On Dating de Saint Lambert’s Treatises on Harpsichord Playing

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

On Dating de Saint Lambert's Treatises on Harpsichord Playing

Alexei A. Panov¹ Ivan V. Rosanoff¹'²

Saint Petersburg State University,

St. Petersburg, Russia

Rimsky-Korsakov Saint Petersburg State Conservatory,

St. Petersburg

Abstract

In the newly revealed complete Dictionnaire des termes published in 1701 by Sebastien de Brossard there is a list of more than 60 “Auteurs qui ont ecrit en Frangois”, whose works he has personally “seen, read, and examined”. De Saint Lambert is named among them. This definitely proves that one of de Saint Lambert's works had been published before 1701. This recently unveiled evidence and the diachronic examination of practically all possibly available historic and contemporary sources, showed that in some points the current view should be changed. In harpsichord teaching and performance, in thorough-bass accompaniment the treatises of de Saint Lambert, F. Couperin and J.-P. Rameau are the basic instruction editions. Only de Saint Lambert and his two treatises bring forth many bio-bibliographic questions, i.e. Les principes du clavecin (the dates of publication have been proved to be 1697 and 1702), Nouveau traite de I'accompagnement is Paris 1707; and the publication of the Traite de I'accompagnement (1680) is under question whether it was a “myth” or it indeed existed according to the historical evidence.

Keywords: Sebastien de Brossard, de Saint Lambert, harpsichord, accompaniment, French baroque music, French harpsichord music, French baroque treatises on music, musical bibliography, musical lexicography

Ê âîïðîñó î âðåìåíè ïåðâûõ ïóáëèêàöèé êëàâåñèííûõ òðàêòàòîâ äå Ñåí Ëàìáåðà french baroque music lambert

Àëåêñåé Àíàòîëüåâè÷ Ïàíîâ¹ Èâàí Âàñèëüåâè÷ Ðîçàíîâ¹,²

¹ Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãñêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé óíèâåðñèòåò, Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã

² Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãñêàÿ ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ êîíñåðâàòîðèÿ èìåíè Í. À. Ðèìñêîãî-Êîðñàêîâà, Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã

Àííîòàöèÿ:  çàêëþ÷èòåëüíîì ðàçäåëå ââåäåííîãî íåäàâíî â íàó÷íûé îáîðîò ïîëíîãî èçäàíèÿ ìóçûêàëüíîãî ñëîâàðÿ Ñåáàñòüÿíà äå Áðîññàðà 1701 ãîäà ñîäåðæèòñÿ ñïèñîê èç 60 «àâòîðîâ, êîòîðûå ïèñàëè íà ôðàíöóçñêîì ÿçûêå» è òðóäû êîòîðûõ äå Áðîññàð ëè÷íî «ñìîòðåë, ÷èòàë è àíàëèçèðîâàë».  ÷èñëå ýòèõ àâòîðîâ óïîìèíàåòñÿ äå Ñåí Ëàìáåð -- ìóçûêàíò ýïîõè áàðîêêî, òåîðåòè÷åñêèå òðóäû êîòîðîãî, íàðÿäó ñ òðàêòàòàìè Ô. Êóïåðåíà è Æ. Ô. Ðàìî, ñîäåðæàò âàæíåéøèå ñâåäåíèÿ î ôðàíöóçñêîì êëàâåñèííîì èñêóññòâå ýïîõè. Îòñþäà ñëåäóåò, ÷òî îäèí, ëèáî îáà êëàâåñèííûõ òðàêòàòà äå Ñåí Ëàìáåðà áûëè îïóáëèêîâàíû ðàíåå 1701 ãîäà. Äàííîå ñâèäåòåëüñòâî, à òàêæå ðåçóëüòàòû èññëåäîâàíèÿ â äèàõðîíè÷åñêîé ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòè ïðÿìûõ è êîñâåííûõ óêàçàíèé èç èñòîðè÷åñêèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ óáåæäàþò â òîì, ÷òî (1) õîðîøî èçâåñòíîå èçäàíèå çíàìåíèòîãî òðàêòàòà äå Ñåí Ëàìáåðà «Îñíîâû êëàâåñèíà» 1702 ãîäà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïåðâûì, ïåðâîå æå èçäàíèå áûëî âûïîëíåíî â 1697 ãîäó; (2) òîãäà êàê òðàêòàò ïî àêêîìïàíåìåíòó, èçâåñòíûé ïî èçäàíèþ 1707 ãîäà, âïåðâûå óâèäåë ñâåò â 1680 ãîäó, è ïîñëåäíåå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî âîâñå íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ «ìèôîì» ìóçûêàëüíûõ áèáëèîãðàôîâ XIX âåêà, êàê ðàíåå áûëî ïðèíÿòî ñ÷èòàòü â íàóêå.

Êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà: Ñåáàñòüÿí äå Áðîññàð, äå Ñåí Ëàìáåð, êëàâåñèí, àêêîìïàíåìåíò, ôðàíöóçñêîå ìóçûêàëüíîå èñêóññòâî áàðîêêî, òðàêòàòû î ìóçûêå ôðàíöóçñêîãî áàðîêêî, ôðàíöóçñêàÿ ìóçûêà äëÿ êëàâåñèíà, ìóçûêàëüíîå èñòî÷íèêîâåäåíèå, ìóçûêàëüíàÿ áèáëèîãðàôèÿ, ìóçûêàëüíàÿ ëåêñèêîãðàôèÿ

Most of today's professional musicians, especially harpsichordists and organists, are familiar with the name of Saint Lambert (or, to be exact, Monsieur de Saint Lambert¹) and have studied one of his treatises Since there does not exist any biographic evidence concerning the name of this French musician, we shall write it the way it was engraved on the title pages of his treatises, namely: de Saint Lambert, i.e. without the commonly used hyphenated version “Saint-Lambert”, which appeared later. As a rare exception it is found in the translation of de Saint Lambert's treatise on accompaniment by John S. Powell, who adequately writes “de Saint Lambert” [49]. In the following, bibliographic evidence of early documents related to the treatises and texts is given as precisely as possible. We will show below that subtle details can be of great importance.:

1) “LES PRINCIPES DU CLAVECIN[.] Contenant une Explication exacte de tout ce qui concerne la Tablature & le Clavier. Avec des Remarques necessaires pour Vintelligence de plusieurs difficultees de la Musique. Le tout divise par Chapitres selon l'ordre des matieres. Par Monsieur de SAINT LAMBERT. A PARIS, Chez CHRISTOPHE BALLARD, seul Imprimeur du Roy pour la Musique, rue S. Jean de Beauvais, au Mont-Parnasse. M.DCCII. Avec Privilege de Sa Majeste.” [in-4 obl., 68 p.].

2) “NOUVEAU TRAITF DE L'ACCOMPAGNEMENT DU CLAVECIN, DE L'ORGUE, ET DES AUTRES INSTRUMENTS. Par Monsieur DE SAINT LAMBERT. A PARIS, Chez CHRISTOPHE BALLARD, seul Imprimeur du Roy pour la Musique, rue Saint Jean de Beauvais, au Mont-Parnasse. M.DCCVII. Avec Privilege du Roy." [in-8, 64 p.].

Saint Lambert, a harpsichord teacher, who quite possibly was also an accomplished thorough-bass performer, and certainly a learned scholar, at times is referred to with the Christian name Michel, which has been proven to be incorrect. Unfortunately, this usage has been continued by some recent publications as, for example, an article by Michele Cabrini [13, 31], Earlier Powell also mentions: “Yet Saint Lambert's spurious first name still appears on the modern title-page of the reprint of the Nouveau traite de l'accompagnement (Geneve: Minkoff, 1974), as in the National Union Catalogue” [50, XVII]. who curiously refers to J. S. Powell's translation of Saint Lambert's treatise when doing so. Powell clearly states: “indeed, even his first name and dates remain a mystery,” and that “there exists no evidence proving Michel to be his first name” [50, 10-11].

Scholars of the last fifty years have directed considerable efforts to uncovering who this mysterious musician was and to the publication date of his treatises, but the historical facts remain ambiguous, with much contradictory information still circulating, beginning in the late eighteenth century up to the present day. While those issues are of great interest, our article centers on a detailed study of the historiographic evidence of Saint Lambert's written work. His treatises are of major importance to our understanding of the traditions and practices in harpsichord performance and accompaniment of the end of the seventeenth to the beginning of the eighteenth centuries, many of which are applicable to the wider field of musical performance. The treatise on harpsichord performance was the first ever published in France, and can give us insight into the pedagogic, aesthetic, and musicological ideas reigning at the time, along with related principles (e.g., tempo, articulation, ornamentation, rhythm, etc.) that pertained to musical performance and the early eighteenth century. A full comparative re-evaluation, however, will only be possible once the early treatise on harpsichord of 1697 will be found.

Thus, while the question of the first name seems largely solved, the question of the publication dates of the two treatises remain to be answered. For editions of the treatise on accompaniment we variously find the dates 1680, 1690, and 1707 listed, and the years 1697 and 1702 are given for the treatise on harpsichord playing. It is widely understood that this question has been successfully and convincingly dealt with, and the most decisive arguments, those forwarded by Frank Arnold in the Appendix to Chapter I (“III. SAINT-LAMBERT'S MYTHICAL ÒÈÀ1Ò¨ OF 1680”), seem to prove it. Concerning the treatise on accompaniment, Arnold stated in DATE:

“Saint-Lambert's preface to the Nouveau Traite &c. (Paris, Ballard, 1707), of which the Bibliotheque nationale at Paris possesses two copies, contains the following reference to his earlier work, Les principes du clavecin (Paris, Ballard, 1702): “Ayant donne cy devant au public un ouvrage sous le titre des principes du clavecin, dans lequel je ne parle que de ce qui regarde les pieces, j'ai cru que le titre ne seroit point assez rempli, si je n'ajoutois un traite de l'accompagnement”⁴ (the italics are added [by Arnold]). These latter words are not consistent with the assumption that Saint-Lambert had already (in 1680, or at any other time) published a Traite de l'accompagnement, an assumption which, in the first instance, rests solely on the authority of Fetis” [4, vol. 2, 900].

And about Saint Lambert's Principes, Arnold says that “the date assigned by the latter [i.e. Fetis] to the Principes du clavecin is 1697 [is] a palpable error, for the fact that the above-mentioned edition of 1702 was preceded by no earlier one is irrefragably established by Saint-Lambert's own statement in the preface, to the effect that `l'auteur corrigera sur les avis regus ... si on en fait une seconde edition' (italics added [by Arnold]).” In Saint Lambert's treatise, the full sentence reads: “I would be extremely happy to defer to their [his readers] wisdom and to correct my work [the Principes] on the basis of their opinions if a second edition should be made.” The translation reads: “Having previously given the Public a Work entitled Principles of the Harpsichord in which I discuss only that which concerns Pieces [i.e., solo harpsichord compositions], I have felt that the title would not be adequate unless I were to add a Treatise on Accompaniment” (tr. by Powell [49, 2]; the text in square brackets belongs to Powell). Quoted from: [27, 4], inserts in square brackets are ours. Arnold deduces from these arguments that “it will, then, be seen from the above that the Traite of 1680 is a myth, pure and simple, and that, in the Principes (1702) and the Nouveau Traite (1707), we have two closely related works.” [4, vol. 2, 901]. In 1978, Arnold's argument was furthered by James Frederick Burchill [11, 19], and in 1984, Rebecca Harris-Warrick concluded that “the dates 1702 and 1707 should finally be recognized as the genuine publication dates of the two works” [28, IX]. In 1991 John S. Powell, basing his conclusion on the same material from Saint Lambert, argued that the claim of an earlier publication in 1697 of Saint Lambert's Principes “is clearly disproven by the 1702 Preface to Les Principes du clavecin, where Saint Lambert offers to correct any errors in Les Principes `should a second edition be made' and that the 1702 and 1707 publications are both first editions.” We will return to these statements and examine the arguments supporting them.

There would be no need to concentrate our attention on the enigmatic personage of Saint Lambert and the publication date of his treatises were it not that the name “de Saint Lambert” can be found in Sebastien de Brossard's 1701 Dictionnaire des Termes under the heading “Quatrieme classe auteurs, qui ont ecrit en Frangois” (Fourth class [set] of authors, who wrote in French) See: [48, 417-30; 46, 28-44; 47, 201]. De Brossard's italics; our underlining. [10, 352, col. 2]. It should be noted that Brossard claimed that he only included authors in his Dictionnaire whose works he had personally “seen, read, & examined (j'ay vus, lus & examinez moy- meme)” [10, 346].⁷ Thus, this testimony invalidates all other available facts, and suggests that Brossard, the author of the first complete French music dictionary, had indeed “seen, read, and examined” one or probably both treatises by Saint Lambert before 1701. The years 1702 and 1707, widely recognized as “genuine publication dates of the two works,” are thus in fact not the first, especially of Saint Lambert's Principes. Brossard was an outstanding bibliographer and scholar and would likely only mention Saint Lambert in his Dictionnaire if he was not well acquainted with his work and if it had not been published, just as was the case with sixty-two other French authors, including M. L'Affilard, T. Arbeau, B. de Bacilly, C. Blockland de Montfort, L. Bourgeois, E. Loulie, Ch. Masson, C.-F. Menestrier, M. Mersenne, and G.-G. Nivers.

The fact that we have this source available to us now led us to attempt a comprehensive and chronologically organized study of all known as well as many less known sources to trace Saint Lambert's treatises to publication dated before 1702, or at least some information that could support arguments for an earlier publication. We also sought to point up the many instances where the bibliographic data given or the treatment of sources in contemporary scholarly publication proves erroneous.

We will address here the titles of de Saint Lambert's treatises, the year of publication (if given in the original source), the layout size of the edition, the number of pages, the place of publication, the publishing house, as well as other publication characteristics. Before turning to these characteristics, however, it should be noted that in RISM [55, 747], the author of both treatises is listed as “Saint-Lambert (Michel de)” (our underlining), though no first name is found in any of the original sources of his time, and the hyphen in the last name is arbitrarily added. The title of the treatise on accompaniment reads: “Nouveau traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin, de l'orgue, et des autres instruments. Par Monsieur de Saint-Lambert. Paris, Christophe Ballard, 1707. In-8 obl., 64 p.” According to RISM, the Amsterdam edition was published in “[c1710] In-8” by Estienne Roger and contains 134 pages.

Four parameters should be noted for the 1707 edition: (1) the title begins with the word “Nouveau”; (2) the print layout is “In-8 obl.”; (3) the place of publication is Paris; and (4), the work consists of 64 oblong pages. These specifications differ in the historical materials cited below.

For Les Principes du Clavecin, the bibliographic data listed in RISM is fully in accordance with the original titles given above, apart from the inclusion in RISM of the first name: “Excepting the name of the author “Michel” the bibliographic evidence is fully in accordance with the original titles given above.”

The earliest known testimony we have on Saint Lambert is preserved in the Bibliotheque nationale de France in Paris under the indices “F-Pn, fonds frangaise, n. a. 6355” [42], and is part of a collection of manuscript notes and extraits left by the musician and theorist Etienne Loulie (1654-1702). The Catalogue des Livres de Musique, et autres qui vendent chez Christophe Ballard of 1704 [15] gives the whole text of the title of the Principes. It has some minor divergences: 1) the first article “Les” is omitted, 2) “de Clavecin” replaces “du Clavecin”, and 3) “difficultiez" replaces “difficulties", and no date is given. In the catalogue of D. J. Galloys [6, no paging, where under no. 2628 (the numbers of items in this part “In-quarto” are mixed up)] we read: “Les Principes du Clavessin, par M. de S. Lambert. Paris, 1702”. The collection includes rare and important evidence, namely a page (page 124) from Saint Lambert's Principes on which Loulie noted in the upper part: “Extrait du Livre de M^r. de Sfi Lambert.” Unfortunately, no date is given by Loulie and bibliographers in the Bibliotheque nationale are not able to provide any definite information on this point. Harris-Warrick briefly touches upon this note in the introduction to her translation of Saint Lambert's treatise, coming to the conclusion that Loulie “excerpted” from the Principles [28, X]. A closer examination of the manuscript shows however that in some places, Loulie did indeed make excerpts, whereas in others he gave the material his own rendering and even added his thesis-like formulations (see comparative text analysis in Figure 1). He also made changes in the original in certain places. Finally, we suggest that he might have used another edition of Saint Lambert's work, as contents of his “excerpts” differ in some places from the accepted edition of 1702.

Figure 1. E. Loulie: excerpt from de Saint Lambert's Principes du Clavecin.

“By staff one understands the five parallel lines [fit] in such a manner on which the notes are placed and named [?] as a tone [sic?]. When this staff is repeated six times on one page, the paper which contains them is called six-staff paper... “. (Bibliotheque nationale de France under the library number F-Pn, fonds frangaise, n. a. 6355, p. 124)

The comparison of the excerpts given in Figures 1 and 2 shows that the texts are differ. The most important difference (while preserving the general meaning) is the introduction of the concept of “l'Echelle de la Musique” in Saint Lambert's treatise of 1702. This suggests two options: Loulie made an abridged version of Saint Lambert's text, or that the version he used differed from the edition of 1702. Since on each page Loulie specified the material as “Extraits de Livre de M^r. de Sfi Lambert,” we can assume that he copied the text word by word from a different edition.

Another example is found in the part where Loulie copied from the chapter on ornament. Writing on the performance of trills, for example, Saint Lambert refers to Jean-Henry d'Anglebert's table “Marques des Agrements” in the first book of Pieces de clavecin [3]. The ornament listed by both Saint Lambert and d'Anglebert as “Cadence” is titled in Loulie's manuscript copy “Tremblement, Cadence”. This means that Loulie did not use Saint Lambert's treatise of 1702, in which, when considering d'Anglebert's ornaments, the entry “Cadence” appears. It might suggest that Loulie had another source. It should be noted that in his own explanations of performing the trill, Saint Lambert uses the term Tremblement. In the source from which Loulie copied the example, on the contrary, a double name was proposed: “Tremblement[,] Cadence” (see Figure 3: “Maniere d'exprimer ces divers Tremblemens”).

Figure 2. De Saint Lambert: Les Principes du Clavecin [58, 28]:

“By staff is meant the five parallel lines which frame the pitches of the notes and which we called the L'Echelle of music at the beginning of this book [ch. I, p. 9]. When these five lines are repeated six times on one page, the paper which contains them is called six-staff paper” [27, 49].

(a) Loulié, MS, s.a.,9 copy from the original

(b) J.-H. d'Anglebert (1689) [3]

(c) De Saint Lambert (1702) [58, 47]

Figure 3. ¨. Loulie: excerpt from de Saint Lambert's Principles du Clavecin, with similar examples of d'Angleber and

Saint Lambert proper. Bibliotheque nationale de France under the library number F-Pn, fonds fran^aise, n. a. 6355, p. 125.

There are more instances where Loulie's text differs from the original and they should be explored more widely. But our main purpose here is to show that even a brief examination can give rise to the question whether Loulie, who died 16 July 1702, could actually work with Saint Lambert's treatise just published in 1702, or whether he had an earlier version available. He clearly found it instructive to include references to d'Anglebert's table.

The other question is if Loulie, in the year of his death, even had access to a copy of the 1702 edition of Saint Lambert's treatise, could it be possible that he actually worked with the treatise and had made ms copies? Information on the exact month of the 1702 publication could not be determined at this point, and it remains largely hypothetical if mention in a source may have aroused Loulie's interest, leading him to obtain a copy, or at least pages from it. It is logical to assume that he used an earlier source. But if we add to this the fact that there is direct reference to de Saint Lambert in de Brossard's 1701 dictionary, we come closer to turning hypothesis into a statement.

The first review of both of Saint Lambert's treatises was published in 1708 [43, 1257-61]. Devoted to the “Nouveau Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin & des autres Instrumens par Mr. de Saint Lambert, the review contains much valuable information. Three issues require our particular attention. Firstly, no publication date or print layout is indicated, while the publisher's data are given in full detail: “A Paris chez Christophle [sic] Ballarr [sic], seul Imprimeur du Roi pour la Musique, rue Saint Jean de Beauvais, au Mont-Parnasse.” Since the review was published in July 1708, it is most likely that it refers to the 1707 edition. Secondly, the title deviates in some minor details from the title cited earlier. Of main interest, however, is a comment by the anonymous author who cites Saint Lambert's words and states that the author of this treatise had earlier published a work titled Les principes du Clavecin. This statement suggests, as Arnold also states, that the Principles of Harpsichord Playing was published before the Nouveau Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin. But is the work in question related to the “Traite de l'Accompagnement du Clavecin” (emphasis added) of 1680 mentioned by Johann Nikolaus Forkel [23, 352] and Johann Georg Sulzer [64, 360] in 1792, but not the Nouveau Traite? Thirdly, the review includes an abstract of the Nouveau Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin & des autres Instrumens [of 1707], while Forkel and Sulzer provide a different title: “Traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin, de l'orgue, et des autres instruments. Moreover, Forkel and Sulzer include “de l'orgue” in the title. It seems unlikely that the German scholars would mistakenly omit the word “nouveau” or randomly add “de l'orgue” to the title. The most likely case is that they were discussing two different treatises. Could they have based their conclusions on someone else's works? Unfortunately, the question will remain open for now as some further documentation is still necessary.

In 1710 and 1718, Michel Charles le Cene and Etienne (Estienne) Roger included the titles of Saint Lambert's works in their Catalogues des Livres imprimez a Amsterdam chez Etienne Roger.¹⁰ But these catalogues do not give precise bibliographic data on Catalogue des Livres qui se trouvent a Amsterdam, chez Michel Charles le Cene (without pag-ing) [16] which was placed at the end of the romantic novel: Vergne M. de la Comtesse de la Fayette, Histoire de Madame Henriette Premiere Femme de Philippe de France Duc D'Orleans; Christiaan Huygens, Nouveau traite de la pluralite des mondes [32], and Les Femmes Sgavantes ou Bibliotheque des Dames [35]. the treatise on accompaniment which accord with the editions listed by Forkel, Sulzer, the official Amsterdam or the Paris editions; the titles also do not include the important word “nouveau.” Rather, the title is listed as “[Traitte] d'Accompagnement pour bien apprendre a bien accompagner du Clavecin, quoi que la Basse continue ne soit point chiffree, par le Sr. St. Lambert, 8.” The words in italics indicate new additions to the officially accepted title, which now differs radically from that of the edition of 1707.

In yet another anonymous review, for the learned Femmes [35] the treatise on harpsichord playing has a title, which again differs from the one used for the publication by Roger (c1710?). It reads “[Principes] pour bien aprendre a jouer du Clavecin; par le Sr. St. Lambert, 8.” Compared with the original Paris and Amsterdam titles, which are identical apart from the place of publication (“Les principes du clavecin, contenant une explication exacte de tout ce qui concerne la tablature & le clavier...”, Paris), the title given in the 1718 catalogue is an abridged version of the title mentioned above, with new additions such as “bien aprendre a jouer” incorporated.

Harris-Warrick, referring to Francois Lesure's Bibliographie [36, 49], shows that Roger mentions two works by Saint Lambert in his 1712 Catalogue: “Principes pour bien aprendre a jouer du clavecin par Mr. de Saint Lambert” and the “Traitte d'acompagnement pour aprendre a bien acompagner du clavecin par Mr. de Saint Lambert” [28, VIII]. But she does not emphasize the divergences in the titles, which here also differ from the original titles. Several conclusions suggest that Roger and Michel Charles le Cene may have copied the title from an as yet unknown publication of the treatise on accompaniment. The main reason supporting this conclusion is the omission of the most important word -- “nouveau” -- may not be a random misprint: in all other instances when listing a work whose title begins with the word “nouveau,” it appears under the letter “N” (e.g., the treatise by Charles Masson¹¹ on p. 345). Saint Lambert's treatise is listed under “T” (“Traitte d'Accompagnement pour bien apprendre a bien accompagner du Clavecin, quoi que la Basse continue ne soit point chiffree, par le Sr. St. Lambert, 8”; the divergences from the 1707 Paris edition are underlined). A misunderstanding or misprint is thus doubtful.

The first study and reference in Germany to Saint Lambert's works was by Johann Mattheson [41, 5,17], who lists the title, with minor and insignificant editorial changes, as “Nouveau Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavegin, de l'Orgue & des autres Instrumens, par Msr. De St. Lambert, Paris 1707.” In his Critica Musica [39, 30], Mattheson refers to Saint Lambert's work as “Traite del'accompagnement de St. Lambert,” omitting “nouveau,” but including in his text a quotation from Saint Lambert. His reference to “pag. 48” further allowed us to cross-check it with the original publication, which clarified that Mattheson had the 1707 Paris edition of the Nouveau traite at his disposal “Nouveau traite pour apprendre les regles de la Composition de la Musique &, a faire un chant sur des Paroles & c. par Mr. Masson, 8.” Harris-Warrick [28, A] does not provide exact bibliographic information concerning which of the editions (the Amsterdam or the Paris) were the ones that Mattheson worked with.. In the “Register,” Saint Lambert is referred to as “Lambert St. s. A. 30, 210,” suggesting that he had not paid careful attention to the context of the passage on page 210, “...que diroient les Lambert, les Boesset, les le Camus, & les Battiste s'ils renebenoient au monde, .(Was wurden wohl Lambert, Boesset / le Camus und Battiste sagen / wenn...)” (German translation by Mattheson: [39, 210], “.what will the Lamberts, the Boessets, the le Camus, & the Battistes say if they return to the world, to see the Francois chant so changed so debased & defaced?” [our English translation]. It is definitely certain that in this passage “Lambert” is the French singer Michel Lambert. and attributing the treatise to the famous French singer Michel Lambert instead of the harpsichordist Saint Lambert. This is the first time that the two French musicians were confused [39, 210]. The same edition of Saint Lambert's treatise is referred to also in Mattheson's Grosse General-BaB-Schule [40, 127]. It should be noted, however, that nowhere did Mattheson apply the first name Michel to Saint Lambert.

Both treatises by Saint Lambert are mentioned in the “Catalogue of Other Books on Music Theory and Practice” at the end of the Traite de L'Harmonie by Jean-Philippe Rameau [53]. The first treatise is given with the short title “Principes pour le Clavecin, par M^r. de Saint-Lambert,” followed directly with “Traite d'Accompagnement pour cet Instrument, & pour tous les autres.” Unfortunately, no further bibliographic data is given.

The scholarly discussion really begins with Johann Gottfried Walther's Musicalisches Lexicon of 1732 and the materials included in the article “Lambert [de Saint]” [66, 352]. This article and its multitude mistakes attracted the attention of many scholars. Here we will focus on the use of the name “Michel” and the confusion of Saint Lambert with Michel Lambert. A summarized and convincing account is given by Harris-Warrick ([28, VIH-IX], also [29; 30, 800]) and Powell [50, X].

In her introduction to the English translation of the treatise, Harris-Warrick pays much attention to the detailed examination of the biographical information about Saint Lambert and the misinformation found in the works of German lexicographers. In the New Grove Dictionary, she writes that “the first name `Michel,' frequently attributed to him, derives from the conflation of Saint Lambert with the singer and composer Michel Lambert, an error that goes at least as far back as Walther's Musicalisches Lexicon (1732).” Similarly, in the second edition of Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart she states: “The frequently ascribed first name Michel to him [i.e. to de Saint Lambert] cannot be found in any 18-century source, and perhaps may be explained by the fact that his name has often been confused with the name of the well-known singer and composer Michel Lambert (1610-1696); this confusion goes back at least as far as J. G. Walther's Musicalisches Lexicon (1732)” [30, 800]. Analogous explanations are also found in Powell's introduction to his edition of the treatise [50, X]. Thus, both identify Walther as the first lexicographer to confuse the two French musicians.

We believe these statements to be erroneous, In the course of this study this list will be significantly expanded. Among many other authors we could name T. Schultz who insists with enough warrant that Walther was also the first to make this mistake. The materials to be examined above disprove his judgment [62, 7]. as Walther never mentions the name “Michel” in his article. Figure 4 gives an excerpt of his article.

Their mistaken interpretation derives from an incorrect reading of the last sentence: “That also [there was] a Lambert -- Lully's father-in-law, one may read in Mattheson's Crit[ica] Mus[ica] Vol. I, p. 183 (Dafi auch ein Lambert des Lully Schwieger-Vater gew- esen, lieset man in Matthesonii Crit. Mus. T. 1 p. 183).” Walther does not state that the “Lambert [de Saint]” named at the beginning of the article is the same person mentioned later simply as “Lambert,” who had been “Lully's father-in-law.” Everything in Walther's sentence depends on the understanding of the words, “Dafi auch ein Lambert,” which are used in the sense of “another” or “also.” Without these words, the sentence could de facto mean that “[de Saint] Lambert had also been Lully's father-in-law.” Walther alludes to the authority of Mattheson, who writes: Johann Mattheson, `Leben und Tod des weltberuhmten JEAN BAPTISTE de LULLY' [39, 178-84]. “The rest he [Lully] left for his wife to take care of, who he especially esteemed. We read Mattheson's article (as he clarifies it in the first footnote on p. 178) is based on the information provided by Concertmeister Lingke, who, in his turn, gathered the facts from a book titled `Lettres historiques sur tous les spectacles de Paris' (1718) [RISM: Boindin (Nicolas). Lettres historiques sur tous les spectacles de Paris. [Premiere-quatrieme letter (p. 78)]. Paris, Pierre Prault, 1719. In-8, pp. 92-134-50-59. See detailed information about Lully in the Seconde Lettre (p. 76 onwards)]. that he had two sons, Louis de Lully and Jean Louis de Lully, who they had together. She [the named wife] was the daughter of the famous composer Lambert.”

In our reading, “ein Lambert des Lully Schwieger-Vater,” as Walther wrote, is not in fact Saint Lambert, but the widely-known singer and composer Michel Lambert, whose daughter Lully had married. Walther had not “evidently confused Saint Lambert with Michel Lambert (1610-96), composer, singer, singing teacher, and father-in-law of Jean- Baptiste Lully,” as Powell writes, or that there was an “error that goes at least as far back as Walther's Musicalisches Lexicon (1732)” as affirmed by Harris-Warrick. There is a curious passage in the MGG2 article on de Saint Lambert which should be commented: “Both Saint-Lambert's works [i.e. of 1702 and 1707] were well known throughout the 18^th century: .. .they were quoted or plagiarized by numerous French and German music theorists (among the latter, S. de Brossard, E. Loulie, J.-Ph. Rameau, Joh. Mattheson, Joh. D. Heinichen und J. Adlung)” [30, 800]. Nothing that follows the mentioning of Loulie and de Brossard raises any questions. But for Loulie it is impossible for him to have “cited and plagiarized” from de Saint Lambert, because Loulie's last work dates back to 1698, and de Saint Lambert's first treatise, as it is claimed by Harris-Warrick, was published in 1702. If the date of de Saint Lambert's publication had been 1697, then Loulie could apply to the treatise. Concerning de Brossard, it was shown above that his complete music dictionary was published for the first time in 1701 rather than in 1703 as it is currently believed! Once again, the same question arises: how could de Brossard cite in 1701 from de Saint Lambert, if the treatise of the latter was presented to the Paris musicians only a year later as Harris-Warrick confirms? Loulie is not mentioned in Harris-Warrick's NGD2 article [29]. De Brossard could have “cited, or even plagiarized” from de Saint Lambert only under one condition, namely if his Dictionaire was published after the publication of de Saint Lambert's treatises. But according to our latest research (see above) the year of the first publication of de Brossard's Dictionnaire was 1701. This means that de Saint Lambert's treatises, or only one of them was released before 1701.

Another frequent error is the ascribing to Walther the use of “noveau” as first word of the title in the treatise on accompaniment. There is no such word in Walther's text. Walther, in fact, provides erroneous information, mentioned by both Harris-Warrick and Powell, which will turn up in the works of other authors, but that is the crediting Saint Lambert with the title “Maitre de Musique de la Chambre du Roy” and by ascribing to him a “Trio vor allerhand Instrumenten.” But information was scarce and very difficult to obtain in the period Walther was writing.

There is still another issue to look at. If we read Walther's article carefully and pay special attention to the mentioned size of the print format of the treatise, we will notice that both of treatises are listed as being “in-8.” However, the Paris edition of Saint Lambert's Principes had been printed “in-4,” and the work on accompaniment “in-8.” In Amsterdam, the two treatises had also been published “in-8.” Which editions are described by Walther? A lexicographer of his stature would never confuse “in-4” with “in-8.” Thus, we can presume that Walther was referring to the Amsterdam editions, a premise that seems to be supported by Walther's explaination of the French term “Portee” (p. 488) by referring to an explanation on page 66 of Saint Lambert's Principes, to be found on page 66 of the Amsterdam edition, while in the Paris 1702 edition this material is on p. 28!

Among the many eminent authors cited in his compendious Elementa Musica, Quirinus van Blankenburg refers several times also to the treatise on accompaniment by Saint Lambert, with special attention paid to Saint Lambert's debatable idea of a simplification of the main principles of notation and different clefs used at his time. In the footnote to Saint Lambert's explanation of the “Bemol” sign, Blankenburg turns to page 3 of the Traite de l'Accompagnement [7, 32]. This reference most likely is to page 3 of the Amsterdam edition; in the 1707 Paris edition, this topic is discussed on page 2. (Blankenburg does not use the word “nouveau” in the title of Saint Lambert's work; however, it is definitely used in title of the Amsterdam version.)

When discussing the problem of transposing (p. 74), on the contrary, Blankenburg indicates that he refers to the new treatise on basso-continuo (“in zyn niew tractaat van de Bas-Continuo”), with the footnote stating: “Parys 1707. Op de 55 en volgende bladzyden” [Paris 1707. From page 55]. It is strange that Blankenburg here refers to the Paris edition of 1707, to the Nouveau traite de l'accompagnement, where transposing is discussed on pages 27-28 and further, but not on page 55. We do find the discussion on page 55 of the Amsterdam edition. Was it negligence on the part of Blankenburg that he named one source, and in fact used another one? A cross-examination showed, however, that the title and the material cited by other authors match the original sources. Thus, we can suppose that the inaccuracies in reference to Saint Lambert's works may have to do with the fact that he had an unknown Paris edition of the treatise on accompaniment at his disposal, or, less likely, that he thought that the Amsterdam and the Paris editions were identical.

Let us consider some other sources. A few years later, in 1742, the treatise on accompaniment was included in the Catalogue General et alphabetique de Musique [17, 53] published by Boivin's widow. Here the title is again listed without the word “nouveau,” as simply, “Saint-Lambert. Principes & Traite d'Accompagnement, pour le Clavecin.” And in Padre Martini's Storia della Musica (1757), both works by Saint Lambert have Amsterdam as the place of publication, without year [38, vol. 1, 458]. The treatise on accompaniment is listed as “Nouveau Traite de l'Accompagn. du Clavec. & de l'orgue.”

Known for his efforts toward exactness, Jacob Adlung's fundamental work, Anleitung zu der musikalischen Gelahrtheit, provides no easy answer to the questions as to which editions he is referring to. For example, in his discussion of new music, Adlung [1, 212] refers to page 126 of Les principes du Clavessin, where Saint Lambert refers to the use of only three clef signs. This most certainly points to the Amsterdam edition, because the

Paris edition has only 68 pages. However, in the section “Von der italianischen Tabulatur,” where Adlung touches on the problem of ornamentation, we find: “Mit Vorzatz hat die Manieren erklart Lambert in principes du clavessin, Paris, in 8 [sic] in 28 Capiteln” [emphasis added] [1, 729-30]. But the Paris edition was published “in-4.” Adlung also makes mention of information supplied by Walther's Lexicon. As for Saint Lambert's treatise on accompaniment, here Adlung [1, 635] refers to the Paris edition of 1707. But Adlung does not name this treatise a “new” one. Just as in Walther's Lexicon, the title given here is “Tractat de l'accompagnement du clavessin, de l'orgue, et des autres instruments, Paris 8.” Adlung also refers to Saint Lambert simply as “Lambert,” the first time that the harpsichordist Saint Lambert is mentioned that way, something that will cause further confusion later in the century.

The Mercure de France includes an anonymous account of Saint Lambert's Principes with the date 1702, and here again, the interest is connected with the innovate idea of reducing the quantity of staff signs to three, a problem that occupied many musicians in the eighteenth century and later [45, 169-70].

The question of the number of key signs is mentioned also in the third volume of the Essays by Jean-Benjamin de la Borde of 1780, who used the 1702 Paris edition of the Principes. De la Borde [8, vol. 3, 642] names the Traite d'accompagnement pour plusieurs instrumens by Saint Lambert, not using “nouveau” but adding the word plusieurs to replace “du clavessin, de l'orgue, et des autres instruments”: “Lambert (de St.) fit en 1702 les Principes du clavecin, contenant une explication exacte de ce qui concerne la tablature & le clavier, & un Traite d'accompagnement pour plusieurs instrumens.”

In Diderot's Encyclopedic, “M. de Saint-Lambert” is mentioned only in connection with the Principes de clavecin, when differences between “le port-de-voix simple,” “le port-de-voix-appuye,” and “le demi-port-de voix” are discussed. No bibliographic information is given [2, vol. 26, 875].

In a chronological context, the “mainstream” opinion based on the information from Gerber's Lexicon [25] must be reconsidered now. For more than 200 years, a fundamental misinterpretation of the article in this book has prevailed. Gerber's article does not address “de Saint Lambert,” as commonly thought, but rather is devoted to “Lambert (Michel), the French singer, as the original clearly shows [25, 777].

The contemporary confusion is summed up in this quote from Harris-Warrick: “Other German lexicographers, for example Gerber and Schilling, clearly thought that Michel Lambert and Monsieur de Saint Lambert were one and the same person” [28, ix]. But in her footnote 6, she mentions the Lexicon by Gerber [“1790-92”] as well as the Encyclopadie by Gustav Schilling [61], and (contradicting herself) states that the entries are under the name “Lambert (Michel).” Gerber, and Schilling following him, wrote the article about the singer and “M afire de la Musique de la Chambre du Roy” Michel Lambert, rather than Saint Lambert.

Contrary to the prevailing opinion, there is not a single word connected with Saint Lambert the harpsichordist or his harpsichord treatises in the first edition of Gerber's Lexicon (see Figure 5). Thus, neither Saint Lambert's name nor any of his works are found in this article, or in the second part published in 1792.

In 1792, when Gerber published the second part of his Lexicon, Johann Nikolaus Forkel first issued the Allgemeine Litteratur der Musik [23]. While the information on Saint Lambert found in Forkel's work provides a significant part of our understanding of Saint Lambert, there are some matters, which have not yet received due consideration. For example, it is often thought that the name “Michel” is not found in any eighteenth- century source. This does not correlate with the information given in Forkel's volume, The first article is Principes du Clavecin, the second one is Traitd de l'accompagnement du Clavecin, de l'orgue, et des autres Instrumens. which lists an article clearly titled “Lambert (Michel de Saint),” and with the same name printed in the “Register.” As far as we know, this is the first time when a first name is listed, but more importantly, Forkel dates the publication of the treatise on accompaniment to the year 1680. Forkel quite accurately gives the title of the 1707 edition, but adds at the end: “which edition in consecutive order is this one is not known; however, the first edition of this work came out in 1680 [in-]8”.

The title is not totally accurate as listed --“nouveau” Harris-Warrick overlooked this important fact and comes to the conclusion that “The German music lexicographers Forkel ... and Gerber (Neues Historisch-Biographisches Lexikon der Tonkunstler (Leipzig, 1812-14), vol. III, p. 163) both cite 1680 as the publication date of the Nouveau traite, ...”. In the original materials of the bibliographers the word “Nouveau” (as in Walther's Lexicon) is not present. Johann Georg Sulzer, `Begleitung', in Allgemeine Theorie der Schonen Kunste... Erster Theil (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1792), volume 1, 360. The articles on music were in the most part written by J. Ph. Kirnberger and later also in cooperation with Kirnberger's pupil J. A. P. Schulz, as Sulzer informs. In the first edition of Sulzer's Allgemeine Theorie (1771, 1774) de Saint Lambert and his works are not mentioned. is missing -- but it is widely assumed today that Forkel misinterpreted the title and erroneously used the date 1680. However, a question arises: from what source did Forkel obtain his information? No evidence has yet shed light on this situation. But it suggests that an important but as yet unavailable bibliographic source may have been published during that period. This source may have been published between 1758, the publication of Adlung's volume, and 1792, when Forkel's work appeared. Concerning Forkel's addition of “de Saint” to Michel Lambert, we suggest the following hypothesis: Forkel used Gerber's Lexicon, among other bio-bibliographic sources, including evidence from, for example, Walther's Lexicon that there were two treatises published by Monsieur de Saint Lambert, and decided that Michel Lambert wrote the two treatises, and thus “Lambert (Michel)” became “Lambert (Michel de Saint).”

Neither can we answer the question where J. G. Sulzer [Kirnberger/Schulz] -- in 1792, just as Forkel -- found information for a 1680 publication date when he mentioned it in his Allgemeine Theorie der Schonen Kunste²⁰ (“Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin, de l'Orgue, et des autres instrumens, p. Mich. de St. Lambert, Par[is]. 1680 und 1708 [sic]. 8”). And where did he take the first name “Mich[el]” from? Certainly not from Forkel as both volumes came out in 1792. The “Index” to volume 4 of the Allgemeine Theorie also lists the name “Lambert, Mich. de St.”

Taken together, this information might give us a clue where the year 1680 may have first appeared. This as yet unknown source may have been found either by J. Ph. Kirnberger or by his pupil J. P. Schulz (or Schultz), or may have been included in one of their works. “1708” is most probably a misprint. Saint Lambert's Principes du Clavecin is mentioned in the bibliography of the entry on “Instrumentalmusik” [64, vol. 2, 686], where it is titled “Principes du Clavecin, p. Mr. Michel de St. Lambert, Par[is]. 1702.”

Gerber, in the second edition of his Lexicon (volume 3, 1813, Sp. 163), refers the reader to his article written on Lambert in the first edition of 1790. In 1813, he only adds “de Saint,” resulting in “Lambert (Michel de Saint)” and continues “on whom sufficient information is given in the [first] Lex[icon].” Gerber then lists the treatises:

1) Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin, de l'orgue, et des autres Instruments. Paris, 1680 und 1707. [in] 8. 9 Bogen stark [9 printing sheets thick].

2) Principes du Clavecin. Paris, 1702. 9 Bogen.

3) Trio's fur verschiedene Instrumente. There is no data in RISM. The first erroneous attribution of these “Trio's fur verschiedene Instrumente“, as pertaining to Saint Lambert, refers to Walther's Lexicon. (The “Trio's fur verschiedene Instrumente” attributed to “ Lambert [de Saint] ” by Walther (here -- also by Gerber) actually were (as we presume) composed by the singer Michel Lambert. It might refer to those “Airs a une, deux, trios et 4 parties av. la basse cont, compos. par Mons. Lambert, Paris, ... 1689”, Chr. Ballard.)

In the preface to volume I, Gerber mentions Walther and Forkel. We can assume, with many contemporary authors, that:

-- Gerber confused the information given by Walther and Forkel who both wrote about the harpsichordist “Lambert [de Saint]” (Walther) and “Lambert (Michel de Saint)” (Forkel).

-- Gerber's entry refers to the singer Michel Lambert and attributes the harpsichord treatises to him.

-- The next error is the addition of “de Saint” to the name Michel Lambert.

-- In 1813, Gerber first gives the titles of Saint Lambert's treatises as cited by Sulzer/ Kirnberger/Schulz or Forkel, and dates the Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin, de l'orgue, et des autres Instruments to 1680 (none of the earlier scholars included “nouveau”).

These errors have been taken over and perpetuated in the works of other authors up to today.

Two entries in the Encyclopedia Londinensis published by John Wilkes, who compiled this volume with the assistance of “eminent scholars of the English, Scotch, and Irish Universities,” also needs to be mentioned. It includes separate entries on both musicians. The first is dedicated to “LAMBERT (Michael) [who] was the favorite singing-master and composer of songs in France... Lulli married the daughter of this musician, [and] who was born in 1610, and died in 1696.” The other is on “LAMBERT (Saint)”: “LAMBERT (Saint), published, in 1702, `Les Principes du Clavecin,' or Instructions for the Harpsichord, containing a clear explanation of all that concerns the clavier, or keys, in their rotation [sic] on that instrument; and `A Treatise of Accompaniment,' for many instruments” [68, vol. 12, 96].

In contemporary literature, it is universally accepted that F.-J. Fetis (1844) first distinguished between these two French musicians. As we can see here, this had been done thirty years earlier.

The evidence given in Gerber or Forkel has been copied into many other publications, as for example, in the Dizionario by Peter Lichtenthal (“Lambert (Michel De Saint), compositore di camera francese a Parigi: Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin, de l'Orgue et des autres instrumens. Paris, 1707, 9 fogli in 8. Contiene 9 capitoli. La prima edizione e del 1680), where Saint Lambert is called “Michel” and identified as a chamber composer in Paris, which suggests that Michel Lambert was meant. It should be noted that again “the first edition -- as is stated -- was published in 1680,” and Saint Lambert's Principes are dated to 1702 [37, 195].