Figure from:François Dieupart's Expanded Life Calendar and More

See full PDF downloadDownload figure

“\.. present Monsieur Francois Dieupart demeurant en cette ville en la , paroisse St Paul Covent Garden...” — Figure 52 “\.. present Monsieur Francois Dieupart demeurant en cette ville en la , paroisse St Paul Covent Garden...”

Related Figures (148)

Almost certainly Francois Dieupart at the harpsichord: detail of A rehearsal of an opera (Pyrrhus and Demetrius), by Marco Ricci, London, Autumn 1708. © Yale Center for British Art (overall piece at Calendar, ‘1708, Autumn’).

fusical autograph, “Alone by a Fountain’, of Francois Dieupart, Irving S. Gilmore Music Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT (see Calendar, ‘1732, in/aft’).

Almost certainly Francois Dieupart at the harpsichord: detail of A rehearsal of an opera (Pyrrhus and Demetrius), by Marco Ricci, London, Autumn 1708. © Christie’s Images / Bridgeman Images (overall piece at Calendar, ‘1708, Autumn’

{usical autograph, “Graces in Camilla’, of Francois Dieupart, Irving S. Gilmore Music Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT (see Calendar, ‘1732, in/aft’).

For a discussion of the acts in question, see Calendar, which also contains all other signed acts known.?

St-Germain-en-Laye: Following England’s Glorious Revolution of November 1688, the Stuart court in exile of Roman-Catholic James* IT (1633 London - 1701 St-Germain- en-Laye) and Maria d’Este-Modena* (1658 Modena - 1718 St-Germain-en-Laye) arrives at the Chateau of St-Germain-en-Laye, western suburb of Paris (Fig.). Wu7T°st. °2. 1. es ee: ny 9 ee er. © oe ee) ee oe. i a oe = we a

Figure Johannes Kip (1650 Amsterdam - 1722 Westminster) after Leonard Knijff! (1650 Haarlem - 1722 Westminster), A Prospect of the City of London Westminster and St James’s Park, London, 1727 (detail). —e Oe ES ee eee eee In case the Earl and Countess indeed lived in that area 1690/’99-1706 (possibly with interruption 1694-97) — no other towr residence seeming to have emerged so far, even when Lady Sandwich is regularly signaled in the capital (see fn. 137) — Elizabeth woulc have dwelled in the immediate vicinity of her friends, the Carterets, Sarah Marlborough,*° and Saint-Evremond, and also of her protégé Dieupart, as appears from the map at § 3.1. (Hortense Mancini would have transferred for Chelsea years before). 1689 the complex of St James’s Palace (offered to the Denmarks by King William) and its houses and outbuildings, located around Stable Yard on roughly the site of today’s Clarence House where most royal residences were large (see on Fig. the central lower part, and at § 3.1, Map of St James Parish, 1720).” Elizabeth, daughter of John Wilmot*, 2nd Earl of Rochester*** and Elizabeth Wilmot, née Mallet’, Countess of Rochester’ brings a substantial dowry of £22,000°*; from now on, fifteen-year-old Countess of Sandwich regularly signs “E. S.” (Fig.*4). Their home is the family castle of Hinchingbrooke (Figs.) near Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire (today Hinchingbrooke School), about 110 km north of London, about one day by carriage.*

Figures Hinchingbrooke-House, left north front, right east front. se: Mark Noble, Memoirs of the protectoral-house of Cromwell, i, London, 1787, resp. pp.

Figures Two complementary views of the ‘Drawing Room’, bef. ‘The Saloon’ resp. ‘Dining Room’, aft. ‘Library’, today ‘Assembly Room’, no date (c1900): one of the house’s largest rooms apart from the Dining Room, wherein altogether nine paintings can be discerned. Here, the “small Spinnet” and “small Chamber Organ” (from the ‘Great State Room’, Inventory 1729) may possibly have been located.

‘igure Elizabeth Montagu, born Wilmot, Countess of Sandwich, by Michael Dahl, c169( (Courtesy of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery).

Countess Elizabeth Sandwich is known to have been portrayed four times: (1) once by Godfrey Kneller / Gottfried Kniller (“haif- length”), (2) once by Peter Lely / Pieter van der Faes, or (NB) also Kneller, (3) once by Willem Wissing together with Jan van der Vaart (ca. 14 years old, see Fig right), and (4) once by Michael Dahl, normally dated c1690, when she was 16 years old (both three- quarter length). Today, of these four, only the last one (no. 4), seems to survive as a painting (cf. § 3.7, at ‘Dutch and Dutch Influenced Paintings’). was 14 years or younger, thus preceding Van's efligy by about two years. One wonders: Could today’s ‘Dahl’ possibly be a — probably correct — 20"-century re-attribution of abovementioned portrait nr. 2. being “three-quarter length” as well, apparently unsigned, and significantly anyway subject of doubt concerning attribution Lely/Kneller? Since Dahl was a close collaborator and as such designated successor of Court Painter Kneller — Swift strikingly mentions them in the same breath (Letter to Matthew Prior, 25 Jan 1720, RCHM, p. 478) — they might well have been easily mixed up. If so, it would mean. there were not four but three painted portraits, of which ‘only’ the Kneller (nr. ‘1”) is lost. Finally: In todav’s Montagu-Sandwich collection at Mapnverton House there is also a drawn portrait of vouthful Elizabeth.

For these cases of ‘editing’, see § 6.2.7, at ‘Dilettante Composers’, sub ‘Artistic Intervention /Censorship’.

| EAggE iti? Mie eae Finally, and in particular, the father has crafted a wreath trom a@ buncn of ripe taurel branches to crowr ‘Folly’ (the Monkey, a common negative Baroque image), against which his juvenile daughter Elizabeth holds c single young laurel branch (Fig. left, detail) as a common emblem of Virtue (Ripa’s Iconologia 1603, pp. 18f.), being besides — as for her father — also a symbol for Victory and Poetry (id. pp. 517, 406ff.). At the same time, “Mad Rochester” here seemingly wanted to defy the iconologist, for whom instead the ‘Monkey’ was still regarded as a symbol of Letters and Scholarly Imitation, following Aristotle anc Egyptian-Roman mythology (id. p. 223).

Young Francois may have served as his father’s assistant (cf. Quagliozzi/Online, p. 10).

Fut Present Sieur Nicolas Dieupart, officier de la Chambre du Roy, ...Anne Nicolle Dieupart, Sa fille e de Marie Burel Son espouse, et agée de Quinze ans ou Environ...

* For some reason, the indication at “12 December 1695” of Anne’s age of “fifteen years or about”, as mentioned by (or to) the notary, was probably not quite correct, suggesting her age as possibly between 14 and 16 years, meaning a birthday ranging from 12 December 1679 to idem 1681. In fact, she can hardly have been born before 1680 since her sister Antoinette Genevieve was born about ‘March 1679’ (quite apart from the interval between her siblings seeming to have been two or three years). So, the sonclusion must be that Anne Nicole was apparently born ‘not before 1680, or in 1681’, making her at her appearance before for the notary ‘15 years, or 14’. Unfortunately, between this date and ‘22 November 1714’ (q.v.) Anne Nicole must amercy ol meee motalkl Johann hax 126: Ako: ac

Lady Elizabeth Sandwich and Jacobitism — Religion

Figure Opening and ending of Elizabeth Sandwich’s letter to the Old Pretender, dated 31 March (1718).°° Still today, as silent witnesses of Elizabeth Sandwich’s self-determined enterprising spirit - even when George I of Hanover had ascended the throne in 1714 -, two epistles offering her services to the Old Pretender (‘James* III’, 1688-1766) are kept in the Royal Archives. They are dated 31 March and 9 October 1718, when James may have stayed in Avignon or Urbino, being partly in veiled language:*” “Jf any thing could add to the faithfull zeal I have ever had for your servise it would be the great honour you have been pleased to do me by laying your commands upon me... [signed:] Your most faithfull, most dutifull & obedient servant, E.S.” (Fig.). Note, that the High Treason Act of 1701 provided that, “ifany English subject was to knowingly hold any correspondence with James Stuart, ... then on conviction they would be deemed guilty of high treason”. Thousands (suspected) Jacobites were imprisoned, 1.a. in the Tower of T ondon includine once the Karl of Marlhorouch’ (‘1701 7 Nov’) T adv Sandwich’s actions are even more serious. realizino

Figure, La Legon de clavecin, etching with original watercolor by Sigmund Freudenberger (Swiss, 1745-1801, living in Paris 1765 - 1773); 22.8 x 18.5 cm, Koller Auctions, June 19, 2020, Zurich. As for Francois Dieupart: At these royal balls, most likely his father and his ensemble will have supplied music, at which festive social events one can well imagine that Elizabeth Sandwich’s first meeting with them took place, whereafter she became Francois Dieupart’s pupil and patron.

CasOWs OL NedluI (Cl. L077, 5 JUL dQ 21 /\Us ). Apparently during this period, the idea was developed to show Dieupart’s work to he world by having a set of his suites prepared for publication by Estienne Roger (v.i.) n Amsterdam as Six Suittes de Clavessin, a project probably driven by the Countess. At he same time, a second purpose may have been Elizabeth’s self-advertisement as a widely acclaimed genius possessing “Delicatesse’ and “Discernement’ — as the Dedication reads —, and equally as an arts patron, like her kinsmen, in particular of Dieupart. The musical version, exemplar for the edition, being a revision of an earlier 1arpsichord arrangement (‘Early Version’), with i.a. additional diminutions, simplifications related to playing in particular for a smaller hand, and still more added rgréments, was realized by ‘creative’ Anonymous B. The possibility that it concerned Lady Sandwich herself is discussed in § 6.'!?

Probably, Sandwich’s modest hair-dress (cf. “Neither did she waste so much time on dress, as was usual with ladies of her time” — ‘1689, 8 Jul’) attracted attention at the French court, causing a chance of fashion which took place in the second half of this year.''” As shown below, Elizabeth left France on 21 August of the same year. Apparently the first mention of the Countess’ interacting with the French Court. Other moments when Madame refers to Elizabeth Sandwich are: ‘1704, 16 Aug’ and ’21 Sept’, and ‘1716, 18 Mar’. Figure The Chateau of Versailles, engraving by Israel Silvestre, 1682.

Figure ‘Liselotte and Louis (XIV)’: Madame side-by-side with her brother-in-lav at an official reception!!>

Prior was buried in Westminster Abbey, where in Poet’s Corner his monument was erected, crowned by his bust by Coysevox, a gift to him from Louis XIV (Fig.). Apparently, Prior took a special place among Elizabeth’s friendships, as appears from their intensive contact and the poetic wordings of her response from ‘1720, 28 Feb’ to him, having sent her his portrait, among which the phrase the first sight of your sweet face...”. As Falk [1947] concludes (p. 291): “She felt at ease with him, which was not always the case with other men” . For Elizabeth being also poet Prior’s patron and censor, see § 6.5, ‘Censorship’.

Amadis de Gréce, on a theme once chosen by Louis XIV — who identified himself with the hero Amadis —, had been rehearsed at the Palace of Fontainebleau’ in October 1698 in presence of the King. 120 * Edward Villiers*, 1st Earl of Jersey* (c1656-1711) was English ambassador in Paris from 1698 till April(?) 1699 — during most of Countess Elizabeth’s stay in France —, to serve from 14 May 1699-1701 as Secretary for the Southern Department. His successor in Paris was 1699-1701 Elizabeth’s husband’s 3rd cousin, Charles Montagu, 4th Earl of Manchester, from 1719 1st Duke of Manchester.

The fact that as early as in 1700 or before, Francois Dieupart seems to be known to Saint-Evremond in London, might be taken as a first sign — to be followed by several others — of Elizabeth Sandwich’s continuing protection, strengthening the conclusion that she supported his coming to England. The acceptance of this date would prepone Dieupart’s hitherto known presence in England by about three years (v.1.). The authorized first edition “sur les Manuscrits de l’Auteur” of his friend Saint-Evremond’s Oeuvres Meslées, was edited by Silvestre and Pierre des Maizeaux*, London Huguenot, Fellow of the Royal Society, biographer, translator, and editor i.a. of Locke’s writings. It was published in 1705 by Tonson, London, two years after the poet’s death, being dedicated to his benefactor Duke Ralph (not to Lord Halifax, as sometimes found).

'S! Ralph* Montagu of Boughton* (1638-1709), from 1684 3rd Baron Montagu of Boughton, from 1705 Ist Duke of Montagu, from 1708 Privy Counsellor of Queen Anne: “Of the Montagues, the only one for whom Lady Sandwich appears to have had much regard” (Falk [1947], pp. 297f.). Him being about 35 years her senior, they could get on very well, sharing their French sympathies, while Ralph had been already an acquaintance of her father (Johnson 2004, pp. 114, 120). John thereupon also encouraged his two daughters Mary and Isabella’ to play the harpsichord: Mary had lessons on the instrument with Johann Ernst Galliard, one of Handel’s musicians, and flute with Raphael Courteville’, a relative of the eponymous colleague of Dieupart’s friend Paisible, while in 1733, Mary, Countess of Cardigan, evidently inherited her father’s harpsichord, being possibly her grandfather’s instrument.

... Marie Caterine / Dieupart, maitresse peintresse a Paris, femme / de Francois Certain, fayencier / ... rue des Boucheries, / parroisse St Sulpice...

Signatures: Marie Caterine Dieupart / [Frangois] Certain.

Figure Francois Dieupart, Six Suittes de Clavessin, Amsterdam, 1701, Roger, respectively: title page, the opening of Suite I (A) in th Harpsichord Version, idem in the [‘Dessus’], and in the [‘Basse’]. Courtesy of the British Library, H.70.p. A reproduction of the Dedication, and bibliographic details figure in FDBR/2021, esp. § 4. The two independent editions may count as having appeared simultaneously. Nine days later, Roger offers a self-standing ‘Ensemble Version’ of Dieupart’s opus a well. 176

Apparently, no image of its interior being available, it is still interesting to notice that still in 1808, in the third theater, the maestro al cembalo tradition (v.i. ‘Maestro al Cembalo’) was maintained (Fig. right and below).?* This is the earliest documented meeting/collaboration of Dieupart and Paisible since ‘11 Oct 1702’, whereafter several more will follow.7*4 Note is concerns Dieupart’s 27" baptism day.

Figure Frangois Dieupart, Overture (e) for Strings, apparently for Britain ’s Happiness, transmitted as “Sonata [sic] for Two Violins Tenor and Basse, Mr Du Par”, GB-LbI, Ms Add. 49599, First Violin part: first two staves, and the last staff with additional attribution “mr Du Parr’. Reproduced courtesy of the British Library. — -< The Overture to Britain’s Happiness, till recently believed to be lost, could be recognized, under his name, in an 18'"-century MS (Fig.), and is published in full score in our FDLO/2023 §§ 2-4, including a general discussion, analyses in color of formal and fugal structures, and of the dramatic contents of this ‘program overture’ avant la lettre (v.i. the Overture to Thomyris).

Court of St James’s Palace: Camilla performed for Queen Anne’s birthday. - This was s the Queen’ S second birthday since two years before, at ‘1705, 6 Feb’, at which she commanded for the first time an opera performance at St James’s. Even more, since ‘Windsor 1703, 29- 30 Dec’, it was the third occasion — each time skipping one year — that she ordered an extensive festive instrumental-vocal presentation at Court. aS > a a a, a As apparent from a letter from England by Matthew Prior to her.?”> She planned to come to London — one day by carriage — but finally did not, once more suggesting the Countess visited the capital regularly. The common denominators of these ensembles seem to have been star musicians Frangois Dieupart at the harpsichord, who apparently fulfilled a principal role since ‘1704, 22 Feb’ (Britain's Happiness), with his virtuoso continuo cellist Nicola Haym, and leading singers Catherine Tofts and Margherita de L’Epine. It may thereby well have concerned a follow-up of Sarah Marlborough’s and patroness Elizabeth Sandwich’s original common efforts for the ‘Windsor project’, signifying another boost to these musicians’ careers.

Figure Francois Dieupart, score of Overture to Thomyris, opening (Walsh, London, June 1707). 78° As was apparent in the case of the Overture in E minor (cf. Britain’s Happiness, ‘1704, 22 Feb’), also the Overture in Thomyris tightly follows the libretto, a rare feature in this period, when opera overtures generally were interchangeable. Thus, Dieupart’s two London program overtures, as true prologues, sum up the libretto’s characters long before Rameau in Paris in his opera Zoroastre from 1749 (FDLO/2023, § 6.4).

Although, as above in the case of Drury Lane (1703, 11 Feb’), no image of the interior seems available, an engraving from that of its successor in 1809 shows that the maestro al cembalo tradition was still continued, as we saw in Drury Lane (Fig. right, below’”). As for Queen’s Theatre*, Haymarket (Fig. left;?°? cf. street map in § 3.1, at nr. 13): Built by architect and dramatist John Vanbrugh in 1704-’05, supported by the subscribers of the famous Kit-Cat Club’, it remained in use until 1789, when it was destroyed by fire. Apparently as maestro al cembalo, Dieupart requests the sum of [NB] £3 per night vs. his colleagues £1 10s. Among them is Charles Babel, marked “P” — probably standing for ‘Prince of Denmark’s musician’ —, whose son William apparently was already playing at Drury Lane Theatre as a violinist: First mention of Charles Babel in connection with Dieupart.’?!

Dieupart’s portrait to be recognized in two paintings by Marco Ricci, representing rehearsals for Pyrrhus and Demetrius (v.i.). Ricci is one of two Venetian artists who came to London to paint opera decors at the invitation of Charles Montagu, 4th Earl, to be Ist Duke of Manchester, 1707-‘08 English Ambassador to Venice (3rd cousin of Elizabeth Sandwich’s husband; ‘1698-’99, ‘Patronage’). The other painter was Giovanni Antonio Pellegrini.**° Figure A A rehearsal of an opera — Pyrrhus and Demetrius, partly caricatural painting by Marco Ricci, Autumn 1708, private coll. © Christie’s Images / Bridgeman Images: The cellist, almost certainly Nicola Haym, who had claimed leadership ‘1708, 12 Jan’, interrupts, to which star singer/co-director Nicolini (center) rebuts. Dieupart (almost certainly) at the harpsichord (cf. detail p. 3), who normally led the performances, (literally) withdraws (see fn. 227).

Figure B Same title; oil on canvas, 48,5 x 58,0 cm. Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection (no. B 1981. 25. 523). Most likely Dieupart (detail, right), at the harpsichord, as Mrs. Tofts’ accompanist and apparently her coach, glances at (prob.) her (in white). At the same time, behind her, her rival De L’Epine (with a muff) turns her back on her, addressing her husband-agent Pepusch, while behind Dieupart’s back, Nicolini continues to direct the rehearsal. The lady with the fan might well be the Baroness, “a lady who always sang with her fan before her face” (Lindgren 1987, p. 269; see also fn. 227).

“le Sieur Dieupart Gentilhomme demeurant paroisse S' Martin aux Champs est actuellement en Vie pour l’avoir Veu et parlé a luy le jour de la datte des presentes ”. Dieupart highest paid member of the continuo group at Queen’s Theatre, 15s. per night: Haym 11s. 6d., Pepusch 10s. Other orchestra members include Loeillet, Paisible, Babel sr. (15's), oboist Pierre/Peter La Tour (11 s 6d.), Babel jr., and Armstrong (10 s.).°7 On a list of the “Jnstrumental Musick’, “Monsieur Dieupart’ is once more mentioned first, quasi as concertmaster.*“4

: The house, where in 1605 J ames I and Queen Anne slept, was built in white and red brick to a square plan in two stories with attic and slate roofs. Around 1785-90 it was in a great part rebuilt by John’s grandson and heir, son of his daughter Louisa, Henry Frederick Carteret (born Thynne’), first Baron Carteret, second creation (1735-1826).°° Hawnes, or Haynes as it was also called at least before 1813 and still today, anciently Hagnes, situated about 80 km north of London, was the ancient seat of the Granvilles and their burial place as well.*>' The estate of 320ha of parkland with noble trees, a lake, and woodland (cf. Fig. with view on the house today and of the park), in which Dieupart made his “Aymables promenades” as he recalls, was acquired in 1667 by royalist Sir George Carteret, first Baronet, John Carteret’s great-grandfather (c1610-1679/’80).°>

Figures Hawnes/Haynes Park today after the alternations of 1790 (photogr. Stephen Richards), and its cedars (Country Life, 1934).

Till the early 20" century, Hawnes remained in the hands of Carteret’s descendants, the Thynnes: Still in 1908, the “notable” collection of family portraits — certainly partly displayed in the stair well (Fig.*°*) — both from the Montagu-Carteret side (John’s paternal descendance), as from the Granvilles (from his mother’s side) was in situ, an impressive scenery in which Dieupart must have moved.**° At the same time, Carteret kept here a well-stocked library.**° The voyage from London to Hawnes Park would mean about a ten hours ride by Carteret’s horse-drawn carriage, transporting the The voyage from London to Hawnes Park would mean about a ten hours ride by Carteret’s horse-drawn carriage, transporting the family and probably Dieupart as well.*°’ Here they spent their summers, with relatives, friends and visitors, their other country seat being at Stowe House in Cornwall (‘1715’).

London daily The Spectator (no. 258; Fig.), publishes a false so-called 1711] ‘letter to the editor’ under the (printed) name of “Thomas Clayton, Nicolino Haym ana Charles [sic] Dieupart’. However, this text was actually written — like a following similar letter of 18 January (no. 278), likewise quasi ‘on their behalf’ — by the publication’s founder writer-playwright-politician and journalist Sir Richard Steele* himself. This, as later he would do again, in name of Clayton, who was his particulat personal associate. This systematic ghostwriting, with far-reaching confusing consequences, even till today, had however already been unmasked by Charles Burney as early as in 1789, as indicated by Hawkins 1776.3°”

e Stowe House, Kilkhampton, copied by John Chessell Buckler (1793-1894) in 1827 from an unknown original depiction. possibly from the engraving in the collection of Peter Prideaux-Brune. British Library, Add. Ms 36360, f. 167.

Daniel Defoe (1748, ii, p. 6.) visited this “stately Palace” and left a description of its interiors before demolition: “...as to its Finishings within, not inferior to any in England. The Carvings, especially those of the Chapel, the grand Alcove, and some of the best Rooms, were done by the Hand of Michael Chuke*”?; and were not to be excelled by Gibbon himself [i.c., Grinling Gibbons]. The Landschape [sic], and Sea-pieces, of which there were a great Number (particularly in the great Stairs, a Prospect of Plymouth, containing 22 Feet by 12 [HxW c. 366 x 670 cm]), were the Work of Vandeist” [sic]. Meant is Adriaen van Diest (1655 The Hasne — 1704 T ondon) Dutch nainter of landscanes and marine suhiects Soon after his ee

Figure ‘Mayor’s Parlour’ from Stowe House, The Guildhall, South Molton, Devon (photo Lobsterthermidor). It has gilded paneling, decorated plaster ceiling, four pedimented doorcases with overmantel painting of Atalanta presented with the head of the Caledonian Boar by Meleager. Capriccio scenes in small rectangular panels above the doors (Pevsner 2004, p. 749). The journey to Cornwall, almost 400 km west from London (cf. Amsterdam-Paris), must have been a major undertaking: By Carteret’s horse-drawn carriage, with an average of around 100 km a day, carrying all family members and probably Dieupart as well, the voyage must have taken about four days.

‘e “Grenville Room’/’Reading Room’, containing carved woodwork from Stowe installed at Prideaux Place, Padstow, Cornwall. In the overmantel is a painting of the Rape of Europa by Adriaen van Diest.

Essex Finch’s father Nottingham was an enthusiastic patron of London opera singer Margherita de L’Epine — supported by the Tories (1702, 23 Apr’, ‘Politics’ )- ~ who sang the title role in 7/ Thomyris, oe ee ay VY SEERCUEEE FARIMSULUIIS VULNS UL LIU AL © LUD! faithful musicians as we saw, depicting him as the ‘Heart of the Orchestra’. Armstrong collected a series a of Finch’s works in a large collection dated “1691” (Fig.*°°) which after his death in 1717 was continuec by Edward Finch to 1720.4°” — At the same time several Finches were house friends of the Carterets (§ 3.6), allowing the possibility that they also served as intermediary in this case. Moreover, Lady Essex’ brother, William Finch, was Carteret’s protégé, accompanying him in 1719-’20 as his secretary when sent as an ambassador to Sweden (§3.2). One may assume such a most confidential relationship may well have started some time before, making a connection of this Dieupart’s musical commission of 1717 with Carteret perhaps even more likely than the family ties with Lady Sandwich. Incidentally, much later William became Carteret’s (violent) brother-in-law when in 1746 he married Charlotte Fermor, sister of Carteret’s second wife Sophia (+1745).

France, Melun*, [le-de-France:*3° Dieupart appointed as Clerc commis at the Audience, Receiver of the fee of the seal of the Chancellery of the Présidial of Melun (Figs.), as successor of the “Ancien Titulaire’, Gabriel Jauvart, husband of his lst cousin Claude Marie Dieupart (v.i.). Dieupart not necessarily present.*3! —_A clerk was the bailiff’s deputy, only having to replace him during his absences, while the seal was affixed only three days a week: Therefore, Frangois Dieupart’s permanent presence in Melun was not required. These positions were often bought. 425 See § 1 Appendix IV, The Sandwiches, “Lord Sandwich’s misfortune ”. 46 ‘Geoffrin’: Cole (1765)/1931, p. 85 (cf. fn. 487); The date ‘1725’ is suggested by Geoffrin’s words, quoted from memory, as written down by Cole; ‘Living in Paris’: Falk [1947], pp. 300f.; See also ‘1698, Jan’ at ‘Jacobitism’. * Since the crowning of King George I in 1714, one would expect Elizabeth’s hope for a Jacobite restoration had vanished. See however her letters from 1718 (1698, Jan’).

London: Coronation of George II (30 Oct/9 Nov 1683 - 25 Oct 1760). King George I had died on 11 June.

Figure Detail of act, mentioning Francois Dieupart. Huntingdon: Lady Sandwich’s husband, Edward Montagu, 3rd Earl of Sandwich dies.

Figures East Sutton Park: (left) House with stables, and (right) North end of Music-Room. Photographs Charles Latham, 1907, In English Homes, ii, London, 1907, resp. pp. 289, 293. tern At the same time, Edward’s nephew, Sir Beversham Filmer* (1685-1763) was equally closely connected to London, being a prominent Barrister at Law at Lincoln's Inn, whose tombstone accounts: ”His great abilities, improved by the closest study and application, acquired him the reputation of one of the ablest Lawyers of his time.” Beversham’s eminence can also be deduced from the fact that he was one of the executors of the will of Sarah Marlborough’ (1745), Queen Anne’s confidant, Keeper of the Privy Purse, being one of the wealthiest women in Europe. As a sign of Sarah’s close friendship, she bequeathed to him a good number of her manors, farms, lands and estates. Since Elizabeth Sandwich was Sarah’s close friend, Dieupart’s connection with the Filmer family may also have originated there, while Sarah was closely acquainted with the Carterets and their daughters as well.*°! Note also, that both the Carterets and Beversham Filmer appear on the subscription list of Holcombe’s opus I (§ 3.4). Ae annaatinea fram tha miiceal ranartaive fauanndn an the Bailmar Whereas Aicaieead hearaattar® the fawniilx;

Figure Fragment of Misc. Ms. 170 Filmer 22 (verso), Irving S. Gilmore Music Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT, reproduced by permission.*™

Figure Graces in Camilla (fragment) in Francois Dieupart’s hand in Music Library, Miscellaneous MS 170, Filmer 23 Courtesy of Yale University. Interestingly, another manuscript contains "Graces", Dieupart’s embellishments and varied 17: reprises for i.a. arias in both the operas Camilla and Thomyris from roles of Catherine Tofts and her colleague (Fig.). These apparently confirm his activity as a singing coach, while now supplying detailed examples of his practice. A closer description and analysis of these issues is contained in our upcoming article. But, last but not least, the Filmers’ collection includes also Nicolas Dieupart’s abovementioned most valuable, monumental Livre de Tridts (‘1680-‘81’), three volumes constituting the repertoire of Louis XIV’s Coucher du Roy in the hand of Frang¢ois’ father Nicolas Dieupart, member of the Musique de la Chambre du Roi. Possibly it was Dieupart’s gift to the Filmers, in that case, indeed a most precious and personal one, suggesting a close relationship with the family, pointing to several visits during a longer period, as the number of teaching pieces seem to confirm.

Besides, Elizabeth “toujours” wants to go and see in the Parisian region “maisons de campagne” for the coming year: She thus hires country-houses i.a. in Issy (Summer 1742) — the former house of the unlucky Princesse de Conti — inviting there her salon guests

Legacies, including eight shares in the East India Company, to most of his remaining relatives: his younger sister Antoinette Genevieve with husband Robert Souart, nephews Adrien, Frangois Henry and NN Certain, their sister Marie Anne, and Dieupart’s niece Emilie Souart. Remarkably, a special place takes his other niece Marie Genevieve Souart (c1 702-1744) in St-Germain-sur- -Ecole’ as executor of his will.4°° She may have lived at St-Germain-sur-Ecole at that time: cf. ‘1744, 5 Aug’ (FH).

Once inhabited by the celebrated author Madame de La Fayette, this was the residence where Rousseau visited Lady Sandwich to dine on 28 October 1751.4 It was known as “la plus belle construction de Paris”, counting two Wings enclosing a vast Cour (Fig. photo: Eugéne Atget, prob. c1910; Musée Carnavalet, Paris) while containing a high (17 feet) Grand Salon, a Bibliotheque, a Grande Salle a Manger, an Office, and upstairs twenty Bedrooms, mostly with chimneys (Fig. of ground plan in FDBR/2021). The premises comprised a huge Garden with 300 trees, ample Horse Stables and a Wine Cellar for 500 barrels.

As we saw, chdteaux’ Concierges had considerable tasks, regularly representing their lords, and were highly respected by them, even being generously considered in their wills.*”4 It therefore does not wonder, that this wedding was attended, and the act being signed, by the bride’s deceased father’s masters, “Monsieur et Madame de Boisemont, Seuls Fondateurs et Seigneurs Haut-Justiciers de[s| Réaux, de Soisy-sur- Ecole et autres lieux” (their full titles being painstakingly corrected in the document during writing). Besides Boisemont and a crowd of relatives of the couple, Dieupart is the only signer whose relation is not specified, meaning he must have been a good friend, possibly of the Blavets, or of the Seigneurs of the Chateau themselves. A aAtiialls;, aiph fist annahin moar wall ha ralatad tr hath tha fant that T\iaimnartra

e The Chateau des Réaux, Soisy-sur-Ecole (photo: CaroLab)

St-Germain-sur-Ecole: Writes a personal letter (signature at p. 8), in French — probably from St-Germain-sur-Ecole’ — to “Lord Granville, Arlington Street, London, Westminster, England” in aremarkably familiar tone, with New Year’s greetings to him and his family, while confidentially recalling various joint memories, reflecting on his life (FDBR/2021, § 15, with facs.). Interestingly, the epistle is sealed with the following coat-of-arms (Fig.), actually in line with his earlier noted appearance in London as a “oentilhomme” (‘1709, 16 Jun’). Figure Coat-of-arms, Courtesy of the British Library, Add. MS 32419, f. 117. with sketch (BvA).

St-Germain-sur-Ecole: Burial (Fig.) of Francois Dieupart in the church of his domicile.*7° As executor of his will, Dieupart designates this time “mon Cousin” Auguste Frédéric Dubisson (*c1722 - 14 Apr 1754; AN Y15 index des scellés; AN Y4567B), goldsmith in Paris, Pont Notre Dame, parish de la Madeleine, but staying with his uncle Jacques Dubisson, Major Domo (Conciérge) at the neighboring Chateau de Cély. Auguste Frédéric is the son of Dieupart’s cousin *Anne Nicolas Edouard Dubisson — son of his aunt Marie Catherine (i) — and Frangoise Fortin (1748, 25 May’), thus in fact being his first cousin once removed (‘petit cousin’; cf. § 3.4, ‘Close Relatives’). 47’ The legacies assigned and the confidence shown, demonstrate once more the closeness of Dieupart’s bond with his relatives, possibly a main reason to return to his native soil.

“TRegistered] on 10 May 1757 ... : Letter-permit by order of 7 November 1747 permitting Elizabeth Wilmot of Rochester, widow of Sir Earl of Sandwich to continue her stay in France and to dispose of her personal property in favor of such persons she will see fit, French or foreign.”

494 Theoretically, J.S. Bach could have been aware of Dieupart’s Thomyris Overture by various routes: through his friend Telemann in Hamburg; by one of the performances at Dresden Court; personally through Volumier/Pisendel; or through the orchestra’s harpsichordist Petzold. The latter was an admirer of both Dieupart, whom moreover he imitated (FDLO/2023, § 7.5, esp. p. 78 with facs.), and also of his “celebre” Bach (Hempel 1956). At the same time, Bach knew Petzold’s music, which he could well have received from the composer himself (the famous Menuets in A.M. Bach’s Clavierbiichlein ii, and probably more; Schulze 1979). Moreover, notably, in 1725, the year of the Clavierbtichlein,

Figure A view ona section of the site of the former Cimetiére Saint-Germain, Paris. of Saint-Sulpice — the church being Lady Sandwich’s northern neighbor, which still 1757] owns Hotel de La Trémoille today —, at the Edict of Nantes 1685 (Article 45) it was noted as one of two Protestant cemeteries in Paris, from which date it was called Cimetiére de la Charité. It was closed in 1785, its contents being transferred to the new Catacombs of Paris, a set of re-used quarries on today’s Rue de la Tombe-Issoire/Boulevard Saint-Jacques (14°™°).

Figure Francois Dieupart, second Testament (fragment), autograph, St-Germain-sur-Ecole, 7 September 1750.

Figure Inventory of Edward, 3rd Earl of Sandwich (fragment) Courtesy The National Archives, Kew. Cngland: muntingaon Elizabeth’s husband, Edward the 3rd Earl of Sandwich having died 20 October1729 at Hinchingbrooke, the Earl’s Inventory after decease is made (fn. 58). Elizabeth Sandwich is present, signing the document (Fig).*!” Since 1719 (v.s.) the family situation has drastically changed. Elizabeth’s son Edward Richard has died aged 30 in 1722, making 10-year-old John — apparently having been abandoned by his mother, being sent in 1725 to Eton at the age of seven — the 4th Earl of Sandwich’. England: Huntingdon

At the same time, on the letter’s verso side, a summary of another reply to Elizabeth’s request suggests 4. Sarah to Elizabeth, Windsor, October 31, prob. 1704: “Lord Sandwich’s misfortune Figure Letter by Sarah Marlborough to Elizabeth Sandwich, dated “Windsor Parke, October 31"” [1704], with signature; Blenheim Papers, Add MS 61455, fol. 206, resp. recto and verso (fragment), Courtesy of the British Library. Barbara Berkeley, Viscountess Fitzhardinge* (c1654-1708; Fig.°?>), who was both Queen Anne’s Lady in Waiting and also Governess to young Prince William while her daughter Mary was Anne’s Maid of Honour, would regret Lord Sandwich’s dismissal. Actually, the official residence of Lord Fitzhardinge*, John Berkeley, 4 Viscount — who till 1702 had been Anne’s Master of the Horse (thereafter being raised to Treasurer of the Chamber) — and his wife was on the St James’s Palace grounds about at the site of today’s Clarence House and its garden°*° where the Sandwiches may well have been their direct collegial neighbors (at least during the Earls employment), being possibly an element of their closeness, as particularly evident from: “Lady Fitzharding is happy in being my Lady Sandwich's chief favourite” (fn. 49; ‘1698, 8 Jul’, ‘The Sandwiches’ London Residence’).

Figure Letter by Sarah Marlborough to Elizabeth Sandwich, prob. 1711, autograph, draft, GB-Lbi, Add. MS 61455, ff. 200r-201v, Courtesy of the British Library; detail f. 200v.

Figure Prior Papers, VII, 122. We are grateful to the 8th Marquess of Bath, Longleat, GB for allowing us to quote from this letter in their collection, an image of which was kindly supplied by the Institute of Historical Research, London. 8. Elizabeth to Sarah, prob. after 1722: “The retirement I have chosen...”

Figure Letter by Elizabeth Sandwich to Sarah Marlborough, 29 Dec., prob. aft 1722, autograph, two fragments; GB-Lbi, Add. MS 61455, f. 187, Courtesy of the British Library.

Figure Madame Geoffrin’s salon in 1755, Anicet Lemonnier (1812), oil on canvas, Chateau de Malmaison, Rueil-Malmaison (Fr.). Although, as a well-known ‘encyclopedic’ history painting dating from half a century later, without actual documentary value, it may still entice our imagination of an 18"-century Parisian salon. Incidentally, while (absent) Voltaire is being read, four of Elizabeth Sandwich’s known guests have been portrayed: see (under the -s FLTR) Mme de Graffigny, Rousseau (in discussion with Rameau), Voltaire (bust), and the salon’s host Mme Geoffrin. Demonstrably, not all depicted guests were present at the same time.

(1) St James’s Palace, south-western part, possible area of the Sandwiches’ London lodgings; (2) Possible site of Hortense Mancini’s ‘petit palais’ (1676-1693), (v.i.); (3) The Carterets’ residence at 19 Arlington Street ; (4) St James’s Palace, Main Gate House; (5) Marlborough House at Pall Mall; (6) King Street, one of Frangois Dieupart’s addresses; (7) St James’s Church or Piccadilly; (8) Residence on Jermyn Street of Charles Montagu, Baron, later 1st Earl of Halifax’; (9) John Hervey, Ist Earl o! Bristol at St James’s Square; (10) John Perceval, 1st Earl of Egmont at Pall Mall; (11) Saint-Evremond, idem; (12) Tavern The Queens Arms, a meeting place of the Kit-Cat Club; (13) Haymarket Theatre. Map by Richard Blome, publ. 1720, London, Paris/ of St James’s Westminster (detail).°?? The following map (Fig.) from 1685 contains from West to East (L-R), in particular Arlington Street (at 3), its parallel St James’s Street, King Street (6), and St James’s Square (9).

Figure St James’s Street, seen from the north. The entrance to King Street, where Dieupart lived in 1730 (v.i.), is shown by the red arrow on the left-hand side (anon. drawing, 1750).

Figure J.C. Buckler (1793-1894), Arlington Street Looking North, watercolor, 1831. For the house numbers marked, see text: Carteret’s no. (19) is the pedimented entrance on the left with flared stairs flanked by two Tuscan columns (detail at § 3.7). City of Westminster Public Library © Furniture history, xlv, 2009, pp. 73-99.°!” In one of the last houses®!3 in the street on the privileged Green Park side, at the place of today’s no. (19) -in Fig./watercolor on the left; on map (3) —, lived Lord John Carteret, later Earl Granville, and his family in house he re-built and probably enlarged in 1732-’38 (for the interior of the house see § 3.7).°'* Just recognizable y the angle of view on the watercolor is the fact that the ample flared five-step entrance stairs is framed by two ubstantial pillars carrying an elaborate pediment, establishing the central part of a gable front containing a large rched window on each side (note also one of the two basement windows, corresponding to the plans of Robert \dam c1763, cf. § 3.7).

MES VIVE UE LALIVE LEUTIE WALT, AUJAUU ILE WU LIDS LeEDLUULIVe. In the evening of 14 April 1744 in this house, Carteret married the Countess’ daughter Sophia Fermor (1721-1745). The Countess, a letter writer, friend of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and Horace Walpole, was a frequent guest at the Carterets, while one of her other daughters, Charlotte, married the diplomat William Finch (‘1717’; § 3.6), Carteret’s secretary and protégé, thus becoming his brother-in-law as well. Lady Pomfret died a few years after the completion of her house.°'®

ee ES EEE EE OE OIE EEIBEENSS As the only building in this stree having partly survived 19" and 20%- century barbarism appears at the very end The Gate House at no. 16 — recently on sale —, just left outside the frame of Renaissance rusticated archway (Fig.; c the entrance to Rutland House — called a Jacobite Mary Howard, 8th Duchess o f. photo f Norfol he watercolor, with its characteristic fn. 612). It originally formed fter a later owner —, built 1734-’40 by k, of which the interior still contains its magnificent staircase and park-facing rooms. Here, the architect James Gibbs unusually designed the mews stabling at the front gate house, instead of at the back. It is not impossi ble that the latter situation existed in Carteret’s case: Several of the west houses had “‘a door into the Park’.®'"

Figure Left: Arlington Street’s west houses from Green Park, watercolor by J. Whittock 1848 in the British Museum, showing Carteret’s residence no. 19 (at the dashed accolade, the house with a recessed right half; * = the window shown in Zoffany’s painting in § 3.7). Right: Rear elevation of 19 Arlington Street, St James’s Westminster, looking north-east from Queen’s Walk across a fenced garden, fragment of photograph from 1934, London Picture Archive, Rec. no. 125329.

Figure St James’s Palace with a View of Pall Mall London, oil on canvas by anonymous English School 1700 — 1753, National Trust, acc. Nr. 1514045. A similar view has been repeated for decades as engravings, both in England and in France. At the end of Pall Mall on the right-hand side we might discern the church of St Martin-in-the-Fields, built by James Gibbs in 1721-’26. “T am lodged in the street called Pall Mall, the ordinary residence of all strangers, because of its vicinity 9 the Queen’s Palace, the Park, the Parliament House [Westminster Hall], the Theatres, and the Chocolate and ‘offee-houses, where the best company frequent.” °°° At this alley’s favorite south side, in monumental Marlborough House (on map (5); Fig. cl 750) next to the Palace! and built on crown land, lived the renowned Earl, Duke and most influential Duchess of Marlborough whose involvement, both musical and financial, in opera and theater we saw earlier.” Incidentally, in front of the House, an important feature was the stand for sedan chairs, to be seen at the figure above. ee E 1 1 a. TT 5 mm 1 Poy? ae oo Se ad eee ea et

Figure King Street 25, London, public house called the “Golden Lion”: in the 18" century (left), and today (right).°°° This otherwise privileged street, called “a good handsome street” by Strype (1720), was previously know Charles Street in honor of King Charles IT.°*® To the east, it led to St James’s Square — to be treated hereafte ust past the spacious premises on the north side where Louis Napoleon would live in 1847-’48 (no. 1), whil only southern connection to Pall Mall was narrow Crown Passage, at that time still called Golden Lion Cour Also on the south side, at no. 25, at least from 1732 on, was a public house called the “Golden Lion’ eady since the 17" century possibly having been situated more west near abovementioned court of that nam« e house — or its successor? — figures on a drawing of 1764-’65, containing some interesting architectural detail: +h as a canted bay and ionic columns, while its today’s iconic descendant, designed in a grotesque imitation c - Jacobean Baroque, though baring still some reminiscence, survives under the same name (Fig.).

Figure Sutton Nicholls’ view of St. James’s Square, aft 1727-’28.°° The blue arrow shows the entrance to King Street, the red one Lord Hervey’s residence — where the horse-drawn carriage seems to be heading -—, andthe ———_ one that by Lord Stanhope/Chesterfield. To the east, King Street ultimately ends (Fig. at blue arrow, left) at St James’s Square: “The Piazza”. As for its origin: In 1662 Charles II extended a lease over the Pall Mall (St James’s) Field held by Henry Jermyn, Ist | Earl of St Albans, whereafter from September 1662 on, the | Earl developed the site. Thus, from the start, these residences were built under the Crown’s control for the conveniency of the Nobility and Gentry, as ” great and good...houses fitt for ye dwellings of Noble men and other Persons of quality” (St Albans, 1663),°*7 buildings that were praised by Evelyn (1664) as */arge and magnificent Structures” introducing a “renascence” of architecture. As a result, the houses indeed were of the greatest size, their scale being still larger than is normal in London, often with gardens at the back.

WAT aAITIS Lat, DP. ZU. 666 «| fand an unsers Matthesons Musik solche Lust, da er einst zwo gantzer Stunden, ohne von der Stelle zu weichen, bey ihm sa und zuhérte” (Mattheson 1740, pp. 206f.); “ein grosser Kenner der Musik” (Register sub ‘Carteret, Lord’). FRIRGT Ese ch aS @ SEO Seo Tes Sev Se eee BEAN Sern esas Ate “Seis ESESE SOI STS Me eater Se FR: ee Se cas Seer Sacer semen? — es fees ot ee aie veer teste Sa paariome ase | SEN Ese — sae <a: a, Socially, Lord Carteret’s house was indeed known for being exceeding hospitable, making it very popular, ile, apart from his good-humor, he particularly had the gift of the art of conversation and a homely directness 1 idiomatic force which marked his private discussion,°’' a human conduct we recognize from Dieupart’s niliar letter to him, also after becoming Earl Granville.

Portrait of Lord Carteret (detail) by Dominicus van der Smissen, German court painter of Netherlandish descent, pupil of Denner, engraved by Thomas Major, “Engraver to his Majesty and to His R. H. the Prince of Wales’’, publ. September 1757. The diarist Lord Egmont’ (Perceval as he was before — who knew Dieupart, cf. ‘1731, 2 Feb’) records: ”*T find him a man of more universal reading than I had imagined, which joined with a happy memory, 4a great skill in Greek and Latin, a fine elocution, makes him shine beyond any nobleman or gentlemar perhaps now living.”°”

Figure John Carteret, 2nd Earl Granville (1690-1763) attributed to Thomas Hudson, 1739, and his wife Frances Worsley, Baroness Carteret (1694-1743) by Sir Godfrey Kneller, 1715. National Trust, Ham House, Richmond, London (National Trust Images).

Intriguingly, in Holcombe’s output — as far as we can oversee — three passages can be shown which bear resemblance tc Dieupart. It concerns remarkably both Dieupart’s Ouverture-Fugue and Gigue from his Suite I (the very passages which also inspirec Bach to Prélude and Gigue of his English Suite I BWV 806, cf. FDBR/2021/, § 18), of which the first borrowing is found in even twc of Holcombe’s works.”°° This doublure, and the fact that Dieupart’s fugal passages occur just within Holcombe’s rare canonic textures, increase the likelihood that it may indeed concern (consciously or unconscious) imitations after Dieupart. This certainly does no! surprise, as the latter’s Six Suittes de Clavessin, being sold by Vaillant, were well known in London, where to several ‘imitations’ by his orchestra colleague John Loeillet and also Handel testify.”°!

Other Family Members: Partners — The Spencers — Progeny — PEAUCES CAPlCrel JUIIUT, LVEATUMIONESS EWOCUUMIC (1 /1LO-! j, WHO L/4O Wd TICG JOU Tidy, Tul Vid QUuUess LWOCUUdIC, WILT WHO sie Tad six children. Frances’ musical skills have been mentioned earlier in this paragraph. - Robert Carteret, 3rd Earl Granville, 3rd Baron Carteret, first creation (1721-1776), who married Elizabeth, a French woman, with whom he had no children (v.i. ‘Carteret — Thynne’). From his second marriage with Sophia Fermor, Countess Granville, Lord Carteret had one daughter: - Sophia Carteret, Countess Shelburne* (1745-1771), who 1765 married William Petty,’!? 1st Marquess Lansdowne, Home Secretary, Prime Minister, with whom she had one child.

Figure ‘La priére du soir’, Eugene Lami, Henry Monnier, Voyage en Angleterre, Paris, 1829 Apparently, as suggested by the “Old Countess” Grace’s expressions, families like hers spent their evenings — after prayer (Fig.) and a psalm, played on the harpsichord or the chamber organ’?! — by domestic music-making, ’** serving the moral edification of the soul, as well as the intellectual edification of the mind. They may have recognized and appreciated in Dieupart’s art not only his melodic, contrapuntal, and pedagogical gift, but moreover his artistic emotional depth and eloquence.

Figure Bloomsbury Square and Bedford’s Southampton House looking north, c1725. Here lived Cosimi and Haym in a “buono, ameno et allegro Appartamento”’. Haym, as Bedford’s Master of Chamber Music, earned, like Cosimi, an annual salary of 100 guineas, while both performed privately for him and travelled with him to Bath and his country-house at Stratton, and the family seat at Woburn Abbey (1711, 26 Dec’). After Bedford’s death in 1711, his patronship (Cosimi having returned home in April 1705) was directly adopted by a relative, his uncle’s nephew, Charles Montagu, Ist Earl of Halifax, original subscriber of the Haymarket Theatre building, who, as a member of the Montagu dynasty, was a 2nd cousin once removed of Elizabeth’s husband. At Halifax’s death, James Brydges, Earl of Carnavon, from 1719 1st Duke of Chandos, took over Haym’s patronship, offering him an annual salary of £ 50, more than that of any of the Earl’s nine musicians at Cannons. A vas rr e 5 y Pa , TN, Si oe 9 1 i | y1 5 ay es rT ian ate * y Ff A Musical Protégé’s Salary — Concertizing Sojourns at Country Estates

The floor plan reveals about forty rooms and arias, several of them representing richly decorated receptior rooms, divided over five layers: the Basement, three Floors, and a lower Attic (not shown by Adam).’7° We notic« the “Great Stairs” uniting the Ground Floor at street level and Basement with the First Floor, and at the back 0: the house two smaller ones for the servants, connecting all levels. The whole Souterrain/Basement containing the Kitchen, Wine Cellar, Dairy (§ 3.1, ‘Pall Mall’) etc. is the domain of the servants, consisting of a Cook, twe Kitchen Maids, three Maids and two Footmen, who sleep in the Attic, partially sharing rooms; the primary Housekeeper and Steward have ampler rooms situated at respectively the Second Floor, right next to the Porter’ Hall, and Basement.'” rr... .4 7 , i a @) & en Th? . i by a a a | Ly i: a: a ee i oe So ee

Adjacently follows an equally grand “Drawing Room” offering spacious views over the Garden and the 785 As for the Carteret family’s musicality and their various musical activities on the harp, harpsichord, “spinnet’, and by singing, see §§ 3.2 and 3.4 (traditional ‘Musical evenings’: fn. 740.

Among Dundas’ paintings, of which he owned a great number (fn. 777) we recognize in the first place above the rich mantlepiece marine painter Jan van de Capelle and also landscapist Aelbert Cuyp, Netherlandish works being particularly popular in England at the time.

As in particular for this last magnificent Front Room, also referred to as the Great Room as we will see, and possibly the most suitable for “Musical evenings’, interestingly, as a rare relict its mentioned chimney piece, made by William Kent from c1733-1736, has been preserved in the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, effectively showing clear similarities with this artist’s other work (Fig.’**).

This artwork might well stem from Carteret’s interior indeed, since he used Kent more than once: For one of Granville’s paintings Kent designed a frame, while the statesman, meticulous about the role the illustrations were to play in his abovementioned edition of Cervantes’ Don Quichote, chose i.a. Kent for one of these engravings;’® in the same period, other residents of Arlington Street had their houses re-built by Kent. If Francois Dieupart stayed long enough in England after 1730 (‘1732, in/aft’, ‘1734, 11 Sept’) he might well have known this impressive artifact.

In c1709, in Weimar, this intermediate source (scribe: Anonymous C) came into the hands of J.S. Bach and his ‘cousin’ Johann Gottfried Walther, whereby Bach wrote off all Dieupart's Six Suittes de Clavessin (D-F, Mus. Ms. 1538), and Walther just Suite I (D- B, Mus. ms. Bach P 801), thereby revealing both Anonymous C’s revision principles and Bach’s correction manner.

igure Francois Dieupart, Suite V, Gigue: Left, ‘Ensemble Version’ (after Miiller-Schmidt/Online); right, Harpsichord Version. facsimile of Roger’s original Edition, Amsterdam 1701. Courtesy of the British Library, H.70.p., Harpsichord, p. 41.9°8 For editorial signs see text.

Example Frangois Dieupart, Gigue V, opening sentence, in (above) (a) ‘Ensemble Version’ and (below) (b) Harpsichord Version, followed by their respective basic melos and its profile (editorial signs are referred to below).

Example F. Dieupart, Gigue V, endings of the 1‘ and 2" sentence (mm. 4 and 8). Above, (a) ‘Ensemble Version’; below, (b) Harpsichord Version. Both examples are followed by their respective basic melos, topped by their melodic curves. 812 As for phrase lengths: see editorial commas in the Ex., and Francois Couperin’s manner, discussed in FDLO/2023, n. 67.

Example Synoptic view of Francois Dieupart, Gigues II and V from his Six Suittes de Clavessin (1701), Harpsichord Version. In Gigue V (Ex. b), red notes equal those in the corresponding hand in Gigue II (Ex. a),°” and blue notes equal those in the other hand, while the note in. —_ refers to one within the same harmonic beat.

Example Synoptic view of two passages, A (left) and B (right) in: (a) (above) Frangois Couperin, Offertoire sur les Grands Jeux for Organ (in C) from the Messe pour les paroisses, and (b, below) Francois Dieupart, Gigue IT (in D), ‘Ensemble Version’ (transp. resp. Gand C). In Dieupart (b) red notes quote from Couperin’s Upper Part, blue notes from his Middle and/or Bass Part. A second argument ‘contra Dieupart’ as auctor is, that this Gigue II itself seems to quote, apparently as an homage (v.i.), two passages from Francois Couperin’s principal Offertoire sur les Grands Jeux (in C major) from his Messe pour les paroisses, from which actually in this same Gigue II seemingly already another passage was borrowed (see the following Ex., showing both parallels).°*4

In addition, the descending triad with melodic fillers into the keyboardistic spielfigur of a ‘comfortable’ five-finger-run in m. 6 (Fig.), an apparent casual mannerism for the rest inexistent in Dieupart’s Six Suittes, fits very much the diminution style of ‘creative’ Anonymous B as will be shown hereafter concerning other filling figures.°27 Figure Francois Dieupart, Gigue V, synoptic view of mm. 5ff.: above ‘Ensemble Version’, below Harpsichord Version featuring diminution. Courtesy of the British Library, H.70.p., resp. ‘Ensemble Version’ ‘Dessus’ p. 14, Harpsichord Version, p. 41. ps a a alana = WHEW ULIOlOLIw vd che Uw Vwi iUeivdi. Anonymous A, in his Early Harpsichord Version, in all Gigues transmitted by him, converts the twc rguably original melodic lines from the polyphonic ‘Ensemble Version’ into more homophonically orientec uthé texture, even lavishly. The fact that, in the published Harpsichord Version, Gigue V in abovementionec Couperin passage’ mm. 20-23 unexpectedly /acks such broken style, while, by contrast, it is particularly presen n related Gigue II by writer A, may for Gigue V well point to Anonymous B, since Anonymous A had no reasor o deviate from his maniera here.8*°

professional status of Huygens, Philippe (ii) of Orléans, and Van Wassenaer. At first, from a present-day perspective, the suggestion of the Countess’ creative involvement in Dieupart’s printed opus may seem far-fetched. It should however be remembered that, at that time, musical dilettantes regularly used to compose, of which widely spread culture the following historical survey may give an impression. Van Wassenaer. 832 1663, Dec 14, 21 (Pepys 1995, iv, pp. 418-19, 428). It may not be excluded, that the authorship of Montagu, who had been created Earl of Sandwich in 1660, was only known to intimates. 833 Singing/playing, sel.: ‘Sang’: Pepys 1995, i, pp. 114f., 118; ‘Lute’: i, p. 218; ‘Guitar’: vi, p. 301; ‘Fiddle/Bass viol’: ii, p. 39; i, p. 114; ‘Organ’: i, p. 292; ‘Triangle Virginal’: ii, pp. 121f. The latter type was built by Italian harpsichord maker Girolamo Zenti since at least 1637. In 1664, while in England, Zenti was “King’s Virginal maker” to Charles IL. QA TW... 61 Fon Oo T..13 QA H___... 1AzAANy . One Apparently as a silent witness of such versatile musical activity, the Great State Room of the Montagu family castle Hinchingbrooke contained a “Spinnett? and a “Chamber Organ” (Inventory of 1729, ‘1689, 8 Jul’ with Fig. facsimile). 830 Six Suittes de Clavessin, Dedication. 831 De. Liebhaber (cf. in C.P.E. Bach), Fr. amateur: music ‘lowexeweee -seyedbaanek weevediaswssucen | deantecere oh dhe ease fhe fhe

A particular case is apparently self-made music master- composer ‘Captain’ Francois de Prendcourt* (1640s-1725), soldier-(prob.) priest from German birth, active in England, whose four surviving autograph harpsichord ‘suites’ (in York Minster Historic Collections) reveal partially to base on those by Dieupart. Here, he holds a copy of his “song” ‘Beauty Retire’, an air in declamatory style®’® (following Fig.).8°” Also this family member sang, and played a for our understanding extraordinary variety of even eight instruments: the lute, theorbo, viol, lyra viol, violin, recorder, flageolet — a sort of duct flute —, and the harpsichord. He bought an “Espinettes” for “5 1.” from the renowned harpsichord builder Charles Ha(y)ward*,*38 while he also intended to purchase an organ.*?? Of his Allemande II (D), both opening and Reprise seem to copy-paraphrase conspicuously both melody and accompaniment of Dieupart’s Allemande II (D); (see Corp 1997, pl. 11(b), p. 23; Southey-Corp 1998, p. 645). IN Interestingly, as musical details show, Prendcourt thereby based himself on Dieupart’s Early Version (Babel- Harpsichord), apparently accessed during his imprisonment in the Bastille, Paris till 1697, once more attesting to its early dissemination. Incidentally, in London, Prendcourt made musical arrangements for ‘Dieupart’s’ Vice Chamberlain Coke (fn. 290) and taught North’s children.

Without drawing definite conclusions, the Bass seems clearly to begin at C, while suggesting that the Treble reaches till c’’’, still conform the old traditional four-octave compass C- c’”” found followed version, in French harpsichords from 1.a. before 1650, being by Dieupart in his arguably original open score he ‘Ensemble Version’. (For the C- c’”” compass, see FDBR/2021, § 6.2, esp. p. 48; Anselm 1996, p. 229; Denis 1650, p. 6, his ‘tuning test Prelude’ reaching till C in the Bass; Saint Lambert 1702, p. 7; and Frangois Couperin 1716, or. ed., p. 58, sti l reckoning with a standard range up till c’’’). As for an agreed and even paid ‘authorship’, see the case of (rich) De L’ H6pital and (poor) Bernoulli, a deal we hereby propose as what may have taken place in the case of (poor) Froberger, selling in 1660 in Paris his Fugues to Roberday for his edition (fn. 177). Paid ‘authorship’ Ds I aaa aa As an involuntary form of ‘co-writing’, expanding someone else’s work, we notice in the foregoing period German physician alchemist-diplomat Count Michael Maier in his Atalanta Fugiens, Oppenheim (Rhineland-Palatinate) 1617, who used no less than forty plainsong canons composed by John Farmer (ed. London, 1591), while adding another ten from his own dilettante hand (unfortunately filled with contrapuntal infelicities). Apparently, Count Maier, when visiting London and the Stuart Court in 1611-*16, stood in close contact with James I and his daughter Elizabeth, while attending her marriage to his lord, Frederick V of the Palatine.**°

One may conclude, that in all three cases the pupil appears to have been a high-ranking person to whom the master granted his/her articipation for reasons of sympathy, gratitude, or otherwise, gain.

Here, generally it has to be realized, that renowned composers and virtuosi used to teach noble amateurs — partially for economic or social reasons — as known from Frescobaldi, Couperin, Duphly, Bach, Handel, Geminiani, Cosimi et al. (fn. 213). As a reflection of a similar professional concession toward a noble or in this case royal pupil, we find in D'Anglebert’s dedication to the Princesse de Conty, Fille Du Roy, even the flattering remark: “Vous méliez des traits dans 1’éxécution qui me donnoient de nouvelles Idées...”, adding that ’ Tous les maitres qui ont eu la gloire de contribuer a votre éducation ont éprouvé la méme chose, et se sont perfectionnez en vous donnant des lecons’”’. (In short: ‘Your playing gave me new ideas, while also all your former teachers had experienced the same, perfectionating themselves by teaching you...’).

Example Francois Dieupart, Gigue V, synoptic view of the two opening two-measure phrase a and £ of (a) the ‘Ensemble Version’ in chiastic arrangement, and (b) the Harpsichord Version. In the latter, Red notes are literally corresponding to the ‘Ensemble Version’, Blue notes, idem, slightly shifted/exchanged (indicated by ------ ), while = ~—szharmony notes are moving in parallel thirds. In ‘the Harpsichord Version of Gigue Vv, at first the initial zigzagging melos might appear at random. It could however, as a product of aforementioned compositional involvement, have been the result of an ‘experimental’ paraphrase of the opening four-measure sentence of the ‘Ensemble Version’, this in contrast to the radically ‘re-written’ passage in the second half. Thereby, it could have been positioned in a chiastic arrangement, putting at the beginning the last lower segment, to end by the higher initial one, thus achieving a dynamically rising opening line instead of a resigned falling melos (Ex. a, representing such a chiastic arrangement: B - «). The revised opening phrase was thereby still more or less ‘derived’ from the arguably original ‘To Ensemble Version’.

Example Dieupart, Ouverture I, mm. 9 ff., melodic line (without ornament symbols): Above, ‘Ensemble Version’, below, Harpsichord Version. Editorial signs are referred to in the text. I As to the hazard of a performer’s temptation to add during playing impromptu passing notes, filling in leaps — as we saw in the foregoing lines concerning Gigue V -, the Harpsichord Version shows a classical illustration as early as in the Ouverture from Suite I in A major. In this movement we encounter a series of examples, where in the top line, in close succession, a series of three partially large jumps of the apparently original ‘Ensemble Version’ have been replaced by uniform diatonic figures (Ex., the leaps encircled).

Example Dieupart, Ouverture II, mm. 42 ff., melodic line: Above, ‘Ensemble Version’, below, Harpsichord Version. It concerns in the Harpsichord Version once the melos g’- a’- g’- f#’- e’ (m. 42), followed by a twofold repetition of it, one tone higher a#’- b’- a#’- g#’- f#' (mm. 44 and its literal copy at m. 46, marked *). Here one could easily imagine that at least the middle one — where incidentally the arguably original ‘Ensemble Version’ agreeably lacks the falling third at all (or rather avoids it, at +) — may probably not stem from the composer. At the same time, the two, quasi three tiratae perfectae, at a one tone distance from each other — on e’, f#’ (and a’), marked ‘+’ —, pointing to stepwise ascending e”, f#”, and g”, and at such a short time interval, give food for thought.

small obliquely descending dashes indicating ornamental coulés: Apparently these led -— against the traditional idiom/’rule’ — the arranger Anonymous B to elaborate those short notes as plain ‘long’ notes.

Figs./Exx. F. Dieupart, Allemande I (A), ending, in: (a) the edition (Amsterdam 1701), (b) the arranged Early Harpsichord Version in Babel’s MS, (c) J.S. Bach’s copy after source (revision of the Edition), and (d), (e) our suggestions. 87? This and Library, H.70. 873 Quote: C he following Figure: Courtesy of the British p., Harpsichord Version resp. pp. 5 and 19. hambonnieres, Préface (1670). ‘Saint- Evremond’: Hope 2000, p. 58. Besides, Chambonnieéres’ music, circula’ ing in copies, was almost certainly brought home from his extended Paris sojourns by her father Rochester, a devotee of Lu Thereafter, at ly, Chambonniéres’ colleague at court (fn. 52). Adderbury, it would be played by Elizabeth already on the harpsichord, traditionally being one of the *several instruments” she played since her early youth (cf. “1689, 8 Jul’, also mentioning her keyboard instruments). At the same time, also more generally, Chambonnieéres and other French clavecin music was known in England, as shown by harpsichord book GB-Och, Mus. Ms. 1236 (c1650-’74) and Playford’s Musick Delight 1666.

When comparing these proposed solutions to the Amsterdam edition, ignoring its eventual less essentially lacking pauses: In the edition’s Bass the A is two times too long, and, notably in the second Tenor the E even four times; this still apart from the two pincés which respectively may awkwardly apply to the low A, and, if understood as six parts, yet less practically to the A. Thus, to solve these problems, at least two essential interventions are needed, in particular a grave one, quartering the Tenor’s half note E to an eight note. It therefore apparently does not concern here a complex of mistakes, but an intentional schematic nonchalance, striving to be ‘more French than the French’ (fn. 539 “elle a été tres frangaise...’; fn. 910).

Figure Francois Dieupart, Gigue III, opening of the Reprise, ‘Ensemble Version’ (after Miiller-Schmidt/Online).°”> 875 Accidentals in small type are editorial. The original edition, certainly by a misunderstanding, at + (m. 27, Basse) has a sharp 874 Particularly for many a Froberger copyist this nove notational aspect proved to be a stumbling block.

Fig. Dieupart, Ouverture II, Fugue, opening Exposition (Courtesy of the British Library, H.70.p., Harpsichord, p. 10). Curiously, this whole entry in Tenor range is lacking in the ‘Basse’ partbook of the ‘Ensemble Version’, causing altogether a principal eye-catching lacuna of no less than five ‘empty’ measures (see at ¢ in the following Fig.). The case is, that here, following a fugue’s standard initial pause — during the unaccompanied two-measure Dux -, instead of an expected equally two-measure Comes, it actually comprises three measures, caused by the extension of a one measure codetta.

Fig. Dieupart, Ouverture II, first section with beginning of fugal Exposition (Courtesy of the British Library, H.70.p., Basse, p. 4).

Example Francois Dieupart, Ouverture I, opening of fugue. Synoptic view of (a): ‘Ensemble Version’, reconstruction (in small notes) of the missing entry in the middle part, based on the printed Harpsichord Version, and (b): this part in the Early Version’s harpsichord arrangement in Babel-Harpsichord/Ensemble, representing a both simplified and slightly prolonged form as a harpsichord arrangement (see at *),87” Looking once more at the earlier mentioned three incidental middle part fragments in the Dessus of the dition of Dieupart’s Gigue III (3, 3, and 2 measures, for a second treble instrument), and at the incomplete Basse . Overture-Fugue II (3 measures for obbligato viol) we observe the following. Although here at first a omparison with Francois Couperin’s possibly contemporary Concerts Royaux (1722, performed “/7/4 and 715°’) arises, where, within a two-part work with Figured Bass, incidentally three-part writing occurs, it concerns ore clearly t two fundamentally different set-ups. B78 a - a: a, ee of ee : re, ae ee ee | So ee a | .. -@. = *... FSS. oe sxc, pee sce: pees eee ce, ee ee eee ee es: ce

Example Francois Dieupart, Gavotte IV in E minor, Early Version, as built on rhythmically ‘free’ Canons (‘Fugues’) at the Octave and at the Twelfth. The upper system contains the main portions from the piece’s three phrases: respectively its first half, the opening of the Reprise, and the final phrase, taken from Dieupart’s arguably original two-part version, in our reconstruction. The lower system represents their underlying canonic paradigms. Accents: ~ = unaccentuated, — = accentuated beats. Canons: p> == Proposta (Dessus), --————— = Risposta (Basse). Indeed, this Gavotte, at first sight of an elegant simplicity, proves to be based on a sophisticated structura canonic design, as quasi the young composer’s compact ‘meistersttick’, done to qualify as a master: Here, in al its three phrases, the Dessus brings a Proposta, followed by a canonic Risposta in the Basse, whereby the answering interval is at first ‘all’Otava’, and thereafter ‘alla Duodecima’ in counterpoint at the Fifth.8°’ The rhythmical freedom, containing elements from both Augmentation and Diminution, quasi recalls features from 14"-century madrigal, while melodically the final cadences — conform usage in dance periodicity anc harmonically unavoidable — are in free treatment*** (a design that equally transpires in the piece’s Double; se« also § 8.8, ‘Canonic Use of a Primal Melodic Cell’, concerning this same Gavotte).

Ps Example Gaspard Le Roux, Piéces de Clavessin (1705), synoptic comparison of the solo Clavecin Version and the Trio Version, revealing conflictuous situations (marked + and = )

912 See FDBR/2021, § 18, where, at note 344, examples are mentioned of J.S. Bach, i.a. inserting fugal interludes in his harpsichord transcription of J.A. Reincken’s Sonata I, BWV 965. JOD. °13 Note, that in the literature, when considering borrowings by e.g., J.S. Bach — in spite of said examples concerning Reincken and others —, applied techniques such as mentioned here, were rarely taken into consideration, leading to missing correspondences which also reveal noteworthy compositional working methods. (Incidentally, the same principles are applied

versions by Babel in earlier mentioned ‘Babel-Ensemble’ volumes carrying his ex libris (Fig., Courtesy of the British Library; see also FDBR/2021, § 7, esp. n. 241; this, ignoring the suggestion that perhaps ‘the volumes did not end up in his hands till years later’). Actually, this source could well represent Babel’s only known direct commission, dating from shortly after 1702, as the ductus of the handwriting suggests. Note also, that a Cholmondeley lived in Carteret’s Arlington Street (§ 3.1).

Example Synoptic view of the opening sentences in (above) Frangois Dieupart, Sarabande V (F), and (below) John Loeillet, Early Suite 1 (c1712), Slow Aire (e, transp. f). While the notes — in fact tones — of Dieupart’s Soprano return almost literally in Loeillet, there, as a variation, particularly the interval directions have been inverted, exchanging rising for descending melos and v.v., while preserving its overall melos (see arrows). SSO) See RE NEL RTE TOSCO INERT NTCET, FER eIni ees Bae Remarkably, at the same ‘time in m. 3 unmistakably Dieupart’s broken style accompaniment in the Left Hand was adopted literally (marked *). Later on, in Loeillet’s piece, this opening phrase will return twice: firstly, at the Reprise (mm. 13 ff.), with only a slight variation of Dieupart’s m. 3 (again, mainly inverting the melodic direction, C-Bb-A becoming F-G-A), and finally, in the piece’s three- measure conclusion (mm. 27ff.), now giving mentioned accompanying /uthé notes to the Alto part in the Right Hand as well.

Figure Synoptic view of Francois Dieupart, Suite ‘VII’, Loure, opening phrase as transmitted in TtB: A-Wm, MS 743, keyboard arrangement; André Cardinal Destouches, Amadis de Gréce (1699) short score, ed. Ballard Paris 1699 (F-Pn); and idem, full score, manuscript by André Danican Philidor l’ainé (F-Pn, MS Rés. F. 1689). Reproduced courtesy of resp. the Minoritenkonvent Vienna and the Bibliothéque nationale de France. favorite: Destouches. It concerns his opera Amadis de Gréce, 1699, incorporating Dieupart’s Suite ‘VIII’ in its entirety, elaborated in an opulent five-part orchestral setting, testifying to a contemporary interpretation of Dieupart’s sequence of dances as dramatically charged. The following Example reproduces the first sentence of the overture-style Loure opening Dieupart’s suite, in three readings: the transmitted (poor) keyboard arrangement of Dieupart’s piece (in A-Wm, MS 743), Destouches’ version in short score in Ballard’s edition (1699), and this composer’s full score in a preserved manuscript copy originating from the Bibliotheque du Roi — Palais Royal (Fig.).?°?

Example Synoptic view of passages in (above) Fran¢ois Dieupart, Ouverture III (the stippled 32-s in m. | represent the Couperinesque redundant beaming in the arguably original ‘Ensemble Version’; cf. FDBR/202/, n. 241), and (below) André Cardinal Destouches, Télémaque (1714), V/8, Prélude pour Minerve (c, transp. b). 3) Télémaque (1714), I/3, 1° Air des Sacrificateurs 1, mm. 1-8! (cf. Dieupart, Allemande IV (e), mm. 1-7); and 4) Télémaque, V/8, Prélude pour Minerve, a French overture, I, mm. 5“-10 (cf. Dieupart, once more Ouverture III (b), mm 1-7™).**4 The latter case is illustrated in the following Example.

Example Synoptic view of the opening measures of (above) F. Dieupart, Gigue I (A), and (below) L. Marchand, Suite I, Allemande (d, transp. a).

As for mentioned early dissemination, although Marchand’s Livre appeared in 1699 “chez l’auteur” (Fig. vith detail of date, New York Public Library) — not in 1702 as mostly given —he could still have known Dieupart’ ix Suittes, published in 1701, as they were already circulating in Paris by c1696 as we saw. Besides, as to confirm above composite borrowing, also in Marchand’s Livre Second, 1702, in the opening full five measures of the Allemande in its only Suite (‘II’) in G minor, an apparent imitation of Dieupart’s Allemande IV (mm. 1-4; see Ex.) can be found, concerning an opening as well, this time containing only one expansion, spreading Dieupart’s three-and-a-half measures into full five measures. Noticeably, two slight variants in the Bass (mm. 3, 4) are explained by Marchand harmonically replacing Dieupart’s Tonic I into respectively its substitute VI or Subdominant IV (degrees marked in the Ex).

Example Synoptic view of the opening measures of (above) Frangois Dieupart, Allemande IV (e), and (below) Louis Marchand, Suite II, Allemande (g, transp. e).

Example Synoptic view of two passages in the Reprises of (above) F. Dieupart, Allemande IV (e), and (below) L. Marchand, Suite II, Allemande (g, transp. e). 38 As we saw (fn. 33), both Marchand and Dieupart independently seem to have imitated Louis Couperin’s relatively popular Allemande grave no. 67 (F).

In Clérambault’s I* Livre de Piéces de Clavegin [sic], 1702 (Fig.”*’), rev. 2/ engr. 1703, publ. 1704, Suite I (C), 2™° Sarabande, mm. 1-2 and 10-12 may be called imitations after Dieupart (cf. Dieupart, Sarabanc V, mm. 1-2, 23"-25), as demonstrated in the following Example. Example Synoptic view of two passages in (above) Dieupart, Sarabande V (F), and (below) Clérambault, Suite I, 2"° Sarabande (C, transp. F).

Example Synoptic view of two passages: (Above) Francois Dieupart, Gigue V (F), and (below) Jean-Fran¢ois D’ Andrieu, Livre (I) ‘de jeunesse’, 1704/’05, Gigue (d). The red and blue hooks in D’Andrieu enclose series of notes corresponding respectively to Dieupart’s Dessus and Basse, in spite of the different tonalities.

Example Synoptic view of the openings of the first halves of (above) F. Dieupart, Courante VI (f, transp. d), and (below) D’Andrieu, (1°) Courante from 1704-05 (d). Note in D’Andrieu the corresponding melodic lines in both Soprano and Bass, plus a counterpart in the Tenor (blue hook), while interpolating one full measure (m. 3, skipped in the Ex.).

Example Synoptic view of the openings of (above) F. Dieupart, Gigue I (A) and (below) G. Le Roux, Suite IV, Gigue (A). ISR S UNM Rn eee tenerernssinnns Use areenernnn wwe age ORNs ENA SEMMS IE: ENS SE ES EE = eee eee aaa iceman = “aici <> SR maaan aia such measures (FDBR/2021, § 18, esp. p. 87, with Ex.), incidentally also practicing expansions. May therefore the dispute, who may have inspired Bach in 1714-’17 to his imposing Prélude to the first English Suite, be settled forever: It clearly was Francois Dieupart. At the same time, equally Le Roux — a composer about whom very little is definitively known — was evidently imitating Dieupart’s gigue in his 1705 edition, its repertoire actually being probably composed as early as in the late 17" century already, as the old- style void notes notation of his preludes non mesurés suggests. Still, as can be confirmed now — perhaps interestingly, partially confirming abovementioned estimation — at least this Gigue ‘a /’imitation de Mr. Dieupart’ may well be dated as: ‘not before 1695’.**! Also, in D’Andrieu’s (‘adult’) Second Livre de Piéces de Clavecin from 1728, Troisiéme Suite (d/D) Ouverture La Magiciéne (4), its first section (mm. 1-10) represents clearly recognizably a diminuted version o Dieupart’s Ouverture III (b), Section 1 (mm. 1-17) skipping half way seven measures (mm. 6“-13™): a mere cas of copy and paste.

from 1699, of which the opening phrase seems to return in Le Roux’s Allemande VI in F# minor (cf. mm. 1-3").

Example Synoptic view of passages in F. Dieupart, Gigue IV in E minor, and J.-Ph. Rameau, Prélude [non mesuré] in A minor (1706).

Example Synoptic view of four passages in Francois Dieupart, Gavotte IV in E minor, Early Version, and J.-Ph. Rameau, Gavotte [en Rondeau] in A minor (1706).

Example Synoptic view of opening sentences in Francois Dieupart, Gavotte IV, Early Version, arrangement in Babel-Harpsichord (e, transp. c), and J.-Ph. Rameau, La Livri, harpsichord version (c) from 1741.°

Canonic Use of a Primal Melodic Cell (@DBA/202/, n. 2/6) Surprisingly, as early as in Dieupart’s Early-Gavotte IV in E minor, the composer applies to his primal melodic cell even a learned canonic device (mm. *1-4™), a rare, perhaps unique additional artifice in his output, if not beyond (Ex.; stemless notes: harmony — no figures in keyboard source, v.i.). Thereby, the Basse, brings the cell e’’- b’- a’- g’- f#’ - e' at the lower octave as a Proposta (blue), answered by a Risposta (red) in the Dessus — traditionally, necessarily in dance periodicity, the tail melodically slightly adapted at the half close (see § 6.5 sub ‘The Young Fugueist Francois Dieupart — An Early Canonic ‘Meisterstiick” , treating also this Gavotte’s general canonic structures). only by its twofold occurrence (also in m. 5), but especially by the grave parallel fifths, diminished to pure, which would arise if the D was held. The ‘En Concert’ Version has a more sophisticated, unproblematic harmonization, strengthening the abovementioned conclusion that the latter was the original form. 42 Apparently, Dieupart’s attractive Early-Gavotte IV with playful Double, today only transmitted in English MSS sources Babel-Harpsichord and -Ensemble, Tenbury, Fitzwilliam, all evidently based on Babel’s portfolio collected in Paris —, knew also some dissemination in France, being paraphrased by Rameau, even up to two times (v.s.).

Example Synoptic view of passages in (above) Fran¢ois Dieupart, Allemande ‘VII’ in D major, and (below) Elisabeth Jacquet de La Guerre, Allemande from her second Suite in G major (second book, 1707). The divergence half way was apparently caused by Jacquet’s expansion, namely the repetition of the two-note Soprano motif c#’’-d” in the Tenor as c#’-d’, now once more moving by thirds. Finally, Dieupart’s concluding chord A maj. vs. Jacquet’s deviating F# min. seems to result from a simple harmonic variant, whereby Dieupart’s I-V-I was replaced by Jacquet’s I-V4-VI (VI substituting I). Not in Jacquet’s first harpsichord book, but even more in her second, the Piéces de Clavecin qui peuvent se jouer sur le Viollon (1707), in the Allemande in the second Suite in G major, four passages apparently imitate Dieupart.’*> Firstly and secondly, mm. 3!V-6! (Ex.) and as a variant mm. 12!!-14! are apparently inspired by Dieupart’s ‘manuscript’ Allemande ‘VII‘, mm. 6-8".

Example Synoptic view of passages in (above) Fran¢ois Dieupart, Allemande ‘VII’ — in the arrangement in Babel- Harpsichord -, and (below) Nicolas Siret, Suite I (D) from his first Livre 1708-‘11, Allemande Le Bouquet. Note, that in both composers it concerns the Reprise of their Allemande. Also, apparently Siret’s immediate succession of an expansion and a contraction was caused within the canonic structure of Soprano and Bass by his wish to have the Proposta (11) answered in its literal, rhythmically complete form, by the Risposta (I 1). Apparently Dieupart intended to shape the Answer in a dynamic contracted form, to obtain a stretto-like, compact Risposta, as an artifice performing a dynamic metric shift per arsin et thesin (in Fig. marked resp. ~ and —) actually one of the composer’s characteristics.

°46 T am grateful to Dr Denis Herlin, IReMus, CNRS, Paris, for kindly communicating to me his actualized time frame of publication of Siret’s first Livre de Pieces de Clavecin as between 1708 and before April 1711.

Example Synoptic view of opening sentences of Francois Dieupart, Gavotte V (F, transp. A) and Nicolas Siret, Livre II (1719), third Suite, Seconde Gavotte en Rondeau (A). In Siret’s third suite (a/A) of this book, we recognize paraphrases of Dieupart in the Seconde Gavotte en Rondeau (or. Gavotte, Rondeau) in A major, particularly in its threefold ‘Grand Couplet’, mm. 1-4" (cf. Dieupart’s Gavotte V, also mm. 1-4", featuring its dominating main theme, heard no less than about nine times in several variants throughout the piece, performing canons in both — arguably original — Dessus and Basse). In Siret’s mm. 2 and 3 the divergent melodic lines are clearly the consequence of his modification of Dieupart’s harmonic degrees (respectively V to VI, and I to IV). Other differences are apparent result from Siret’s expansion or contraction of Dieupart’s original. Note also that in both pieces it concerns their opening phrases (Ex.).

Example Synoptic view of passages in (above) Francois Dieupart, Gavotte V (F transp. A), and (below) Nicolas Siret, Livre II (1719), third suite, 2“° Gavotte en Rondeau (A). In Siret, red notes equal those in Dieupart’s Right Hand, blue notes those in his Left Hand.

As a rappel, or rather a bis, may be a surprising supplement: Within Southern Europe, apparently also in Italy, in Domenico Scarlatti’s output imitations after Dieupart can be recognized. It concerns his Sonata K 103 in G major, mm. 1-3, MS Venice, compiled 1749, apparently — as a clash between two cultures — after Dieupart’s Gigue I, showing all his four fugal subject entries (Fig.; cf. the example of Dieupart’s Gigue in A major, reproduced above at Le Roux).”4”

Example Synoptic view of passages from (a) Francois Dieupart, Gavotte I (A), (b) J.S. Bach, Organ Prelude in Eb major BWV 552 from the Organ Mass.