|
Thiemo Wind Why the duets from Der Fluyten Lust-hof are not by Jacob van Eyck [abstract]The Recorder Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 2 (1996), 44-48
In 1649, Jacob van Eyck's Der Fluyten Lust-hof received its almost definitive form, when the first volume was reprinted with new pieces added. 'The second edition, again listened to, improved and expanded by the author', the title page proudly stated. As a novelty, this 1649 edition introduced five duet compositions: (1) 'Philis schoon Herderinne', (2) 'Engels Lied', (3) 'More palatino', (4) 'Amarilli mia bella' and (5) 'Prins Robberts Masco [nve 81 to 85]. They are, with one exception, arrangements of monophonic variations from the same collection. These duets cause several problems, is some cases they are even clumsy. In this article the five pieces are analyzed in order to get the authenticity question answered. Result: they are not by van Eyck, simply because they cannot be. These arrangements must be attributed to Paulus Matthysz from Amsterdam, the publisher of van Eyck's music. One other piece by van Eyck had been arranged as a duet already five years earlier, for Matthysz' recorder anthology Der Goden Fluithemel : Modo 2 from 'Comagain' [nve 33]. The anonymous arranger took the original ABB-form of John Dowland's song, whereas van Eyck's monophonic version repeats the first strain either. Both versions were published simultaneously (1644), which makes it likely that the anonymous arranger came from an intimate circle aroud van Eyck or Matthysz. 1. 'Philis schoon Herderinne'. In the upper part the variation precedes the unornamented theme. Further, the arranger composed a counterpart for a theme in the supposition that it could also serve the melodic variation, which is not true. Several harmonic clashes are the result. Finally, after van Eyck's final bar (the monophonic originl) a whole bar d" was added. These features make unmistakebly clear that the arranger was someone else than van Eyck. 2. 'Engels Liedt'. No variation by van Eyck is included, this piece is nothing more than the theme with a lower part. Also this tune differs from the monophonic original: at bar 12 the duet version prescribes a fast measure, which van Eyck obviously did not want in his solo version. Further there is a rhythmical change in m.3. 3. 'More palatino'. The title reveals a different hand: van Eyck's solo version of this tune is called 'Vande Lombart'. Again the lower part suits the theme better than the variation. In bar 19 a b' conflicts with a b'-flat. 4. 'Amarilli mia bella'. The original melody and van Eyck's Modo 2 were combined into a theme with ornamented reprises, accompanied by a simple 'bass'. The arranger changed the end of the first strain. A half bar was removed from the second, and finally compensated in the penultimate bar. Again: not van Eyck. 5. 'Prins Robberts Masco'. Van Eyck's solo variations first appeared in 1649, simultaneously with the duet version. The arranger has to be found in the direct surroundings of the composer or the publisher. The arranger maintained van Eyck's rhythm, but pitches of many notes were changed, leaps of thirds and sixth were smoothed out to make the upper part more independent harmonically. The conclusion: Van Eyck can never have been responsible for the arrangements. Too much was changed, in the wrong way. The finger unambiguously points at Paulus Matthysz. Apart from the publisher he was also a recorder player and composer. He had the solo versions at his disposal before they were actually printed, and the duets were in his own commercial interest. Moreover, Matthysz had a reputation for changing monophonic pieces into ensemble versions (cf. the 'Petites Branles' from 't Uitnemend Kabinet).
|