An autograph keyboard manuscript by Johann Jacob Froberger (1616–1676), “Livre Primiere,”from his last creative period and hitherto unknown, was sold at Sotheby’s in London on 30November 2006. The volume contains 20 works, 15 completely new, and offers new biographicaldata as well. In this fair copy the aging composer seems to offer a digest of his last sojourn inParis, using French devices associated with Louis Couperin and François Roberday. Particularlysurprising in this manuscript, which could aptly be called Froberger’s “Sixth, French Book,” isthe innovative, sensuous style of two hitherto unknown laments, which invite stylistic comparisonwith the known laments. For the works hitherto unknown in autograph manuscripts, this newsource gives greatly superior and authoritative readings of what must be considered Froberger’smain masterpieces.
1. Introduction
2. The Manuscript’s Appearance
3. The Manuscript’s Contents and Provenance
4. The Fantasies and Caprices
5. The New Readings of the Dance Movements, Méditations, and Tombeaux
10. Genesis of this “French Book”: Froberger’s Last Sojourn in Paris
11. Conclusion
Acnowledgements
References
Table
Figures
Examples
1. Introduction
1.1 Johann Jacob Froberger, who was born in Germany (Stuttgart) in 1616 and died in France(Héricourt in the FrancheComté) in 1667, may be regarded as a key figure of seventeenthcentury music and the inventor of German idiomatic keyboard style. On the one hand, thepolyphonic output of the imperial chamber organist, who excelled in a range of fugal genres,contributed greatly to the developments that led to Bach’s fugues; and later Mozart started atranscription of Froberger’s “Hexachord” Fantasia (K. Anh. A 60). On the other hand, Frobergermust be considered the first expressive keyboard virtuoso/composer, directly influencing the suiteand toccata styles of composers such as Böhm, Reinken, Weckmann, Buxtehude, Pachelbel, andJ.S. Bach. Froberger’s laments on deaths, including a meditation on his own future death, havegreat emotional depth.1 (Two fragments of this work are provided in facsimile on pages 4, 8, and9 of Maguire, Sotheby’s catalogue devoted to this manuscript by Simon Maguire.) Because ofthis expressiveness and the fact that Froberger composed almost exclusively for the keyboard, thepanEuropean composer has often rightly been called the Chopin of the seventeenth century, a“romantic” composer avant la lettre. The new manuscript adds significantly to our understandingof the whole Froberger canon. To put its 20 works in perspective, the previously known authenticcorpus can be said to consist of approximately 95 compositions: 20 Toccatas, 7 Fantasias, 6Canzonas, 14 Ricercars, 17 Capriccios, 26 (or 29) suites, 2 Tombeaux, and possibly 2 Motets.2
1.2 To get a first impression of this manuscript and of what seem to be Froberger’s lastcompositions before he died, I spent three days in London to view it. Earlier, a presentation of ithad taken place in the Württembergisches Landsmuseum in Stuttgart, where Jörg Halubek playedthe first Caprice as a sample of the manuscript’s contents, in a performance broadcast ontelevision.
2. The Manuscript’s Appearance
2.1 The front and back covers are adorned with the Habsburg double eagle holding the AustrianOld Burgundian double crest (Maguire, pp. 2–3, 14–5), comparable to the “Libro Secondo” of1649, as well as the “Libro Quarto” of 1656 (both dedicated to Emperor Ferdinand III), as well asthe “Libro di capricci, e ricercati” (1658, dedicated to Leopold I); this was the coat of arms usedby Emperors Leopold I (d. 1705), Joseph I (d. 1711), and Karl VI (d. 1740).3 For a physicaldescription of the manuscript see Maguire, p. 3. The music of the elegant manuscript is writtenalmost exclusively in a hand that has all of the characteristics of the graceful style known fromthe Vienna volumes. All four manuscripts show a remarkably consistent and identifiable handover the years; compare, for example, a page of the Lamentation on the death of Ferdinand IV in
Suite 12 in the “Libro Quarto,” Figure 1, with the examples of the handwriting in the newlydiscovered manuscript shown in Maguire. A characteristic of the notation in all four books is thefrequent use of brevelength measures. The books all use small crosses for the dots of Fclefs (seeMaguire, p. 10), in the final double bars of pieces, and flanking the final “.S.” signs (Maguire, p.13). They also use an Andreas cross for remote sharps such as Asharp or Esharp.
2.2 Other noticeable features are the “.S.” sign and the Mshaped zigzag leading into whatappear to be the letters “pria”; the final fermatas in the manuscript are eyeshaped in the samestyle as in the Libri (for a facsimile of a typical ending of a piece, see Maguire, p. 13). The allabreve sign tends to have the barline cross the “C.”
2.3 The abundance of letters in the elaborate titles provide many examples of the Latin letter stylethat we see in Froberger’s letters to Athanasius Kircher.4 Almost all letter types in the newmanuscript can be found in Froberger’s two letters as well as in the address, which is almostcompletely in Roman style (see Figure 2). One must remember, however, that the new manuscriptis a fair copy, whereas the letters obviously represent everyday handwriting. The prominentcapital “M”s in the headings of the two meditations, nos. 29 and 33, and in the motto “MementoMori” for no. 29 (Maguire, pp. 4, 10, and 9, repectively) are clearly different, but Froberger mightwell have created them on the basis of other letters in his formal hand. We may therefore safelyconclude that the headings in the new manuscript are in Froberger’s hand, in addition to themusic, his Viennese calligrapher not being available in Montbéliard/Héricourt. This providesconfirmation that the three Viennese volumes are indeed autographs.5
2.4 The caprices and fantasies that open the volume use open score notation, which is typical forthe time, with the usual C, F, and G clefs (C1, C2, C3, C4, F3, F4, G2), with one system per page(see Maguire, p. 11). This last feature is in contrast to the three Viennese volumes: the formathere has room for only four staves per page. The free works are principally notated on two fivelined staves using soprano and bass clefs (C1, F4), as is true with almost all the suites in theViennese manuscripts.
2.5 The opening general title page is transcribed in Maguire, p. 3, and my reading of the page isgiven below (par. 3.1).6 In the right top corner, in a more recent hand, is a date in pencil: “Anno16[?]6.” The third digit, not quite legible, is probably a 6, rendering 1666, one year beforeFroberger’s death. Judging by the consistency of the handwriting, the contents of the volumeseem to have been written without significant interruptions; in any case it cannot have beencompleted earlier than June of 1662, the death date of Leopold Friederich of WürttembergMontbéliard, who is memorialized with the last piece in the manuscript.
2.6 The volume contains three sections, each preceded by a separate title page. The title “Primiere[sic] Partie” is surprising because of the careful and unfrobergian exuberant capital letters, butapart from that it seems possible that it is in the composer’s hand; the dot at the end evenresembles a cross. Assuming that Froberger here wrote the separate title pages himself, it ispossible that he created these shapes for the “P”s for the occasion, as he probably did for the“M”s. That the composer took special care in the calligraphy for this manuscript can be observedmore generally, for example in the exceptionally connected style of writing in the motto“Memento Mori Froberger?” for no. 29 (Maguire, p. 9). If this title page is indeed in Froberger’shand, the idiosyncratic spelling of “primiere” would be Froberger’s.
2.7 The main title page is written in an unknown hand, different from that of the title pages for thesections. Neither hand resembles that of Duchess Sibylla, Froberger’s patron during that period,based on a comparison to one of her letters to Constantijn Huygens in 1667.7 In any case theprincess was not versed in French, as she herself states. The words on the main title page containseveral irregularities in spelling, particularly in the dance movements, diverging from those inFroberger’s hand elsewhere in the volume.8
Jean Jacque Froberger. Organist.de la chambre de Sa Majeste Imperiale.
No. 2 This Fantasy is in G (major), not E (minor).9
No. 8 This Caprice is in G (major), not E (minor).Nos. 13–35 The generic headings for the tonal groupings (“partita”) are editorial.Nos. 13–16 Concordances are found in “Bulyowsky” (Allemande, Gigue [duple
version], Courante, Sarabande; “Roger” (Allemande, Courante,Sarabande, Gigue [triple version]; “Bauyn” (Gigue [triple version],placed between the Allemande of Suite 28 and the Courante of Suite 2.
No. 13 This Allemande can be dated fairly precisely because the coronation ofLeopold I took place in the Dom or Stiftskirche St. Bartholomaei atFrankfurt, 12 July to 1 August 1658.
No. 14 This Gigue was incorrectly associated with his Suite 28 in “Adler.”Nos. 17–20 Concordances include “MinoritenSuiten” (Allemande, Sarabande, [
later in the manuscript:] Gigue); “Bulyowsky” (Allemande “fait àl’honneur de Mad. Sybille Duchesse de Wirtemberg,” Gigue “nommèla Philotte,” Courante, Sarabande; “Roger” (Allemande, Courante,Sarabande, Gigue); “Bauyn” (Allemande, Gigue, Courante,Sarabande); “Edgeworth” and “Egerton” (both have transposed andobviously corrupted arrangements in D minor, perhaps derived fromthe same source: Allemande, Courante, Sarabande, Gigue).
No. 17 Title transcription: “Allemande, faict à Montbeliard, a l’honneur de SonAltesse Serenis[si]me Madame Sibÿlle, Duchesse de Wirtemberg,Princesse de Montbeliard.” The place of composition, Montbéliard, wasnot previously known.
Nos. 21–24 The Gigue follows the Allemande (as in the new manuscript) in“Bulyowsky,” but follows the Sarabande in “Roger.”
No. 29 Title transcription: “Meditation, la quelle se joüe lentement avecdiscretion, faict sur ma Mort future.” The piece is dated in “SA”: “âParis le 1 Maÿ Anno 1660,” providing new and more specific evidencefor Froberger's sojourn in Paris around 1660.
No. 34 The title in “SA” is “Lamentation, faite sur la mort tres douloreuse deSa Majesté Impériale Ferdinand le troisieme; et se joue lentement avec
discretion. An. 1657.” Emperor Ferdinand III died on 2 April 1657.No. 35 Duke Leopold Friedrich, spouse of Sibylla, died on 15 June 1662 in
Montbéliard
3.2 This manuscript is the first known autograph of some of Froberger’s most important works,probably all dating from the last decade of his life. These include his opus magnum, thelamentation for his patron, Emperor Ferdinand III (no. 34, 1657); the equally important Suite 20(nos. 29–32) including the “Memento Mori Froberger” (no. 29, 1660), which one may well callhis musical testament; and Suites 15 (nos. 13–16, presumably 1658, the coronation of Leopold I),18 (nos. 17–18) and mature Suite 19 (nos. 21–24, which could well be another tombeau). Inaddition, the fifteen hitherto unknown compositions include the twelve polyphonic works (nos. 1–12), another suite for Sibylla (nos. 25–28), the “Memento Mori Sibylla” (no. 33), and a memorialfor her husband Leopold Friedrich (died 1662; no. 35).
3.3 For whom was this book written? The curious French title page seems not a likely choiceunder the arms of a Hapsburg Emperor. Apart from this, the repertory, including three worksexplicitly dedicated to the Lutheran Princess of Montbéliard, seems hardly appropriate as a gift toan emperor. The volume carries no dedication, neither to any Emperor nor to Sibylla, nor does ithave a shelf mark from the imperial library.10 Further, the language used in all dedications of theLibri is Italian, in accordance with practice at the imperial court, not French. It seems as if the thecaligraphy of the general title page was made to conform to the visual style of the words"Primiere Partie,” with their exuberant capitals. The general title page’s heading of “LivrePrimiere” is difficult to scrute: in what sense is this a first book? The first book to be owned bythe intended recipient? One may well conclude that there was a change in the intended purposefor the volume at some stage.
3.4 The general title page (cf. par. 2.7) was clearly written without the supervision by thecomposer, unlike those for the Libri, or even after his death. It is only on this title page that thecomposer’s name was attached to the volume. Possibly this was done following the wish of a newowner, perhaps Sibylla, who called herself his “Kein Lachender Erb.”11 More likely, at a stilllater stage such a “first book” was to be a political gift from the House of Württemberg to theHabsburgs, as the presence of the coat of arms on the covers suggests. One could imagine that thePrincess would not easily have parted with such a posession. The plan was apparently neverrealized and the volume was forgotten, to rest in an unknown collection for more than 300 years.These hypotheses demand the test of a close study of the physical state and binding of themanuscript, particularly as they relate to the main title page.
3.5 This small volume may have been intended to remain Froberger’s private copy: it wascertainly practical to carry on travels and suitable to be copied from by musicians, which he onlyallowed, as we know from Sibylla’s letters, to those he knew would not misrepresent his works,people like Constantijn Huygens. For performance, on the other hand, the small format is lesspractical, since in the polyphonic pieces a page has only one system. For the composer himself,this would have been less problematic. It is seducing to think that the missing volumes ofFroberger’s autographs, which he probably carried with him on his travels all over WesternEurope, will one day come to light.
4. The Fantasies and Caprices
4.1 The opening twelve polyphonic works, hitherto unknown, may have been intended to beplayed on the organ or harpsichord. The organ would sometimes have advantages because of itspossibilities for colorful registration, from which the skipping dotted endings of some of theCaprices would profit. It is here that we encounter elements from two of Froberger’scontemporaries Louis Couperin (ca. 1626–1661) and François Roberday (1624–1680).
21.2.2015 Journal of SeventeenthCentury Music | Vol. 13 No. 1 | Bob van Asperen: A New Froberger Manuscript
4.2 The Fantasies, basically built on one relatively solemn theme, consist of several sections. Thefirst Fantasy opens with a theme that could be called the “Louis Couperin theme”: it is the onequoted by François Roberday in the eighth Fugue of his Fugues, et Caprices … pour l’Orgue—virtually a musical liber amicorum.12 Roberday writes in his Avertissement that the themes heused were given to to him by several composers, including Couperin, Froberger, and Frescobaldi.The thematic idea used in this first Fantasy appears to have been in Couperin’s mind over theyears: apart from various allusions in the organ works, it appears clearly in a Gigue in D Minor.13The opening of this Fantasy, with the soprano and alto introducing the theme, is almost identicalto Roberday’s exposition. Its first section is also exactly the same size as the corresponding partof Roberday’s Fugue. It therefore could be essentially the same work. The second section, in 3—as is Roberday’s second section—is written in black notation. At the beginning of the thirdsection, Froberger did not mark the quadruple time signature, as happens elsewhere in themanuscript. The fact that this late manuscript opens with Louis Couperin’s theme may beunderstood as an explicit homage to his younger Paris colleague; Froberger may well have beenin the French capital at the time of Couperin’s premature death.
4.3 The theme of the second Fantasy represents one of the better known soggetti of theseventeenth century. Froberger used closely related thematic material in his Ricercar 2 (1658),and its subject is also found in the “Fantasia sexti toni” in GBLbl Add. Ms. 23623, f. 113,attributed to John Bull, but perhaps actually by Peeter Cornet (see “DirksenFerrard,” pp. ix–x). Avariant of the theme was also used by Cornet in his Fantasies 5 and 6, and by Peter Philips(Fantasy 13); all three of these composers were organists in Brussels. This tradition probably goesback to Philips’s teacher, William Byrd (Fantasy 62). A chromatic variant of the theme alsocirculated, such as the Fantasy 6 by Anthony van Noordt (Amsterdam, 1659). Froberger used thisvariant in his Canzona 4 and Fantasy 7, the triple section of which appears related to the finaltriple section of the second Fantasy in the new manuscript. This tripletime ending is not uniquein Froberger’s works: his Ricercar 2 and Fantasy 4 also close in 3.
4.4 In the Caprices, the initial themes, which are generally lively, undergo a transformation ineach section (as in the Fantasies) with changes of meter in the manner of a variation canzona. Thefirst Caprice (no. 7 in the manuscript) uses a variant of the “Louis Couperin theme” (see Example1a) and thus can be seen as related to the first Fantasy. The Caprice uses elements related to nofewer than three composers. Froberger is undoubtedly responsible for the opening section, but thenext two sections are almost entirely the same as those of Roberday’s eighth Caprice, which isitself linked thematically to the eighth Fugue cited above. In the final cadenzas Froberger’scomposition diverges from Roberday’s.
4.5 It seems clear that Froberger must be the author of the first section, as his style can berecognized throughout. The theme resembles that of his Caprice 2 (Example 1b), the voices enterin the same order (soprano, alto, tenor, bass), and the episodes are similar, reflecting Froberger’scharacteristic playfulness. Some episodes are in fact identical to passages found in other knownworks by Froberger; they spin out ideas, sometimes the initial motive, in irregular phrase lengths.They use such typical Frobergian devices as parallel thirds with suspensions and “empty”moments when a voice is silent at the conclusion of its phrase, a characteristic also found in themusic of Froberger’s teacher, Frescobaldi. Other Frobergian characteristics are maintaining analtered ending of a theme, only to restore the original version later; ending with stretto or falsestretto; and a continuous mild chromaticism. Conspicuously absent, in this first section and in theother polyphonic works in the new manuscript, are toccatalike passages. Such writing diminishesgradually in Froberger’s output: the “Libro Quarto” from 1656 still contained five works withending viruosic flourishes, the 1658 “Libro di capricci, e ricercati” only two.
4.6 Roberday’s craftmanship, not always free from academicism, can be seen in the second andthird sections of this Caprice, however. Episodes are completely absent during the the secondsection (Example 2a). This is quite unlike Froberger, who normally enlivens his expositions in an
asymmetrical way with episodes (Example 2b). Moreover, the regularly occurring syncopatedentries of the theme may be regarded as a typical Roberday device: in the rare instances whereFroberger does this, it is for one entry only. In the third section, the transformation of Roberday’striplets into dactyls matches Froberger’s idiom well; they are comparable to the dactylic sectionsof Canzona 1, and duplemeter gigues in more harpsichordistic style such as the one from Suite20. See Examples 3a–c.
4.7 The conclusions of both sections two and three, however, seem to reflect Froberger’s moreradical interventions. In the second section, instead of Roberday’s conventional final cadence onthe fifth degree, the manuscript’s Caprice uses the more colourful sixth tonal degree with seventhas appogiatura (see Example 4a). This Frobergian dramatic device is one the composer must havebeen particularly fond of for chordal endings (Example 4b). More consequential is the change atthe end of the third section, which concludes the work; one and a half measures have beenremoved, achieving a more effective conclusion, replacing the static pedal point. Roberday’ssoprano entry is thus cut off half way and reforged into a pseudoentry; the head motive isimmediately followed by the bass stating the theme in unabridged form. The final result of thisoperation is a newly created false stretto. A harmonic gesture in Froberger’s version is theintroduction of the major/minor second degree. This daring progression can be found elsewherein Froberger’s oeuvre. See Examples 5a–b.
4.8 The borrowing of passages and themes seen here reminds us of a comment by Froberger’sfriend Constantijn Huygens, writing on 6 April 1655 to composer Henri Du Mont in Paris: “Yougive too much honor to one of my allemandes by having borrowed its opening to apply to one ofyours.”14 Such creative reuse of material has a parallel in the work of another contemporary ofFroberger, Rembrandt, who radically reworked a Hercules Seghers etching, undoubtedly inadmiration.15 A question that remains unanswered is whether this musical fusion originated inParis around 1660, when Roberday and Froberger apparently met, or if it dates from the followingyears when Froberger was mainly in Héricourt. In any case, there are other borrowings in the newmanuscript (including one from Roberday’s second Caprice that was, in my view, in turnborrowed from Frescobaldi’s third Canzona from the second book of toccatas of 1627) that canonly be discussed in detail when and if the new manuscript is made available for careful study.This second Caprice has no thematic link with the second Fantasy.
5. The New Readings of the Dance Movements, Méditations, and Tombeaux
5.1 The third section of the manuscript includes five previously known works: the Tombeau forFerdinand III (no. 34) and Suites 15, 18, 19 and 20 (nos. 13–16, 17–20, 21–24, and 29–32) whichconstitute the core of Froberger’s mature compositions and for which mostly no authoritativeversions exist in other sources. The new manuscript offers highly interesting readings, obviouslydiverging from those in any modern edition. The discussion below deals with selected examples,suggesting the potential for future study of the manuscript.
5.2 The opening of the Tombeau for Ferdinand III has two F minor chords followed by two Bflatminor chords; this contrasts with the previously known versions which have F–f–bflat–bflat orF–f–Bflat–bflat (in “SA” and “Minoriten Suiten” respectively).16 Otherwise, the reading in thenew autograph confirms the hitherto best version (in “SA”), including the surprising connectingfigure written after the ending (see Maguire pp. 5 and 6): it leads back to the last reprise after theascent on the concluding F harmony that could be understood as a “Jacob’s Ladder” to heaven(see also the comparable heavenly scale ending in Figure 1). This potentially symbolic gestureseems, however, to be a purely musical gesture. The new source offers ties which seem omissionsin “SA,” a problematic characteristic of that manuscript.17 “MinoritenSuiten” also has some notunskilled variants in pitches and rhythms, raising the question of whether they may stem from thecomposer.
21.2.2015 Journal of SeventeenthCentury Music | Vol. 13 No. 1 | Bob van Asperen: A New Froberger Manuscript
5.3 Suite 15 appears in this manuscript in what seems an optimal reading that largely confirms thereading in “Bulyowsky,” which claims that this piece was copied “ex autographo.” Surprisingly,many French ornaments in “Bulyowsky” are also in the new source, quite unlike the relativelyunadorned style of the suites in the Libri. “Bulyowsky” gives a more elaborate and extendedversion—including even one additional measure—than is found in “Roger.” It is surprising thatseveral of these elaborations are not in the new manuscript, or are only partially present.Examples are supplied by the Allemande (Example 6), including Bulyowsky’s completedarpeggiation in the opening measure. It would seem, therefore, that these embellishments are notFroberger’s, that the phrase ”ex autographo” was already present in the source being copied in“Bulyowsky,” or that it represented a moreorless reliable oral tradition known to Bulyowsky.
5.4 In the Gigue of Suite 15, on the other hand, the sources mainly agree: this weighty fugalmovement is here in quadruple meter, casting serious doubt on the authenticity of the tripleversion that is also known, but not from an autograph source. This could change our general viewof other triplemeter gigues in the Froberger canon: the three easygoing 6/8 versions of thisGigue are surely arrangements by lesser artists, denying Froberger’s basic fugal concept andnotated in one case by three different hands (Gigue 13).18 The rhythmically changed upbeat to theCourante in “Bulyowsky” is not in the new autograph, nor is the “doucement” appearing towardsthe end in “Roger.” In fact, no such instruction appears anywhere in the new manuscript. In short,we might well question the full trustworthiness of the claim in “Bulyowsky” that the suite wascopied from an autograph. The late date of the new source diminishes the likelihood that acurrently unknown autograph would have a revised version of the work.
5.5 The new association of the Aminor Allemande of Suite 15 with the coronation of EmperorLeopold I is mystifying in view of its plaintive figures, such the exlamatio—the emphaticlyascending minor sixth—and the descending chromatic tetrachord. For another coronation, ofFerdinand IV as King of Hungary and Bohemia in June 1653, Allemande 11, the composer chosea major key and high tessitura, opening with a dotted figure, for his homage. Given that the othermovements of the suite seem not of radically contrasting character, it is surprising that its Gigueuses a “harrowing” cross relation (Example 7). This major/minor seconddegree figure—the Fsharp is first followed chromatically by F before progressing to the fifth degree, thus making amajor/minor–minor passage rounded off by a Picardy third—is certainly one of Frescobaldi’scompositional traits that Froberger brought back to Vienna. It seems rather suited for a plaint, andFroberger did indeed use it in the now famous “Tombeau de Mr Blancrocher.”19 In addition, theSarabande of Suite 15 uses the Neapolitan sixthchord several times, another harmony oftenassociated with sorrow and never used by Froberger again.20 Finally, one wonders why the piecewas not offered to the Emperor immediately in 1658 when surely the “Libro di capricci, ericercati” was dedicated (though apparently in vain) to the “sacra Cesarea Maestà di Leopoldoprimo.”
5.6 In mature Suite 18, the Allemande is the first composition to come to light that was dedicatedto princess Sibylla, in “Bulyowsky” and now in the new manuscript. Moreover, the new sourcetells us that it was composed in Montbéliard, perhaps during one of his visits from Paris around1659/60. The new manuscript confirms the order of movements in “Bauyn” and “Bulyowsky,” asopposed to the order in “Roger”: the Gigue follows the Allemande, not the Sarabande, inaccordance with Froberger’s “new order” (see par. 8.4). The Gigue’s subtitle here, “nommé LaPhilette,” corrects the spelling “Philotte” in “Bulyowsky.” We do not yet know who the person inquestion was, and the use of such a Frenchstyle title is unique for Froberger. The opening of thisdotted gigue in quadruple meter may for that matter quote a gigue by the French lutenist, FrançoisDufaut.21 The Sarabande corresponds for the most part with the reading in “Bulyowsky,” albeitwith enlightening variants.
5.7 In Suite 19, the Allemande, with its repeated emphatic use of the minor sixth in its exclamatiomight possibly be a tombeau. The reading of the work in the new manuscript seems largely the
21.2.2015 Journal of SeventeenthCentury Music | Vol. 13 No. 1 | Bob van Asperen: A New Froberger Manuscript
same as that in “Bulyowsky” rather than that of “Roger,” confirming better readings for severalcomplex places. However, it is remarkable that the indication ”NB. avec discretion lentement”towards the end of the Gigue in “Bulyowsky,” again claiming to be copied “Froberg. ExAutographo,” is lacking here. This again suggests that “Bulyowsky” contains additions, albeitsome with musical logic.
5.8 Suite 20 has a central place in Froberger’s works, and the reading in the new manuscript isgenerally the same as the one in “SA.” The relatively abundant use of French ornaments foundthere is here confirmed as authentic, and both sources use a cross for Asharp and Esharp. It isremarkable, however, that the title in this autograph does not include the date for the Méditationfound in “SA”: “â Paris le 1 Maÿ Anno 1660,” suggesting that the composer did not always markor copy his subtitles completely. A clear example is that the lengthy subtitles for Suite 11 in “SA”are missing in “Libro Quarto,” dedicated to Ferdinand III. This suggests that the explanatorypassages found in “Minoriten” for “volé” and “Blancrocher” (translated into Latin and therebycertainly abbreviated) are not necessarily corrupt, even though they are not in “SA.” “SA” has aslur at the end of the fourth measure that is not in the new manuscript; manuscript copies ofworks typically omit some slurs and ties, which is contradicted here. The new manuscriptfrequently has ties that are not in “SA.”
5.9 The four facsimiles in Maguire of the Méditation, no. 29 in the manuscript, provide a gooddeal of the piece for study. Froberger uses doublelength measures compared to modern standardsand the readings in “Hintze.” It may be daring to suggest that Froberger conceived this and otherpieces in C (4/4), though notating them in measures twice that long, but that seems to be the case:it is the only logical explanation for the frequent half measures. The new manuscript has A–Fsharp in the bass of m. 16, notes 3–4, as in “Hintze” (which is in the hand of Froberger’s friend,Matthias Weckmann), whereas “SA” has G–Fsharp. The ornament on that Fsharp in Hintze isnot in the new manuscript, which does provide two mordents in m. 13 found in no other source.
5.10 Given the pattern of the variants—seemingly authentic variants in “SA” and “Hintze” that donot appear in the new manuscript, and variants here that are not in “SA” nor “Hintze”—it ispossible that at least one more autograph of this particular work may have existed. One candidateis the volume Sibylla refers to when she writes in 1667 to Huygens that she practiced thisMéditation with special diligence, having learned it from Froberger himself. She could bereferring to the manuscript under discussion here when she wrote, “it [the Méditation] is difficultto understand from the score … although it has been notated clearly.”22
5.11 The Gigue, no. 30 in the manuscript, confirms the instruction, towards the end, “NB. avecdiscretion,” also found in “SA” and the “Roger.” A central passage in A minor in the Courante(no. 31) has a surprise. On the second beat of m. 11, “SA” has an f 'sharp in the alto, resulting inmajor/minor, while the frequently faulty “Roger” has f 'natural, by cancelling the f 'sharp of thekey signature. The new source confirms “Roger,” one more illustration of the problems of editingFroberger. In the Sarabande (no. 32), in a passage that is otherwise harmonically parallel to theone just cited, the composer does not hesitate to use major/minor harmony, perhaps emphasizingthe more emphatic character of this dance. The reading in the new manuscript of this movementintroduces new important ties right from the beginning; “SA” has again, curiously enough, onemore.
6. Three Previously Unknown Works
6.1 The Suite in F Major (nos. 25–28) opens with a movement dedicated to Froberger's patronessSibylla, Duchess of Württtemberg (1620–1707).23 The Gigue is in the style of the Frenchpredominantly homophonic—even simple—gigue in 6/4 time.24 It elegantly combines a fullvoiced but uncomplicated texture in low tessitura with broken style and lilting syncopations onthe second beat. The harmonic rhythm is relatively slow, in a style which is surprisingly
reminiscent of one of Louis Couperin’s Fmajor Gigues (no. 79 in “Moroney”). It is not clearwhat caused Froberger to abandon here one of his major achievements, the polyphonic duplemeter gigue, where his mastery of fugal artifice could be displayed to the full. This Gigue, beingless fugal than any of its known predecessors, might have been the result of the composer’sstriving for a moderate degree of complexity. It is not inconceivable that this relates to thededication to the duchess. The Sarabande is truly in fullvoiced style, comparable to thesumptuous one in Suite 28.
6.2 The Méditation for Sibylla (no. 33, see Maguire p. 10) and the Tombeau for LeopoldFriedrich (no. 35) show a surprising departure from Froberger’s known compositions in thesegenres. The composer seems suddenly to indulge in a lavish and meditative jeu coulé, abandoninghis earlier rhetorical style. The style is different from that of the Allemande for Sybilla describedabove (no. 17), which probably had been composed not long before. The style of the SibyllaMéditation and the Tombeau for her husband that follows (no. 34) are generally more fantastic,reminiscent at times of French unmeasured preludes, a genre the composer seems to evokeparticularly here. There are several pedal points lasting as long as four semibreves over whichthere are subtle harmonic changes, creating a serene atmosphere rather than the animated one wegenerally associate with Froberger.25 The opening lombardic rhythms of no. 33 are applied in anunusual skipping way: the composer’s traditional handling of such accentando have the fallingpairs of notes imbedded in a more linear texture.26
6.3 In these two meditative works in the new manuscript (nos. 33 and 35) French prelude styleseems to be evoked by the many ascending and descending arpeggios in a quasiunstructuredfashion, repeatedly “tasting” the harmony; previously, Froberger preferred these brokenharmonies to sound in a delicate, incomplete way. The device (see Maguire, p. 10, m. 3 on thelower system) is somewhat comparable to some rare ascending and descending apeggio figures inother pieces by Froberger.27 The kinship with the French unmeasured prelude is confirmed by theidentification of a borrowing: a phrase in the Tombeau for Leopold Friedrich appears to be alenghthy paraphrase of a passage in a Prelude by Louis Couperin (Figure 3). Froberger followsthe Frenchman’s distinctive harmonic progression, including the double arpeggio. Pseudopolyphony (or quasihomophony), a particularly Frobergerian device created by sustaining notesthat were initially perceived as part of a melodic line, is often to be found in these works:elaborated in minute detail, he uses a complex notation for it, especially in his mature works.(Unfortunately, this most beautiful of Froberger’s artifices became a stumbling block for many acopyist.)
6.4 Certain wavering melodic twists, hitherto not known in Froberger—one resembles theopening of a Toccata by Michelangelo Rossi28—seem difficult to explain. Despite hisrecognizable personal language, the composer obviously used certain formulas only once.29 Oneof these “new” figures is a dotted triple repetition of a tone, found conspicuously in the uppervoice of the Tombeau for Leopold Friedrich (no. 35) always occurring on the last (weak) beat of abar and even serving as its final One is reminded of the previously unique elevated ending of theTombeau for Ferdinand III (no. 34, Maguire, p. 5), albeit there in undotted notation. In bothTombeaux, the figure was probably inspired by French unmeasured prelude style: Couperinseems to use the device and Jean Henry D’Anglebert was also acquainted with thisconfiguration.30
6.5 The fact that this influence of the French prelude in Froberger appears here for the first time(perhaps from 1662 on), could suggest either that many of Couperin’s preludes were written afterFroberger completed his first visit to Paris (which was probably at the end of 1652) or thatFroberger had become more susceptible to the genre during his second stay in the French capital.In my opinion, however, about a dozen quotations from Froberger’s works in those of Couperin,mostly from the 1649 book, make it apparent how deeply Couperin’s prelude style was indebted
21.2.2015 Journal of SeventeenthCentury Music | Vol. 13 No. 1 | Bob van Asperen: A New Froberger Manuscript
to Froberger; the most obvious example is the “Prélude à l’imitation de Mr Froberger.”31 AFrench taste of the Princess may or may not have played a role here, but it appears that Frobergerintended to memorialize the deceased Couperin: the Stuttgart master unexpectedly uses elementsof Parisian composer’s prelude idiom, as well as the “Couperin theme” at the beginning of thefirst two sections of the new manuscript.
6.6 Numerous progressions and melodic lines in these two meditative works, however, bearFroberger’s unmistakabe stamp. One of the places that allows a comparison to the known corpusis the exuberant toccata flourish also found in Canzona 1 (Example 8a), a version of which is alsoused in the Tombeau for Ferdinand III (no. 34, Maguire, p. 5). This is of particular interest,because the passage was apparently once borrowed by Couperin in a Prelude. Also recognizableis a certain mildly waving arpègement figuré from the Tombeau for Ferdinand III, heremodernized by a raised leading tone. Also familiar from Toccata 6 “per la Levatione” is the“mystic” chromatic progression, as is the composite melancholic chain of wavering chromatismsfrom “Lamentation sur ce que j’ay été volé.” (See Examples 8b–e.)
7. Textual Characteristics of the New Manuscript
7.1 An elegant sign, somewhat resembling an S flanked by two dots shaped as cross marks, closesboth headings and movements, just as in the “Libro di capricci, e ricercati” (see Maguire, p. 13for the clearest example). (In the “Libro Secondo” and “Libro Quarto,” where the titles are in thecalligraphy of another hand, it appears only at the endings.) This stimulates a renewedinvestigation into the origin and significance of this seemingly enigmatic mark, which has beeninterpreted in divergent ways without having been thoroughly studied.32 It is certainly ahumanistic cursive S, not a somewhat similarly shaped gothic H. Only a few of the numerousspecimens in Froberger’s hand slightly resemble his roman S; perhaps for him it had becomemerely a glyph. The use of the humanistic cursive certainly means that it refers to a Latin orItalian word.
7.2 The “.S.” sign served as a canonization and verification mark in legal documents and lettersall over Europe since at least the sixteenth century. Reduced forms ( ./. ./ / ) can be found asearly as 1519 at the Vatican. The sign was placed after the address or the heading, or at the theend of the main text, either before or after a signature. It is traditionally understood to stand for“scripsi,” Latin for “I have written this,” possibly a reference to the well known quotation fromPontius Pilate, “quod scripsi scripsi” (“what I have written, I have written,” John 19:22).33 Wemay thus speak of the “scripsi sign.” The habit of placing such an abbreviation between two dotsstems from a medieval tradition of sigla, oneletter abbreviations for common words, such as“.e.” (est) or “.sc.” (scilicet).34 In musical scores it is attached to a title of a composition ormovement, eventually associated with the name of its author, and at the end of a piece, sometimesfollowing the word “fin” or “fine.” Examples can be found in “Bauyn,” “Parville,” “Oldham,”“Brussels,” “Leipzig Suiten,” FPsg MS 2348, and numerous partbooks. J.S. Bach used itregularly above work and folio numbers; Anna Magdalena Bach imitated his habit and sometimesadded it even to titles (BWV 691 in DB Mus. ms. Bach P 225), or marking it at the end of a setof suites (BWV 1007–1012 in DB Mus. ms. Bach P 26).
7.3 The various shapes of the scripsi signs in Froberger, always associated with a preceding“[pro]pria,” suggest that the two notations were not always written as a single gesture. Even whenthere was little space, the nature of the sign apparently dictated that it be placed immediately tothe right of the very last word of the text; there is not a single instance of it being below the lastword to solve a space problem. In about a dozen instances in the Libri this resulted in aproblematic situation, where not enough space had been calculated: the sign landed in the clefs, ifat the beginning of a composition, or (at the end of a composition) deep into the fold or at theextreme outer edge of the page, being easily trimmed off later.35 These observations suggest, in
my view, both the importance of the scripsi sign and that it was added later than the other text. Itis most likely then, that the sign was added after proofreading. The sign would then serve as astatement of correctness of the preceding. If this is correct, “.S.” functions both as a finalcanonization of a text,36 title, heading, postscript (see Maguire, p. 5) or composition (attatched inthat case to the formula “propria manu”) and as a confirmation of a previously mentionedcopyist’s or author’s name. Since the scripsi sign is found in both in copies and autographs, it isobvious that by itself the sign does not actually represent an authentification of a work. In thecase of the new source, then, either it was Froberger’s personal copy, not needing his name in it,or there was an original title page, now missing, with his name to which the scripsi signs refer.
7.4 Froberger used a stylized version of the traditional formula “manu propria [scripsi],” (“with[my] own hand [I wrote this]”) at the ends of movements. First, there is an extensive descendingMshaped flourish that rounds off every movement, immediately following its final chord, in anoblique direction when space allowed (see Maguire, p. 13). It is connected with, or even springsfrom, Froberger’s characteristic eyeshaped final double fermatas. A similar, usually oblique,idiosyncratic zigzag can be found in numerous old legal documents where it traditionallyreplaces the word “manu.” The abbreviation “pria” for “propria” was in use since the medievalera, and here it is attached to the lower end of this chain of “M”s. The “pria” consists of the letter“p” with a curled line bisecting the descender, sometimes forming a loop on the left side of thedescender, followed by the letters “ria”; it is found in the new source (Maguire, p. 13) and morecarefully executed in the “Libro Secondo” (Figure 4a). This bisector of the “p” traditionallyreplaced the letters “r o,” resulting in a meaning of “pro.” The “p” also serves as the beginning of“pria,” completing the formula “manu propria [scripsi],” proof of authenticity, at times proudlycopied, and probably recopied.37
7.5 The original shape of the “p”, in which the stroke makes a “squiggle” before actually crossingthe descender of the “p”—compare the comparably shaped “q” in Froberger’s “Requiescat”(Maguire, p. 5)—is regularly found in the “Libro Secondo.” In the “Libro Quarto” it is formedless literally, and it disappears completely in the “Libro di capricci, e ricercati,” where at the mostthe descender and stroke partly coincide. (See Figure 4a–f). As far as I was able to observe inperson and judging by the facsimiles in Maguire, the earlier shape does not return in the newmanuscript, in accordance with its presumed date.
8. Musical Characteristics of the New Manuscript
8.1 The manuscript uses ornaments considerably more frequently than any other knownautograph by Froberger. In addition, we find a new differentiation between what must signify ashort trill—somewhat resembling an “m” or at times a “w”—and a mordent, the same sign with across stroke (see Maguire, pp. 8 and 9). This contrasts with the universal “t” in the earlier Libri, asign that allows both interpretations.38 The French distinction of ornament signs found in “SA”and to some extent in “Bulyowsky” is hereby confirmed as authentic. At the same time we learnthat the other ornament symbols in “Bulyowsky,” partly difficult to interpret, are undoubtedly anaddition, not reflecting Froberger’s concept.39 Thus the new source shows that Froberger’sinterest in French ornaments, as with his adoption of prelude style, is more evident only in hislater years than in the period immediately following his first Paris sojourn.
8.2 The volume contains only three sections, whereas the first two Libri have four. Conspiciouslyabsent here are toccatas, suggesting that this idiom may not have held Froberger’s interest anymore (as in the case of J.S. Bach, who wrote all his harpsichord toccatas in his youth). That thecanzona is not represented in this late repertory is also no surprise: it seems to have disappearedfrom Froberger’s palette after he presented six in the “Libro Secondo” of 1649 when the genreseems to integrate with the capriccio; the venerable style of the ricercar apparently survivedlonger, as their presence in the “Libro Quarto” (1656) and “Libro di capricci, e ricercati” (1658)shows, but it was eventually absorbed by the fantasy.
21.2.2015 Journal of SeventeenthCentury Music | Vol. 13 No. 1 | Bob van Asperen: A New Froberger Manuscript
8.3 Froberger’s sudden interest in French style is seen in a number of characteristics in thismanuscript:
The adoption of “free floating” arpeggios, lute style, and a preference for larger harmonicblocks obviously modelled after Louis Couperin’s unmeasured preludes, a stylisticinnovation for Froberger.
Development of a more reflective, lyrical style, contrasting with Froberger’s earlierItalianate imitative Figurensprache.
Assimilation of Roberday’s fugal compositions.
Thorough elaboration of Couperin’s theme from Roberday’s Fugues et Caprices,conspiciously at the very opening of the manuscript.
Application of Frescobaldi’s thematic material as interpreted by Roberday.
Absence of Italianate toccatastyle sections and toccatas as a genre.
The exclusive use of French for titles of pieces, sections, and the book itself, in contrastwith the earlier autographs.
Introduction of the French genre of the “musical portrait.”
Application of French, differentiated ornament signs.
The use of Louis Couperin's homophonic gigue style.
8.4 The order of the dances in the suites in this late new manuscript, always placing the gigue inthe second place, confirms what could be concluded on the basis of “SA”: Froberger’s new “orderfor almost all his [dance] movements” (as mentioned by Weckmann in “Hintze”) was probablyintroduced between the summers of 1653 and 1654.40
8.5 A tonal expansion is noticeable here as if Froberger were exploring tonality at the cost ofmodality. On the one hand, the choice of Bflat major in two compositions can be seen as alogical development following the incidental exploration of the circle of fifths to the Aflat majorchord in the Tombeau for Ferdinand III (1658) and the Fsharp major chord in the Méditation onhis own death (1660). On the other hand we have seen how the Dminor scale superseded thedorian and aeolian modes in Leopold Friedrich’s Tombeau (1662, no. 35) and how Frobergeraccepted the Neapolitan sixthchord in the Sarabande from Suite 15 (see Par. 5.5), thus paving theway for a more tonal approach. This modern trend does not surprise us, since Werckmeistersuggests that it was just around the same time (“ca. 1667”) that the composer wrote a Canzona“passing through all 12 keys … and … the circle of fifths, until he returned to the key he startedin.”41
8.6 The new manuscript also allows us to follow Froberger’s use of accidentals, which undergoesa change over the years. The natural sign, youngest among accidentals, was used in only onepiece in the “Libro Secondo” of 1649, the Hexachord Fantasia for Kircher where he apparentlyfollowed a version he prepared for Kircher); and it is not used at all in the “Libro Quarto” (1656).In the “Libro di capricci, e ricercati” (1658) it appears not infrequently, and it is on an equalfooting with sharps and flats in this new manuscript.
8.7 A comparable modernization took place in Louis Couperin’s notation of keysignatures,where tonal notation was sometimes introduced, albeit apparently not without pain, as the
21.2.2015 Journal of SeventeenthCentury Music | Vol. 13 No. 1 | Bob van Asperen: A New Froberger Manuscript
ambivalent notation of “Allemande de la paix” (no. 63 in “Moroney”) may suggest. That thistransition took place in the late 1650s can be deduced from Sarabande in A (no. 113): in “Bauyn”the two systems for key signatures are used in the same piece, and the dance seems to quoteFroberger’s Sarabande from Suite 8 (1656). The probable occasion for the “Allemande de lapaix” was the Peace of the Pyrennees, 1659, supporting this dating of the transition to tonal keysignatures for these composers.
9. Contributions to Froberger’s Biography
9.1 The new elaborate titles provide some new information about Froberger’s life after 1658:
A journey to Madrid, perhaps in Sibylla’s presence. As a possible occasion, DavidSchulenberg has pointed to the wedding of princess Margherita Teresa to Leopold Iby proxy in 1666 (see Recent Editions and Recordings of Froberger …, par 3.5. Theactual preparation of the match had started as much as four years earlier, whenLeopold agreed to it.
Froberger’s apparent stay in Frankfurt July–August 1658.
The reestablishment of his contact with the Württemberg court, eventually leadingto his sojourn at Montbéliard, might be moved back now by two years to 1662 orbefore.42
10. Genesis of this “French Book”: Froberger’s Last Sojourn in Paris
10.1 Following the apparent debacle of Vienna in 1658—Froberger’s post as imperial organistwas not renewed by the new emperor Leopold I43—Paris is the first place where we find a traceof the composer, in the heading of the “Memento Mori” in “SA” (no. 29 in the new manuscript).He had lived in the world of musicians like Blancrocher probably from mid 1650 until the end of1652, except for a journey to London that he apparently made. It is possible that his visits had apolitical aspect, with Froberger acting as an observer for the Habsburg court.44 At least duringthis first Paris sojourn, the period of the Fronde, Froberger had been supported by the Marquis deTermes, as shown by the “antiMazarin” heading of the Suite 13 in “SA.”45 Politicallyindependent but probably without means in 1658, the composer/virtuoso may well have set offfrom Vienna to Paris in the summer of that year, with his former benefactor in mind. The alledgedpersonal contact with Roberday during the period preceding the appearance of his 1660 editionseems to suggest this, and it would concord with the date of his Méditation on his own death, “âParis le 1 Maÿ Anno 1660” (no. 29). The renewed contact with Sibylla could have been initiatedaround that time.
10.2 The arrest of Louis XIV’s superintendant of finance, Nicolas Fouquet, in September of 1661led to the ruin of financiers like Pierre Aubert, in whose Palais Salé the flamboyant Marquis deTermes lived. (This could in turn have resulted in an end to Froberger’s resources, leading to theacceptance of Sibylla’s invitation.) Thus, Froberger may well have performed works from thenew “French Book” in this mansion, the grandest and most magnificently decorated in the Maraisdistrict of Paris, today the Picasso Museum.
11. Conclusion
11.1 The authoritative versions of known pieces in the new autograph manuscript make it clearthat the wide dissemination of Froberger’s works resulted in corruption of the texts, “creative”copying with rhythmic adaptations, arrangements, and adaptations for different instruments. Thewide admiration for Froberger’s style also led to numerous stylistic imitations that circulatedunder his name, such as pieces incorrectly attributed to Froberger in “Bulyowsky,” “Brussels,”
11.2 The fact that an autograph version of Froberger’s most personal piece (the Méditation on hisown death, no. 29) comes together in a single source with an autograph of another masterpiece inthe same genre (the Tombeau for Ferdinand III, no. 34) characterizes this manuscript as the mostsignificant discovery ever made in this field. Its readings of pieces that it has in common with“SA” and “Bulyowsky” also confirm the high quality of those manuscripts, even though theysometimes have readings that are not in the authoritative new source. On the whole, however, thenew autograph offers important solutions for places where other sources contradicted each other.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Gustav Leonhardt for calling his attention to the new manuscript and toSimon Maguire, Stephen Roe, and the staff of Sotheby’s London for allowing him to view it; toDavid Schulenberg and Diez Eichler for sharing their observations about the manuscript; and toOlivier Baumont, Francesco Corti, Alan Curtis, Hendrik Dochhorn, Johannes Jansen, ClemensKemme, Irmgard Müsch, Guy Oldham, Alexander Silbiger, and Sonja van Londen for theirfriendly help and support.
References
* Bob van Asperen ([email protected]), professor of harpsichord at the Conservatory ofAmsterdam, is a recitalist on harpsichord, clavichord, and organ, and a scholar and teacher ofmasterclasses. A former pupil of Gustav Leonhardt, he has made over 60 solo harpsichordrecordings of music from the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, including J.S. Bach’s majorworks. He is currently engaged in recording the complete works of Louis Couperin and Frobergeron historical harpsichords and organs for AEOLUS.
1 An interpretation of the composer’s intention is perforce a modern one. However, we shouldnote that Rembrandt was explicit about his meaning in his passion series for the Prince of Orange,when he describes his intention to depict “Meeste end die Natureelste Beweechgelijkheit” (“thegreatest and most natural emotion”) in a letter to Constantijn Huygens of 12 January 1639. For atranscription of the letter see Constantijn Huygens: de Briefwisseling, ed. Jacob Adolf Worp, 6vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1911–1917), no. 2020; the entire Worp edition is nowavailable and searchable at http://www.inghist.nl/Onderzoek/Projecten/Huygens/en/index_html.
2 I count the suites here as one work, the inventory in Maguire numbers the 18 movementsindividually. The numbering of the works used here follows that established in “Adler” andessentially maintained by “Schott” (for identification of such abbreviations see Sources andEditions). The work list by Siegbert Rampe in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (2nd ed.s.v. “Froberger”) and “Rampe” combines clearly authentic works with both “attributed” and“dubious” ones in a single numbering system, “FbWV.” At the same time the corpus wasincreased by around thirty pieces; for the most part these concern suites, predominantlyanonymus works in “Grimm,” “Stoos,” and “LeipzigSuiten.” In my opinion, all of these have norelationship to Froberger. In addition, I hesitate to accept the following canonized works: Suites22, 25, and 26; and, to a lesser extent, Suites 21, 29 nova, and the “Aria Froberger.” Concerningnew candidates, possibly to be added to this corpus, see Bob van Asperen, “Frobergeriana: NeueErkenntnisse über die ‘Allemande, faite en passant le Rhin,’ Teil 1,” and “… Teil 2” Concerto(March, 2004): 25–8 and (April, 2004): 27–30, esp. endnote 11 (http://www.concertoverlag.de/projekte/BvA.pdf).
3 See “Sources and Editions” for identifications and comments on these and all cited manuscripts.Information on the arms was kindly supplied by the Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Vienna.
4 Claudio Annibaldi observed that the capital “R”s and crossshaped period in the address of oneof these letters are very similar to corresponding symbols in the Ricercari in the “Libro dicapricci, e ricercati.” It concerns the 1654 letter that Froberger addressed to Kircher in Italian(Rome, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, AUG, vol. 557B, fols. 309r–310v; the other survivingletter from Froberger to Kircher is in the same collection, fols. 305r–306r, dated 18 September1649). See Claudio Annibaldi, “Froberger à Rome: de l’artisanat frescobaldien aux secrets decomposition de Kircher” in Froberger, musicien européen (Paris: Klincksieck, 1998), 39–66, esp.p. 51, no. 43; an English version of this article appeared as “Froberger in Rome: fromFrescobaldi's Craftmanship to Kircher’s Compositional Secrets,” Current Musicology 58 (1995):5–27. The comparison of the handwriting could not be made with the “Libro Secondo” and“Libro Quarto” since those were executed by a graphic artist.
5 The initial “A” in “All” which opens the address (Figure 2c) may have been a model.
6 The transcription in Maguire modernizes “Chiques” to “Gigues” and has other slight differencesin transcription style. A French form of Froberger’s name appears here for the first time; even inthe French “Bauyn” manuscript and on title pages in French, where he is called “Monsieur” (as in“Roger”), he is referred to as “Giovanni Giacomo” or an abbreviation of that such as “Giacomo,”“Gio. Giacomo.” Froberger himself used a German form of the name in the three knownautograph signatures,“Hanns Jacob Froberger,” but the Stuttgart baptismal record reads “JoannesJacob.” I am indebted to Harald Shukraft for this last information.
7 For a transcription and English translation of the HuygensFrobergerSibylla correspondencesee Rudolf Rasch, “The HuygensFrobergerSibylla Correspondence” in The Harpsichord and itsRepertoire (Utrecht: STIMU Foundation for Historical Performance Practice, 1992), 233–45. Anewly transcribed, larger collection is offered in Driehonderd brieven over muziek van, aan enrond Constantijn Huygens, collected and translated by Rudolf Rasch (Hilversum: Verloren,2007); a facsimile of this letter is included (no. 6607). See also Worp no. 6607, andCorrespondance et œuvre musicales de Constantin Huygens, ed. W. J. A. Jonckbloet and J. P. N.Land (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1882), pp. CC–CCII. A copy of the original was kindly provided to meby Rudolf Rasch.
8 The main irregularities are Primiere, Chigues, Couranttes, Sarebandes, Composées, Jaque andOrganist. Similar spelling variants, Chique or Chiqve, for Gigue are encountered in seventeethcentury manuscripts from the western, central, and southern parts of Germany. Examples can befound in several manuscripts that contain Froberger’s music: “Bulyowsky,” “Brussels,” “LeipzigSuiten,” “Neresheim,” and “PartiturBuch Ludwig.” The spelling “Organist” in a French contextmight also point to German influence.
9 The use of the tonal terms “major” and “minor” throughout this article reflects the raised orlowered third scale degree in this quasimodal music.
10 This was confirmed by by Peter Wollny (private communication). The “Libro Secondo” and“Libro di capricci, e ricercati” are marked “N.1.N.3” and “N.1.N.4,” a feature hithertounmentioned in the literature. These are shelfmarks from the famous Schlafkammerbibliothek ofLeopold I; Froberger’s two volumes obviously stood together there, only one volume away fromMonteverdi’s opera Il ritorno d’Ulisse in patria (“N:1:N:1”); see the edition of this opera by AlanCurtis (London: Novello, 2002), p. xix, n. 2.
11 Letter sent from Montbéliard to Constantijn Huygens on 25 June (old style; 5 July in newstyle) 1667. See ref. 7 for modern editions.
21.2.2015 Journal of SeventeenthCentury Music | Vol. 13 No. 1 | Bob van Asperen: A New Froberger Manuscript
12 Paris: Sanlecque, 1660; for a modern edition, see “Ferrard,” 44.
13 No. 122 in “Moroney.” For the organ works, see Louis Couperin: pièces d’orgue, ed. GuyOldham (Monaco: L’OiseauLyre, 2003), nos. 24, 29, 49, and 64; cf. nos. 26, 57.
14 “A l’une de mes alemandes vous faictes trop d’honneur, d’en avoir emprunté l’entrée, pourl’appliquer à une des vostres” (transcribed in Worp, no. 5399; Rasch “Brieven,” no. 5399; andJonckbloet, p. 23).
15 Seghers’ “Tobias and the Angel” (ca. 1615/20) was metamorphosed by Rembrandt into his“Flight into Egypt” ca. 1653, after scraping away about one third of the image on the originalcopper plate, thus actually replacing its main theme.
16 The key signature has only one flat in the new manuscript and in “SA”; “MinoritenSuiten”alternates between one and two flats. This is not Froberger’s only piece in minor mode that uses akey signature in which the third is not lowered in the key signature: Suite 19 and the “Tombeaude Blancrocher” are in C minor, but there is no Eflat in the signature.
17 On the other hand, it appears to us that, as in Frescobaldi’s carefully engraved editions,Froberger himself did not mark all of his ties. Our supposition that, for example, considerablymore ties were intended in Froberger’s Elevation Toccatas than he wrote receives support bycomparing the openings of Toccatas 6 (m. 3) and 11 (m. 5) in the autographs, containing the samematerial. Another example of a similar divergence is Froberger’s Toccata 5 mm. 11–2,comparable to Frescobaldi’s Toccata “per la levatione in the Messa degli apostoli” mm. 4–5, andeven Louis Couperin’s unmeasured Prelude 13 in F Major, lines 10–11 in “Moroney,” bothsuggesting a tie. One must assume in Froberger’s fair copies such “missing” ties were not justforgotten, but consciously not marked, probably following an old organistic tradition. As severalItalian seventeenthcentury authors suggest, tied dissonant notes may under certain circumstancesbe repeated, albeit gently and with charm (“leggiadramente,” as Diruta describes it so well) out ofconsideration for the essentially “concealed” dissonance.
18 Thus the term “variant,” practical to designate relevant authentic versions, is not apt here:assigning numbers to these arrangements as authentic works by Froberger, is the same as givingBWV numbers to arrangements of Bach works.
19 See Frescobaldi’s sixth Toccata “per l’organo sopra i pedali, e senza” from his Il secondo librodi toccate … (Rome, 1627), m. 76; and Froberger’s “Tombeau de Mr Blancrocher,” m. 5.
20 See the second beats of mm. 22, 26, and 30 for examples.
21 See the opening of no. 75, p. 83, in Œuvres de Dufaut, ed. André Souris and Monique Rollin(2nd ed., Paris: CNRS, 1988).
22 “…das Memento mori Froberger … ist schwer aus den Notten zu finden. Habe es mitsonderlichem Fleis darum betracht, wiewol es deutlich geschrieben, Und bleibe auch des hernGrieffgens seiner Meinung das wer die Sachen nit von ihme Hern Froberger seliger. gelernet,unmüglich mit rechter Discretion zuschlagen, wie er sie geschlagen hat” (transcribed in Rasch,“Brieven,” no. 6629A, with English translation; and Jonckbloet, p. CCIV).
23 The renewed contact with Sibylla may have begun around 1659, possibly stimulated by thepresence in Paris of her brother Ulrich, who had entered the service of Louis XIV in 1658; see my“Frobergeriana.” For her biography, see Yves Ruggeri, “Froberger à Montbéliard” in Froberger,musicien européen (Paris: Klincksieck, 1998), 23–37; Das Haus Württemberg: ein
21.2.2015 Journal of SeventeenthCentury Music | Vol. 13 No. 1 | Bob van Asperen: A New Froberger Manuscript
biographisches Lexikon, ed. Sönke Lorenz, Dieter Mertens, and Volker Press (Stuttgart:Kohlhammer, 1997), p. 183; and JeanMarc Debard, “Le Grand Musicien et compositeur baroqueJJ Froberger à Héricourt (1664–1667),” Mémoires de la Société d’Emulation de Montbéliard 86,fascicle 113 (1991): 341–61. Her moving correspondance with Constantijn Huygens after thedeath of Froberger is introduced and transcribed in Jonckbloet, pp. CXCVIII–CCV; a Frenchtranslation is given by Ruggeri, pp. 28–9. See also the notes to my recording, Froberger Edition(AEOLUS (Germany), 2000– ) vol. 2 , “A l’honneur de Madame Sibylle.”
24 The timesignature is C 6/4. Other authentic gigues in triple meter are from Suites 27, 12, 30,and 19, all of which are predominantly homophonic and in C 6/4 in the autograph and relativelyreliable “SA”; however, they are in fact in 6/8 rhythm notated in doublelenghth measures.Froberger’s fugal Gigue in Suite 10 has a meter signature of C3, which is rhythmically the sameas 6/4 in this case.
25 Constantijn Huygens heard “excellent Frobergher”on 16 September 1665 at the electoralarchiepiscopal court in Mainz. He commented that “nothing pleased me so much as to heare thatexcellent Frobergher his rare improvements [i.e., innovations]….” This letter represents the onlyearwitness of the master’s performances in these later years and provides a rare glimpse intoFroberger’s state of mind around that time through the line Huygens finishes his phrase with,“and to see him take the patience to heare me with some indifferent satisfaction” (letter in Englishto Ultricia Ogle Swann of 29 December 1666; Worp, no. 6594; Rasch, “Brieven,” no. 6594). Onewonders if Froberger still included the extroverted, daring toccata genre in his performances at allduring that period, for example in Héricourt and Mainz.
26 “Accentando” is used by Gregorio Strozzi, Capricci da Sonare (Naples: N. di Bonis, 1687).For an example of Froberger’s use of the figure, see his Toccata 6, “Da sonarsi alla levatione,”mm. 37–8 and Toccata 11, mm. 32–4.
27 See the Plainte in Suite 30, m. 2, the Allemande from Suite 18, mm. 6 and 7, and the“Tombeau de Blancrocher,” m. 3.
28 The opening figure of the seventh toccata in his Toccate e corrente (Rome, [1634?]).
29 For example, the soprano line of the final measure of the “Méditation sur ma mort future,” no.29, is unique in all of Froberger’s Allemandes, despite its otherwise traditional cadence (seeMaguire p. 9).
30 See the three occurrences of triple repetitions of a note in imitative passages, reminiscent of theTombeau for Leopold Friedrich, in the opening passage of the eleventh Prélude by LouisCouperin; the end of another Prélude, in G major, by the same composer (“Moroney” no. 129);and a dotted double repetition in the soprano at the end of the G major Prélude by D’Anglebert.
31 “Parville,” pp. 79–89; “Moroney,” no. 6.
32 The explanation offered here was inspired by Sibylla’s letter and Rudolf Rasch’s comment onit (Rasch, private communication). One gets the impression that the increasing elaborations of the“.S.” sign may have led to some of the curls, in the hand of artist J.F. Sautter, in the adorned titlesin the “Libro Secondo” which evolved into mere illustrations in the “Libro Quarto,” culminatingin the religious rebus—Psalm 126:5—which concludes the book (see my Froberger Edition, vol.4).
33 I am grateful to Redmer Alma, Drents Archief, Assen (NL) for his kind assistance in thismatter.
34 The heading on Bulyowsky’s title page uses such an abbreviation: “Notae .S. Signa quaedamin Seqq[uentibus] occurrenta / 1. Pollex…” Here the “.S.” obviously means “scilicet” (“namely”),functioning as a punctuation mark such as a colon, “Notes: the signs following hereafter / 1.thumb….”
35 Examples can be seen in the “Libro di capricci, e ricercati,” fol. 19r, where there there was noroom for the sign; fol. 68v, where the writing disappears into the fold; and in the “LibroSecondo,” fols. 39r, 96r, and 107r, where some of the sign was trimmed away in the bindingprocess.
36 The striking occurrence of an “.S.” sign in the “SA” copy, rounding off the lengthydescriptions of the “Plainte faite a Londres” and the “Allemande faite en passant le Rhin” (whereit precedes the concluding word, “Vale”) might well stem from still undiscovered autographs ofFroberger (“SA,” pp. 37 and 33; from Suites 30 and 27).
37 Examples of the intentionally copied letters “pria” (using a normal “p”) can be found at the endof the “Duresse de Frescobaldi” in “Oldham.” In “Bauyn” it appears in four instances after worksby both Froberger and Frescobaldi. These two scribes, presumably Parisian, were apparentlyeager to stress the most direct descendance of their copy from the composer himself and thereforeits reliability without the least intention to falsify. The “Bauyn” copyist, who was generally (butnot always) extremely accurate, in some cases wrote the “Pria” followed by “. / .”, the simplifiedform of the scripsi sign. In another place, “. / .” follows the heading of a Froberger work (Toccata21). It is likely that these combinations hark back to Froberger's habit, as a composer ortransmitter, seen in the headings in the “Libro di capricci, e ricercati,” and now documented in thenew manuscript as well.
The “Duresse de Frescobaldi” is transmitted among Couperin’s organ works in “Oldham” andsuddenly adds “. / ” to that title and “Pria” to the end of the piece; this seems to link Italy,Froberger, and Couperin, as do the themes, styles, and imitations in the new manuscript. See theaccompanying booklets to my Louis Couperin Edition, CD recording of the complete works ofLouis Couperin (AEOLUS (Germany), 2006– ). The “Duresse de Frescobaldi” is scheduled toappear in vol. 2.
38 There can be no certainty about the exact performance of the trill in Froberger’s new mixedstyle. He must have admired and probably heard Chambonnières, the father of the Frenchharpsichord school, when in Paris, and his “Demonstration des Marques” (Pieces de Clavessin …Livre Premier, 1670) shows that the trill (“cadence”) is begun, surely unaccentuated, on the noteabove the primary pitch. Another interpretation comes from Jean Denis in his Traité de l’accordde l’espinette (Paris, 1643 and 1650; facsimile ed. Alan Curtis, New York: Da Capo, 1969); he,among others, describes short trills beginning on the main note (“pincer au dessus”) fordescending passing eighth notes. We don’t know, then, how musicians like Louis Couperininterpreted the ornament in various musical contexts in Paris around 1650. The contemporaryItalian form may well have been predominantly the mainnote trill (Merulo’s “tremoletto”),although evidence is scarce. There may have been more than one tradition for Froberger’sItalianate and French oriented styles, or even a combination of several ways of realizing the trill.
Exactly such contradictory evidence is found in “Brussels,” which has an international repertory,including pieces by both Froberger and Louis Couperin. (Regarding an unknown work in themanuscript that is probably by Couperin, see my “Werk van Louis Couperin in Duitse bronnen eneen anonyme courante,” Het Clavecimbel, Stichting Clavecimbel Genootschap Nederland, 14:1[May, 2007]: pp. 12–21.) By way of ornament table, this German tabulature gives an “applicatio,”explaining that “Tremulanten” (perhaps standing for “tremoli”) are begun from the main note,and “Cadentien” (“cadences”) from the upper note. The last word in this matter has not yet been
21.2.2015 Journal of SeventeenthCentury Music | Vol. 13 No. 1 | Bob van Asperen: A New Froberger Manuscript
spoken, and the change of use and frequency of ornament symbols in the new Frobergerautograph might lead to new conclusions for Froberger’s earlier works as well.
39 See “Rasch,” 96–7.
40 The composer did not hesitate to rearrange the order in Suite 11 when compiling “Libro Quarto” in 1656 (see my “Frobergeriana”).
41 Andreas Werckmeister, Hypomnemata musica, oder Musicalisches Memorial (Quedlinburg:Calvisi, 1697), 37.
42 As JeanMarc Debard discovered: the journal of Duke George II shows Froberger’s audienceon 20 September 1664. This date may represent his official settlement in Héricourt, for which—being a Roman Catholic—he needed permission from the duke, who also acted as a Lutheranbishop (Debard, “Grand Musicien,” 348–9).
43 Froberger’s name does not appear on the payroll in Vienna after 30 June 1657. The fact thatLeopold kept two of Froberger’s Libri in his Schlafkammerbibliothek, including the one dedicatedto him, seems to contradict the story that Froberger fell into imperial disgrace. The story was firsttold by Walther in 1732, and subsequently repeated by Zedler in 1735 and Mattheson in 1740.Leopold’s high regard for Froberger’s work may explain how the composer could write toHuygens on 1 September 1666 that he would “soon return to the imperial court.” See the entrieson Froberger in Johann Gottfried Walther, Musicalisches Lexicon oder musicalische Bibliothec(Leipzig: Wolfgang Deer, 1732); Johann Heinrich Zedler, Grosses vollständiges UniversalLexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste (Halle: Author, 1732–1750), vol. 9, 1735; andJohannes Mattheson, Grundlage einer Ehrenpforte (Hamburg: Author, 1740). The letter fromFroberger is referred to in Constantijn Huygens’ reply (Rasch, “Brieven,” no. 6583; Rasch,“Correspondence,” no. 1, with English translation; Worp no. 6583).
44 “Wollny,” p. VIII.
45 The marquis was premier valet de chambre of Gaston of Orléans, brother of the king, and wasexiled for sympathising with the Fronde.
Table
Sources and Editions
Figures
Figure 1: “Libro Quarto,” fol. 113r
Figure 2: Comparison of Froberger’s Handwriting
Figure 3: Louis Couperin, Prelude 9 excerpt
Figure 4: Formations of the Letter “p” as an Abbreviation for “pro”
Examples
Example 1: Themes of Froberger Caprice in A (no. 7) and Capriccio 2
Example 2: Comparison of Roberday Caprice and Froberger Capriccio 2
21.2.2015 Journal of SeventeenthCentury Music | Vol. 13 No. 1 | Bob van Asperen: A New Froberger Manuscript
