“Equal to All Alike”: A Cultural History of the Viol Consort in England, c.1550

299 Pages·2011·34.53 MB·English

i

“Equal
 to
 All
 Alike”:
 A
 Cultural
 History
 of
 the
 Viol
 Consort
 in

England,
 c.1550-­‐1675

Loren
 Monte
 Ludwig

 Amherst,
 MA

Bachelor
 of
 Music,
 Oberlin
 College
 Conservatory,
 1999

Certificaat,
 Het
 Koninklijk
 Conservatorium
 Den
 Haag,
 2001

A
 Dissertation
 presented
 to
 the
 Graduate
 Faculty

of
 the
 University
 of
 Virginia
 in
 Candidacy
 for
 the
 Degree
 of

Doctor
 of
 Philosophy
 of
 Fine
 Arts

McIntire
 Department
 of
 Music

University
 of
 Virginia

May,
 2011

Professor
 Bruce
 W.
 Holsinger,
 Advisor

Associate
 Professor
 Fred
 E.
 Maus

Associate
 Professor
 Richard
 J.
 Will

Professor Katharine
 E.
 Maus
ii
Abstract

“Equal
 to
 All
 Alike”:
 A
 Cultural
 History
 of
 the
 Viol
 Consort
 in
 England,
 c.1550-­‐
1675
 explores
 the
 socially
 interactive
 nature
 of
 amateur
 chamber
 music
 for
 viol

consort,
 a
 repertory
 of
 ensemble
 music
 that
 flourished
 in
 16th-­‐
 and
 17th-­‐century

English
 aristocratic
 circles.
 A
 critical
 reevaluation
 of
 surviving
 archival
 and
 musical

materials
 from
 the
 period
 reveals
 that
 musical
 relationships
 between
 polyphonic

parts
 were
 easily
 and
 readily
 transposed
 onto
 the
 social
 relationships
 between
 the

living,
 breathing
 musicians
 who
 performed
 them.
 This
 dissertation
 is
 about
 those

relationships—how
 composers
 of
 consort
 music
 used
 polyphonic
 means
 to

choreograph
 social
 interactions,
 how
 early
 modern
 enthusiasts
 might
 have

understood
 such
 experiences
 of
 musical
 community,
 and
 what
 cultural
 historians

can
 learn
 about
 Renaissance
 English
 culture
 from
 the
 consort
 tradition.
 Close

readings
 of
 consort
 music
 by
 William
 Byrd,
 John
 Dowland,
 Richard
 Farrant,
 Thomas

Greaves,
 Benjamin
 Rogers,
 John
 Ward,
 William
 Lawes,
 and
 William
 White
 ground

discussions
 of
 the
 ways
 that
 consort
 music,
 as
 a
 communal
 activity
 and
 musical

tradition,
 participated
 in
 early
 modern
 understandings
 of
 the
 relationship
 between

language
 and
 music,
 the
 nature
 and
 propriety
 of
 the
 passions,
 and
 the
 negotiation
 of

social
 intimacy.

Each
 of
 four
 chapters
 locates
 the
 consort
 tradition
 within
 a
 particular

affective
 domain,
 seeking
 to
 understand
 how
 consort
 playing
 engaged
 and
 shaped

communal
 emotional
 experience.
 “Melancholy,
 Mourning,
 and
 Mimesis:
 The
 Viol

Consort
 and
 English
 Sadness”
 positions
 the
 ensemble
 as
 a
 site
 of
 communal,
 ritual
iii
behavior
 that
 registers
 the
 two
 related
 terms
 of
 Elizabethan
 “sadness”:
 melancholy

and
 mourning.
 “‘These
 things
 were
 never
 made
 for
 words’:
 ‘Instrumental’
 Wit
 and

Performative
 Self-­‐Fashioning
 in
 the
 Consort
 Music
 of
 William
 Lawes,”
 theorizes
 the

operation
 of
 “wit”
 and
 musical
 rhetoric
 in
 the
 fantasias
 of
 William
 Lawes
 (1602-­‐
1645).
 “‘In
 Voice,
 in
 Heart,
 in
 Hand
 Agree’:
 Consort
 Music,
 Devotion,
 and
 ‘Liturgical

Habitus’”
 documents
 consort
 music’s
 stylistic
 and
 cultural
 bases
 in
 Catholic
 liturgical

music
 and
 charts
 its
 adaptation
 to
 new
 Protestant
 devotional
 practices
 and
 religious

values.
 “‘Musique
 fitting
 for
 the
 place’:
 The
 (Homo)Eroticism
 of
 the
 Viol
 Consort”

addresses
 consort
 music’s
 capacity
 to
 stage
 interactions
 of
 pleasure,
 intimacy,
 and

power
 among
 its
 performers
 in
 the
 context
 of
 early
 modern
 conceptions
 of
 male

homosociality
 and
 homoeroticism.
iv
Acknowledgements

This
 dissertation
 was
 supported
 by
 grants
 and
 fellowships
 from
 the

University
 of
 Virginia
 Graduate
 School
 of
 Arts
 and
 Sciences,
 the
 UVA
 McIntire

Department
 of
 Music,
 the
 Andrew
 W.
 Mellon
 Foundation
 in
 collaboration
 with
 the

Institute
 for
 Historical
 Research,
 Senate
 House,
 London,
 the
 American
 Musicological

Society,
 and
 the
 Viola
 da
 Gamba
 Society
 of
 America.

Many
 individuals
 shared
 their
 expertise,
 time,
 patience,
 and
 support
 with
 me

as
 I
 worked
 on
 this
 project.
 I
 am
 deeply
 grateful.
 In
 particular,
 I
 would
 like
 to
 thank

my
 adviser,
 Bruce
 Holsinger,
 and
 the
 other
 members
 of
 my
 committee,
 Fred
 Maus,

Katharine
 Maus,
 and
 Richard
 Will;
 my
 teachers
 and
 colleagues
 in
 the
 University
 of

Virginia’s
 Critical
 and
 Comparative
 Studies
 in
 Music
 graduate
 program;
 the
 library

staff
 of
 the
 UVA
 music
 library,
 including
 Erin
 Maywood,
 Winston
 Barham,
 Rya

Martin,
 and
 Pam
 Howie
 and
 the
 Alderman
 Interlibrary
 Loan
 guru
 Lew
 Purifoy;
 the

numerous
 scholars
 who
 offered
 ideas,
 assistance
 and
 encouragement
 including

Elisabeth
 Le
 Guin,
 Linda
 Austern,
 Andrew
 Ashbee,
 David
 Pinto,
 Anna
 Sieben,
 Bonnie

Gordon,
 Steven
 Plank,
 Edwina
 Cruise,
 and
 Doug
 Freundlich;
 my
 friends
 and

colleagues
 who
 play
 consort
 music,
 especially
 Marie
 Dalby,
 Toby
 Szuts,
 and
 Brady

Lanier
 (with
 whom
 I
 perform
 in
 the
 viol
 consort
 Quaver),
 Liam
 Byrne,
 Laura

Vaughan,
 Mary
 Springfels,
 Brent
 Wissick,
 Tina
 Chancey,
 Dorothea
 Müller,
 Catharina

Meints,
 James
 Caldwell,
 Alice
 Robbins,
 Mary
 Anne
 Ballard,
 Ken
 Slowik,
 Sarah
 Mead,

Laurie
 Rabut,
 Larry
 Lipnik,
 and
 Simon
 Peterken
 and
 many
 others;
 friends
 and

musical
 collaborators
 including
 Adriana
 Contino,
 Emily
 Eagen,
 Cleek
 Schrey,
 Spiff

Wiegand,
 Adriane
 Post,
 Annette
 Bauer,
 Stephen
 Nachmanovich,
 and
 Matt
 Wyatt;
 my

inspiring
 and
 loving
 friends
 and,
 of
 course,
 my
 family,
 Josette,
 Robert,
 Tobin,

Stephen,
 and
 Joan.
v
Contents

I.
  Introduction
  1

  Polyphonic
 sociality
  5

  Thomas
 Mace’s
 Musick’s
 Monument
 (1676)
  6

  Performance
 and
 “embodied”
 musicology
  12

  Habitus
  20

  Chapter
 summaries
  23

II.
  Melancholy,
 Mourning,
 and
 Mimesis:
 The
 Viol
 Consort
 and

  31

English
 Sadness

  The
 consort
 song
  41

  Elizabethan
 melancholy
 and
 The
 Paradise
 of
 Daynty
 Devices
  44

  Richard
 Farrant’s
 “Ah,
 alas
 you
 salt
 sea
 gods”
  51

  Grief,
 mourning,
 and
 Protestant
 Injunction
  62

  The
 “untimely
 death
 of
 Prince
 Henry”
  67

  John
 Ward’s
 “Weep
 forth
 your
 teares”
  72

III.
  “These
 things
 were
 never
 made
 for
 words”:
 “Instrumental”
 Wit
 and
  92

Performative
 Self-­‐Fashioning
 in
 the
 Consort
 Music
 of
 William

Lawes

  Lawes’
 G-­‐minor
 Aire,
 VDGS
 337
  96

  Wit
 and
 performative
 self-­‐fashioning
  103

  The
 rhetoric
 of
 “instrumental”
 wit
  109

  Lawes’
 C-­‐major
 fantasy,
 VdGS
 81
  115

  Wit
 and
 rules
  123

  Lawes’
 a-­‐minor
 fantasy,
 VdGS
 72
  126

IV.
  “In
 Voice,
 in
 Heart,
 in
 Hand
 Agree”:
 Consort
 Music,
 Devotion,
 and
  135

“Liturgical
 Habitus”

  The
 consort
 song
 and
 delegation
 of
 devotional
 voice
  138

  Byrd’s
 Catholic
 songs
 and
 the
 domestication
 of
 the
 viol
 consort
  148

  The
 “liturgical”
 origins
 of
 the
 consort
 repertory
  153

  The
 archaic
 cantus
 firmus
 and
 the
 pedagogy
 of
 the
 “plainsong”
 canon
  157

  The
 cantus
 firmus
 as
 spiritual
 symbol
  171

  The
 In
 nomine
 and
 “liturgical
 habitus”
  178

  Signification,
 the
 “dittie,”
 and
 the
 suitability
 of
 instruments
 in
 worship
  187

  The
 anthem,
 the
 locus
 amoenus,
 and
 Ingelo’s
 Bentivolio
 and
 Urania
  193

V.
  “Musique
 fitting
 for
 the
 place”:
 The
 (Homo)Eroticism
 of
 the
 Viol

  211

 Consort

  The
 Viol
 as
 (Homo)Erotic
 Symbol
  219

  John
 Ward
 and
 the
 Musical
 Erotics
 of
 the
 Madrigal
  231

  John
 Ward’s
 “Oxford”
 Fantasia
 I
 (VdGS
 no.
 21)
  242

  William
 White,
 Imitation,
 and
 Musical
 “Equality”
  250

  Thomas
 Mace,
 “Roguish”
 Tailors,
 and
 a
 Defense
 of
 the
 Consort
  265

  Bibliography
  271
1
I

Introduction

“[When]
 the
 Consort
 [is]
 compleat...the
 ear
 is
 pleased
 with
 the
 Harmony,
 and
 the
 mind

is
 amused
 and
 entertained
 to
 observe
 the
 particular
 Parts
 how
 they
 dance
 to
 and
 from

the
 Key,
 and
 from
 one
 Key
 to
 another,
 how
 they
 hunt
 one
 another,
 and
 in
 a
 manner

imitate
 humane
 passions.”1

The
 “consort”
 to
 which
 Francis
 North
 (1637-­‐1685)
 refers
 in
 his
 1677
 treatise

is
 a
 small
 ensemble
 of
 violas
 da
 gamba,
 or
 “viols,”
 stringed
 instruments
 favored
 by

amateur
 musicians
 in
 England
 during
 the
 sixteenth
 and
 seventeenth
 centuries.

North’s
 account
 registers
 the
 playful
 sociality
 of
 the
 consort—the
 idea
 that
 its

counterpoint
 models
 the
 social
 interactions
 of
 its
 players,
 that
 the
 different
 musical

voices
 “…hunt
 one
 another,
 and
 in
 a
 manner
 imitate
 humane
 passions.”
 For
 North,

musical
 relationships
 between
 polyphonic
 parts
 were
 easily
 and
 readily
 transposed

onto
 the
 social
 relationships
 between
 the
 living,
 breathing
 musicians
 who

performed
 them.
 This
 dissertation
 is
 about
 those
 relationships—the
 ways
 in
 which

consort
 music
 uses
 polyphonic
 means
 to
 choreograph
 social
 interactions,
 the
 ways

that
 early
 modern
 enthusiasts
 might
 have
 understood
 such
 experiences
 of
 musical

community,
 and
 what
 cultural
 historians
 can
 learn
 about
 Renaissance
 English

culture
 from
 the
 consort
 tradition.

1
 North,
 F.,
 A
 Philosophical
 Essay
 of
 Musick.
 1676,
 London.
 p.
 32
2

  During
 its
 ascendency
 as
 a
 favorite
 musical
 pastime
 (roughly
 1550-­‐1675),

consort
 music
 enlivened
 the
 music
 rooms
 of
 the
 houses
 of
 the
 English
 aristocracy.

Seated
 in
 a
 circle,
 enthusiasts
 like
 Francis
 North—and
 perhaps
 a
 few
 visiting
 or

employed
 professional
 musicians—played
 elaborate
 polyphony
 using
 a
 “chest”
 of

treble,
 tenor,
 and
 bass
 viols
 (accompanied,
 sometimes,
 by
 an
 organ).
 The
 imitative

fantasias,
 In
 nomines,
 madrigals,
 motets,
 consort
 songs,
 and
 dances
 that
 make
 up
 the

repertory
 are
 generally
 accessible
 enough
 to
 be
 played
 by
 cultivated
 amateurs
 and

represent,
 with
 their
 lush
 harmony
 and
 nuanced
 partwriting,
 a
 touchstone
 of

Renaissance
 polyphony.
 Consort
 music
 was
 rarely
 performed
 in
 public,
 but
 was

enjoyed
 as
 a
 musical
 activity
 for
 participants
 and—sometimes—a
 handful
 of
 select

auditors.
 The
 repertory
 was
 rarely
 printed
 but
 rather
 circulated
 in
 manuscript

partbook
 anthologies,
 often
 subsequently
 named
 after
 the
 households
 of
 their
 origin

(the
 Shirley
 partbooks,
 the
 Dow
 partbooks,
 the
 Hamond
 partbooks,
 etc.).
 Modern

scholars
 have
 identified
 and
 edited
 most
 of
 the
 known
 consort
 repertory
 to
 supply

the
 lively
 community
 of
 contemporary
 amateur
 consort
 enthusiasts
 in
 Britain,
 the

US,
 and
 Japan.

Though
 it
 was
 primarily
 music
 for
 amateurs—a
 term
 that
 suggested

aristocratic
 status
 and
 the
 Latin
 amatorem
 (“lover
 of”)
 more
 strongly
 than
 its

modern
 connotation
 of
 inexpertness—consort
 music
 was
 composed
 by

professional—or
 at
 least
 highly-­‐trained—musicians.
 Some
 composers,
 such
 as
 John

Ward
 (1571–1638)
 and
 William
 Lawes
 (1602-­‐1645),
 were
 born
 into
 (or
 adopted)

gentlemanly
 status,
 but
 most
 trained
 as
 choristers
 and
 grew
 up
 to
 be
 employed
 by

the
 church,
 Court,
 or
 the
 lavish
 musical
 establishments
 of
 the
 wealthy
 aristocracy.
 In
3
The
 Early
 History
 of
 the
 Viol
 (1984),
 Ian
 Woodfield
 chronicles
 the
 role
 of
 the

instrument
 in
 the
 musical
 training
 of
 choristers
 during—especially—the
 second
 half

of
 the
 sixteenth
 century.2
 In
 choir
 schools,
 consort
 music
 was
 used
 to
 teach
 music

notation
 (“pricksong”)
 and
 the
 skills,
 important
 to
 professional
 singers
 of
 liturgical

music,
 necessary
 to
 perform
 complex
 polyphony.
 The
 consort
 song,
 which

originated
 as
 the
 accompaniment
 to
 dramatic
 productions
 staged
 by
 “children’s

companies”
 of
 choristers,
 and
 the
 In
 nomine,
 a
 compositional
 form
 with
 strong
 ties

to
 chorister
 pedagogy,
 had
 important
 and
 lasting
 influence
 on
 the
 stylistic

development
 of
 consort
 music.
 When
 choristers
 trained
 on
 viols
 grew
 up
 and
 took

their
 places
 as
 composers,
 performers,
 and
 teachers
 of
 aristocratic
 amateurs,
 they

brought
 ensemble
 music
 for
 viols
 with
 them
 into
 the
 country
 houses
 and
 music

rooms
 of
 the
 their
 patrons
 and
 employers.
 Thus
 the
 viol
 consort
 is
 associated
 with

two
 connected
 but
 distinct
 worlds,
 educational
 choral
 institutions
 and
 private

amateur
 social
 music
 making.

Consort
 music’s
 formal
 and
 voice
 leading
 conventions
 represent
 an

inheritance
 from
 sixteenth
 century
 English
 liturgical
 polyphony—with
 which

consort
 music
 coexisted
 for
 nearly
 a
 hundred
 years—and
 the
 Italian
 madrigal,

which
 had
 been
 enthusiastically
 adopted
 by
 English
 musicians
 at
 the
 end
 of
 the

sixteenth
 century.
 These
 two
 influences,
 it
 is
 important
 to
 emphasize,
 were
 the

province
 of
 singers.
 Several
 centuries
 of
 musical
 history
 have
 driven
 a
 wedge

between
 the
 domains
 of
 vocal
 and
 instrumental
 music,
 a
 distinction
 that
 would

likely
 have
 puzzled
 the
 early
 modern
 performers
 of
 collections
 of
 music
 that
 were

2
 See
 also
 Stephen
 Morris’
 M.A.
 Thesis,
 S.M.
 Morris,
 “Viol
 Consorts
 and
 Music
 Education
 in

Elizabethan
 and
 Jacobean
 England
 (1558-­‐1625)”
 (Montreal:
 McGill
 University,
 1986).
4
often
 advertised
 as
 “apt
 for
 voyces
 or
 viols.”
 Though
 consort
 music
 represents
 one

of
 the
 first
 truly
 “instrumental”
 idioms,
 it
 remained
 deeply
 indebted
 to
 a
 musical

sensibility
 wedded
 to
 the
 act
 of
 singing.
 The
 repertory
 cannot
 be
 understood

without
 careful
 attention
 to
 the
 vocal
 forms—the
 madrigals,
 motets,
 hymns,
 consort

and
 lute
 songs,
 anthems,
 and
 ayres—that
 were
 continuous
 with
 it,
 a
 point
 that
 I

explore
 in
 different
 ways
 in
 each
 chapter.
 Even
 the
 fantasia,
 that
 “purely”

instrumental
 form
 for
 consort,
 reveals
 phrase
 lengths
 consistent—in
 most
 cases—
with
 lung
 capacity
 and
 a
 pitch
 compass
 coterminous
 with
 contemporaneous
 vocal

ranges.
 Line-­‐level
 details—the
 easy
 “singability”
 of
 most
 imitative
 points
 as
 well
 as

their
 tendency
 to
 evoke
 syllabic
 patterns
 of
 accent
 and
 contour
 familiar
 from
 spoken

English
 or
 Italian,
 or
 the
 use
 of
 call-­‐and-­‐response
 templates
 adapted
 from
 the

liturgy—are
 suggestive
 of
 the
 viol’s
 role
 as
 a
 sort
 of
 prosthetic
 voice.

In
 addition
 to
 its
 close
 relationship
 to
 English
 and
 Italian
 vocal
 idioms,
 the

surviving
 repertory
 for
 viol
 consort
 also
 shows
 other
 musical
 influences.
 These

include
 continental
 forms
 such
 as
 the
 French
 chanson,
 English
 “folk”
 music
 in
 the

guise
 of
 tunes
 like
 “Browning”
 and
 “Walsingham”,
 and,
 of
 course,
 dance
 music
 and

instrumental
 diminutions
 from
 England
 and
 the
 continent.
 But
 the
 consort

repertory
 was
 particularly
 influenced
 by
 the
 contrapuntal
 rigor
 developed
 in
 the

motet
 and
 madrigal,
 and
 it
 is
 consort
 music
 as
 polyphony
 that
 is
 the
 primary
 concern

of
 this
 dissertation.
5
Polyphonic
 Sociality

One-­‐on-­‐a-­‐part
 polyphony
 organizes
 its
 players
 into
 relationships
 with
 each

other
 that
 are
 at
 once
 “musical”
 and
 “social.”
 At
 the
 most
 basic
 level,
 playing
 viols

together
 requires
 performers
 to
 face
 each
 other,
 to
 make
 eye
 contact
 or
 demurely

glance
 away,
 to
 smile
 or
 wink
 conspiratorially
 or
 to
 intimidate
 with
 a
 show
 of

impassivity
 or
 disinterest.
 Instruments
 introduce
 issues
 of
 competency—how

“cunningly”
 does
 one
 play
 (to
 borrow
 an
 early
 modern
 construction)?
 Does
 facility

demonstrate
 mastery,
 or
 reveal
 an
 unseemly
 professionalism?
 Does
 a
 player
 take

himself
 too
 seriously,
 or
 does
 he
 compromise
 others’
 enjoyment
 by
 missing
 too

many
 notes
 or
 being
 too
 careless
 with
 his
 tuning?
 Who
 plays
 bass?
 Who
 gets
 to
 play

“top”
 treble—and
 who
 has
 to
 play
 tenor?
 As
 anyone
 who
 has
 tried
 to
 sort
 viol

players
 into
 ensembles
 at
 a
 summer
 workshop
 or
 festival
 can
 tell
 you,
 consorts
 are

political.

  Polyphony
 curates
 this
 same
 social
 energy—its
 formal
 and
 voice
 leading

conventions
 channel
 the
 sociality
 of
 its
 players
 into
 complex
 and
 stylized

interactions.
 Imitation,
 register,
 textural
 density,
 dissonance
 and
 consonance,

rhythmic
 activity,
 syncopation,
 homophony
 versus
 heterophony,
 melodic
 contour,

and
 other
 “musical”
 phenomena
 become
 in
 consort
 music
 dynamics
 of
 interaction

among
 its
 participants.
 This
 is
 not
 (just)
 metaphor
 and
 homology.
 An
 imitative

entrance,
 for
 example,
 actually
 requires
 people
 to
 imitate
 each
 other—both
 the

bodily
 motions
 necessary
 to
 elicit
 sound
 from
 the
 viol
 as
 well
 as
 the
 “rhetoric”

through
 which
 the
 human
 language
 instinct
 creates
 a
 sense
 of
 melody
 from
 an