaps ‘best’, version.

By contrast, the 1702 edition is listed with a diferent title and in a diferent section of the catalogue with other

‘Pieces à la Françoise’:

227 Six suites à un dessus & Basse composes | par Mr. Dieupart. f 3. 064

Aside from the newly engraved title plate, the 1702 partbooks are printed from the 1701 plates. In both

impressions, the sixteen numbered pages of each partbook are composed of four bifolio gatherings with the

titlepage overlaid as a single folio. Te parts’ appearance in 1702 seems to show that Roger or Dieupart latterly

became concerned with enabling solo-continuo performances. Realizing perhaps that they had been needlessly

narrowing the market for the pieces, they made the partbooks available without the keyboard book.

An advertisement in Te Post Boy of 5 March 1702 lists ‘Mr. Dieupart’s Book of Lessons for the Harpsichord,

made in Consorts, as Perform’d last Friday at the Consort at the Teatre in Little Lincolns Inn Fields’. 65 Tis is

almost certainly a translation of the work’s title as given in the 1701 edition, Suittes de clavessin … mises en

concert. Te reference in 1702 to a ‘Consort’ performance, invoking the language of the 1701 title, illustrates

the degree to which both the 1701 and 1702 editions were confated or viewed as equivalent.66

63 [E. Roger] and M. le Cène, Catalogue des livres de musiques, imprimés à Amsterdam chez Michel Charles le Cène [Roger, Catalogue] (Amsterdam, 1737), nos. 226, 229; repr. in F. Lesure, Bibliographie (Paris, 1969), [83]f.

64 Roger, Catalogue, no. 227.

65 Tilmouth, ‘References to Music in Newspapers’, 40.

66 Tis is consistent with other advertisements for the collection. In 1701 and 1702 Francis Vaillant ( c.1678–?1715), Roger’s London agent, placed a series of advertisements for both prints: see Te Post Man, 4 November 1701; Te Post Boy, 6 March 1702; Te Post Man, 11 April 1702; Te Post Boy, 16 April 1702. Te advertisements are directed ‘To all Lovers of Symphony’,

20

Dieupart concert manuscripts

Te two English manuscript sources for the Dieupart suites represent the frst instances in England of the

French keyboard concert. Tese are GB-Lbl, Add. MS 39569, a keyboard anthology, and GB-CAMhogwood,

M1902, a pair of instrumental partbooks, one dessus and one bass.67 All three books were copied around 1702

by Charles Babel (c.1634–c.1716), a French wind player and copyist active in England from about 1698.68

Dieupart is the most strongly represented composer in Add. MS 39569: the suites in A major (no. 1 in the

Roger editions), D major (no. 2), E minor (no. 4), and F major (no. 6) are present, together with an E-major

suite not found in the Roger collection.69 It is unlikely that the Babel transcriptions derive from the printed

collection, not least because the manuscript was complete by 1702; it is more probable that Babel acquired a

manuscript source from Dieupart around 1700 and that his transcriptions (or arrangements?) derive from

this.70 Dieupart and Babel were both musicians at the Teatre Royal in Drury Lane from the 1699–1700

season until 1707–8, when both took up posts at the Queen’s Teatre in the Haymarket.71

Variants not present in the printed collections are common to both Add. MS 39569 and M1902; therefore the

M1902 partbooks almost certainly derive from the same lost manuscript source as Add. MS 39569. Woolley

has already pointed out that there is no missing second dessus partbook, as had been previously suggested, 72

probably a translation of the French symphonie meaning an ensemble of instruments. Inasmuch as both the 1701 and 1702 editions were advertised using the same formula, it is clear that Vaillant did not see them as marketed to diferent audiences.

For an outline of Vaillant’s career, see E. Goodway, ‘Te production and patronage of David Willaume, Huguenot merchant goldsmith’, in From Strangers to Citizens: Te Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland, and Colonial America, 1550–1750, eds. R. Vigne, C. Littleton, et al. (Eastbourne, 2001), 144–50. For a discussion of the term ‘symphony’ in English musical nomenclature of this period see the preface of B. Wood (ed.), Symphony Songs, Purcell Society Edition, 27 (London, 2008) and S. G. Cusick, ‘Sinfonia (I), 1. To 1700’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012).

67 For full physical descriptions, see Woolley, ‘English Keyboard Sources’, 202–5 and Gustafson, French Harpsichord Music, ii:87–8. Facsimile published as London, British Library, MS Add. 39569, ed. Gustafson, Seventeenth-Century Keyboard Music 19 (London, 1987).

68 Woolley, ‘English Keyboard Sources’, 199–200; BDA, i:190.

69 Te courante in this E-major suite appears transposed as the courante in the F-major suite of the Roger collection. For a discussion of the relationship between these two suites, see Woolley, ‘English Keyboard Sources’, 214–5 and Dieupart, Tree Suites for Harpsichord, ed. Woolley (Bicester, 2009).

70 Gustafson, French Harpsichord Music, i:72; Woolley, ‘English Keyboard Sources’, 216.

71 BDA, i:190.

72 R. Herissone, ‘Te Magdalene-College Part-books: Origins and Contents’, Royal Musical Association Research Chronicle 29 (1996): 47–95, esp. 48. Woolley, ‘English Keyboard Sources’, 205.

21

and that it is very unlikely that Add. MS 39569 was intended as an accompaniment to M1902. 73 Nevertheless,

the very large number of concordances among M1902, Add. MS 39569 and Babel’s other keyboard

manuscripts would be surprising if these collections were construed to serve ensembles of essentially diferent

instrumentations. Rather, this fact seems to suggest that these sources are repositories of the shared repertoire

of any domestic ensemble, regardless of instrumentation.

Te frst piece in M1902, an allemande in A major by Robert King (d. afer 1728), is illustrative of this point.

Te toccata-like passages which occur throughout are idiomatic for keyboard but rather atypical of consort

music, which suggests a close connection between these partbooks and the keyboard source (Figure 4).

Comparison with the concordant version in Add. MS 39569 suggests even further that M1902 might have

been intended to be used with a keyboard book, if not Add. MS 39569 (Example 2). Babel has halved the

notation when copying M1902; thus C-stroke in Add. MS 39569 becomes C in M1902. But because there is

an odd number of bars in the C-stroke version, there is a half-bar lef over at the end of the strain when it is

transcribed in C; whence the change to C-stroke for the last bar of M1902. However, the musical sense of this

extra bar (in C-stroke) or half-bar (in C), which makes the strain’s phrase structure asymmetrical, is dependent

upon the keyboard fguration which is present in Add. MS 39569 but absent in M1902. Te presence of this

half-bar in M1902, and, moreover, the trouble taken to preserve it through a somewhat cumbersome notation,

indicate that strict concordance with the keyboard version was a scribal priority. Tis in turn suggests that

M1902 may have been intended to be used with a keyboard book now lost.

Example 2. Comparison of the opening of King’s ‘Allemande’ inGB-Lbl, Add. MS 39569 and GB-CAMhogwood, M1902

73 Woolley, ‘English Keyboard Sources’, 209.

22

Figure 4. GB-Lbl, Add. MS 39569, f. 5: Robert King, ‘Allemande’By permission of Te British Library.

Te circumstances of the execution of M1902 support this possibility. Te partbooks contain the bookplates of

Charles Cholmondeley (1684/5–1759), who acceded to his seat at Vale Royal in Cheshire in 1701. 74 Records

from a 1946 auction show that there was a substantial collection of early eighteenth-century music at Vale

Royal.75 Woolley has suggested that a keyboard book intended to be used in conjunction with M1902 may

once have existed;76 in fact, the mutilated lower half of a single folio from a c.1700 keyboard manuscript

survives as part of the Cholmondeley accession in the Cheshire Record Ofce.77 Whether or not this fragment

is the remains of such a book, it implies the presence of at least one keyboard player at Vale Royal at that time

and is once again indicative of a growing relationship between the concert tradition and amateur domestic

music-making in the early eighteenth century.

74 Winsford History Society, Vale Royal: Abbey and House (Winsford, Cheshire, 1977), 24.

75 GB-CRr, DBC 2309/2/7, pp. 34–37.

76 Woolley, ‘English Keyboard Sources’, 209.

77 GB-CRr, DCH/M/32/25

23

Dieupart’s concert style

While the solo-continuo performances implied by the 1702 parts are certainly not radically novel reimaginings

of the pieces, they nevertheless clarify the perspective of Dieupart and Roger, which we may take to be

refective of the conventional thinking of the time. Teir perspective is ostensibly that the concert performance

is the initial context from which the solo-continuo context is derived. Tis order of precedence is an important

insight into the development of French-style instrumental composition and performance practices. Te

Dieupart ‘solos’ of 1702 clarify the link between later eighteenth-century solo instrumental suites with

continuo accompaniment and their concert suite antecedents. Tey also ofer an insight into how the lute and

harpsichord may have transitioned into their rôle as continuo instruments in modern eighteenth-century

ensembles.

David Fuller’s study on accompanied keyboard music highlights some discrepancies between the instrumental

parts and the keyboard book, which may seem ‘carefully calculated to improve the [keyboard] bass for a

[bowed] continuo accompaniment intended to substitute for the keyboard original’ (Example 3).78 On this

basis, Fuller rejects the identifcation of the Dieupart suites as concerts, arguing that ‘it is doubtful that [they]

were ever intended as accompanied keyboard music’.79

Following Fuller, Andrew Woolley claims that ‘in one instance, the partbooks contain a completely diferent

piece’, which would suggest that they were not intended for use with the keyboard book (Example 4). 80 Tis

claim is mistaken and seems to have arisen from a cursory comparison of the dessus partbook and the upper

staf of the keyboard part of the gigue from the ffh suite in F major. In fact, the same gigue appears in both the

keyboard book and the partbooks.

Despite these notable exceptions, in most cases—as in the menuets, passepieds, and sarabandes—the

instrumental parts reproduce the outer parts of the keyboard texture without modifcation (Example 5).

Variations between the basses are found principally in the slow sections of overtures and, to a lesser extent, in

allemandes; arpeggiated keyboard fgures in the right hand of the keyboard part are sometimes recast as

stepwise melodies in the dessus partbook.

78 Fuller, ‘Accompanied Keyboard Music’, 234.

79 Ibid., 233.

80 Woolley, ‘English Keyboard Sources’, 209.

24

Example 3. Dieupart, ‘Ouverture’, Six suittes (1701–2), no. 8, bb. 1–16

25

Example 4. Dieupart, ‘Gigue’, Six suittes (1701–2), no. 35

26

Example 4 continued. Dieupart, ‘Gigue’, Six suittes (1701–2), no. 35

27

Example 5. Dieupart, ‘Menuet’, Six suittes (1701–2), no. 27

28

Given the contextual and documentary evidence identifying these pieces as concert suites, the presence of

variants between the partbooks and the keyboard book cannot show that the instrumental and keyboard

versions are mutually exclusive. Instead they reveal much about the stylistic limits of texture and

instrumentation in the concert tradition. Te accompanying instrumental parts tend to double the outer voices

of the keyboard texture literally; but occasionally chordal fgurations in the keyboard bass are transformed into

a contrapuntal bass better suited a bowed instrument. Te variants between the dessus partbook and the right

hand of the keyboard in the F-major gigue (Example 4) ofer rather more direct evidence that the two parts

were designed to ft together. Te parts display idiomatic voice-leading at cadences, both in octave

displacements (bb. 4, 18) and the so-called ‘Corelli clash’ (bb. 14, 28). An extended passage of contrary motion

(bb. 20–22) ofers another example of the possibilities for textural variety.

Musical style of concerts, c.1700–1741

Te ensemble textures found in the Dieupart suites fall into two contrasting categories: the outer voices of the

keyboard part are doubled at the unison by the accompanying instruments or a chordal keyboard passage is

adapted into a melodic, contrapuntal treble or bass. Tese two textures are typical of French-style concert

music, illustrating a dynamic relationship between the contrepartie and concert traditions. A detailed account

of the relationship between these traditions exceeds the scope of this article; but broadly speaking a

contrepartie is an added part which enhances a piece yet is non-essential. It originates in the late sixteenth-

century as a device in instrumental consort music.81 Te ensemble textures of the concert seem to arise from the

competing impulses to play along (‘consort’) or play against (‘contrepartie’) in improvised ensemble

performance.

Tese competing impulses are readily seen in the Pieces de clavecin en concerts (1741) of Jean-Philippe Rameau

(1683–1754).82 Te diferences between the dessus and the keyboard in the opening of ‘La Marais’ from

Rameau’s ffh concert are of the contrepartie-type found in Dieupart’s F-major gigue cited above (Figure 5).

Unison doubling of the keyboard by the accompanying instruments occurs throughout Rameau’s concerts, as

for example at the beginning of ‘L’Agaçante’ from the second concert (Figure 5).

81 For more detailed discussions of the history of the contrepartie, see Cunningham, Te Consort Music of William Lawes, passim; Spring, Lute in Britain, 351–63.

82 RISM, A/I/7, R 190; other editions, R 191–3.

29

Figure 5. Jean-Philippe Rameau, ‘La Marais’,Pieces de clavecin en concerts (Paris, 1741), 38, bb. 1–5.

Public domain.

Figure 5. Rameau, ‘L’Agaçante’,Pieces de clavecin en concerts (Paris, 1741), 14, bb. 1–3.

Public domain.

30

To take an earlier example from among Roger’s publications, Suittes faciles (1701) contains treble and bass parts

that are fairly unidiomatic to the lute. While no corresponding lute part survives, it is reasonable to assume that

these are adaptations of a style brisé lute part. In this case, the Suittes faciles would show the same kinds of

textures present in Dieupart’s F-major gigue. Te Pièces de Clavessin (1705) of Gaspard Le Roux (c.1660–

1707) are another important example of the contrepartie-type texture. Unique among the concert repertoire in

its manner of presentation, Le Roux’s print provides both a solo harpsichord version in keyboard score with

typical French keyboard clefs (what Le Roux calls a ‘tablature’) as well as a concert version in a three-stave score

in instrumental clefs. Te scores include contrepartie melodies not present in the keyboard ‘talbature’. Le Roux

writes that this dual presentation not only facilitates concert performance, as might be expected, but also serves

to lend spontaneity to solo performance:

On a souhaité que je misse le dessus et la basse de chacune de ces pieces. Ce qui sera d’un grand secours a ceux qui voudront chanter et accompagner avant que de les apprendre par tablature. Laquelle deviendra alors tres facille étant prevenus du chant et du mouvement. J’y ay ajouté une contrepartie pour le concert. La plus part de ces pieces font leur efet à deux Clavessins.

It was wished that I set the treble and bass of each of the pieces [on a second system], which will be of great help to those who will wish to sing [ i.e., play the melody alone?] and accompany [themselves] before learning the pieces from the keyboard score. Te keyboard score will thus become very clear, the player having been made aware of the melody and character of the piece. I have added to [this second system] a contrepartie for use in concerts. Most of these pieces make their [best] efect when played on two harpsichords.83

Concerts favouring the doubling texture also provide evidence for the fexible interpretation of the notations.

Suittes pour le clavecin composées à un clavecin, un violon & basse de viole, ou de violon ad libitum (c.1715)

contains arrangements of Corelli’s Opus 5 (among other works); the publication of these popular pieces in this

confguration was probably motivated by the success of the Dieupart collections. Several copies of the

keyboard book survive alone,84 and there is one extant set of the instrumental parts.85 Two of the surviving

keyboard books are sparsely fgured by eighteenth-century hands, emphasizing the connection between

concert and continuo practices. Although doubling by instruments en concert and continuo doubling have

opposite structural conceptions, the practical efect of these practices is identical: the keyboard doubles—or,

equivalently, is doubled by—the instruments.86 Efectively, the players who fgured the plain keyboard part in

83 G. Le Roux, Pieces de Clavessin (Paris, 1707), [iii].

84 GB-Lbl, Music f.17.a and S-Skma, Alströmer B 2:22.

85 B-Bc, 7204; see also RISM, A/I/2, C 3886 and RISM, B/II, 377.

86 On continuo doubling, see I. Horsley, ‘Full and Short Scores in the Accompaniment of Italian Church Music in the Early

31

Suittes pour le clavecin were engaged in the same process as Le Roux but in reverse. Le Roux distilled the

keyboard score to treble and bass; the added fgures in Suittes de clavecin ofer avenues for expansion of the

keyboard texture. Tis demonstrates that the musical text was not immutable in the view of the users of these

copies and seems to indicate that the performance context is relevant to the way a keyboard player ‘realizes’ the

printed notes of the keyboard book.

Te parallel use of these two compositional techniques—doubling and contrepartie writing—illustrates an

important point: music en concert does not ‘progress’ from simple doublings in Dieupart’s suites to complex

contreparties in Rameau’s concerts. Both techniques were used throughout the late-seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries. A fairly early example is Elisabeth Jacquet de la Guerre’s Pièces de clavecin qui peuvent se jouer sur le

viollon (1707); later examples include Jean-Joseph de Mondonville’s Pièces de clavecin en sonates (1734) and

Pièces de clavecin (1748), and Jacques Duphly’s Pieces de clavecin avec l’accompangement de violon (1756).87 In

particular, it is important to bear in mind that contreparties such as Rameau’s, seemingly indispensable to

modern ears, are completely optional. Rameau advises in the preface that ‘these pieces performed on

harpsichord alone leave nothing to be desired’.88

Te harpsichord pieces of François Couperin (1668–1733) are particularly interesting in this regard, as the

contreparties are peppered only sparsely throughout the four harpsichord books (1713–1730). Tese

contreparties must surely represent ‘the notational tip of an … improvisational iceberg.’89 In pieces lacking a

contrepartie, a plausible performance scenario might be one in which violin and/or bass viol (perhaps reading

over the harpsichordist’s shoulder) double the melody and/or bass.

Indeed, Couperin’s Concerts Royaux were published in 1722 as an appendix to his Troisieme livre de pieces de

clavecin with the advice, ‘[these pieces] are suitable not only for the harpsichord, but also for the violin, the

Baroque’, Journal of the American Musicological Society 30 (1977): 466–99; P. Williams, ‘Continuo’, Grove (accessed 1 Auguest 2012). See also O. Kinkeldey, Orgel und Klavier in der Musik des 16. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1910; repr. Hildesheim, 1968), 187–215; H. Eggebrecht, ‘Arten des Generalbasses im frühen und mittleren 17. Jahrhundert’, Archiv für Miskikwissenschaf 14 (1957): 61–82; R. Zappulla, Figured Bass Accompaniment in France (Brepols, 2000); J. Kurtzman, ‘Continuo Realization’, Te Monteverdi Vespers of 1610: Music, Context, Performance (London, 2000), 367–75 and F. T. Arnold, Te Art of Accompaniment from a Torough-Bass (London, 1931), esp. 236.

87 RISM, A/I/2, D 3840–1.

88 ‘Ces pieces éxécutées sur le Claveçin seul ne laissent rien à désirer.’: J. P. Rameau, Pieces de clavecin en concert (Paris, 1741), [i].

89 J. Butt, ‘Negotiating between Work, Composer, and Performer: Rewriting the Story of Notational Progress’, in Playing with History: Te Historical Approach to Musical Performance (Cambridge, 2002), 96–122 at 113.

32

fute, the hautboy, the viol, and the bassoon’.90 Interestingly, Couperin also says that ‘the following pieces are of

a diferent kind than those which I have ofered before now’.91 But the diferences between the concerts and the

pièces de clavecin (the other types pieces ‘ofered before now’ to which Couperin refers) are exactly the same

kinds of diferences—principally textural—which have been observed elsewhere in the concert repertoire. Put

another way, they can all be viewed as diferences in the mode of physical presentation of the musical text. 92

Te ‘solo’ pieces are printed in a way that caters to solo performance on harpsichord and the concerts are

printed in a way that caters to ensemble performance with instruments, but the presence of contreparties and

various verbal rubrics evidence ensemble performance of the ‘solo’ pieces, and the preface to Concerts Royaux

explicitly sanctions solo harpsichord performance of the concerts.

Performance considerations

In sum, it is clear that the notation of these repertoires does not record a set of instructions that the performer

must follow to realize ‘the work’; rather it suggests performance possibilities by way of example. Tis further

characterises the evidence that Roger’s keyboard ‘partitions’ and other such keyboard scores were used in both

the solo and concert contexts. Te simultaneous use of these performing materials does not necessarily entail

the simultaneous execution of the solo keyboard part as notated with accompanying instrumental parts. In

other words, although the keyboard player would have used the keyboard book when performing en concert, it

does not necessarily follow that he would have played the composed, soloistic keyboard part when doing so.

Keyboard scores, therefore, must not represent the infexible record of a composed part which the player

reproduced every time the book was used in performance; rather, the notation must be understood as an aide-

mémoire which the player, depending on his skill, would adapt to the circumstances of each performance.93 Te

‘realization’, so to speak, of the keyboard part becomes contingent on the idiosyncrasies of individual

performances; whether, for instance, it was a solo or concert performance, might easily have been a relevant

concern, which is again suggestive of the connection with seventeenth-century continuo practice. Taken

together, the body of concert sources indicate that improvisatory practice extended beyond improvised

agréments.

90 ‘Elles conviennent non seulement, au clavecin; mais aussy au violon, a la fute, au hautbois, a la viole, et au Basson’: F. Couperin, Concerts Royaux (Paris, 1722), [i]. See RISM, A/I/2, C4294-7 and A/I/11, CC 4295–6.

91 ‘Les pieces qui suivent sont d’une autre espéce que celles que J’ay donneés jusqu’a present’: ibid.

92 Butt, Playing with History, 96–122.

93 Ibid., 106–114.

33

Infuences of the French concert

Dieupart’s Suittes belong to a sizeable group of collections of music en concert published by Roger (Table 4).

Tese collections were advertised as music for lute or harpsichord ‘with [instruments] ad libitum’. 94 Te

keyboard or lute books are published before or concurrently with accompanying instrumental books, a fact

which seems to indicate that in essence these are adaptations of keyboard and lute music for ensemble

performance. Tis in turn reveals a pattern of fuidity between ‘solo’ and ‘ensemble’ music of this period.

Table 4: Music en concert published by Roger, 1700–c.1715

Composer/Editor Date Title Copies

Dieupart 1701 Six suittes de clavessin… See Table 1, above

1702 Six suittes… See Table 1, above

Desrosiers 1703 Un livre de pieces de Guitarre avec 2 dessus d’instruments & une basse continue ad libitum. Le même livre séparé.

[= Concerts, ou ouvertures, allemandes, sarabandes, etc. (Derosiers: Amsterdam, c.1690)]

; not listed in 1716, but advertised in 1702 and listed in 1737

1703 Le même livre séparé.

Roger (ed.) 1701 Suittes faciles GB-DRc, Pr. Mus. C. 99

?1703 Suittes pour le Luth avec un Violon ou Flûte & une Basse continue ad libitum

; advertised in 1700 and 1702.

Saint-Luc 1707 Piéces de Luth, avec un dessus & une Basse ad libitum S-SK, MS 477

1708 Suites à un dessus et une basse propres à jouer sur le violon, la flûte et le hautbois

[= Preludii … (Mortier: Amsterdam, 1708)]

S-SK, MS 479: this exemplar is of Mortier’s Preludii, which is used as a proxy for the Roger impression, of which no copies survive

Corelli et al. (ed. Roger)

c.1715 Suittes pour le clavecin composées à un clavecin, un violon et basse de viole ou de violon ad libitum

B-Bc 7204 (, ); S-Skma, Alströmer B 2:22; GB-Lbl, f.17.a. ()

= no surviving copy; = dessus partbook; = bass partbook; = keyboard book

94 See Roger, Catalogue, nos. 127–8, 226–7, 318, 342–5, 402–3.

34

Roger published two collections by Jacques de Saint-Luc (1616–c.1710) while Saint-Luc was in the service of

Prince Eugene of Savoy in Vienna.95 Tese were Suittes pour le luth avec un dessus & une basse ad libitum (1707)

and Suittes à un dessus et une basse propres à jouer sur le violon, la flûte et le hautbois (1708), of which only the

dessus part of the 1707 edition survives (S-SK, MS 477).96 However, Pierre Mortier issued his own impression

of the 1708 edition as Preludii, allemande, correnti, gighe, sarabande, gavotte etc. pour un dessus et une basse in

1709.97 Mortier routinely based his prints on Roger’s, so it is reasonable to assume that this was also the case for

the 1709 the Mortier.98 Conveniently, a copy of Mortier’s dessus part survives as S-SK, MS 479, and so a

comparison of the musical texts of the 1707 and 1708 Roger dessus books is possible, if indirect: the musical

texts of these sources are identical.99

Saint-Luc’s complete oeuvre—comprising some two hundred pieces for lute, dessus, and continuo—

underscores the important connection between the French concert and the Viennese Lautenkonzert.100

Favoured from about 1700 to 1720 by a small group of composers including Saint-Luc, Wenzel Ludwig von

Radolt (1667–1716), Johann Georg Weichenberger (1676–1740), and Ferdinand Ignaz Hinterleithner

(1659–1710), the Lautenkonzert genre comprised lute suites accompanied by violin doubling the melody

mostly at the octave and bowed bass doubling the lute bass at pitch.101 Saint-Luc played the lute at the court of

95 P. Vendrix, ‘Saint-Luc, Jacques’, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 2nd edn, xxvii ed. Ludwing Finscher (Kassel, 1994–2007) [MGG2].

96 RISM, A/I/7, S 370.

97 Vendrix, ‘Saint-Luc’, MGG2.

98 Pogue and Rasch, ‘Roger’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012).

99 H. Backman (research librarian, Stifs- och landsbiblioteket), ‘SV: RISM A/I/7, S370 and S371’ personal communication (25 May 2010). See RISM, A/I/7, S 371.

100 Saint-Luc’s Lautenkonzert survive principally in CS-Pu, Mspt.II.Kk.49, CS-Pu, Mspt.II.Kk.54, and A-Wn, S.m.1820. A connection between accompanied keyboard music and the Lautenkonzert is also noted by Fuller.

101 Recent secondary literature discussing the Lautenkonzert is sparse: the principal study remains A. Koczirz, ‘Lauten-Musik und Österreiche Lauten-Spieler bis 1750’, Zeitschrif der Internationalen Musikgesellschaf 6 (1905): 489. For references to the genre or relevant composers in the context of other discussions, see A. Cohen, ‘A Study of Instrumental Ensemble Practise in Seventeenth-Century France’, Galpin Society Journal 15 (1962): 3–15; M. Collins, ‘Te Performance of Triplets in the 17th and 18th Centuries’, Journal of the American Musicological Society 19/3 (1966): 281–328; D. Fuller, ‘Accompanied Keyboard Music’, Musical Quarterly 60/2 (1974): 222–45; [ J.P.N. Land], ‘Het Luitboek van Tysius beschreven en toegelicht’, Tijdschrif der Vereeniging voor Noord-Nederlands Muziekgeschiedenis 2 (1886): 109–74; F. Noske, ‘Two Problems of Seventeenth-Century Notation’, Acta Musicologica 27 (1955): 113–20; H. Radke, ‘Zum Problem der Lautentabulatur-Übertragung’, Acta Musicologica 43 (1971): 94–103; R. Rasch, ‘Constantijn Huygens in Brussel op bezoek bij Leopold Wilhelm van Oostenrijk 1648-1656’, Revue belge de musicologie/Belgisch Tijdschrif voor Musiekwetenschap 55 (2001): 127–46; and D. A. Smith, ‘Te Ebenthal Lute and Viol Tablatures: Tirteen New Manuscripts of Baroque Instrumental Music’, Early Music 10/4 (1982):

35

Louis XIV from 1643 until 1647, and whilst living in Brussels he maintained musical connections to Paris

through Constantijn Huygens (1596–1687) and others.102 Saint-Luc’s connections to Paris and the fourishing

of the Lautenkonzert around the time he moved to Vienna in 1700 may indicate the infuence of the French

concert tradition on the Viennese Lautenkonzert. Indeed, Radolt’s only publication, Die aller treieste,

verschwigneste und nach so wohl fröhlichen als traurigen Humor sich richtende Freindin (1701), begins with an

explanation of French lute tablature, French techniques of fngering and ornamentation, and instructions for

ensemble performance.103 Te infuence of Saint-Luc should not be underestimated, for ‘whether or not the

Viennese Lautenkonzert was a French importation, it became known in Western Europe through Roger’s

publication’ of Saint-Luc’s music.104

Another publication illustrating the spread of the French concert tradition is Un livre de pieces de Guitarre avec

2 dessus d’instruments & une basse continue ad libitum (1703) by Nicolas Derosiers (c.1645–afer 1702).

Derosiers was a French-born guitarist and composer who emigrated to Amsterdam and established a music

publishing frm there in 1667.105 No copies of the Pieces de Guitarre survive, but like Roger’s other concert

publications the catalogues indicate that they were available either as a complete set of parts or as a single guitar

book ‘séparé’.106 Te Roger impression of the Pieces de Guitarre is likely to be a reprint of—or even the self-same

publication as—Derosiers’s own Concerts: ou ouvertures, allemandes, sarabandes, etc. (c.1690), which is also

lost.107 Derosiers sold the stock of his publishing frm in 1692; later, perhaps in 1698, the stock was acquired by

462–7. For biographical studies, see E. van der Straeten, Jacques de Saint Luc, Luthiste Athois du XVII Siècle (Paris, 1887) and relevant entries in MGG2 and Grove. For music editions, see Österreichische Lautenmusik zwischen 1650 und 1720, ed. A. Koczirz, Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich, l (Graz, 1918) with Koczirz’s separately published ‘Österreichische Lautenmusik zwischen 1650–1720’, Studien zur Musikwissenschaf 5 (1918): 1f; and Weiner Lautenmusik im 18. Jahrhundert, ed. K. Schnurl, Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich, lxxxiv (Graz, 1966).

102 M. Couvreur and P. Vendrix, ‘Saint-Luc, Jacques de’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012); R. Rasch, ‘Constantijn Huygens’, 133.

103 W. Boetticher, ‘Radolt, Baron Wenzel Ludwig von’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012).

104 Fuller, ‘Accompanied Keyboard Music’, 233.

105 R. Rasch, ‘Derosiers, Nicolas’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012).

106 Lesure, Bibliographie, 43; Roger, Catalogue, no. 318.

107 Tirty-seven of Derosiers’s guitar pieces are preserved in B-Bc, Littera S, 5615, dated 1730. Tis manuscript, along with B-Br, MS 5551.D, with which it shares the title Recueil des pieces de guitare, was copied by Jean-Baptiste-Louis de Castillion (1680–1753), Bishop of Bruges. Tese are the only sources for the music of the Flemish composer François Le Cocq (fl.1685–1729); they also contain music by earlier composers including Derosiers, de Visée, and Corbetta, among others. Te pieces by Le Cocq were presumably copied from the composer’s autograph manuscripts, whilst pieces by Derosiers were probably copied from the Roger print cited above; Castillion’s sources have yet to be identifed with more certainty. B-Bc, Littera S, 5615 (of which B-Br, MS 5551.D is an abridged copy) also contains an extensive preface which discusses the tuning, stringing, and fretting of the

36

the Roger frm.108 Te Derosiers collection helps to bridge the gap between the accounts from Le Gallois of

lute music en concert in the 1670s in Paris and the publication of Roger’s collections in the early 1700s in

Amsterdam.

Conclusion

Te question of the status of Dieupart’s Suittes as accompanied keyboard music ‘is an important one, for if they

[are,] … they constitute the frst true examples of the genre’.109 Together with the sizeable body of concert

collections produced by Roger in the frst few decades of the eighteenth century, Dieupart’s Suittes evidence

the adaptation of a professional improvisatory practice to printed sources designed for amateurs. Te increased

amateur interest in domestic music is paralleled by the gradual demise of lute tablature and the trend by which

the harpsichord began to be favoured over the lute. It would seem, therefore, that Dieupart’s Suittes, as an early

collection adapting the en concert practice to the keyboard for the beneft of a amateur public, played a

signifcant rôle in ensuring the survival of the concert tradition in the eighteenth century.

David Fuller’s study on accompanied keyboard music establishes the unity of a ‘vast, misunderstood body of

music from the twilight zone between Baroque and Classic’, which includes French concerts of Couperin’s

generation, Italian trio sonatas of the post-Corelli generation, German sonatas and concertos of the same

period, the English organ concerto, and the Viennese Lautenkonzert.110 Fuller convincingly connects this body

of repertoire to the piano trios of Emanuel Bach and Haydn, the violin sonatas of Mozart, and even the

chamber music of Beethoven and Brahms. Until now, however, the specifc infuences of the French concert

within this tradition have not been studied. Whereas the early Italian concerto developed along formal

principles of ritornello structure and periodic phrasing into the sonata and the Classic genre also called

guitar, explanatory notes on notation and ornamentation, and a glossary of musical terms; this is available online in translation: see ‘Brussels: Bibliothèque du Conservatoire Royal de Musique Ms.S.5615’, ed. and trans. M. Hall, Te Lute Society: François Le Cocq <http://www.lutesoc.co.uk/pages/francois-le-cocq> (accessed 17 December 2010). Castillion seems also to have been the copyist of another guitar manuscript, B-Lc, MS 245, although this source contains no music by Derosiers or Le Cocq: see M. Hall, ‘Le Cocq, François’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012); M. Hall, ‘Santiago de Murcia and François Le Cocq’, Journal of the Lute Society of America 15 (1982): 40–51; C. Russell, ‘François Le Cocq’s Infuence on Santiago de Murcia: Problems with Dates, Sources and Recomposition’, Journal of the Lute Society of America 16 (1983): 7–11; C. Russell, ‘François Le Cocq, Belgian Master of the Baroque Guitar’, Soundboard 23 (1988–9): 283–93; and M. Hall, ‘“I Will Praise God with My Guitar”: Jean-Baptiste de Castillion—Bishop and Amateur Musician’, Lute Society of America Quarterly 36/2 (2001): 4–12.

108 Rasch, ‘Derosiers, Nicolas’, Grove (accessed 1 August 2012).

109 Fuller, ‘Accompanied Keyboard Music’, 233.

110 Ibid., 222.

37

concerto, the French concert developed along principles of instrumentation and texture into the typical Classic

chamber music confgurations of the piano trio or quartet and sonatas with obbligato accompaniment.

Tis study also ofers insight into the performance practices of the French concert itself. Te concert sources

show that improvisation in keyboard performance extended beyond the ‘passages’ and ‘agrémens diferens’

described by Le Gallois and must have included improvised variations in the luthé texture of the

accompaniment. Te sources also show that a distinction between ‘solo’ and ‘ensemble’ repertoires in this

period is essentially arbitrary. Such a distinction is dependent upon a modern, anachronistic conception of

genre and the idea of the Werktreue.111 Te fuidity inherent in the repertoire’s musical texts belies any notion

of strict ‘composerly intention’.112 Most importantly, this fuidity challenges the modern performer to envision

plausible performances outside the context explicitly, and perhaps even implicitly, sanctioned by the musical

text.

111 For a vigorous (if polemical) discussion of the concept of the Werktreue ideal as it relates to the performance of early music, see B. Haynes, ‘How Romantic Are We?’, in Te End of Early Music: A Period Performer’s History of Music (Oxford, 2007), 65–115 at 89. See also L. Goehr, ‘Werktreue: Confrmation and Challenge in Contemporary Movements’, in Te Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music (Oxford, 2002), 243–86.

112 See Butt, Playing with History, 113; Gustafson, ‘France’, Keyboard Music, 119; Le Gallois, Lettre, 70; and Woolley, ‘English Keyboard Sources’, 98f.

38

Appendix A:

Dieupart Autograph Letter,

GB-Lbl, Add. MS 32419, f. 117

39

Sunday evening

Sir,

By the order which you gave me to inform you of what should happen, I take the liberty to make known to you that Mr Rich came to fnd Mr Pepuch [sic] to propose to mount the opera Wednesday and Saturday next for which he ofers to pay the expense which we incurred for costumes and to give 40 guineas to Mlle Margaritta and as much to Mrs Tofs. We believed it was our duty to decide nothing before having received your orders which I shall have the honour to receive tomorrow at your rising.

I am with great respect,Sir, your most humble and obedient servant.

F. Dieupart—

Tis is Coke Papers document no. 37, thought lost by Milhous and Hume. Te reference to costume expenses

refers to a bill incurred in connection with Tomyris (premiered April 1707), which the Drury Lane manager

Christopher Rich (d.1714) disputed and refused to pay; the bill remained unpaid at least until December

1707.113 Te singer Catherine Tofs (c.1685–1756) lef the London stage in 1709; her rival Françoise

Marguérite de l’Épine dite Margherita (c.1680–1746) lef Drury Lane in January 1708. Johann Christoph

Pepusch (1667–1752), also known as ‘John Christopher’ in England, lef Drury Lane and joined the Queen’s

Teatre in the Haymarket also in January 1708. Te letter must therefore date from between December 1707

and January 1708. Te new opera for the 1708 season was Love’s Triumph, which premiered 26 February;

before this, the company presented old productions of Tomyris and Camilla two nights a week from 14

January 1708, which fell on a Wednesday ( Julian). It is most likely, therefore, that Dieupart’s letter is from the

beginning of January 1708, perhaps 11 January 1708, the Sunday before the productions were revived.114

113 Coke Papers nos. 10, 16, 21, and 28.

114 Ibid., 27–8.

40

Appendix B:

‘Explication des Marques / Rules for Graces’,

Six suittes de clavessin (1701), p. [49]

(Copy: GB-Cfm, MU. 435)

41

Appendix C:

List of Tables, Figures, and Examples

Table 1. Surviving exemplars of Dieupart’s Six suittes (1701–1702)............................................................................. 5

Table 2. Manuscript copies of the Six suittes...................................................................................................................... 6

Table 3. Sequence of dances in the Six suittes.................................................................................................................... 6

Table 4. Music en concert published by Roger, 1700–c.1715........................................................................................ 34

Figure 1. Six suittes (1701) titlepage, D-W, 21.2 Musica 2º............................................................................................ 8

Figure 2. Six suittes (1702) titlepage, GB-DRc, Pr. Mus. C. 31...................................................................................... 9

Figure 3. Marginalia in the hand of Vaudry, F-B, Ms. 246.976, p. 7........................................................................... 15

Figure 4. King, ‘Allemande’, GB-Lbl, Add. MS 39569, f. 5......................................................................................... 23

Figure 5. Rameau, Pieces de clavecin en concerts (1741), pp. 14 and 38....................................................................... 30

Example 1. Perrine, Livre de musique pour le Lut (1679), p. 1..................................................................................... 13

Example 2. Comparison of MS versions of King, ‘Allemande’.................................................................................... 22

Example 3. Dieupart, ‘Ouverture’, Six suittes (1701–2), no. 8, bb. 1–16................................................................... 25

Example 4. Dieupart, ‘Gigue’, Six suittes (1701–2), no. 35........................................................................................... 26

Example 5. Dieupart, ‘Menuet’, Six suittes (1701–2), no. 27........................................................................................ 28

42

Bibliography

A. Secondary Literature

Anthony, James R. French Baroque Music: From Beaujoyeulx to Rameau rev. edn (Portland, 1997).

Arnold, F. Tomas. Te Art of Accompaniment from a Torough-Bass (London, 1931).

Ashbee, Andrew. ‘Te Four-Part Consort Music of John Jenkins’ Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 96 (1970): 29–42.

Beck, Sydney. ‘Te Decline of the Lute’ Guitar Review 9 (1949): 8–12.

Butt, John. Playing with History (Cambridge, 2002).

Cohen, Albert. ‘A Study of Instrumental Ensemble Practise in Seventeenth-Century France’ Te Galpin Society Journal 15 (1962): 3–15.

Collins, Michael. ‘Te Performance of Triplets in the 17th and 18th Centuries’ Journal of the American Musicological Society 19/3 (1966): 281–328.

Cowgill, Rachel and Peter Holman (eds). Music in the British Provinces, 1690–1914 (Aldershot, 2007).

Crawford, Tim. ‘An Unusual Consort Revealed in an Oxford Manuscript’ Chelys 6 (1975–6): 61–68.

Cunningham, John. Te Consort Music of William Lawes, 1602–1645 (Woodbridge, 2010).

Dart, Turston. ‘Bressan and Schickhardt’ Te Galpin Society Journal 10 (1957): 85–86.

Dunn, Alexander. ‘Style and development in the theorbo works of Robert de Visée: An introductory study’ (Ph.D. diss., University of California, San Diego, 1989).

Edwards, Warwick. ‘Te Sources of Elizabethan Consort Music’ (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge, 1974).

Eggebrecht, Hans Heinrich. ‘Arten des Generalbasses im frühen und mittleren 17. Jahrhundert’ Archiv für Miskikwissenschaf 14 (1957): 61–82.

Freeman, Daniel. ‘Te Earliest Known Italian Keyboard Concertos’ Journal of Musicology 4 (1985–86): 121–45.

Fuller, David. ‘Accompanied Keyboard Music’ Te Musical Quarterly 60/2 (1974): 222–245.

Guichard, Charlotte. Les amateurs d’art à Paris au XVIIIe siècle (Seyssel, 2008).

———. ‘Taste Communities: Te Rise of the Amateur in Eighteenth-Century Paris’ Eighteenth-Century Studies 45/4 (2012): 519–47.

43

Hall, Matthew. ‘Charles Dieupart’s Six suittes (1701–1702) and the en concert Performance Tradition’ Te Viola da Gamba Society Journal 4 (2010): 6–35.

Hardouin, Pierre. ‘Une adresse de Dieupart à Londres’ Revue de musicologie 41 (1958): 99.

Highfll, Philip H., Kalman A. Burnim, and Edward A. Langhans, A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers, and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660–1800 , xvi (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, 1973–1993).

Hogwood, Christopher (ed.). Te Keyboard in Baroque Europe (Cambridge, 2003).

Holman, Peter. ‘Did Handel invent the English keyboard concerto?’ Te Musical Times 144/1883 (2003): 13–22.

———. Four and Twenty Fiddlers (Oxford, 1993).

———. ‘Suites by Jenkins Rediscovered’ Early Music 6/1 (1978): 25–35.

Horsley, Imogene. ‘Full and Short Scores in the Accompaniment of Italian Church Music in the Early Baroque’ Journal of the Americal Musicological Society 30 (1977): 466–99.

Kinkeldey, Otto. Orgel und Klavier in der Musik des 16. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1910; repr. Hildesheim, 1968).

Koczirz, Adolf. ‘Lauten-Musik und Österreiche Lauten-Spieler bis 1750’ Zeitschrif der Internationalen Musikgesellschaf 6 (1905): 489.

———. ‘Österreichische Lautenmusik zwischen 1650–1720’ Studien zur Musikwissenschaf 5 (1918): 1f.

Kurtzman, Jefrey. ‘Continuo Realization’, Te Monteverdi Vespers of 1610: Music, Context, Performance (London, 2000), 367–375.

[Land, J.P.N.] ‘Het Luitboek van Tysius beschreven en toegelicht’ Tijdschrif der Vereeniging voor Nord-Nederlands Musiekgeschiedenis 2 (1886): 109–174.

Ledbetter, David. Harpsichord and Lute Music in 17th-century France (London, 1987).

———. ‘What the Lute Sources Tell Us about the Performance of French Harpsichord Music’, Te Harpsichord and its Repertoire ed. Pieter Dirksen (Utrecht, 1992), 59–85.

Massip, Catherine. La vie des musiciens de Paris au temps de Mazarin, 1643–1661: Essai d’étude sociale (Paris, 1976).

Milhous, Judith and Robert D. Hume (eds). Vice Chamberlain Coke’s Teatrical Papers 1706–1715 (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, 1982).

44

Noske, Frits. ‘Two Problems of Seventeenth-Century Notation’ Acta Musicologica 27 (1955): 113–120.

Olivier, Louis A. ‘Curieux, Amateurs, and Connoisseurs: Laymen in the Fine Arts in the Ancien Régime’ (Ph.D. diss., Te Johns Hopkins University, 1976).

Pinto, David. ‘William Lawes’ Music for Viol Consort’ Early Music 6/1 (1978): 12–24.

Prud’Homme, Bryan. ‘A Source Study and Tematic Catalogue of the Robert de Visée Teorbo Works’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado, 1992).

Radke, Hans. ‘Zum Problem der Lautentabulatur-Übertragung’ Acta Musicologica 43 (1971): 94–103.

Rasch, Rudolf. ‘Constantijn Huygens in Brussel op bezoek bij Leopold Wilhelm van Oostenrijk 1648-1656’ Revue belge de musicologie/Belgisch Tijdschrif voor Musiekwetenschap 55 (2001): 127–146.

Riley, Matthew. Musical Listening in the German Enlightenment: Attention, Wonder, and Astonishment (Aldershot, 2004).

Schulenberg, David. ‘J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, and the Invention of the Concerto for Keyboard and Strings’ Early Keyboard Journal 25–26 (2010): 29–59.

Silbiger, Alexander (ed.). Keyboard Music before 1700 2nd edn (London, 2004).

———. ‘Tracing the contents of Froberger’s lost autographs’ Current Musicology 54 (1993): 5–23.

Smith, Douglas Alton. ‘Te Ebenthal Lute and Viol Tablatures: Tirteen New Manuscripts of Baroque Instrumental Music’ Early Music 10/4 (1982): 462–467.

Soulié, Eudoxe, Louis Étienne Dussieux, et al. (eds). Journal du Marquis de Dangeau avec les additions du Duc de Saint Simon, xix (Paris, 1854–1860).

Spring, Matthew. Te Lute in Britain: A History of the Instrument and its Music (Oxford, 2001).

Staufer, George B. ‘Boyvin, Grigny, D’Anglebert, and Bach’s Assimilation of French Classical Organ Music’ Early Music 21/1 (1993): 83–96.

Tilmouth, Michael. ‘Revisions in the Chamber Music of Matthew Locke’ Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 98 (1971): 89–100.

Urquhart, Margaret. ‘Prebendary Philip Falle (1656–1742) and the Durham Bass Viol Manuscript A27’ Chelys 5 (1973–4): 7–20.

Vaccaro, Jean-Michel. La musique de luth en France au XVIe siècle (Paris, 1981).

van der Straeten, Edmund. Jacques de Saint Luc, Luthiste Athois du XVII Siècle (Paris, 1887).

Vigne, Randolph, Charles Littleton, et al. (eds). From Strangers to Citizens: Te Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland, and Colonial America, 1550–1750 (Eastbourne, 2001).

45

Wainwright, Jonathan and Peter Holman (eds). From Renaissance to Baroque: Change in Instruments and Instrumental Music in the Seventeenth Century (Aldershot, 2005).

Winsford History Society. Vale Royal: Abbey and House (Winsford, Cheshire, 1977).

Wolf, Christoph. Bach: Te Learned Musician (New York, Norton, 2000).

Woolley, Andrew. ‘English keyboard sources and their contexts’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds, 2008).

Zappulla, Robert. Figured Bass Accompaniment in France (Brepols, 2000).

B. Catalogues and Bibliographies

Fuller, David and Bruce Gustafson. A Catalogue of French Harpsichord Music, 1699–1780, ii (Oxford, 1990).

Haase, Hans. Alte Musik in: Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel (Brunswick, 1989).

Harman, R. Alec. A catalogue of printed music and books on music in Durham Cathedral Library (London, 1968).

Lesure, François. Bibliographie des éditions musicales publiées par Estienne Roger et Michel-Charles le Cène (Paris, 1969).

Lyons, David B. Lute, Vihuela, Guitar to 1800: A Bibliography (Detroit, 1978).

Tilmouth, Michael. ‘A calendar of references to music in newspapers published in London and the provinces (1660–1719)’ Royal Musical Association Research Chronicle 1 (1969).

C. Musical Editions

Brunold, Paul (ed.). C. Dieupart: Collection (Paris, 1934).

Dumont, Henri. L’Oeuvre pour Clavier (Paris, 1956).

Gilbert, Kenneth (ed.). Charles Dieupart: Six suites pour le clavecin (Monaco, 1979).

Koczirz, Adolf (ed.). Österreichische Lautenmusik zwischen 1650 und 1720, DTÖ:50 (Graz, 1918).

Michel, Winfried (ed.). 6 Suiten für Blockflöte und Basso continuo (Münster, 1999).

———. 6 Suiten für Cembalo (Münster, 1999).

46

Poulton, Diana and Basil Lam (eds). Te Collected Lute Music of John Dowland (London, 1974).

Ruf, Hugo (ed.). Suite[n] für Querflöte oder Sopranblockflöte und Basso continuo (Celle, 1966).

Schnurl, Karl (ed.). Weiner Lautenmusik im 18. Jahrhundert, DTÖ:84 (Graz, 1966).

D. Primary Sources: Facsimiles and Reprints

de Castillion, J.B.L. (ed.). Recueil des pièces de guitare des meilleurs maîtres du XVIIe siècle (Ghent, 1730) [B-Bc, 5615].

de Visée, Robert. Pièces de théorbe et de luth (Paris, 1716; Madrid, 1983).

Gustafson, Bruce (ed.). London, British Library, MS Add. 39569, SCKM:19 (London, 1987).

Hawkins, John. A General History of the Science and Practice of Music, v (London, 1776)

Te Honourable Entertainment … at Elvetham (London, 1591); reprinted in Richard H. St Maur, Annals of the Seymours (London, 1902).

Le Gallois, Jean. Lettre … à Madamoiselle Regnault de Solier touchant la musique (Paris, 1680; Geneva, 1984).

Mace, Tomas. Musick’s Monument (London, 1676).

Parke, Robert. J. G. de Mendoza’s History of the Kingdome of China (London, 1588).

Perrine, Livre de musique pour le Lut (Paris, 1679; Geneva, 1982).

Praetorius, Michael. Syntagma musicum, iii (Wolfenbüttel, 1619; Kassel, 2001).

Vaudry de Saizenay, Jean-Étienne. Manuscrit Vaudry de Saizenay: Tablature de Luth et de Téorbe de divers auteurs, 1699, introduction by Claude Chauvel (Geneva, 1980) [F-B, 279.152–3].

See RISM A/I and B/II for bibliographic information pertaining to all other primary sources cited.

47