A Discussion of the Use of Divided-Accidental keys in Italian Strung-Keyboard Instruments pre. 1700.

Rectangular Enharmonic Virginal, Attributed to Francesco Poggio, Florence, c 1620. EUCHMI (4345).

Eleanor Smith
Thesis submitted for the degree of MMus, August 2008

s0347093

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my supervisor, Dr Darryl Martin, for his support and advice during the writing of this thesis. Special mention must also go to those in the field of instrument research who have discussed their own research (in alphabetical order): Christopher Nobbs, Grant O’Brien, and Ibo Ortgies.

ii

Conventions
Footnote numbering begins afresh at the beginning of each chapter. Apart from dates, measurements, amounts of money, museum numbers, instrument registrations, and quotations, all numbers are written out in longhand form. Centuries are referred to with lower case letters, for example ‘nineteenth century.’ The pitch notation used is a modified Helmholz system, where middle c is ‘c1’ (see also diagram below). All non specific pitches are in italics.

Diagram showing adapted Helmholz system of pitch notation (adapted by present author from http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com). Compass notation uses the same modified Helmholz system. Where instruments are tuned with a short or broken octave the pitches are separated with a forward stroke, ‘GG/BB’. Where an accidental is omitted the pitches are separated with a comma, ‘FF,GG’ which implies the FF sharp is omitted. Heraldic terminology is included in italics. The reference system used is based on the Chicago style, those publications with no date are referred to as Author (n.d.).

iii

Contents Chapter 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Introduction. Instrument literature. Surviving instruments with fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave. Further evidence for instruments with fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave. Strung-Keyboard Instruments with Nineteen or more divisions to the octave; (documentary evidence and surviving examples.) Chapter 2 Three instruments in the Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments (EUCHMI). 2.1 2.2 2.3 Chapter 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Conclusion Bibliography Appendix List of Surviving Strung-Keyboard Instruments Originally Provided With Divided Accidental-Keys Rectangular virginal, attributed to Francesco Poggi, Florence, circa 1620. EUCHMI (4345). Single-manual harpsichord, Anonymous, [Florence?], circa 1620. EUCHMI (4302). Triple-manual harpsichord, Stephano Bolcioni, Florence, 1627. EUCHMI (4304). Musical Evidence for the Use of Chromatically Capable Keyboard instruments. Keyboard Music in Naples. Cremona and Milan. Venice and Rome. Frescobaldi and Froberger. 43 46 48 50 53 56 59 38 30 23 17 16 9 8 1 2 4

iv

Chapter 1 – Introduction
The intention of this thesis is to examine the use of strung-keyboard1 instruments provided with divided accidental keys in Italy before 1700. As will be discussed below the prevalence of such keyboards is higher in Italy in the period between the late-fifteenth and early-sixteenth century than it is elsewhere in Europe. It is not the intention to discuss the use of divided accidentals on organ keyboards except as part of the historical context of enharmonic keyboards, and in comparison to their use on plucked string instruments. A list of the surviving Italian plucked keyboard instruments originally provided with divided accidental keys for the purpose of achieving enharmonic notes is included as an appendix to this thesis. The surviving instruments will be discussed in relation to each other and how representative they are as part of their makers’ oeuvre; with a particular focus on the evidence that can be determined from three instruments in the Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments.2 The evidence for the musical use of instruments with enharmonic accidentals will also be discussed, both that of theorists and also that which can be determined from the music itself (including a study of the music of Frescobaldi).

1 2

The surviving instruments are harpsichords and virginals. Herein referred to as EUCHMI.

1

1.1 - Instrument Literature
Denzil Wraight and Christopher Stembridge (1994) give a list of surviving Italian strung keyboard instruments with divided accidentals, as well as discussing the documentary evidence pertaining particularly to the use of instruments with fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave. An updated list of twenty-three harpsichords and virginals is available from Denzil Wraight’s website,3 which also includes documentary evidence for a number of further instruments. There are two additional instruments that are not included in this version of the list (a full discussion of the surviving instrument is included below). Many of these instruments are also described in Wraight (1997: Volume II), and those which are by known instrument builders are listen in Mould, Ed. (?) Makers of the Harpsichord and Clavichord 1440-18404. Although both texts are excellent reference works, it should be noted that Wraight (1997) (by its nature) is mostly concerned with the stringing and string scaling of the instruments, and Boalch III does not include the anonymous instruments. Edward Kottick5 gives a brief overview of the use of divided accidentals in Italian harpsichords and virginals, and also introduces some ideas of the repertoire written for instruments with a full enharmonic compass (that is with nineteen divisions to the octave). He suggests that the introduction of instruments with divided accidentals was due to a change in the prevalent system of tuning from Pythagorean to mean tone tunings with perfect thirds. However, this raises the question as to why the majority of string instruments with this kind of compass were made in Italy, and indeed come (as can be seen from the list of surviving instruments) from a small number of city states. Both Wraight and Stembridge (1994) and Kottick (2003) identify that the practice of supplying extra enharmonic notes on keyboards appears to have begun with organ building, with the provision of keys for both a-flat and g-sharp, and often also e-flat and d-sharp. Wraight and Stembridge state that:

Wraight (2005). Herein referred to as Boalch III. 5 Kottick (2003: 88-89).
3 4

2

“The earliest reference (Cesena, 1468) does not appear to suggest that the addition of such keys was a completely new idea; thus the invention of the device could well be on an even earlier date.” 6 The authors suggest that this is due to the need for a-flats in the choral church music of the 15th and 16th Centuries, which would also be a sensible reason for the requirement of the enharmonic note on the harpsichord and virginals. As is noted by Kottick (2003: 88), it is much easier to quickly re-tune a stringed keyboard instrument quickly when the alternative enharmonic note is required, and he suggests this may be a reason why the use of divided accidentals on organs far pre-dates their use on harpsichords. This will be discussed in brief in reference to keyboard music in Chapter 3, as will the existing literature pertaining to the musical use of the instruments.

6

Wraight and Stembridge (1994: 169).

3

1.2 - Surviving instruments with fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave
Although there are twenty-two extant instruments provided with enharmonic accidentals (although fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave): the surviving signed instruments only appear to have been made in two centres of building, Florence and Rome (this of course does not take into account the organs that were built with divided accidental keys). The practice also appears to have begun far earlier with the organ than theorists describing harpsichords or clavichord would suggest; Wraight and Stembridge cite examples dating from 1468 to 1665. Wraight and Stembridge suggest that this may be linked to requirements of vocal music. It should also be noted that the large portion of organs that were known to have a keyboard with divided accidentals rarely had nineteen or more division, instead were more usually provided with only one or two divisions. There are occasional reports of archiorgana, including one in the Colonna manuscript, but these appear to have been far rarer than cembalo cromatico or archicemabo (presumably linked to expense of such an instrument.) The large proportion of named Florentine instruments are virginals; with the exception of the 1627 Stephano Bolcioni harpsichord,7 and an instrument by Pasquino Querci. Indeed there appear to have been two main instrument makers in Florence who were building instruments with enharmonic keyboards and (if the surviving instruments are at all representative of the output of their workshops) these builders appear to have mostly made instruments with divided accidentals. Stephano Bolcioni Out of ten surviving instruments listed in Wraight’s catalogue8 by Stephano Bolcioni, dating from 1626 to 1641, half have a number of divided accidentals. Indeed the four virginals represent most of Bolcioni’s surviving instruments of this type, with one other being considered to be an incorrect attribution. The 1641 virginal by Bolcioni, now in Leipzig, is the latest dated Florentine instrument, and is provided with just two

7 8

This instrument, EUCHMI (4304), will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Wraight (1997: Volume II, 65-78).

4

enharmonic accidentals at a-flat, and a-flat1.9 Boalch III does not list this instrument as part of Bolcioni’s oeuvre; however, Wraight (1997: Part II, 77) considers the instrument and the date to be genuine. Francesco Poggi Francesco Poggi is survived by up to twenty-one instruments,10 of which four of the virginals have, or had divided accidentals. Although this is a lower number that is seen with instruments by Bolcioni, it still represents a fifth of his remaining output. Most of Poggi’s instruments are undated, including most of those with divided accidentals. Dated instruments range from 1586 to 1620 (not including those instruments with dates that Wraight considers to be spurious).It should be noted that Poggi is also known to have worked for a period in Venice.11 The final instrument that survives from a named Florentine maker is a harpsichord of c. 1625 attributed12 by a moulding comparison to Pasquino Querci, of whose surviving instruments this is the only example with divided accidentals. This does not take into account any anonymous instruments that are thought to have been made in Florence.

Rome The situation with surviving Roman instruments appears to be the opposite of that in Florence, in that there is not one single surviving named virginal13 built in Rome (again not taking into account any anonymous instruments which may have been built in the city state). There are slightly fewer named instruments surviving from Rome with six instruments (and a cembalo cromatico), compared to the ten from Florence, although whether this is significant compared to the number of instruments built in the respective cities is impossible to comment upon (as it returns to the unanswerable question of whether the surviving instruments are representative of the instruments built).

Wraight (1997: Volume II, 77). Wraight (1997: Volume II, 235-237). 11 Kottick (2003: 142). 12 Wraight (1997: Volume II, 240). 13 It should be noted that although Boalch III discusses a polygonal virginal with divided accidentals by Boni, Wraight (1997: Part II, 75) attributes this instrument to Bolcioni on the basis of a moulding comparison.
9 10

5

Of the Roman instruments, half are by a single builder, Giovanni Battista Boni. Wraight (1997: Volume II, 70-80) discusses three instruments with divided accidental keys, all of which appear to have been built in Rome c.1619. All three of the instruments were originally registered with set of 8’ strings, and were provided with the same five enharmonic notes in the tenor and treble; d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, a-flat1, and d-sharp2. One of the instruments, now in the possession of private collector in Bristol, also appears to have been provided with a number of divided natural keys in the bass to permit a broken octave to GG.14 There is an instrument in the Collezione degli Strument Musicali, Rome that has been attributed to a later Boni. However, Stembridge (1993: 37) says that the keyframe (which shows evidence of having nineteen notes to the octave therefore being a cimabalo cromatico) has been cut down and does not belong in this instrument. A slightly later dated harpsichord, signed “GA 1630”, has been attributed by Wriaght (1997: Volume II, 14) to Girolamo Acciari, a harpsichord maker active in Rome at this period. This would appear to be the only surviving harpsichord by the maker, although a virginal (with a conventional C/E-c3 compass) has also been attributed to him. This instrument has the same 1x8’ disposition15 as the instruments by Boni, as well as the same compass (C/E-c3) as two of the instruments, and being provided with the same five enharmonic accidentals (although the GA instrument does not appear to have a broken octave). A further instrument, by Franciscus Marchionus, may in fact also have been a cembalo cromatico. Boalch III16 states that all the accidentals were originally divided, however Hubbard (1967: 36) describes the compass with a broken octave and four additional divisions; d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, and a-flat1. Less is known about the sixth instrument, attributed to Franciscus Faber17 (signed “FF” on the lowermost and uppermost keys), although it is described by both Boalch III18 and by Wraight19 as

Wraight (1997: Volume II, 83). Mould, Ed. (1995:217). 16 Mould, Ed. (1995: 501). 17 Faber is thought to have worked in Senigallia on the opposite side of Italy to Rome, Ed. Mould (1995: 56). However, Wraight (1997: Part II, 153) states that one of the instruments attributed to this maker is signed “FF in Roma” and therefore there this instrument may also have been made in Rome. 18 Mould, Ed. (1995: 310). 19 Wraight (1997: Volume II, 155).
14 15

6

having eight divided accidentals. This is believed to entail a C/E-c3 compass + F-sharp, G-sharp, d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, a-flat1, d-sharp2, and one further note suggested by Wraight (2005: 3) to be a-sharp. Of the four surviving instruments signed or attributed to Faber, this is one of two to have divided accidentals. The other instrument is a cembalo cromatico and therefore will be discussed further below. The remaining three instruments are all anonymous, and therefore determining the location in which they were built requires consideration of other factors. One of these instruments, EUCHMI (4302), will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, but would appear to have also been built in Florence. Wraight (2005:1) discusses a further instrument thought to have been once owned by Alfonso II, Duke of Ferrara, built c.1559-97 presumably in Venice. This instrument is now in the Schloß Köpenic, Berlin and had a C/E-c3 compass + F-sharp, G-sharp, d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, a-flat1, and d-sharp2. This appears to be the oldest surviving plucked-keyboard instrument provided with enharmonic accidentals. Another anonymous instrument in the Collezione degli Strument Musicali, Rome20 has the most common compass found with the instruments discussed above; that is C/E-c3 + F-sharp, G-sharp, d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, a-flat1, and d-sharp2. Little else is known about this particular instrument, and therefore no attempt appears to have yet been made to determine the centre of construction. One final instrument remains to be discussed, a harpsichord of c.1550 in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (1986.518) presumed to be Neapolitan in origin.21 This instrument originally had a forty-five note compass C/E-c3 with the typical sixteenth century disposition of one 8’ and one 4’ register. This was later altered to a single 8’ register with extra strings provided for a broken octave, and apparently d-sharps and aflats throughout the compass (if the instruments current state is at all a faithful restoration to its second state). Although the extra strings and jacks were provided, it is unclear how exactly the arrangement of the extra enharmonics would have worked. The keyboard shows no evidence of having had divided accidentals; Koster (1994: 4) states that there must have

Wraight (1997: Part II, 382) suggests this may or may not in fact be two separate instruments, due to confusion over cataloguing. 21 Koster (1994: 3-4).
20

7

been some system for engaging the extra jacks (the slots for which were let into the back of the wrestplank). Although Koster (1994: 8-10) convincingly locates the instruments construction to Naples, there is no discussion of where it was altered to its second state Fe does however suggest that it was likely to have occurred in the mid-seventeenth century given the single 8’ disposition.22 If this instrument was altered in Naples it would possibly represent the only enharmonic instrument known from the city23 which may be significant in terms of the musical use of enharmonic instruments.

22 23

Koster (1994: 9). See also the discussion in chapter 1.4 of the instrument attributed to Onafrio Guarracino.

8

1.3 – Further evidence for instruments with fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave.
Wraight (2005: 4, 6) offers evidence for an number of further instruments that were provided with divided accidentals,24 largely from inventories taken of large households. These include two Neapolitan instruments in the household of Cardinal Aldobrando in 1603; these would some of the only Neapolitan instruments with such a keyboard arrangement, although whether this was their original state or whether (like the Neopolitan harpsichord in Boston) they were altered at some point in their history cannot be conjectured. Stembridge (1993: 42) also discusses a number of further instruments, including a reference to the commissioning of an instrument with divided accidentals by the painter Domenichino. There is also evidence that two spinette (presumably virginals or spinets) belonged to the Medici court in Florence. Wraight (2005: 6) suggests that these are likely to represent two further instruments with five divided accidentals probably made by Bolcioni (this may make him the most prolific exponent of such keyboards on plucked string instruments). Wraight and Stembridge (1994: 161) also mentions a pair of claviorgans dated some time before 1598 with divided accidentals; Ortgies (2003: 47) gives the location of these instruments as having been in the Castello Estensa, Ferrara. This would represent a tenuous link between the use of such divided accidentals on the organ and on plucked keyboard instruments; although Wraight (2005: 1) suggests that the instrument now in the Schloß Köpenick, Berlin may also have been designed to be capable of linkage with an organ.

24

This is largely a repetition of similar information in Wraight and Stembridge (1994: 160-161).

9

1.4 – Strung-Keyboard Instruments with Nineteen or more divisions to the octave; documentary evidence and surviving examples.
The evidence for the existence of instruments with nineteen or more divisions to the octave presented by Stembrige (1993) can be divided into two main types of sources; firstly theoretical treatises, evidence from musical publications (which will be discussed further in Chapter 3), and lastly evidence from the inventories taken of the instruments in private estates (discussed above in Chapter 1.3). Although the focus of this thesis is the instruments with fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave, it is important to discuss the prevalence of those keyboards considered fully chromatic to give the full historical context. There are three theorists who describe instruments with nineteen or more divisions to the octave; Vicentino (1555), Zarlino (1558), and Praetorius (1618, 1619). Vicentino’s L’antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica is a work of musical theory discussing the three Greek genera of music (diatonic, chromatic, and enharmonic).25 The thesis is thought to have been published in response to losing a debate in Rome in 1551 in which he challenged the Portuguese musician Vivente Lusitano on the application of these Greek genera.26 The final volume (book five of the Prattica) describes the Archicembalo as well as a description of the tuning of the instrument, practical studies for the musician, and plates showing the construction of parts of the instrument.27 Bink (1966) discusses Vicentino’s instrument in detail, as well as how the notation used applies to the instrument and the theory. Although Vicentino’s treatise was published in Rome, it should be noted that he was also associated with the musical circles of Venice and the ideas and teachings of Adrian Willaert whose work will be discussed further in chapter 3.28 This association with Venice is likely to have influenced his work, especially his interest in the theory of the Greek genera and their practical use. Stembridge (1993:43-47) describes the instrument included in Zarlino’s Istitutioni harmonische (Venice, 1558); this is the earliest representation of an instrument with

Bink (1966: 1). Kaufmann and Kendrick (2008). 27 Bink (1966: 2). 28 Kaufmann and Kendrick (2008).
25 26

10

nineteen notes to the octave although the illustration itself would not appear to show any practical instrument (more a representation of a theory). The keys are divided vertically, as opposed to the horizontal division that is suggested by the surviving instruments. There are also only two octaves to the compass (which would not make it a practical playing instrument). Finally, as Stembridge points out, the number of strings does not match the number of keys; so the illustration would not appear to be of an instrument which ever existed, rather a diagram. Zarlino’s treatise was published in Venice in 1558, which would make it contemporary to the Schloß Köpenick harpsichord described above. Zarlino is also known to have commissioned an instrument from Domenico de Pesaro which was later described by Martino Pesenti in his introduction to a publication of music specifically for the enharmonic instrument. Pesenti states in this introduction that he has seen both the instrument made for Zarlino in 1546 by Domenico de Pesaro, and an instrument made by Vido de Trasuntino29 (possibly representing the third instrument by the latter to have nineteen or more divisions to the octave). Praetorius (1619: 63-66) describes a Clavicymbalum Universale, seu perfectum in the second book of Syntagma Musica (Wolfenbüttel, 1619). He describes how this instrument is suited to accompanying lutes and gambas because of its ability to transpose.30 The instrument described in detail by Praetorius belonged to Carl Luython who was organist in Prague, and was also apparently unique in having some device to enable the keyboard to transpose.31 Praetorius also mentions a clavichord that he had build that had the same octave divisions as a cembalo cromatico; that is nineteen notes to the octave.32 Finally, a publication of music and theory by Fabio Colonna in Naples in 1618 describes a clavichord with thirty-one divisions to the octave. It would appear that his colleague (and one time friend) Scipione Stella also built an instrument with more than nineteen divisions to the octave, which was seen by the Frenchman Jean-Jacques Bouchard in 1632.33 Bouchard noted in his diary that he had seen the instrument in the possession of Stella’s nephew. He also came across Colonna and his instrument whilst

Pesenti (1645/6) in Stembridge (1993: 47-49). Praetorius (1619: 63). 31 Stembridge (1993: 39). 32 Praetorius (1619: 60- 62). 33 Barbieri , ed. (1991: XXXVI).
29 30

11

in Naples by which time the inventor had fallen into poverty and a feud had grown up between him and Stella over whether Colonna had stolen the design of his instrument from his friend.34 Scipione Stella’s instrument appears to have as many as fifty-two divisions to the octave arranged over eight rows of keys and was reportedly very difficult to tune (and one can imagine also to play). Colonna’s seemingly unique invention was to use the principal of a fretted clavichord with six rows of keys, but allowing the instrument to be tuned as a diatonic instrument and therefore the tangents of the fretted notes would automatically be in tune.35 Although this would render it the most easily tuned of the keyboards with more than nineteen-divisions to the octave, it would only be practical as a practice instrument (given the nature of the clavichord itself). Fretted clavichords can also be difficult to play well as any slip in technique can result in ‘blocking’. Surviving instruments As well as discussing the documentary evidence, Stembridge (1993) also discusses the surviving Italian keyboard instruments with more than nineteen notes to the octave (including two instruments that can be shown to have originally had this kind of keyboard). Wraight (2005) identifies another instrument in a private collection in England,36 and O’Brien (2005) discusses a further instrument now in Milan, which may represent the only Neapolitan cembalo cromatico.37 This equates to three surviving Italian instruments from before 1700 which can be shown to have been cembali cromatico (with nineteen note octaves), a keyboard in one further harpsichord that was altered from a cembalo cromatico, and one surviving clavemusicum omnitonum with a 31-note octave. Two of the above instruments are built by Vito de Trasuntinus,38 a harpsichord maker working in Venice in the late-sixteenth century whose clavemusicum omnitonum represents his latest surviving dated instrument. The other39 is in a private collection in

Barbiereii, ed. (1991: XXXVI). Barbieri , ed. (1991: XLIV). 36 Information on this instrument has also been provided by Christopher Nobbs (PC: 6th May 2008). 37 The instrument in question is Neapolitan, the debate lies in whether the nineteen note compass is original or a later addition, as were the divided accidentals in a Neapolitan harpsichord now in Boston.(Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 1986.518). See also Chapter 1.2. 38 One is signed “Viti” but is assumed to be by the same maker. Nobbs (PC: 6th May 2008). 39 It should be noted that this instrument has passed through the hands of Leopold Francioli, and therefore there must be a caveat as to the authenticity of the signature. However, Nobbs (PC) states that the mouldings and keywell carvings would appear to match the work of Vito de Trasuntinus.
34 35

12

England, and has been extensively rebuilt, although evidence of its original compass with nineteen divisions to the octave can be ascertained from evidence of plugged wrest-pin holes in the wrestplank. The internal bracing of the instrument is also more robust that one might expect to help withstand the extra strings. Nobbs (PC) suggests that this instrument may be a logical precursor to the clavemusicum omnitonum. Trasuntino’s clavemusicum omnitonum has thirty-one divisions to the octave divided across two keyboards with six layers of keys. This instrument was built for Camillo Gonzaga, the then Count of Novellara (as the signature on the nameboard attests), and is thought to be the one surviving instrument built to the specification40 of Nicola Vicentino’s theoretical Archicembalo (described by him in his treatise of 1555 entitled L’antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica).41 The purpose of such an instrument is to return to Greek musical theory providing microtonal tuning based on hexachords. Whether this instrument was ever intended as a playing instrument, or more as the application of Vicentino’s theories is unclear, although given how complicated the instrument would have been to tune it would appear unlikely. Vicentino is believed to have constructed an archiorgano42 for the same purpose. The instrument of which only part of the keyframe exists has been discussed above in chapter 1.2 in the context of the work a member of the Boni family. This harpsichord will therefore not be discussed here; apart from to mention that very little evidence remains of the original instrument from which it was taken (other than to confirm that it originally from had a nineteen note octave). Stembridge (1993: 36-37) discusses the Faber harpsichord now in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremburg which is the second of two instruments attributed to this builder which had some form of divided accidentals. As previously discussed43 Faber may have been working in Senigallia, although some of his instruments may have been made in Rome. The evidence from the balance rail of this instrument suggests the compass was C/E-c3 with a conventional broken octave and the

Stembridge (1993:55) describes Vicentino’s keyboard as having 36 notes to the octave, whereas the surviving instrument by Trasuntino has 31divisions. 41 Brink (1966:1). 42 Ripin (2008). 43 See footnote 16.
40

13

first of the additional enharmonic notes was for B-sharp (with the top three chromatic keys of f-sharp2, g-sharp2, and b-flat2 not being divided). The final instrument is in the collection of Fernanda Giulini, in the Villa Medici Giulini in Milan. This instrument has been attributed to Onofrio Guarracino by Grant O’Brien, and has a keyboard which has obviously been provided with a nineteen note octave at some point in its history as the ivory keytops of the natural keys have been reused (revealing where the b-sharps and e-sharps have been joined to the rest of the keytop).44 Although the ivory has been reused the divided accidental keytops have been discarded and replaced. Although the instrument has been given a date of c. 1670, the nameboard of the instrument bears the signature “Annibale” which may refer to Annibale of Rome who flourished circa 1655,45 although Prof. Francesco Nocerino suggests46 that it may be Aniballo de Astasio (a harpsichord maker active in Naples from 1557-1576).Given that this earlier date would mean this instrument is contemporary to the Schloß Köpenick instrument described above, and puts it 100 years before the date given by O’Brien it would appear to be unlikely. It is feasible that Annibale of Rome was still building instruments in 1670 (the date suggested by O’Brien) and therefore would appear to be a more likely candidate for the signature. This may suggest that the instrument was altered in Rome quite soon after it was built (perhaps an alteration to remove or indeed add divided accidentals). O’Brien (2005: 15) considers the balance rail to be original, and states that there is a second set of balance pin marks that also support that the instrument had a nineteen note octave. He also discusses that the plugged pins in the wrestplank would appear to indicate several intermediate states (although he had not investigated this further). He also states that the balance rail shows further evidence of a number of intermediate state; therefore the possibility that the instrument originally had a conventional keyboard and that the nineteen divisions were a later addition that was then removed. This is a question which cannot be answered without further detailed examination of

O’Brien (2005: 14-15). Ed. Mould (1995: 5). 46 In O’Brien (2005: 1).
44 45

14

the instrument, and therefore the instrument must be considered to at least be a possible example of a Neapolitan cembalo cromatico. In summary; as with the instruments discussed in Chapter 1.2 there appear to have been enharmonic instruments with nineteen or more divisions to the octave built in Rome. However, the larger number of surviving instruments, and the greater number of publications came out of Venice with another instrument potentially having been made in Naples. Whether this relates to the music of the period will be discussed further in Chapter 3.

15

Chapter 2 - Three instruments in the Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments (EUCHMI).
As mentioned above, there are three instruments in the Edinburgh University collection which were originally provided with a number of divided accidentals (although fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave). These are the two harpsichords EUCHMI (4302), and (4304) from the Raymond Russell collection, and the rectangular virginal attributed to Poggi, EUCHMI (4345). Both of the harpsichords have had their enharmonic compasses altered on more than one occasion; whereas the virginal would appear to have retained its enharmonic compass (although the current keyboard and keyframe is a modern replacement). One instrument in particular, the harpsichord by Bolcioni EUCHMI (4304), has had a particularly tumultuous history which will be discussed further below. This chapter will discuss the history of these three instruments, and what evidence remains for both their original states and any intermediate states they may have passed through. This information will also be related and compared where possible to the other surviving instruments discussed above in chapter 1.2.

16

2.1 - Rectangular virginal, attributed to Francesco Poggi, Florence, circa 1620. EUCHMI (4345)

Illustration 1- Rectangular enharmonic virginal, attributed to Francesco Poggi, EUCHMI (4345).

This virginal is the only EUCHMI instrument to have retained its enharmonic compass, possibly because a virginal would have been more complicated to rebuild than a harpsichord. As well as being the only virginal of the three enharmonic instruments, this is the only instrument of the three that was not part of the Raymond Russell collection, instead being bought by the museum in 1984. The instrument is also believed to have passed through the hands of Leopoldo Franciolini, which led a previous owner to believe that it may be a fake.47 The non-original jackrail bears the signature “Agostinus Federigus Fecit in Pisis anno Domini 1766”; however, Wraight (1997: Volume II, 158) has attributed the instrument to Poggi on the strength of a moulding comparison. Given that two of the instruments thought to bear the above signature are considered by Wraight to be the same instrument, and that the third is known to have passed through the hands of Franciolini, it is highly possible that Agostini Federigi is a completely fictitious name.

47

Mould (1995: 312).

17

Francesco Poggi seems to have worked out of Florence for the greater portion of his life; however he signed some of his instruments ‘francesco poggio venetus’ suggesting he was also active for a period in Venice.48 Guild records from Florence reveal that he worked in the via dei Servi (as did other instrument makers Querci and Stephano Bolcioni)49 and that he died in 1634 without heirs. His dated instruments range from 1586 to 1620. The instrument is integral with its case in a style that became more popular from the 1560s onwards;50 although this style became more popular in Italy throughout the sixteenth- and seventeenth centuries, it never usurped the older inner-outer case design. This is in fact the only one of the three instruments to be discussed that is built in this fashion. There are decorative mouldings around the upper edge of the instrument to give the impression that there is an inner case as well as decorative carvings at the keywell ends to the same purpose. It is from the design of these mouldings and other elements of the instrument that the virginal has been attributed to Poggi. The decoration on the exterior of the case is not original; a report51 in the instruments file discusses the various layers of decoration of the outer case (as well the interior lid painting). Four layers of decoration have been identified, although the lid painting would appear to be in part original. The coat of arms has been altered; the current shield52 is Gules53 a lion rampant, on a chief Argent54 a cross ankred Gules55 (the shield has a crest but it is indistinct). The paint has flaked slightly in the fess Argent and underneath can be seen a layer of vermillion paint which does not appear to match the shade of the ground, above the lions tail there is also the remnants of an inscription. The report suggests that this is evidence for an earlier shield (perhaps of a previous or original owner of the instrument. The border pattern does appear to predate the current coat of arms given that the lower edge is painted over the bottom of the border. The report suggests that the

Mould (1995: 148-9, 312). Wraight (1997: Volume II, 229). 50 Kottick (2003: 155). 51 Mactaggart (1977). 52 A list of heraldic terminology can be found at the College of Arms Foundation website  53 Red. 54 Silver. 55 This heraldic design is also described in Mould (1995: 312).
48 49

18

animal figures on the lid have also been repainted but presumably over original figures which were roughly the same. The blue paint used for the main background of the lid painting is identified as smalt of ‘a particularly fine colour’. Mactaggart (1977) suggests that this internal decoration should therefore be considered a version of the original. The instruments stand is modern.

Illustration 2 – Detail of Poggi virginal, showing the decoration on the interior of the lid.

Although the current keyboard is a modern replacement, what is presumably the original keyframe survives with a later keyboard. The balance rail shows no evidence of being repinned, confirming that the instrument has never had its compass altered. The C/E- f3 compass is typical of Poggi’s other instruments, with only four surviving examples by him with a C/E-c3 compass (Wraight gives this compass as the most common for rectangular virginals).56 An instrument also attributed to Poggi in the Liverpool Museum is the only virginal by Poggi (or indeed Florentine) to have been altered from its original compass with divided accidentals to remove the enharmonic notes (the compass is now C-f3).57 To alter the instrument from its original fifty-six notes, to its current fifty-four, the top two jackslots were plugged and a new keyboard made. The new keyboard must a narrower octave span than the original to allow for the extra natural keys in the compass, and the treble keylevers would have to veer further to the left to enable them to operate the jacks (given that they are operating jacks two slots closer to the bass).

56 57

Wraight (1997: Volume I, 152). Wess and Wraight in Rushton, Ed. (1994:2-5).

19

Illustration 3 - Detail of the Poggi virginal showing the modern keyboard with divided accidental keys.

String scaling Wraight (1997: Volume I, 187-188) states that the majority of sixteenth century instruments were laid out from their f notes, that is that the string scaling is designed to be as Pythagorean as is practical based on the length of (usually) f2. Given the date of the instrument and that Poggi began his building career in the sixteenth century it would not be unreasonable to suggest that this slightly later instrument would use a construction based on f. This however does not appear to be the case with the Poggi virginal, although the string scaling is close to Pythagorean when calculated using the f notes. The soundboard of the virginal bears positioning marks where the bridges have been pinned out during construction. These marks correspond neatly to the c strings on the right bridge, and also on the left bridge (although there are also some additional marks). Using the principal of Occam’s razor there is not reason why a maker would scale an instrument from f and pin it from c. It must therefore be taken that the scaling is designed from c.58 To further test this, each of the short string-lengths was converted into its equivalent c2 scaling by multiplying the string length to within an octave of c2, and then multiplying or dividing the result by 1.059463094 once for each semi-tone from c2. For

58

Wraight (1997: Volume I, 209) does note that many seventeenth century instruments were laid out from

c.

20

example; an e-flat1 length of 546.5 mm is divided by 2 to give 273.25mm for e-flat2, then multiplied by 1.059463094 three times (equivalent is 1.189207114) to get a c2 equivalent of 325.0mm. For the e-flat length of 1021mm, the string length was first converted to the e-flat2 length of 255.25mm and then multiplied by 1.189207114 to get a c2 equivalent of 303.5mm. The difference between the string length and the c2 equivalents was then calculated in terms of cents using the formula;

' c 2 equivalent $ %2 % c 337.5mm " ! 3986.3137 " & #
Accepting a deviation from Pythagorean of up to a semitone (100 cents); the scaling of the c strings is Pythagorean from c2 down to b-flat, and also largely in the treble. However, if one calculates the c2 equivalents of only the short strings, ignoring the final enharmonic string for e-flat2/d-sharp2, (therefore considering the compass to effectively reach to f-sharp3) then the treble scaling conforms more closely to Pythagorean. (See table 1). Wraight’s discussion59 suggests that the greater proportion of Italian virginals were designed to be strung in brass wire; the string length of this instrument would appear to concur with the instruments Wraight gives as examples of brass stringing (i.e. that is there is nothing about the instrument that suggests it would be strung in iron). An examination of the baseboard of the case of this instrument reveals that there appears to have been some attempt to add pedal pulldowns to the keyboard. Given the roughness of the spacing and the holes themselves (not all are drilled completely through the baseboard) it is considered that this attempt was unsuccessful. There is also evidence from both the baseboard and the original keyframe that the keyboard has at some point been screwed into position.

log

59

Wraight (1997: Volume I, 197-214).

21

Note

String length (mm) 122.5 125 135.5 138 149.5 153.5 169 172 192 195.5 218 221.5 244 248 272 276.5 305 309 337.5 374.5 414.5 453.5 497.5 546.5 601.5 659 724.5 790.5 863.5 940 1021 1094.5 1173 1229.5 1255.5 1333 1378 1423

c2 equivalent 327 315.0 322.3 309.8 316.8 307 319.0 324.7 322.9 310.3 326.6 313.2 325.7 312.5 323.5 328.8 342.4 327.4 337.5 333.6 329 339.7 332.0 325.0 337.6 329.5 322.7 313.7 288.2 313.7 303.5 307.1 293.25 273.8 124.6 111.2 193.3 177.9

Cents difference 55 119 80 148 110 164 98 67 77 145 57 129 62 133 73 45 25 53 0 20 44 11 28 65 0.5 42 78 127 273 127 184 163 243 362 1725 1922 964 1108

c2 equivalent (without dsharp2-) f-sharp3 f3 (l) e3 e-flat3 (l) d3 c-sharp3 (l) c3 2 b (l) b-flat2 a2 (l) a-flat2 g2 (l) f-sharp2 f2 (l) e2 e-flat2- (l) d2 c-sharp2 (l) c2 b-flat1 a-flat1 g1 f1 e-flat1 d1 c1 b-flat a-flat g f e-flat d c B-flat A-flat G D C 346.5 341.4 335.6 338 342.1 326.6 345.1 342.7 342.4 337.5 333.6 329 339.7 332.0 325.0 337.6 329.5 322.7 313.7 288.2 313.7 303.5 307.1 293.25 273.8 124.6 111.2 193.3 177.9

Cents difference 46 20 10 3 23 57 39 26 25 0 20 44 11 28 65 0.5 42 78 127 273 127 184 163 243 362 1725 1922 964 1108

f3 e3 (l) e-flat3 d3 (l) c-sharp3 c3 (l) b2 b-flat2 (l) a2 a-flat2 (l) g2 f-sharp2 (l) f2 2 e (l) e-flat2 d-sharp2 (l) d2 c-sharp2 (l) c2 b-flat1 a-flat1 g1 f1 e-flat1 d1 c1 b-flat a-flat G F e-flat D C B-flat A-flat G D C
(4345).

Table 1- Showing the string scaling calculations for the virginal attributed to Poggi EUCHMI

22

2.2 - Single-manual harpsichord, Anonymous, [Florence ?], circa 1620. EUCHMI (4302).

Illustration 4 - Single-manual harpsichord, Anonymous, EUCHMI (4302)

The first of the two harpsichords originally provided with an enharmonic compass, this anonymous instrument currently has a fifty-one note C-c3 compass. The instruments current state has been attributed in the EUCHMI catalogue to the workshop of Bartolomeo Cristofori who worked in Florence from 1688 after his appointment to the court of the Medici family.60 The instrument was part of the Raymond Russell collection given the University in 1964. The case and its outer case are made in the usual Italian style, built up from the baseboard with the sides overlapping the outside edges of the baseboard. The instrument is decorated and reinforced in the usual style with decorative mouldings;

60

O’Brien (2008)

23

although these often can be used to identify a builder, this does not yet appear to have been attempted or successful in the case of this instrument. Wraight (1997: Volume II, 327) found the closest match (best fit, not identical) to the bridge profile to be that of Feroci (presumably Agostino), suggesting that he was responsible for the alteration removing the divided accidentals. Further inspection of the instrument suggests that the bridge is in fact original so this may negate the attribution of the profile to Feroci who flourished in Florence c. 170561 (too late for the style of the instrument). It may be possible that the instrument was by Agostino’s father Michele, no examples of whose work survives, and that the tool for the bridge was passed from father to son. However, this is too much of a leap to make, and therefore the logical conclusion is that the similarity of the bridge to Feroci’s pattern is coincidental. The inner instrument is made of cypress, the most common material used in Italian instruments, and the protective outer case of a thicker coniferous wood. The dark green decoration on the exterior of the outer-case is described in the catalogue as ‘vinework’, and would appear to match the style of the stand (suggesting the latter is original to the case). Barnes (1975: 1) believed the stand and the outer-case to be original to the instrument, a situation which is relatively rare given that the stands of Italian instruments are not usually attached to the case and therefore are easily lost. There is a hinged flap in the side of the cheek revealing two small plugged holes in the side of the case of the instrument through which some form of stop lever has at some time been passed. If these are from the original registers it would confirm that the decoration on the outer-case is original as it is found on the hinges of the flap and there is no leakage of paint around the sides of the flap. There are scribe marks on the underside of the outer-case suggesting the stand has at some point been fixed to the bottom of the stand, these would appear to mark the position of battens added at some later point in the instruments history to fix the stand in position and have since been removed. The key-levers and the jack-guides have been replaced to accommodate the current compass, although the original key-covers were re-used. This can be deduced

61

Mould (1997: 59).

24

because the key-tops of the original split accidentals can be seen in the extreme bass and treble where they have been glued together. Not all the divided accidental keytops have survived the rebuilding; three of the current keytops62 have veneers about 1 ¾ mm thick over black painted wood. This suggests that at least part of one of the keytops (perhaps all) has been discarded during one of the rebuilds.

Illustration 5- Detail of EUCHMI (4302) showing the re-used accidental keytops in the treble of the keyboard.

The balance rail of the original key-frame has also been altered to accommodate a new set of balance pins; this was achieved by planning a section off the top of the original rail and capping it with a new piece of oak. X-rays were taken of the balance rail and wrestplank in 1975,63 which show that there was an intermediate state between the compass with divided accidentals and the current compass. This is presumably why the balance rail was capped, as it had already been re-pinned once. Whether any new keylevers were made for the intermediate state, or whether they were simply redrilled when the balance rail was repinned is unclear. The x-ray tracings support Barnes’ hypothesis that the instrument had been reduced from its 57 note compass of C/E-f3 (broken octave) + d-sharp/e-flat, gsharp/a-flat, d-sharp1/e-flat1, g-sharp1/a-flat1, and e-flat2/d-sharp2, to a 52 note C/E-f3

C-sharp, D-sharp, and f-sharp1. Although the original x-rays appear to have been lost, tracings of them have been kept in the instruments file.
62 63

25

(broken octave) compass without the additional enharmonic accidentals. The current 51 note compass is C-d3, which necessitated the building of the new keyboard. Barnes (1975: 2) suggests that ten jacks would have been discarded and five pairs of strings left un-used during the intermediate state of the instrument (this would seem a strange arrangement, given that it would be simpler to re-tune the two strings to the same note and leave the instrument aesthetically unaltered). However, when considering the evidence from the balance rail and wrestplank x-rays this does not seem to be the most likely solution. There is evidence for both a third set of balance pins set back 5-8mm from the original set; although the broken octave does not seem to have been repined. The wrestplank has also been completely re-pinned for the intermediate state; although the octave span from the original state has been left largely unaltered (the c pins barely appear to have been moved), the notes within the upper octaves have been spaced out to compensate for the reduction of divisions to the octave. Given the amount of work that has been done whilst removing the enharmonic accidentals, it would seem unlikely that ten jacks would have been discarded. The repinning of the wrestplank must have altered the string spacing of the instrument (however slightly), which in turn would have required new registers and the repinning of the strings. The main portion of the bridge would seem to be original, as there are several sets of plugged holes along its length. The bass portion of the bridge also has plugged holes and has a similar moulding profile to the bridge; this would appear to have been cut from the original nut (suggesting that this was in place during the second state of the instrument). A string-band was taken of the positions of both the current bridge pins and the plugged holes on the bridge using the inside of the spine as the reference point. The measurements from this were then transferred into an AutoCAD drawing64 and compared with the plugged-hole positions on the nut section. This comparison reveals a likely hypothetical spacing of the original strings, and also a number of plugged holes which are unaccounted for in the current and original states. This would suggest
The drawing used for these string-band calculations was done by the author. Other drawings of the instrument were based on an AutoCAD drawing by Darryl Martin using his own measurements of the instrument, and were added to by the author.
64

26

that the strings were at least partly repinned at the bridge for the intermediate state. The bridge pin positions were also transferred onto a drawing of the instrument and its bridge in an attempt to reveal a potential original string scaling and bridge position. This was achieved by marking the positions of the c and f pins on a drawing of the bridge of the harpsichord using the theoretical string spacing from the string band discussed above. Using these pin positions as the central point a series of circles were constructed for various possible lengths of f2, from 180mm to 220mm. These f2 strings were then used to create their Pythagorean equivalent f and c strings. A potential nut position was constructed by drawing a line between f3 and f, and extending this line to the spine of the instrument. Using this method it was possible to reduce the number of potential lengths for f2 to a number of options based on whether the nut that would result would stay on the wrestplank of the instrument. These were further narrowed by considering the position of the projected nut in comparison to instruments of the period. The proposed scaling is based on an f2 of c. 205-215 mm. This would give a c2 length of approx. 274-287 mm. Barnes (1975: 1) gives the scale as ‘about 280mm’ although how this was calculated is not discussed in the report. This scale length would compare favourably with that devised using the method above. Wraight (1997: Volume I, ) does not discuss seventeenth century scaling in great detail, however this string scaling would appear to conform to the short brass scaling discussed by Wraight in relation to eighteenth century instruments;65 this would appear to concur with many of the late-sixteenth, and early-seventeeth instruments.66 Given that the wrestplank alterations discussed above would have presumably left the c strings in very similar positions to that of the original state, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the second state was scaled from c2 (it has already been noted that from the seventeenth century it was more common to scale instruments from c). If the c strings were not moved very far from their original positions, and the original nut was used as supposed above, it may be that the string scaling of the c strings was not altered between the two first states and that only the strings in between were repinned.

65 66

Wraight (1997: Volume I, 225). Wraight (1997: Volume I, 138-141).

27

The current stringing of the instrument has a c2 length of 265.5mm and an f2 of 201mm. If the instrument was indeed altered in Florence in the workshop of Cristofori then this would date this final state to after 1688; this in turn might suggest that the instruments scale design is now based on c. Wraight (1997: Volume I, 165) gives a formula for working out the scale reduction in the bass of instruments using the length of the f strings; this is used in preference even when the instrument is scaled from c. The formula for working out the F/f2 ratio is (F/8)/f2; which gives in this case 0.878, meaning the F string is approximately 87% of its ideal length. Although the x-rays show that the wrestplank itself is original, both the wrestplank veneer and the capping into which the wrestpins are fixed, date from the third state or later. It has been established above that the original nut survived the first re-building of the instrument (as it was later used as the new section of the bridge). There is no sign of this nut on the current wrestplank veneer. Transferring the information from the tracing of the x-ray onto the AutoCAD drawing of the instrument shows that the wrestpins of the original state would be visible in front of the treble end of the capping. The middle state pins would be covered by the capping, but as the wrestplank veneer passes under it, it can only be from the third state. Added to this the moulding on the front of the capping is similar to, although of different proportions, to the front side of the bridge moulding. This in itself does not prove they were added to the instruments at the same time, however the evidence does seem to suggest that they were.

28

Illustration 6 - Detail of EUCHMI (4302) showing the wrestplank veneer, capping, and the position of the current nut.

The extra moulding around the inside of the bentside and tail at the soundboard level was presumably added for the third state. This covers the original hitchpin marks in the bass of the compass (and presumably those of the second state of the instrument) as the original hitchpins were driven directly through the soundboard into the soundboard liner in front of the moulding. The plugged holes that are visible can be used in combination with the evidence from the marks on the bridge to reveal the spacing of the strings from the bridge to the bentside in the original state. There are an number of holes unaccounted for which may relate to the second pinning of the instrument, however the evidence from these in inconclusive as the spacing is inconsistent. The new moulding is very high on the inside of the tail and has necessitated the cutting of holes in the tail of the instrument through which the bass strings pass. These lowest ten pairs of strings are fixed to the body of the instrument itself approximately 85 mm below top edge of the case (and approximately 20 mm below the soundboard level). These moulding, although much taller than the original, do match the profile of the surviving moulding inside the spine (this may in fact throw doubt on the originality

29

of this moulding). This may be answered by a comparison with other instruments altered in the Cristofori workshop.

Illustration 7 - Detail of EUCHMI (4302) showing the bass strings passing through the tail of the instrument.

30

2.3 - Triple-manual harpsichord, Stephano Bolcioni, Florence, 1627. EUCHMI (4304).

Illustration 8- Triple-manual-harpsichord, Stephano Bolcioni, EUCHMI (4304).

Of the three EUCHMI instruments, this harpsichord has had the most chequered past having past through the hands of the notorious Florentine instrument dealer Leopoldo Franciolini. Franciolini is well known for his fakery and forgeries,67 which have had long lasting effects on the study of Italian instruments (particularly keyboard instruments).68 This particular instrument has (somewhat unusually) managed to retain its original nameboard although even this has been altered as will be discussed further below. Stephano Bolcioni was a Florentine instrument builder, the middle of three generations of Bolcionis recorded in the city from the early seventeenth- to the late-

A fake is taken to be an instrument that was built under another name; a forgery is an instrument that was altered at a later date to be passed off as something it is not. This instrument is therefore a forgery as the alterations were made in the nineteenth century. 68 Ripin (2008/2).
67

31

seventeenth century. A number of his instruments are signed ‘pratensis’ (including this EUCHMI instrument) suggesting that he may have worked for a period or been born in Prato, only a short distance from Florence. The guild records of 1634 record that he was residing in the same street that Poggio had been working in till his death in the same year.69 Surviving instruments date from 1626 to 1641.70 In this instruments current state it is provided with three manuals and a fiftyseven note C/E-g3 compass. Barnes (1983) states that the keyboards were originally thought to have come from either a three manual harpsichord (which he also says is unlikely) or a three manual organ. However, after comparison with the keyboard of another three-manual Bolcioni ex-Metropolitan Museum, New York, it was suggested that the keyboards may have been made for Franciolini on the basis of the mixture of materials (both bone and ivory) used for the keyboards. An examination of the keyboards in the instrument reveal that not only is there a mixture of ivory and bone used on the keyboards; but that they are also used in combination on single keys, which would be highly unusual - this would support the theory that they were made for Franciolini rather than being taken from another instrument.

Illustration 9 - Detail of EUCHMI (4304) showing natural keys topped with a combination of bone and ivory.

As mentioned above the original nameboard for the instrument does appear to have been retained, and a considerable effort made to ensure the signature was not destroyed when the extra keyboards added to the instrument. This is unusual as Franciolini tended to dispose of nameboards and replace them rather than go to the

69 70

Mould (1995: 20). Wraight (1997: Volume II, 65-77).

32

trouble of altering them. A moulding comparison with the 1631 Bolcioni harpsichord in Yale suggests that they are by the same builder and therefore Wraight (1997: Part II, 6970) considers that the signature is likely to be a copy of the original which may itself be underneath the cloth glued to the current reverse of the nameboard. O’Brien (2000: 169) suggests that the nameboard has been rotated leaving the signature upside-down, and that a decorative moulding was added to what was originally the lower edge so that the original upper edge could be cut down to allow the space for the extra keyboards.

llustration 10 - Detail of EUCHMI (4304) showing the alterations to the nameboard.

The disposition of the instrument is now 2x8’, 1x4’ which presumably dates from the Franciolini alteration as the current 4’ bridge is an indelicate addition to the instrument. O’Brien (2000: 180 footnote 15) states that the evidence of the soundboard barring supports that there was no 4’ register originally, and the positioning of the rose also support this being closer to the bentside that one might expect had the instrument originally had a 4’ bridge.71 Given the date of the harpsichord, a registration with two unison pairs of strings is far more likely.

A comparison was made with the 1574 Trasuntino, EUCHMI (4471) which originally had a 4’ bridge and has its rose positioned closer to the spine in a more visually pleasing position.
71

33

The current decoration and the stand post-date Franciolini’s alterations to the instrument. The black and white photograph from Franciolini’s sale catalogues72 shows a highly ornamented five-legged stand with carved feet and ornate legs. The painting of the outer case is more in the Florentine style with a flowing leaf design (this type of pattern is also seen on the outer cases of the anonymous 1620 harpsichord EUCHMI (4302), and the Migliai EUCHMI (4472)).The painting on the inside of the lid at this time showed a more busy scene of buildings and people (whereas the current painting is of rolling hills and countryside). The current stand is almost identical to another nonoriginal stand under the 1628 Ruckers in the Palace of Versailles.73 The decoration and stand were presumable added to the instrument before 1956, whilst it belonged to M.&A. Salomon in Paris.74 O’Brien (2000) discusses the evidence for the original state of the instrument, including its original compass. His study is aided by a number of scribed lines on the baseboard of the instrument which indicate the original position of the wrestplank, the nut, the register gap, and the lower belly rail behind the keyboard. The original registers of the instrument also appear to have been reused and the two original registers divided to form the current three.75 There are regular on the registers marks indicating the positions of the c and f jacks and the direction of pluck;76 these positioning marks also confirm that the instrument had a number of divided accidentals in its compass. The evidence from the registers reveals that the instrument originally had an unusual compass of fifty-three notes [G1],[Aa], C/E-c3, which O’Brien (2000: 184) describes as unusual and states that it would have been out of date by the end of the seventeenth century. As well as the short octave (the lowest two notes of which could theoretically be tuned to whatever notes required), the instrument had the most common arrangement of enharmonic notes (d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, and a-flat1). According to the list in Wraight (1997: Part II, 65-77) this harpsichord had the lowestreaching keyboard of any surviving Bolcioni instrument, most of the instruments have a C/E-c3 or C/E-f3 compass.

In Ripin (1974: 127). Bettenhausen (PC: September 2007). 74 See the instruments entry in the EUCHMI  [accessed 18th August, 2008]. Bink, Paul (1966). The Archicembalo of Nicola Vicentino, Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University. Bonta, Stephen (2008). ‘Merula, Tarquino’, Grove Music Online, available at  [accessed 18th August, 2008]. Cavaccio, Giovanni in Kreider, I. Evan ed. (1984). Corpus of Early Music 43: Giovanni Cavaccio - Sudori Musicali, US: American Institute of Musicology. Dart, Thurston (1947). ‘Simone Molinaro’s Lute book of 1599’, Music and Letters, Vol. 28, No. 3., (Jul., 1947), pp. 258-261. Frescobaldi, ed. Pidoux (1949). Die erste Buch der Capricci, Ricercari und Canzoni 1626, Basel: Bärenreiter Kassel. (1966). Fantasié und Canzoni all Francese, Basel: Bärenreiter Kassel. Frescobaldi, ed. Stembridge (1997). Fiori Musicali di Girolamo Frescobaldi, Italy: Armelin Musica. Froberger, Johann Jacob (1994). Organ Works, New York: Dover. Fuller Maitland, J.A., and Barclay Squire, W., Eds. (1963). The Fiztwilliam Virginal Book Volume I, New York: Dover. (1963/2). The Fiztwilliam Virginal Book - Volume II, New York: Dover. Jackson, Roland (1967). Corpus of Early Keyboard Music 24: Neapolitan Keyboard Composers circa 1600, USA: American Institute of Musicology.

56

Kaufmann, Henry and Kendrick, Robert (2008). ‘Vicentino, Nicola’, Grove Music Online, available at  [accessed 8th August, 2008]. Koster, John (1994). Keyboard instruments in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Kottick, Edward (2003). A History of the Harpsichord, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Lindley, Mark (1982). ‘Chromatic Systems (Or Non-Systems) from Vicentino to Monteverdi [review]’, Early Music History, Vol. 2, (1982), pp. 377-404. Lowinsky, Edward (1956). ‘Adrian Willaert’s Chromatic “Duo” Re-examined’, Tijdschrift der Vereeniging voor Noord-Nederlands Muziekgesheiedenis, D. 18de, 1ste Stuk (1956), pp. 1-36. (1961). Tonality and Atonality in Sixteenth-Century Music, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Mactaggart, Ann (1977). Report on the decoration of virginal belonging to Dr Richard Lucket (in museum file). Merula, Tarquinio in Curtis, Alan ed. (1961). Tarquinio Merula - Composizioni per organo e cembalo, Brescia: L’organo Morey, Carl (1966). ‘The Diatonic, Chromatic, and Enharmonic Dances by Martino Pesenti’, Acta Musicologica, Vol. 38, Fasc. 2/4, (Apr. – Dec. 1966), pp. 185-189. Mould, Charles, Ed.(1995). Makers of the Harpsichord and Clavichord 1440-1840. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nobbs, Christopher. Private communication regarding instrument signed ‘Viti de Trasuntino’, 6th May, 2008. O’Brien, Grant (1999). ‘The Use of Simple Geometry and the Local Unit of Measurement in the Design of Italian Stringed Keyboard Instruments: An Aid to Attribution and to Organological Analyis’, Galpin Society Journal, Vol. 52, (Apr. 1999), pp. 108-171. (2000). ‘Towards Establishing the Original State of the Three-Manual Harpsichord by Stephano Bolcioni, Florence, 1627, in the Russell Collection of Early Keyboard Instruments, Edinburgh’, Galpin Society Journal, Vol. 53, (Apr. 2000), pp. 168-200. (2005). ‘Initial Report: Italian Single-Manual Harpsichord Attirbuted here to Onofrio Guarracino, Naples, c.1760 Collection of Fernanda Giulini, Milan’, [Instrument report for private client provided by O’Brien]. (n.d.). “The single-manual harpsichord, undated and formerly though to be Florentine in origin”, Grant O’Brien: Early Keyboard Insturments, available at  [accessed 10th August, 2008]. Ortgies, Ibo (2003). ‘Subsemitones in organs built between 1468 and 1721. Introduction and commentary with an annotated catalog [sic]’, GOArt Research Reports, Vol. 3., Göteborg Organ Art Center, 11-74.

57

Palisca, Claude V. (2008). ‘Salinas, Francisco [Franciscus] de’, Grove Music Online, available at  [accessed 19th August, 2008]. Pasquini, Bernardo in Haynes, Maurice Brooks (1967). Corpus of Early Keyboard Music Vol. 5 Part V, USA: American Institute of Musicology. Praetorius, Michael (1619) Syntagma Musicum Vol. II [facsimile edition, 2001], Basel: Bärenreiter Kassel. Rayner, Claire (1969). Corpus of Early Keyboard Music vol. 20: Giovanni Paolo Cima Partito de Ricercari & Conzoni alla Francese, US: American Institute of Musicology. Ripin, Edwin (1974). The Insturment Catalogs [sic] of Leopoldo Franciolini, New Jersey: Joseph Boonin, Inc. (2008). ‘Arcicembalo [Archicembalo]’, Grove Music Online, available at  [accessed 7th August, 2008]. (2008/2). ‘Franciolini, Leopoldo’, Grove Music Online, available at  [accessed 9th August, 2008]. Rushton, Pauline (1994). European Musical Instruments in the Liverpool Museum, Liverpool: National Museums and Galleries Merseyside. Schott, Howard (2008). ‘Froberger, Johann Jacob, Grove Music Online, available at  [accessed 19th August, 2008]. Smith, Eleanor (2007). The History and Current Location of the Boddington-Pyne Collection of Instruments, BMus. thesis, University of Edinburgh. Stembridge, Christopher (1992). ‘Music for the Cimbalo Cromatico and Other Split-keyed Instruments in Seventeenth-Century Italy’, Performance Practice Review, Volume 5, pp. 5-43. (1993). ‘The Cimbalo cromatico and Other Italian Keyboard Instruments with Nineteen of More Divisions to the Octave (Surviving Specimins and Documentary Evidence)’, Performance Practice Review, Volume 6, pp. 33-59. Van der Meer, John Henry (2006). Alla riceca dei suoni perduti: In search of lost sounds, Milan: Villa Medici Giulini. White, John R. (1966). Corpus of Early Keyboard Music 15: Michelangelo Rossi Works for Keybaord, USA: American Institute of Musicology. Wraight, Denzil and Stembridge, Christopher (1994). ‘Italian Split-Keyed Instruments with Fewer than Nineteen Divisions to the Octave’, Performance Practice Review, Vol. 7, No. 2., Fall 1994. Wraight, Denzil (1997). Stringing of Italian Keyboard Instruments c. 1500- c1650, Ph.D. thesis, The Queen’s University, Belfast. (2005). ‘Complete list of surviving Italian string keyboard instruments originally provided with more than 12 notes per octave’, Denzil Wraight – Italian Keyboard instruments (Downloads),  [accessed 25th July, 2005].

58



Add Comment

To add a comment, you need to login or signup (you can signup without leaving this page)