We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2020
The circumstances surrounding the compilation of many seventeenth-century English keyboard manuscripts remain unknown. The most concrete information exists for the early-seventeenth-century repertory, and scholars have also identified several copyists from sources dating from the end of the century. Without considering the question of repertory, the focus on the earlier manuscripts can be explained in part for the following reasons. A few volumes are associated in some way or another with famous composers (for example, Thomas Tomkins and his autograph Conservatoire National de Musique (in Bibliothèque Nationale), Paris, (F-Pc) MS Rés. 1122), and others are noteworthy for their expansive contents (Fitzwilham Museum, Cambridge MS Mu 128, the famous ‘Fitzwilliam Virginal Book‘). Others are well known because their copyists are familiar personalities, such as British Library, London (Lbl) RM MS 23.1.4 and F-Pc MS Rés. 1185—both connected with Benjamin Cosyn, organist of Dulwich College and conspicuous for his knowledge of John Bull's music. However, the copyists of most mid-century keyboard manuscripts remain unidentified. Concrete information concerning the copyists of a few sources exists, but most identified copyists are unknown men or women—keyboard music in the hand of a prominent musician is quite rare.
1 For example, Thomas Heardson, George Lluellyn, and Robert Wintersall (copyists of New York Public Library (US-NYp) Drexel MS 5611, Christ Church, Oxford (Och) Mus. 1179, and Och Mus. 1175 respectively) are hardly common names and do not garner immediate recognition. In the late-seventeenth century the situation changes, and a number of manuscripts are known to be in the hand of relatively well-known copyists. For example, Lbl Add. MSS 31465 and 34695 are both in the hand of Nicholas Harrison; Lbl Egerton MS 2959 may be in the hand of William Croft; Bodleian Library, Oxford (Ob) Mus. Sch. MS D 217 is in the hand of Francis Withy; and there are several manuscripts in which the hand of Henry Aldrich appears. On Heardson, see Bailey, Candace, ‘John Roberts: Establishing a Canon and Provenance’, Early Keyboard Journal, 16/17 (1998–99), 77–108; she is also preparing an article demonstrating that US-NYp Drexel MS 5611 is indeed the hand of Heardson, as compared with his autograph in a manuscript from Ludlow Parish Church. On Lluellyn in Och Mus. 1179, see her ‘The Concept of Key in Seventeenth-Century English Keyboard Music’, in Cristle Collins Judd, ed., Tonal Structures in Early Music (Madison, 1998), 147–74; and on Wintersall and Och Mus. 1175, see her ‘English Keyboard Music, c. 1625–1680‘ (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1992), 320–27.Google Scholar
2 Heawood could not name the papermaker. He noted the paper as Watermark no. 343, no printer, 1671, Dutch MS Records (Blank papers at Papermakers' Association of Gt. Britain, nearly similar to J. Fryer, New Account of E. India, 1698); Edward Heawood, Watermarks Mainly of the 17th and 18th Centuries (London, 1950), 52 and 71.Google Scholar
3 One of the voluntaries by Orlando Gibbons is a transcription of a string fantasia. Hingeston's does not appear to be a transcription; the markings for double and single organ support this conclusion. (Although there are a few cases where keyboard versions of pre-existing compositions have been re-worked as a double voluntary, this does not appear to be the case here.) His organ voluntary is not unlike the organ accompaniments to his consort music found in the Bodleian Library (Ob Mus. Sch. MSS D 205–11). Hingeston's activities as an organist are well documented. Benjamin Rogers noted that Hingeston was Cromwell's organist (Wood, MS Lives: Ob MS Wood D.19(4), f. 68). Cromwell also attended informal music performances at Hingeston's home, according to Roger L'Estrange, Truth and Loyalty Vindicated, from the Reproaches and Clamours of Mr Edward Bagshaw (London, 1662), 50. John Playford identified Hingeston as an organ and virginal teacher in his Musicall Banquet of 1651.Google Scholar
4 A twentieth-century note in the manuscript credits the ground to John Price, but Cooper gives it as Robert Price; Barry Cooper, English Solo Keyboard Music of the Middle and Late Baroque, Outstanding Dissertations in Music from British Universities (Madison, 1989; repr. of Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford, 1974), 494. Various settings of the ground are found in Och Mus. 15, Ob Mus. Sch. MS D 219, F-Pc MS Rés. 1186 I, p. 10, and Belgium, Conservatoire Royal de Musique (B-Bc) MS 15139, p. 158. Brookes attributes the ground in F-Pc MS Rés. 1186 I, p. 10 to Robert Price (her nos 2051–3), noting the similarity with settings in Och Mus. 15 and Mus. 1176, but not cross-referencing that in Ob Mus. Sch. MS D 219, f. 18v (no. 617), nor with B-Bc MS 15139, which dates from outside the compass of her book (1687). The melodic line as well as bass of final setting in the Paris manuscript closely resembles those in Christ Church sources. The alman is Henry Purcell's ‘Almand’ Z665/2, also occurring in Och Mus. 1179. The voluntary belongs to Christopher Gibbons; this is a ‘corrupt and transposed’ version of Wimborne Minster MS P10, f. 4v rev.; see Cox's note in Och Mus. 1176. (I have adopted the spelling of ‘almand’ from Och Mus. 1176; later ‘almaine’ will be used to describe a piece from Melothesia because it is spelled that way there.)Google Scholar
5 Cooper, English Solo Keyboard Music, 200, and Geoffrey Cox, Organ Music in Restoration England, Outstanding Dissertations in Music from British Universities (New York and London, 1989; repr. of Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford, 1984), 79–80 and 512. Cox also posited that both Och Mus. 15 and Och Mus. 47 were copied from the same source, which has subsequently been lost. Cox notes that ‘textural differences between them are slight, even to the extent that exactly the same barlines are omitted.’ See his Organ Music, 79, for the precise discrepancies between the two sources. Other details have been noted by Cooper in ‘Problems in the Transmission of Blow's Organ Music', Music & Letters, 75 (1994), 522–48, esp. 524, 534, and 542.Google Scholar
6 On Och Mus. 47, see Cox, Organ Music, 305. The keyboard works on pp. 26–64 do not form a cohesive group, and more than one hand appears to have copied them. Cox stated that pp. 1–22 and 25–54 are in the same hand, and a new one begins on p. 56. The new hand may be that of Aldrich (Cox, Organ Music, 509).Google Scholar
7 There are two Richard Goodsons associated with manuscripts at Christ Church, Richard Goodson the elder (c.1655–1718) and his son by the same name (c.1685–1741). The son succeeded his father as organist at Christ Church and music professor in 1718. Manuscripts from the elder's library constitute a substantial part of the current collection at Christ Church.Google Scholar
8 Cooper noted that Blow sources dating from after 1677 ‘always describe him as “Dr. Blow” (or occasionally just “John Blow” but not “Mr. Blow”)‘ (Cooper, English Solo Keyboard Music, 50–51) and he dated Och Mus. 1176 as c.1685 (ibid., 483). John Caldwell put the date after 1660, in his 1660–1800 list of sources (John Caldwell, English Keyboard Music Before the Nineteenth Century (Oxford and New York, 1973), 241). Cox estimated the date of Och Mus. 1176 as late seventeenth century, after 1677 (Organ Music, 512); he also stated that Och Mus. 47 dates from pre-1680 (p. 76), which would make it, along with Och Mus. 1176, one of the earliest Blow keyboard sources. Cox put forth the possibility that one of the hands in Och Mus. 1177 may be Aldrich's, but did not specify which pages (Cox, Organ Music, 512). My examination does not connect any of the three possible hands to Aldrich.Google Scholar
9 Gibbons's keyboard pieces are found in almost fifty manuscripts, but only a handful date from the late-seventeenth (post 1660) or early-eighteenth century. Gibbons's compositions such as dances or variations sets were not copied during this period, as far as extant manuscripts testify. Of eight manuscripts copied after c.1660, only one (Lbl Add. MS 31723, an eighteenth-century composite source connected with a 1657 volume (?US-NYp Drexel MS 5611)) contains anything other than fantasias (sometimes entitled voluntaries in the late seventeenth century) or preludes. The prelude from Parthenia is by far the most popular of his works in these sources.Google Scholar
10 English keyboard manuscripts of the mid-seventeenth century tend to include only music by composers living when the sources were copied, the exceptions being those considered ‘famous’ even today. For example, the works of Thomas Holmes, organist at Winchester (d. 1635), surface only in pre-Restoration sources (Och Mus. 92, Och Mus. 1113, US-NYp Drexel MS 5612, ‘Anne Cromwell's Virginal Book’ (London Museum, Kensington Palace MS 46.78/748), and Och Mus. 1236 (here an arrangement of a melody associated in Och Mus. 92 with Holmes)). For a later and better known example, the works of Albertus Bryne circulated almost exclusively during his lifetime: US-NYp Drexel MS 5611, Ob Mus. Sch. MS D219, Och Mus. 1177, Musick's Hand-maid (1678 ed.), Och Mus. 1236 (with another version of this piece in Japan, Tokyo, Nanki Music Library MS N-3 35), Lbl Add. MS 31465, and a single composition in Lbl Add. MS 34695 (early eighteenth century) attributed to ‘AB’. While Lbl Add. MS 31465 dates from c.1700, none of the works therein is a unicwn. (All are found in Ob Mus. Sch. MS D 219.) An informative account of Bryne's official appointments may be found in Watkins Shaw, The Succession of Organists of the Chapel Royal and the Cathedrals of England and Wales from c. 1538 (Oxford, 1991), 173–74. A reference to ‘Mr Bryan's executor’ in 1668 indicates that he had died by that time. Cooper first drew attention to the composer in his ‘Albertus Bryne's Keyboard Music’, Musical Times, 108 (1972), 142–43.Google Scholar
11 A modern edition of Och Mus. 1177 is available: Late-Seventeenth-Century English Keyboard Music, ed. Candace Bailey, Recent Researches in Baroque Music, 81 (Madison, 1997).Google Scholar
12 Gustafson identified the paper of Och Mus. 1177 French Harpsichord Music of the 17th Century (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979), i, 149. In his remarks concerning this source, Gustafson gave a description of the non-musical contents of Och Mus. 1177 (French Harpsichord Music, ii, 149–54). He noted an ‘R. Coocson (?)’ in the source, but my examination shows this to be the ‘Goodson’ noted by Cox. Among the writing there is ‘Mr Palmer borrowed ye folio book of Lessons and Overtures of my father.’ Dr Robert Thompson has suggested that the ‘folio book of lessons and overtures’ may be Och Mus. 3, and that ‘Mr Palmer’ is Ralph Palmer, composer of a piece in University of Birmingham, Barber Institute MS 5002, an Oxford source (personal correspondence, August 1997).Google Scholar
13 Page 1 differs from f. 1 in that the page numbered ‘p. 1’ is not ruled, and f. 1 is the first page ruled for music. Several other Christ Church sources have these initials, including Mus. 92, 1142A, and 1175. On f. 26v of Och Mus. 1142A, the name ‘Emanuell Miles’ is faintly written by a hand that has made other annotations in the manuscript. This must be the same ‘E.M.’ who appears in the other sources, for the hand matches in each. I have not been able to identify Emanuell Miles. Only Och Mus. 1142A reveals the full name ‘Emanuell Miles'. On the relationships between the manuscripts, see Bailey, ‘English Keyboard Music’, 274–75, 318n, and 325.Google Scholar
14 ‘Diessener’ is spelled differently in almost every source that contains his music. This spelling was taken from his Instrumental Ayrs published in London in 1682.Google Scholar
15 In my edition of Och Mus. 1177, I stated that the first hand extended through f. 4v. This is incorrect, for the hand clearly goes to f. 6v.Google Scholar
16 Gerald Hendrie described Portman's saraband as a ‘feeble work’ and dismissed the possibility that it is the work of Orlando Gibbons (although it is given as his in several sources). On the attribution to Portman, see The Keyboard Music of Orlando Gibbons, ed. Gerald Hendrie, Musica Britannica, 20 (London, 1962) [henceforth MB 20], 103 and Ap. 2, 52.Google Scholar
1 The concordance for this Minuet is not noted in Bailey ed., Late-Seventeenth-Century English Keyboard Music, no. 39.Google Scholar
2 The circumstances concerning the compilation of Lbl Add. MSS 31403 and 31465, and their relationship to Och Mus. 1177, has not been examined. It should be noted that these pieces by Locke appear together in all three manuscripts, and the almaine on f. 34 is also found in Lbl Add. MS 31465.Google Scholar
17 In these manuscripts, the copyists often freely set pre-existing tunes, not only popular song melodies, but also instrumental works. An example of how puzzling the history of a particular work can be, Hendrie suggested that a corant attributed to Orlando Gibbons was actually by La Barre/Tresure and subsequently arranged by Christopher Gibbons (MB 20, 103).Google Scholar
18 More than an arpeggiated chord, the new style brisé usually changed patterns frequently and was less predictable than the earlier style. See David Ledbetter's excellent study Harpsichord and Lute Music in Seventeenth-Century France (Bloomington, IN, 1981).Google Scholar
19 Some of the anonymous works in Och Mus. 1177 are probably also the work of Roberts. Among the works most likely to be his is the corant on f. 11, which falls between an almaine and jig attributed to Roberts and closely follows the style of Melothesia no. 28. The ayre and corant on f. 12v and f. 13 also incorporate several of the characteristics consistent among Roberts's works, including sparse texture in the opening measures, similar voicing in closing cadences, chromaticism, range, figuration use in divisions, melodic contour and its treatment, and slurs. The present author addresses these pieces in ‘The Keyboard Music of John Roberts’ (forthcoming). A volume of Robert's complete works is also forthcoming in the Art of the Keyboard Series, published by the Broude Trust, ed. Candace Bailey.Google Scholar
20 Among the works that discuss Melothesia are Anthony Kooiker, ‘Locke's Melothesia: Its Place in the History of Keyboard Music in Restoration England’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1962); Cooper, English Solo Keyboard Music; Bailey, ‘English Keyboard Music’; and Bailey, ‘Reassessing the Keyboard Music of Matthew Locke, ‘ a paper presented at the Society for Seventeenth-Century Music's annual meeting, Florida State University (Tallahassee), April 1997 (an earlier version was read at the RMA Research Student Conference at the University of Birmingham in December 1989).Google Scholar
21 Cox's note in the manuscript refers to the version in Wimborne Minster MS P10, f. 4V rev.Google Scholar
22 Several recent studies have dealt with copyists of copyists of mid-seventeenth century English music, although none with keyboard music specifically. Among the most current accounts are Jonathan Wainwright, Musical Patronage in Seventeenth-Century England: Christopher, First Baron Hatton (1605–1670) (Aldershot and Brookfield, Vermont, 1997); Sarah Boyer and Jonathan Wainwright, ‘From Barnard to Purcell: the Copying Activities of Stephen Bing’, Early Music, 23 (1995), 620–48; Pamela Willetts, ‘John Lilly: A Redating’, Chelys, 21 (1992), 27–38; Robert Shay, ‘Henry Purcell and “Ancient Music” in Restoration England’, (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1991); Robert Thompson, ‘“Francis Withie of Oxon” and his Commonplace Book, Christ Church, Oxford, MS 337', Chelys, 20 (1991), 3–27; and ibid., ‘English Music Manuscripts and the Fine Paper Trade, 1648–1688’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1988). The bibliography of Wainwright's book supplements this list.Google Scholar
23 There is a gap in the records at Christ Church between Michaelmas 1631 and Michaelmas 1641. For information on Lowe's background see Shaw, Succession of Organists, 8 and 210–11.Google Scholar
24 Lowe and Ellis were listed by Wood as the organists, with Lowe playing only keyboard instruments. Lowe was not listed among the performers in 1659, but Wood included him in descriptions of 1660 meetings. Wood's account may be found in Fasti Oxonienses … a new edition with additions and a Continuation by Philip Bliss, 2 parts (contained in Athenae Oxoniensis), ed. Bliss (Oxford, 1813–20), column i, sub ‘Stonard’; and in Wood, MS Lives (Ob MS Wood D.19(4)), f. 87v. For a shorter account, see Bellingham Bruce, ‘The Musical Circle of Anthony á Wood’, Journal of the Viola da Gamba Society of America, 19 (1982), 34, 41, and 65. Among Lowe's pupils was Anne Baylie, whose commonplace book (dated 1645) is in the Christ Church Library (Mus. 438) and is partly in Lowe's hand. Other household books containing Lowe's hand may be found in the Bodleian, such as Ob Mus. Sch. MS E 399 (belonging to Elizabeth Nodes, dated 1681). A letter in Lowe's hand, containing items regarding practice methods and dated 25 March 1652, is described in The Flemings of Oxford, i, ed. J. R. Magrath, Oxford Historical Society, 44 (Oxford, 1904), 541, note 4/I. Mary Chan reported that the manuscript letter cannot be located in ‘Edward Lowe's Manuscript British Library Add. MS 29396: The Case for Redating’, Music & Letters, 59 (1978), 441, note 4.Google Scholar
25 A. Clarke ed. The Life and Times of Anthony Wood (Oxford, 1891), i, 420.Google Scholar
26 Och Mus. 1177, f. 3. I have recently examined the keyboard music in Och Mus. 1141B, which also appears to be in Lowe's hand. These pieces are voluntaries, and some were copied (by Aldrich?) into Och Mus. 378.Google Scholar
27 In 1974, Barry Cooper suggested that the manuscript Gerald Hendrie identified as ‘Oxford IB’ (MB 20) might be the same manuscript described in 1904, formerly in the library of Rydal Hall, Westmorland, dating from 1652. This source (or sources—there may be two manuscripts involved) was attributed to Edward Lowe; see Cooper, English Solo Keyboard Music, 477–78. I have recently identified Lowe's hand in another Oxford manuscript, Och Mus. 1141B, and this manuscript will be part of a forthcoming study. The works in his hand appear to be voluntaries. Another sort of manuscript offers a different type of keyboard music that will not be considered here: organ books. For example Och Mus. 1002 is an organ book, partly in Lowe's hand, which includes accompaniments to service music by such composers as Child, Bevin, Portman, Gibbons, etc. But this is not solo keyboard music and should be considered separately from the solo sources.Google Scholar
28 I first identified Och Mus. 1176 and 1177 with Richard Goodson I and Edward Lowe in 1991 at a paper presented at the South-East Chapter Meeting of the American Musicologial Society (Wingate College, Rock Hill, SC) and recorded this association in 1992 (Bailey, ‘English Keyboard Music’, 333). In the same year, John Harley noted Goodson's connection to Och Mus. 1177 in his British Harpsichord Music (Aldershot and Brookfield, Vermont, 1992–94), i, 73. Cox noted Richard Goodson's name on the cover of f. 1 of Och Mus. 1177 in 1989 (Organ Music, 512). On f. 3 of Och Mus. 1177, there is a saraband attributed to ‘Mr Ed: Lowe.‘ This signing of his name would appear to conflict with his copying the source, but Lowe's hand is readily confirmed by comparison with other sources assigned to him.Google Scholar
29 For further confirmation compare, for example, the writing of ‘Orlando Gibbons’ in Och Mus. 1002 with that in Och Mus. 1176. Facsimiles of Lowe's hand are available in English Song 1600–1675, British Library Manuscripts, Part V, Add Ms. 29396 (Songs in the Hand of Edward Lowe), intro. by Elise Bickford Jorgens (New York and London, 1986); and English Song 1600–1675, Edinburgh University Library Manuscripts, Ms. Dc.I.69 (Songs in the Hand of Edward Lowe) supplemented by Birmingham Central Library, Ms. 57316, intro. by Elise Bickford Jorgens (New York and London, 1987).Google Scholar
30 Another photograph of Lowe's hand in Och Mus. 1177 is available in Bailey, Late-Seventeenth-Century English Keyboard Music, p. xvi.Google Scholar
31 The case of William Ellis might be as special, but the issue of whether or not he copied Och Mus. 1003, Och Mus. 1113, and Och Mus. 1236 remains open. If he was responsible for any or all of these volumes, his decisions on what composers to include and his own settings of particular tunes reflect the tastes of yet another prominent Oxford musician who happened to be a keyboard player. On these volumes, see Bailey, ‘English Keyboard Music’, 297, 306–8, 341–48, esp. 344–45. The writer is currently working on a paper presenting new findings regarding Ellis.Google Scholar
32 Barry Cooper's ‘The Keyboard Suite in England Before the Restoration’, Music & Letters, 53 (1972), 309–19 examines the early keyboard suite in England.Google Scholar
33 Hendrie, Robert Klakowich and I believe that the same hand that copied Ob Mus. Sch. MS D 219 also copied pp. 155–59 in US-NYp Drexel MS 5611 (Hendrie, MB 20, 2; Robert Klakowich, ‘Keyboard Sources in Mid-Seventeenth-Century England and the French Aspect of English Keyboard Music’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Buffalo, State University of New York, 1985), 32). Hendrie further suggested that Ob Mus. Sch. MS D 219 and the last pages of the Drexel MS are Bryne's autograph. Cooper, however, disagreed that the two manuscripts were Bryne's hand and put the number of pieces in the final hand of US-NYp Drexel MS 5611 at thirteen; Cooper, English Solo Keyboard Music, 30. Photocopies of pertinent pages from both sources are found in Bailey, ‘English Keyboard Music’, 428–29.Google Scholar
34 Joseph Foster noted Goodson's age as 62 at the time of his death, Alumni Oxonienses… 1500–1714 (Oxford, 1891), ii, 584.Google Scholar
35 I am indebted to Dr Robert Thompson for describing the significance of Goodson's rise within the University.Google Scholar
36 See Holman, Peter, ‘Parts for Restoration Concerted Music’, in Performing the Music of Henry Purcell, ed. Michael Burden (Oxford, 1996), 269.Google Scholar
37 Dr Thompson graciously offered these suggestions to me, noting that Goodson may not have immediately succeeded to the organist's post when Lowe died in 1682 because his background was ‘not considered sufficiently polite’. The two men who filled the post between 1682 and 1692 were sons of a Gentleman of the Chapel Royal. In his recent paper, ‘“What but the tenderest dearest name of friend:” Richard Goodson, Henry Purcell and Christ Church Mus. 1177‘ (presented at the Ninth Biennial Baroque Music Conference, Trinity College, Dublin, July 2000), Dr Thompson proposed the teacher/pupil relationship between Lowe and Goodson as the route by which Goodson obtained Och Mus. 1177.Google Scholar
38 Lowe frequently copied parts for Music School performances during his tenure. Thompson noted that important manuscripts copied ‘by Lowe are for the most part preserved in the city of their origin, and the seventeenth-century material in the Music School collection reflects musical activity in Oxford at that time.’ Robert Thompson, ‘Some Late Sources of Music by John Jenkins, ’ in John Jenkins and His Time, ed. Andrew Ashbee and Peter Holman (Oxford, 1996), 286. It is interesting to note that Ob Mus. Sch. MS D 219 (the possible Bryne autograph described above) resides in the Bodleian, where a number of Lowe's autographs have remained to this day, but where very few English keyboard manuscripts are housed.Google Scholar
39 Shay discusses the politics involved with the musical establishment at Christ Church in the late seventeenth century in ‘“Naturalizing” Palestrina and Carissimi in Late Seventeenth-Century Oxford: Henry Aldrich and his Recompositions’, Music & Letters, 77 (1996), 370.Google Scholar
40 See note 28. John Milsom is preparing a new guide to the Christ Church collection and very kindly sent me his list of manuscripts attributed to Richard Goodsons I and II.Google Scholar
41 Peter Holman noted the tendency for seventeenth-century copyists to use both types of G-clefs intermittently in bis introduction to Matthew Locke's The rare theatrical: New York Public Library Drexel MS 2976 / Matthew Locke, Music for London Entertainment 1660–1800. Series A, Music for Plays 1660–1714, 4, (London, 1989), p. x.Google Scholar
42 A page of Och Mus. 1177 in Goodson's hand is reproduced in Bailey, Late-Seventeenth-Century English Keyboard Music, p. xvii. Another readily available sample of Goodson's hand (in Och Mus. 1230) has been reproduced in Henry Aldrich Selected Anthems and Motet Recompositions, ed. Robert Shay, Recent Researches in Music of the Baroque Era, 85 (Madison, 1997), p. xvi. The surrounding pages in this edition contain examples of Aldrich's hand.Google Scholar
43 Robert Shay and Robert Thompson, Purcell Manuscripts (Cambridge, 2000), 283–86.Google Scholar
44 Robert Thompson has recently shown that Och Mus. 1177 is ‘by far the most significant non-autograph source of Purcell's harpsichord music’ and he goes on to suggest that a personal relationship between Goodson and Purcell may explain Goodson's acquisition of works in the manuscript; Thompson, Purcell Manuscripts, 282–3.Google Scholar
45 Klakowich noted that the Draghi pieces in Och Mus. 1177 were copied from Och Mus. 1003 and that Goodson owned both manuscripts; Harpsichord Music: Giovanni Battista Draghi, Recent Researches in Music of the Baroque Era, 56 (Madison, 1986), p. xxi.Google Scholar
46 Christopher Kite-Powell ed., Henry Purcell: Complete Keyboard Works, 1 (London, 1983), p. iii. Christopher Hogwood is currently preparing a new edition of Purcell's keyboard works.Google Scholar
47 I identified this concordance in 1992 (Bailey, ‘English Keyboard Music‘).Google Scholar
48 Cox surmised on the original sources for the Christopher Gibbons works in Och Mus. 47 and Och Mus. 1176 (Organ Music, 83–90).Google Scholar
49 The most thorough published account to date of La Barre is Gustafson's, French Harpsichord Music, i, 58–60. Alexander Silbiger suggested that at least one of the pieces in English sources (and others) attributed to La Barre was probably the work of Pierre Chabanceau de la Barre (1592–1656), organist and maître joueur d'épinette at the French court. Silbiger ed., Keyboard Music Before 1700 (New York, 1995), 16. However, no definitive evidence has established that this is indeed the same La Barre as credited in the English sources. Bruce Gustafson is editing the complete works attributed to La Barre (forthcoming).Google Scholar
50 Och Mus. 1177, f. 7v contains two short compositions that are found in Lbl Add. MS 22099 on f. 8 and f. 13.Google Scholar
51 The music on f. 16v may have been added later.Google Scholar
52 Brian Hodge thought that the first fifteen pages of Och Mus. 1177 might have been copied before 1660 (personal correspondence of January 1990). Cooper dated the manuscript c.1660–90 and suggested that the manuscript had been copied over that entire period. He gave a date of at least post-1691 for the latter section because the words ‘How blest are Shepherds how happy their’ (crossed out), appearing on f. 19v rev., are taken from Purcell's King Arthur (1691); Cooper, English Solo Keyboard Music, 106.Google Scholar
53 Robert Shay noted the influence of Lowe on a later generation of Oxford musicians and suggested that Lowe may have tutored Aldrich in composition in ‘“Naturalizing” Palestrina’, 374 and note 28.Google Scholar
54 The voluntary in England from the years of Charles I to those of Charles II is discussed in Bailey, ‘English Keyboard Music’, 157–85. Cox's commendable study (Organ Music) provides a full account of English organ music after the Restoration. See also Cooper's English Solo Keyboard Music.Google Scholar
∗ An earlier version of this article was presented to the South-East Chapter of the American Musicological Society at their spring meeting at Wingate College in 1991. The author graciously acknowledges the suggestions and help offered by Robert Thompson in its preparation.Google Scholar
