'Pavaen Lachrymae' / 'Pavane Lacryme', or : How an Editor tried to help Van Eyck (and finally did)
 

 

Jacob van Eyck Quarterly

 

2002, No. 3 (July)

 
 

 

'Pavaen Lachrymae' / 'Pavane Lacryme', or :

How an Editor tried to help Van Eyck (and finally did)


Der Fluyten Lust-hof consists mainly of variations on tunes that were popular in Jacob van Eyck's time. Apparently some of the melodies were so beloved, that van Eyck produced more than one set of variations on them. These pieces were usually numbered. Apart from 'Doen Daphne' also a 'Tweede [second] Daphne' and a 'Derde [Third] Doen Daphne' exist. When such cycles appeared in immediate succession, the heading simply stated that it was 'noch een verandering van...' ['another change of...'].

The variations on John Dowland's 'Lachrymae' form an exception to this rule. There are two sets [NVE 8 & 59]. Both were published in 1644 for the first time (Euterpe, oft Speel-goddinne, as the original first volume of the Lust-hof). The first set - with one variation - appeared in folios 11b to 12b as 'Pavaen Lachrymae', the second - with three variations - in 61a to 63b as 'Pavane Lacryme'.

A close examination of the sources reveals that the editor or typesetter in Paulus Matthysz' printing house, when preparing the second set, failed to notice that another 'Pavaen Lachrymae' had already been received. The course of events can be reconstructed as follows. For the second piece, van Eyck clearly didnot dictate the theme again. He expected the editor to copy it from the first set [facsimile], or he thought that it could be omitted the second time. (It was a custom to skip the theme itself in such cases.) The innocent editor went to look for the theme, could not find it in the manuscript, and was duly puzzled.

The solution was fairly simple: he walked to the bookcase, pulled out John Dowland's original piece (or another version very close to it) and transposed it to the key used by van Eyck. This is how the theme of the second cycle was established. [facsimile] As a result, in several places the editor's version and van Eyck's variations don't fit. Van Eyck wanted the F'' bridging measures 2-3 to be a dotted half note. It became a whole note (in accordance with Dowland's original). The 'new' theme even preserved Dowland's one and a half measure rest halfway through the third strain:

This is an inconceivable solution for monophonic music! When presenting the theme in his first 'Pavaen Lachrymae', van Eyck filled up this long rest with a bass-like figuration.

 
 

That there were two sets on 'Pavaen Lachrymae', was only observed when - after the typesetting of the whole book was finished - Euterpe's table of contents was made up. Then the pieces were bracketed together:

When the blind van Eyck 're-heard' the printed result of what he had dictated, he discovered what the editor's good intentions had brought about. For the second edition of 1649 (Der Fluyten Lust-hof I) he decided to undertake a correction. We would expect him to copy the theme from his first 'Pavaen Lachrymae'. Surprisingly enough he did not. Instead, van Eyck created a new version, in which he incorporated elements from both 1644 themes. [facsimile] The composer took the editor's version (Dowland) as a starting point, and changed only those passages that really didn't fit his variations. [for the first measures, see music example]

In the first half of measure 12 for instance, the quarter notes C#''-A' from the editor's version (not present in Dowland's original, by the way) were maintained, whereas the theme of the first 'Pavaen Lachrymae' gives a half note C#'' at this point. The long rest in the third strain, on the other hand, was filled up with exactly the same figuration as presented in the first 'Pavaen Lachrymae'. It is striking that van Eyck agreed on the editor's (Dowland's) measures 5-6, whereas all his variations follow the variant as presented in the theme to the first 'Pavaen Lachrymae'. [see the example]

Evidence exists that the changes were scribbled in a printed copy of Euterpe. The renewed version in the second edition of 1649 follows the same line division. The whole note F'' of measures 2-3, which had to be turned into a dotted halve, became erroneously a dotted whole note:

 
  First 'Lachrymae' (1644)

Second 'Lacryme' (1644)

Second 'Lacryme' (1649)
 
  Through his actions, van Eyck was actually forced to return to the roots of the melody, to what John Dowland had composed. This may even have been his reason for following the procedure sketched above. A comparison shows that the theme of his first 'Pavaen Lachrymae' can be interpreted as a variation of its own, so manifold are the ornaments that van Eyck applied to it. [facsimile]

The three variations from the second 'Pavane Lacryme' also follow this ornamented version of Dowland's song. This means that nothing stood in the way of copying this 'varied theme' for the second set, on the contrary. This leads us to believe that the editor's intervention made the blind master from Utrecht face the facts: van Eyck started realising that his own theme was not the theme.

Hence, we become aware of a contemporary editor who tried to help a composer, initially failed to do so, but who ultimately did by changing the composer's mind.

 
     
  Thiemo Wind  
 

 

 No. 2002/4 will be available on 1 October, 2002

Interested in receiving a reminder? Send an e-mail:

Did you reach this page through a search engine? Click below to go to the

Jacob van Eyck Homepage