On Dating de Saint Lambert’s Treatises on Harpsichord Playing

C. F. Becker published his Systematischchronologische Darstellung der musikalis- chen Literatur in 1836, with greater part of the information on Saint Lambert most likely taken from Forkel or Gerber and thus conflating the two. However, some details should be

mentioned. We believe that he follows Gerber, calling Saint Lambert “Michel” and giving some biographic details for the singer [5, vol. 1, 369]. The Principes du Clavecin is dated 1702, but Becker also suggests that it “probably... was already a later edition [Wahrscheinlich ist dies schon eine spatere Ausgabe].” Becker mentions the Amsterdam edition, but without bibliographic details [5, vol. 2, 91]. The first publication of the treatise on accompaniment, as stated in the end of the article, is dated to 1680: “Lambert (Michel de Saint): Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin, de l'Orgue et des autres instrumens. Paris, 1707. 8. 9 Bogen. Enthalt 9 Kapitel. Die erste Auflage soll zu Paris 1680, in 8. erschienen sein” [5, vol. 1, 410].

Some bibliographic details on the Principes du Clavecin can also be found in La France-Litteraire... [52, vol. 8, 347], which the print-layout is included: “Saint-Lambert. -- Principes du clavecin. Paris, 1702, in-4.”

Among early lexicographic works, G. Schilling's Encyclopadie is among the most criticized today, even though he relied on the work of a group of outstanding musicologists: “M. Fink, Geh. Kriegsrath Kretschmar, Professor Dr. Marx, G. Nauenburg, Ludwig Rellstab, Ritter v. Seyfried, Schnyder v. Wartensee, Prof. Weber, Baron v. Winzingerode,” and so forth. The entry in Schilling's Encyclopadie is devoted to “Lambert Michel,” the singer.²² But the information adds some specifics, namely that the treatise on accompaniment “was published in 1680 in a very solid issue,” and that “it had disappeared so quickly that already in 1690 a second, and in 1707 a third edition had to be published.” The title given for the work simply reads “Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin, de l'Orgue et des autres Instruments.”

Fetis is the most-cited source on Saint Lambert, if only because he first demonstrated in 1844 how little is known about this musician. The entry is given as “SAINT-LAMBERT (N. DE), professeur de clavecin a Paris” [21, vol. 8, 16-17]. In the second edition of 1864, Fetis lists “SAINT-LAMBERT (Michel DE).” Otherwise, both entries are identical [22, vol. 7, 371-72].²³ Fetis was criticized for including as bibliographic data: “Traitd de l'accompagnement du clavecin, de l'orgue et de quelques autres instruments; Paris, Ballard, 1680, in-4^o oblong. Une deuxieme edition a paru a Paris, chez Ballard, en 1707, in-4 oblong”, and “Principes du clavecin; Paris, Ballard, 1697, in-4 obl., une deuxieme edition a ete publiee par le meme imprimeur, en 1702, in-4^o obl. [and added in the 2^nd ed. 1864: Une reimpression de cette edition a ete faite a Amsterdam, chez Roger (sans date), un volume grand in-4^o de cent quarante-deux pages, avec deux planches de musique].” The dates 1680, 1690, and 1697 have been debunked as wrong, but little attention has been paid to the print-layout, which he wrongly gives as “in-4” for the Amsterdam edition.²⁴ However, one edition “in-4 obl.” does exist and was published in Paris by Juste Adrien This error one can meet in other bio-bibliographic sources, for example, in the 12-volume Lexicon compiled by H. Mendel: Hermann Mendel, Musikalisches Conversations-Lexikon [44, vol. 6, 232-33]. Here in the article dedicated to “Lambert Michel” -- the French musician is said to be an “angesehener franzosischer Virtuose auf Laute und Theorbe, Gesanglehrer und Vocalcomponist” -- it is written that M. Lambert published also the “Traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin, de l'orgue et des autres instrumens” (Paris, 1680 and 1707) and “Principes du clavecin (1702)”. Attention should be paid not only to the 1680 year of publication, but also to the fact that the treatise on accompaniment is not called “Nouveau”. In 1864 Fetis only added the text of the title of the Principes at the end of the article and some information on its Amsterdam edition. The St. Petersburg State Conservatory Academic Library has an original Amsterdam edition that contains the above mentioned 142 pages, and is not in the print-layout in-4, but in-8. There are no music examples, as Fetis writes too. Instead, there is a Table of contents on the page following p. 142!

Lenoir de Lafage (or La Fague, or Lafage; 1805-1862). A Catalogue published in 1862 of 2,300 publications issued by his printing house includes the following entry: “1441. Saint- Lambert (De). Nouveau Traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin, de l'orgue et des autres instruments. Paris, 1707, in-4 obl., dem.-rel., bas” [20, 118].

Saint Lambert's treatise on accompaniment, with the date 1680, is mentioned by the Belgian scholar E. Vander Straeten [63, 61, 70] in his discussions of the system of notation and of innovations in quarter-tone intervals. Citing from the monograph by Blankenburg, Vander Straeten refers to Saint Lambert's works three times, In the process of preparing his book Vander Straeten reasoned on this subject a year earlier in the article Musiciens Neederlandais. Quirin van Blankenburg in the weekly publication Le Guide Musical (12^me Annee, 31 Mai 1866, N^o 22). In the text of this article, Straeten referrs to de Saint Lambert's treatise as “Traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin et de l'orgue, par de Saint-Lambert.”, but further in the next issue of this Weekly paper (12™ Annee, 21 et 28 Juni 1866, N^os 25 et 26) Vander Straeten names the Amsterdam publication of this treatise as “Nouveau Traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin et de l'orgue” and adds in the footnote the same comment as in his book later: “(1) Amsterdam, Roger, sans date. C'est problement une contrefa^on de l'edition de Paris, de 1680.” each time using a slightly different title for the treatise on accompaniment:

— p. 61/footnote: Traite de I'accompagnement du clavecin et de I'orgue, par de Saint-Lambert,

— p. 70: de Saint-Lambert, Nouveau Traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin et de l'orgue,

— p. 70/footnote: “(1) Amsterdam, Roger, sans date. C'est probablement une contrefa^on de l'edition de Paris, de 1680,” suggesting that Vander Straeten used the Amsterdam edition, which he thinks may have been a pirated [“contrefaqon”] edition of the Paris 1680 publication.

Vander Straeten cites Saint Lambert without giving a page number in the source: “*On trouve assez souvent en Italie des Clavessins compez par quarts de Tons pour accompagner les voix; sur ces sortes de Clavessins les plus petits intervalles sons d'un quart de Ton” (One often meets in Italy Clavessins with quarter-tones to accompany the voice; on such kind of Clavessins the smallest intervals are one quarter of a Tone.)

This footnote can be found on page 2 of the Amsterdam edition. The Paris edition of 1707 has no such note.

There are several reasons that could account for this divergency. First, it could have been added by Roger, for example, to explain Saint Lambert's statement that “the smallest of all the intervals is called a semitone: it is the interval found between two pitches very close to one another, as between mi & fa -- which are so close that there is no other pitch between them.” Cited from Powell's translation, 6. The note may actually have been part of a 1680 Paris edition and then transferred to the Amsterdam publication. Third, there are few differences between the Amsterdam and the Paris editions. The footnote explains a topic of great importance in the 1689s, when the issue of temperament was widely discussed and literature on this topic was abundant (e.g. Pr^torius [51, 65- 66] and Blankenburg). By 1707, a note on the issue would have been out of date, but in 1680 it was still very relevant.

Ernest David and Mathis Lussy's monograph on the History of Notation [18] quotes Saint Lambert's work in several places, using the titles Les principes du clavecin, par Monsieur de Saint-Lambert. Paris, 1697, and Traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin, de l'orgue

et de quelques autres instruments, Paris. 1680. An excerpt of the “Index” on page 211 is given in Figure 6, including the rare layout of “in-4° obl.”:

Figure 6. E. David and M. Lussy, Histoire de la notation musicale... 1882, p. 211

David and Lussy quote extensively from Saint Lambert's texts and thus allow a comparison. The first is from page 121 of the Histiore de la notation where a long passage from Les principes du clavecin, par Monsieur de Saint-Lambert,²¹ Paris, 1697 is cited:

Figure 7. E. David and M. Lussy, Histoire de la notation musicale... 1882, p. 121

The texts pertain to the next ones in de Saint Lambert's work [58, 38]:

Figure 8. De Saint Lambert, Les Principes du Clavecin, Paris, 1702, p. 38 In most cases, when de Saint Lambert is mentioned, the quotations in the Histiore de la notation are from his Les Principes, because namely in this treatise “Saint-Lambert, clavesiniste” devotes much space to the problem of notation.

In the quote below both texts are given with the excerpts from the now available edition of Saint Lambert's treatise in italics:

“Quand par la position de la Clef, le degre qui doit etre domine d'un diese se trouve deux fois dans l'espace de cinq lignes; comme par exemple, s'il y a deux degrez de Fa, deux degrez d'Ut, ou deux degrez de Sol, on met des dieses l'un sur l'autre de ces deux degrez, ... Exemple: ...” ... “Mais quand le degre qui doit etre domine par d'un diese ne se trouve qu'une fois dans l'espace des cinq lignes, on ne met qu'un diese aupres de la clef. Voyez l'Exemple precedent [The following cannot be found as cited by David and Lussy:] On place le diese et le bemol devant la note, ou au-dessus ou au-dessous, mais jamais derriere, et plus generalement devant.”

This arguably could be an example of editorial abridgements not shown by ellipsis, or a free quote of the original text. We suggest that David and Lussy cited from Saint Lambert's treatise of 1697, which was re-edited in 1702.

A section from page 125 of the Histiore de la notation corresponds to a passage on page 14 of the Paris edition and to 35 of the Amsterdam:

“Il faut faire remarquer deux choses au lecteur, dit Saint-Lambert (loc, cit,), que les notes [in the Paris and Amsterdam editions it is written: La premiere, que dans toutes les Pieces, les Notes] sont separees, avec de petites barres, par petites portions egales qu'on appelle mesures; Ce n'est pas a dire pour cela que chaque mesure d'une piece contienne un nombre egal de notes, mais c'est a dire, que les notes d'une mesure, prises toutes ensemble, sont egales en valeur aux notes d'une autre mesure prises aussi toutes ensemble, comme un ecu est egal a deux pieces de 3o sols [de trente sols] ou a quatre pieces de 15 sols [de quinze sols: on separes ainsi les Notes pour marquer les divisions qui sont naturellement dans le chant ... ]”. [In Saint Lambert's text a long section on the comparison of rhetoric in music and in speech follows, which is omitted by David and Lussy. What continues can be found on page 15 of the Paris edition and page 37 of Amsterdam:] “Or, le signe qu'on met au commencement d'une piece marque ces trois choses a la fois: combien il doit y avoir de notes dans chaque mesure, a combien de temps elle doit se battre, a quel mouvement, c'est-a-dire quelle vitesse ou quelle gravite il faut donner a la piece.”

David and Lussy may have made some editorial corrections. However, this argument does not hold up when we examine texts from page 155, as seen in the table below.

In the following example, the two texts are combined with divergences from Saint Lambert's text in our square brackets:

“Ces mesures sont si rares, dit-il, [dans notre Musique], que je n'ai point [encore] vu [vu] d'air compose sur aucune d'elles, excepte [seulement trois] pour la 12/8 [qui sont a douze pour huit], une gigue [sqavoir, deux Gigues] de Monsieur d'Englebert [ M^r. d'Anglebert], et [&] le [ce] bel air [Italien: Ad un cuore], dans l'Europe galante [in full: ce bel Air Italien de l'Europe Galante, Ad un cuore]”.

Spellings of the names varied of course but omissions are rare in David and Lussy. For example, Rousseau's explanation from the dictionary [57] David and Lussy used the edition of 1863. of the term “BEMOL ou B MOL” is cited correctly by David and Lussy [18, 122], with omission points placed where the text is cut off. The only changes are orthographic editing.

The case is very different in quotes from Saint Lambert's treatises, and suggests that authors of the Histiore de la notation used the earlier edition of 1697.

There is one more notable passage cited by David and Lussy, a short quote related to tempo indications. The author's quote: “avec sentiment, gravement, legerement, fort vite.” The context of this passage, on page 156, suggested the places in the 1702 Paris (p. 25) and Amsterdam (p. 58) editions. Saint Lambert wrote the terms, comparing with the Histiore de la notation, in a different order and the words “avec sentiment” are omitted: “LENTEMENT, GRAVEMENT, LEGEREMENT, GAYEMENT, VITE, FORT VITE, & semnambles...” (see also the copy from the Amsterdam edition given lower).

David and Lussy provided such texts exclusively because they had access to the 1697 version. If we return to Brossard, it becomes clear that he too must have had access to an earlier version, which we have not found yet.

Some information can be gathered also from the Catalogue Bibliographique, compiled by the librarian of the Paris Conservatoire National, Jean-Baptiste Weckerlin. Though there is no special entry on Saint Lambert's treatises, and he is mentioned only in connection with Fr. Couperin, a critical comment on the size of the print layout as stated by Fetis for the Amsterdam edition of Principes can be found: “L'edition d'Amsterdam, sans date, petit in-8 et non grand in-4^o comme dit Fetis [the Amsterdam edition without date, is in small 8, and not in-4^o as Fetis tells]” [67, 452, fn. 1].

Weckerlin does not mention the treatise on accompaniment in the Catalogue Bibliographique, which might suggest that the Conservatoire National at that time did

not own works. But it also suggests that Weckerlin borrowed his information from another source, or had just seen the treatise.

As to Weckerlin's comparison of the Principes and Couperin's L'Art de toucher le clavecin-, according to Weckerlin, Couperin did not know “les Principes du clavecin par monsieur de Saint-Lambert, parus en 1697” [67, 452].

In Bologna, the scholar, composer and bibliographer Gaetano Gaspari [24, vol. 1,253,340] compiled a catalogue “della Biblioteca del Liceo Musicale di Bologna” at around the same time of Weckerlin's compilation. Gaspari is the first scholar to give information about an Italian translations (in manuscript form) of Saint Lambert's treatises. Some details from the Catalogue of the Liceo Musicale are cited and commented by Fr. Th. Arnold [4, vol. 1,173]. Harris-Warrick only mentions the Bologna Italian manuscripts [28, A], but omits the publication date “1680”, given by Gaspari.

First, Gaspari dates the Paris edition to 1680:

— (1) Here and further our special enumeration is given. To be exact, the Italian translation also includes a part of the 4^th Chapter. “Saint-Lambert (de) n. Trattato dell' accompagnamento, dell' organo e di qualsivoglia altro stromento. Parigi, Ballard, 1680 -- in 4° oblungo.”

Arnold states that “an Italian translation manuscript of Chapters V-IX [is] preserved in the library of the Liceo Musicale at Bologna.” Arnold further notes that the titles of the five extant chapters “correspond exactly (as Professor Francesco Vatielli, the courteous librarian of the Liceo Musicale, has kindly informed the writer) with those of the same chapters of the Nouveau traite³¹" Neither Arnold nor Vatielli mention Gaspari's Catalogo. However, this information corresponds to the next entry in Gaspari:

— (2) “¨ un brano di traduzione italiana in un manoscritto in foglio di carte 20 del trattato in francese di questo autore. Comincia a mezzo del capitolo 4 cotal versione [And a part of this treatise is translated on 20 manuscript pages from French, written by the same author. Beginning with a small part/version of the 4^th chapter].”

Gaspari also gives the title of the Amsterdam edition:

— (3) “Nouveau traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin, de l'Orgue, et des autres instruments par Monsieur De Saint-Lambert. -- A Amsterdam, aux depens De Estienne Roger. -- in 8°, senz' anno, di pag. 134. (Colla versione italiana manoscritta [with an Italian translation added to make one book]).”

This is followed by a short commentary on the bibliographic entry:

— (4) “La prima edizione e di Parigi, Ballard, 1680, in 4° oblungo. Del 1707 lo stresso tipografo ne fece una ristampa pure in-4° oblungo. Questa sara senza dubbio una terza edizione che non vedendosi citat del Fetis convien credere che gli fosse ignota.” According to this comment concerning Fetis and the one following below, the authors of this paper came to the conclusion that Gaspari had at his disposal the first edition of Fetis's Biographie universelle (volume VII, 1844, 371), where the Amsterdam editions were not mentioned. In the second edition of Fetis's Biographie universelle, the information on the Amsterdam edition of the Nouveau Traitb is present.

(The first edition was printed in Paris, by Ballard, 1680, in-4° oblong. The 1707 type is nothing else but a pure restamping of it in-4° by the same printer. It [the Amsterdam edition] is without doubt a third edition, which since not cited by Fetis [in Fetis's first edition of 1844], convinces us that it was unknown to him.)

Neither Arnold nor Harris-Warrick mention that the treatise on accompaniment was said by Gaspari to have been “published for the first time in Paris in 1680”, and that the print lay-out was “in-4 oblong.” Libraries generally list print size with “in-8.” One may come out with a deluding suggestion that the print-out-size “in-8^o oblong” might have been confused with “in-4^o”.

Gaspari cites the title according to the one published in Amsterdam, but more important is his comment on the edition: “Lichtenthal confuses this author with Michele Lambert; but Fetis noted that Saint Lambert was another person. This opus saw light for the first time in Paris in 1697 [printed by] Ballard in 4⁰ oblong, and was reprinted by the same typographer in the same size in 1702. This third edition [i.e. the Amsterdam one] is not mentioned by Fetis.”

The handwritten title listed under call number No. MS. E39 Cod.9 reads “Traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin, de l'orgue et de quelques autres instrumens” [our underlining]. The title as given in the Italian manuscript can be found in David and Lussy, Gaspari, Arnold and in earlier works by Forkel, Sulzer, Gerber & c.; the addition of “quelques” was used only by Fetis in 1844.

The next important source for our investigation is the Quellen-Lexikon, published by Robert Eitner, where the entry is headed “Saint-Lambert, Michel de” [19, vol. 8, 387]. Eitner gives credit to the research by Fetis, stating that “Gerber and his followers confused [de Saint Lambert] with the Paris royal Kapellmeister Michael Lambert.” The keyboard treatises are listed by Eitner as: “Traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin, de l'orgue, et de quelques autres instrumens. Paris, 1680 Ballard. qu4⁰.”

Eitner points out that he takes his information from Fetis. He then gives the title in Italian: “Trattato dell'accomp., delForgano... Parisi 1680 Ballard. qu4⁰. [Bologna im Ms.].” Next follows the title of the Paris edition: “Nouveau traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin, de l'orgue

et des autres instruments. Paris 1707. Ballard. qu4⁰ [B. B. Paris Nat. Stadtb. Besangon.” Interesting is the size, “qu4⁰”, and that the treatise was held at “Paris Nat. Stadtb. Besangon.” Next is the Amsterdam edition: “Amst[erdam] Roger. 8⁰. 134 S. [in] Glasgow. [and] br[itish] Mus[eum] Bologna nebst einer italien. Uebersetz[ung] im Ms. [...].” Eitner continues: “The Catalogue But it is worth noting that Eitner bears in mind not only Gasparis' Catalogo, but also (cf. his Verzeichniss der benutzten Quellen, in Bd. 10, 461) another Bologna publication: “Catalogo della collezione d'autografi lasciata alla R. Accademico Masseangelo Masseangeli. E catalogo della collezione di ritratti in fotografia 1. Bologna Regia Tipogr... 1881[-96].”] says (I. 253) that this “Nouveau traite is just a 2[^nd] edition of the above named work [Der. Kat. sagt (I 253), dass dieser Nouveau traite nur eine 2. Ausg. des obigen Werkes sei” (i.e. the Nouveau traite de l'accompagnement... Paris 1707 ...).”

1697 is given for the Principes du clavecin also by A. Beyschlag. He writes that Rousseau [1687] recommended ornamentation in performance, however that “in 1697 Saint-Lambert formulated his own opinion that the subtraction of appoggiaturas from the succeeding main note might be more appropriate in the singing style, but in keyboard pieces it is much better to choose anticipation” [9, 71-72]. In a footnote on page 72, Beyschlag confirms his point of view citing a passage from Saint Lambert on the “Port de Voix.” Our comparison of the quoted text with the 1702 original as well as the Amsterdam edition showed only minor editorial and spelling deviations, which can be explained by the use of a more modern French. (For example, “voix” in the original is written with a small letter, but Beyschlag writes it with a capital letter; we find “siot” instead of “doit”; Beyschlag writes “et” instead of the sign “&” and so forth.)

Analogous bibliographic evidence can be found in Riemann's Handbuch der Musikgeschichte where he writes: “Michel de Saint Lambert, Clavecinist. Schrieb eine GeneralbaBschule 1680 und eine Klavierschule (Principes de clavecin 1697) [Michel de Saint Lambert, the harpsichordist, wrote a thorough-bass school in 1680 and a harpsichord school (Principes de clavecin 1697)]” [56, 509]. Other examples are the Encyclopedie by A. Lavignac [34] where chapter V, “La Musique Frangaise de Lulli a Gluck (1687-1789)” was written by L. de la Laurencie, who later became the founder and president of the Societe Frangaise de Musicologie [33]. References to Saint Lambert's works are found in Laurencie's monograph on the history of the violin in France: “Saint-Lambert, Les Principes du clavecin (1702), Nouveau Traite de I'accompaqnement au clavecin (1707)” [33, 36]. But the Encyclopedie article gives another date for the Principes. Laurencie states that the Principes de clavecin of 1697 was “the first methode for this instrument published in France, and that the mai- tres must judge [the abilities of] the pupils” [33, 1501]. Unfortunately, nothing is included which would explain the change of date.

I. Herrmann-Bengen does not question the date 1697 in her work on tempo indications. She not only quotes from Saint Lambert, but gives the shelve number for the 1697 treatise: “nach dem Original in Paris, Bibl. Nat. Vm 851” [31, 95, fn 40]. Herrmann-Bengen's research is based on Margarete Reimann's work [54, 46], who provides the above mentioned reference in her footnote 102. What is important here is that Saint Lambert's Les principes were published in 1697, and that this edition was kept in the Bibliotheque National de France in Paris under number “Vm. 851.” Reimann studied it there some time before 1940 but did not cite from it. She only indicated that the tempo of the “Menuet de Clavecin,” according to Saint Lambert, differs from the “Menuet a danser.” Herrmann-Bengen

cites Saint Lambert's passage on the menuet in her book in full [31,154]: “Cest ainsi que se battent encore les Menuets a danser, quoy que la Mesure en soit de trois Noires, parce qu'on les jouent (sic) fort gayement. Je dis les Menuets a danser; car il y a des Menuets de Clavecin qui ne se jouent pas ordinairement si vite.” (It is in this way that all minuets for dancing are beaten, even though the measure is made up of three quarter notes, since they are played very quickly. I say minuets for dancing because there are harpsichord minuets which are not ordinarily played as fast as this). Tr. by Harris-Warrick, 38; while the words in square brackets belong to the author of the article.

During the period 1965-2012, the questions surrounding Saint Lambert's name and the publication dates of his treatises kept cropping up at times in works on the French harpsichord tradition and harpsichord performance during the period 1650-1750. But the most radical change in opinion came with the publication of Arnold's monograph. Contemporary authors often referred and appealed to his fundamental work, and then to the work of scholars who followed and expanded his research: Burchill, Harris-Warrick, Powell, and Schweitzer.

Arnold writes that, based on the “valuable details of confirmatory evidence collected by M. Tessier”, “Saint-Lambert's preface to the Nouveau Traite &c. (Paris, Ballard, 1707), ... contains the reference to his earlier work, Les principes du clavecin (Paris, Ballard, 1702).” This fact comes from Saint Lambert himself, and leads Arnold to the conclusion that Saint-Lambert could not have published a treatise on accompaniment before publishing his Principes du clavecin of 1702. A statement from Saint Lambert's own “Conclusion” P. 64; Amsterdam edition: p. 134. is still more convincing: “I could add here a Recapitulation like the same I included at the end of the Principles of the Harpsichord, but that does not seem very necessary.” “Je pourrois ajo ter ici une Recapitulation semblable a celle que j'ai mise a la fin des Principes du Clavecin, mais cela ne me paroit pas trop necessaire.” Tr. by Powell, 115. However, there is a slight chance that the 1680 edition of de Saint Lambert's Traite or some absolutely indisputable information of its publication might still be found. However, neither Arnold nor other contemporary authors paid attention to the text on the of title pages of the treatises which may suggest the possibility of two treatise on accompaniment: one with the title Traite de l'accompagnement du clavecin, de l'orgue, et des autres instruments [of 1680] and the other Nouveau Traite de l'accompagnement du Clavecin & des autres Instrumens [of 1707].

There still remains the question of the publication date of Saint Lambert's Les principes du clavecin. The generally accepted date is 1702 (Paris). In her arguments that the earliest publication was indeed 1702, Harris-Warrick draws on the 1703 Dictionnaire by Brossard, reasoning: “In his Dictionaire de musique of 1703, Sebastien de Brossard lists `le Sr de Saint Lambert' among the `Auteurs qui ont ecrit en Frangois ... que j'ay vus, lus, et examinez moy-meme” [28, X]. The same line of reasons is adhered to by Powell: “Saint Lambert's theoretical works were well known and widely quoted by eighteenth-century theorists. Upon publication of Les Principes du clavecin, Brossard in his Dictionaire de musique (Paris, 1703) mentioned Saint Lambert among the “Auteurs qui ont ecrit en frangois... que j'ay vus, lus, et examinez moy-meme” [28, IX].

All of these arguments are refuted by the fact that Brossard already lists Saint Lamberg in his 1701 Dictionnaire des Termes, suggesting that Les Principes du clavecin were published earlier, i.e. in 1697, a conclusion which concurs with many sources examined above, especially with David and Lussy, and Hermann-Bengen.

Thus, we can claim with some confidence that Saint Lambert's Les Principes du clavecin was published first in 1697 in Paris, and the Nouveau traite de l'accompagnement in 1707, again in Paris. The question of a 1680 edition of the Traite de l'accompagnement remains unanswered.

References

1. Adlung, Jacob. 1758. Anleitung zu der musikalischen Gelahrtheit theils vor alle Gelehrte, so das Band aller Wissenschaften einsehen; theils vor die Liebhaber der edlen Tonkunst uberhaupt; theils und sonderlich vor die, so das Clavier vorzuglich lieben; theils vor die Orgel= und Instrumentmacher. Erfurt: J. D. Jungnicol.

2. D'Alembert, Jean Le Rond, and Denis Diderot. 1780. Encyclopedie, ou Dictionnaire Raisonne des Sciences, des Arts et des Metieres, vol. 26. Berne, Lausanne: Societes Typorgaphiques.

3. D'Anglebert, Jean-Henry. [1689]. Pieces de Clavecin ... Livrepremier. Paris: L'Auteur.

4. Arnold, Frank Thomas. 1965. The Art of Accompaniment from a Thorough-Bass as Practiced in the 17^th and 18^th Centuries, in 2 vols. New York: Dover.

5. Becker, Carl Ferdinand. 1836-1839. Systematisch-chronologische Darstellung der musikalischen Literatur von derfruhesten bis auf die neueste Zeit. Leipzig: Robert Friese.

6. Bibliotheca D. Joannis Galloys... Seu Catalogus Librorum. 1710. Paris: Laurentio Seneuze.

7. Blankenburg, Quirinus van. 1739. ElementaMusica of Niew Licht. Gravenhage: Laurens Berkoske.

8. Borde, Jean-Benjamin de La. 1780. Essai sur la musique ancienne et moderne, vol. 3. Paris: Ph.-D. Pierres, Eugene Onfroy.

9. Beyschlag, Adolf. 1908. Die Ornamentik der Musik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel.

10. Brossard, Sebastien de (l'Abbe). 1701. Dictionnaire des termes grecs, latins et italiens, dont on se sert frequemment dans toutes sortes de Musique, & particulierement dans l'ltalienne. Paris: Jean-Baptiste-Christophe Ballard.

11. Burchill, James Frederick. 1979. “Saint-Lambert's `Nouveau Traite de l'accompagnement: a translation with commentary'.” Ph. D. diss., University of Rochester.

12. Catalogue des livres de musique & autres, qui se vendent a Paris chez Christophe Ballard. 1697. Paris: Ballard.

13. Cabrini, Michele. 2012. “The Composer's Eye: Focalizing Judith in the Cantatas by Jacquet de la Guerre and Brossard.” Eighteenth-Century Music 9, no. 1: 9-45. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1478570611000315.

14. Catalogue des livres de musique, et autres qui se vendent chez Christophe Ballard. 1699. Paris: Ballard.

15. Catalogue des Livres de Musique, et autres qui vendent chez Christophe Ballard. 1704. Paris: Ballard.

16. “Catalogue des Livres qui se trouvent a Amsterdam, chez Michel Charles le Cene.” 1710. In Vergne M. de la Comtesse de la Fayette. Histoire de Madame Henriette Premiere

17. Femme de Philippe de France Duc D'Orleans, no paging. Amsterdam: Michel Charles Le Cene.

18. Catalogue General et alphabetique de Musique, imprimee ou gravee en France. 1742. Paris: Boivin ... et Christophe-Jean-Franfois Ballard, Fils.

19. David, Ernest, and Mathis Lussy. 1882. Histoire de la notation musicale depuis ses origines. Paris: Heugel et fils.

20. Eitner, Robert. 1900-1904. Biographisch-Bibliographisches Quellen-Lexikon der Musiker undMusikgelehrten <...>, in 10 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Haertel.

21. Fague, Juste-Adrien-Lenoir de La. 1862. Catalogue de la Bibliotheque Musicale de feu M. J. Adr. De LA FAGE, ancient maitre de Chapelle. Paris: L. Potier.

22. Fetis, Franfois-Joseph. 1844. Biographie universelle, vol. 8. Bruxelles: Meline, Cans et Compagnie.

23. Fetis, Frangois-Joseph. 1867. Biographie universelle, vol. 7. 2^nd ed. Paris: Didot freres, Fils et C°.

24. Forkel, Johann Nicolaus. 1792. Allgemeine Litteratur der Musik. Zweyter Theil. Leipzig: Schwickert.

25. Gaspari, Gaetano, and Ugo Sesini. 1890. Catalogo della Biblioteca del Liceo Musicale di Bologna, vol. 1. [Bologna]: Libreria Romagnoli dall'Acqua.

26. Gerber, Ernst Ludwig. Historisch-Biographisches Lexicon der Tonkunstler..., erster Theil. Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1790.

27. Guillo, Laurent. 2004-2005. “La bibliotheque de musique des Ballard d'apres l'inventaire de 1750 et les notes de Sebastien de Brossard.” Revue de Musicologie 90, no. 2: 283-345, and 91, no. 1: 195-232.

28. Harris-Warrick, Rebecca, trans. and ed. 1984. Principles of the Harpsichord by Monsieur de Saint Lambert Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29. Harris-Warrick, Rebecca. 1984. “Translator's Introduction.” In Principles of the Harpsichord by Monsieur de Saint Lambert, trans. and ed. by Rebecca Harris-Warrick, VII-XIX. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30. Harris-Warrick, Rebecca. 2001. “Saint-Lambert.” In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Second Edition, in 29 vols., ed. by Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell, vol. 22: 103-4. London: Macmillan; New York: Oxford University Press USA.

31. Harris-Warrick, Rebecca. 2005. “Saint-Lambert.” In Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Allgemeine Enzyklopadie der Musik begrundet von Friedrich Blume. Zweite, neubearbeitete Ausgabe herausgegeben von Ludwig Finscher. Personenteil, vol. 14, 800. Kassel: Barenreiter.

32. Herrmann-Bengen, Irmgard. 1959. Tempobezeichnungen: Ursprung, Wandel im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Tutzing: Schneider.

33. Huygens, Christiaan. 1718. Nouveau traite de lapluralite des mondes. Amsterdam: Etienne Roger.

34. Laurencie, Lionel de La. 1922. Lecole franqaise de violon de Lully a Viotti: etudes d'histoire et d'esthetique, vol. I. Paris: Librairie Delagrave.

35. Lavignac, Alexandre Jean Albert. 1931. Encyclopedie de la musique et Dictionnaire du Conservatoire ... Premiere partie. Histoire de la musique. Paris: Librairie Delagrave.

36. Les Femmes Sqavantes ou Bibliotheque des Dames Qui traite des Sciences qui conviennent aux Dames, de la conduite de leurs Etudes, des Livres qu 'ellespeuvent lire, Et L'Histoire de celles qui ont exelle dans les Sciences. Par Monsieur N. C. 1718. Amsterdam: Michel Charles Le Cene.

37. Lesure, Franfois. 1969. Bibliographie des editions musicalespubieespar Estienne Roger et Michel-Charles Le Cene, Amsterdam, 1696-1743. Paris: Heugel.

38. Lichtenthal, Peter. 1826. Dizionario e bibliografia della musica, 2^nd part. Milano: Antonio Fontana.

39. Martini, Giovanni Battista. 1757. Storia Della Musica, in 3 vols. Bologna: Lelio dalla Volpe.

40. Mattheson, Johann. 1722. Critica Musica... Erstes Stuck. Hamburg: Autor.

41. Mattheson, Johann. Grosse General-Bass-Schule. 1731. Hamburg: Kissner.

42. Mattheson, Johann. Exemplarische Organisten-Probe. 1719. Hamburg: Schiller und Kissner.

43. Melanges sur la musique; regles de composition; notes et extraits; par Etienne LOULIE. n.d. https://gallica.bnf,fr/ark:/12148/btv1b525178077.

44. Memoires pour L'Histoire Des Sciences & des beaux Arts. Recueilles par l'Ordre de Son Altesse Serenissime Monseigneur Prince Souverain de Dombes. Janvier 1708. 1708. Paris: Etienne Ganeau.

45. Mendel, Hermann. 1876. Musikalisches Conversations-Lexikon, vol. 6. Berlin: Robert Oppenheim.

46. Mercure de France. 1767. December.

47. Panov, Alexei, and Ivan Rosanoff. 2012. “De Saint Lambert and de Brossard: Unknown and Known.” Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Arts 2, no. 1: 28-44.

48. Panov, Alexei, and Ivan Rosanoff. 2018. “Some thoughts on the conventional alteration of rhythm.” Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Arts 8, no. 2: 195-213. https://doi. org/10.21638/11701/spbu15.2018.203.

49. Panov, Alexei, and Ivan Rosanoff. 2015. “Sebastien de Brossard's Dictionnaire of 1701: A comparative analysis of the complete copy.” Early Music 43, no. 3: 417-30. https://doi. org/10.1093/em/cav044.

50. Powell, John S., trans. 1991. A New Treatise on Accompaniment with the Harpsichord, the Organ, and with Other Instruments. By Monsieur de Saint Lambert. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

51. Powell, John S. 1991. “Introduction.” In A New Treatise on Accompaniment with the Harpsichord, the Organ, and with Other Instruments. By Monsieur de Saint Lambert, trans. and ed. by John S. Powell, VII-XVIL Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

52. Pratonus, Michael. SYNTAGMATISMuSICI... TOMuSSECuNDuSDe ORGANOGRAPHIA. Wolffenbuttel: E. Holwein, 1619.

53. Querard, Joseph Marie. 1836. La France Litteraire, vol. 8. Paris: Didot freres.

54. Rameau, Jean-Philippe. 1722. Traite de L'Harmonie. Paris: Ballard.

55. Reimann, Margarete. 1940. Untersuchungen zur Formgeschichte der franzosischen Klaviersuite. Regensburg: G. Bosse.

56. Repertoire International des Sources Musicales, vols. VI¹, VI² : Ecrits Imprimes Concernant la Musique. 1971. Munchen: G. Henle.

57. Riemann, Hugo. 1912. Handbuch der Musikgeschichte ... Zweiter Band zweiter Teil. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel.

58. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. 1768. Dictionnaire de Musique. Paris: Duchesne.

59. De Saint Lambert. 1702. Les Principes du Clavecin. Paris: Ballard.

60. De Saint Lambert. 1707. Nouveau traite de l'accompagnement. Paris: Ballard.

61. De Saint Lambert. c1710. Les Principes du Clavecin. Amsterdam: Roger.

62. Schilling, Gustav. 1835-1841. Encyclopadie der gesamten musikalischen Wissenschaften. Stuttgart: Kohler.

63. Schultz, Timothy. 2001. Performing French Classical Music: Sources and Applications. Hillsdale: Pendragon Press.

64. Straeten, Edmond Vander. 1867. La musique aux pays-bas avant le XIX^å siecle, vol. 1. Bruxelles: C. Muquardt.

65. Sulzer, Johann Georg. 1792. “Begleitung.” In Allgemeine Theorie der Schonen Kunste... Erster Theil ... Neue vermehrte zweyte Auflage. Leipzig: Weidmann.

66. Sulzer, Johann Georg. 1792. Allgemeine Theorie der Schonen Kunste ... Zweyter Theil... Neue vermehrte zweyte Auflage. Leipzig: Weidmann.

67. Walther, Johann Gottfried. 1732. Musicalisches Lexicon oder Musicalische Bibliothec <...>. Leipzig: Wolffgang Deer.

68. Weckerlin, Jean-Baptiste. 1885. Bibliotheque du Conservatoire National de Musique et de Declamation. Catalogue Bibliographique. Paris: Didot.

69. Wilkes, John. 1814. Encyclopedia Londinensis, vol. 12. London: J. Adlard.

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru