|
Thiemo Wind 'Some Mistakes or Errors...' [abstract] The
Recorder Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1991), 82-86 The blind Jacob van Eyck perceived the risk of errors creeping into his music, and tried to arm against it. In 1644, he sent a copy of Euterpe oft Speel-goddinne (the first edition of Der Fluyten Lust-hof I) to his dedicatee Constantijn Huygens with the question to examine the work, 'in case some errors may have been committed either in writing or in printing.' It didn't help much. The original 17th-century sources of Der Fluyten Lust-hof are to be classified as extremely careless. They need a huge number of corrections, which got a place in the New Vellekoop Edition (NVE). This article throws light on several backgrounds from which corrections could be applied. Especially the fact that the greater part of van Eyck's musical legacy consists of variations offers rich opportunities to get closer to the authentic intentions of the composer. It is a great advantage that we now have at our disposal Euterpe, the first edition of the first volume. This first printing contains pieces that did not reappear in later ones. Especially the 'Sarabande' [nve 10] is a real asset. At some places Euterpe offers a reading which has to be preferred to that in later editions. Der Fluyten Lust-hof contains countless errors, which crept in because notes were literally printed upside-down. In the printing technique of the 17th century, movable types were tacked together, each type containing a tiny piece of the staff and a note (or rest, dot, etc.) Types could also be used upside-down: hence it was not necessary to have different types for a' and c", or for g' and d". Needless to say, turning a note upside-down could also happen by mistake. A good example is the first bar of the 'Praeludium' [nve 89]. The two original editions of 1646 and 1654 give different readings, but none of them is correct. The circumstance that Der Fluyten Lust-hof chiefly contains variations and that van Eyck never wandered far from the thematic material, is a blessing. A logical step to check the correctness of the sources is therefore to count the bars: theme and variations must have the same duration. An example where this is not the case, is 'Ach Moorderesse' [nve 29], where the theme lacks one bar. In Modo 3 of 'Waeckt op Israel' [nve 80] van Eyck's sense of humour, obscured by the poor printing technique, comes to the light by counting bars. The typesetter in the house of van Eyck's publisher Paulus Matthysz must have received a manuscript which had no bar-lines. As a result it could happen that he noticed rhythmic errors only after a few bars and had to juggle at a later stage in order to bring the music into line. A striking example occurs in Modo 4 of 'Psalm 116' [nve 129]. In Modo 4 of 'Psalm 150' [nve 88] two bars were originally printed in the wrong place. Through chain variations (see the article specially dedicated to them) we sometimes become aware of small differences between phrases which were undoubtedly meant to be identical. As the examples illustrate, it is quite risky to rely gratuitously on original sources of early music, especially if they contain music of a composer who is known to have been blind. |