Purcell Manuscripts: The Principal Musical Sources. By Robert Shay and Robert Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. [xxii, 353 pp. ISBN 0-521-58094-3 $90.]
Reviewed by Rebecca Herissone*
1.1 For a composer such as Purcell, for whom standard documentary evidence is frustratingly scarce, primary manuscript sources are more than usually significant resources. It is hardly surprising, then, that the Purcell autographs in particular have received considerable attention from scholars over the years. Indeed, as Robert Thompson has written elsewhere, they are amongst the most studied of all English musical sources, and it may seem presumptuous to suggest that very much of importance remains to be learned about them.1 But, while individual manuscripts have frequently been used as a means to an end—as, for example, a tool for dating a particular work, or judging for what purpose it might have been copied—there has until now been no attempt to examine, catalogue and assess the Purcell sources in their own right. Shay and Thompson had already gone some way towards filling this gap in their independent contributions to Purcell Studies in 1995,2 but now they have carried out a comprehensive analysis of not only all the Purcell autographs, but also many of the other important manuscript sources of the period relating to Purcells œuvre. The result is a book which will almost certainly prove to be a major contribution to Restoration musical scholarship.
1.2 Shay and Thompsons methodology centers around what they term a forensic approach to the manuscripts, in which they painstakingly analyze every aspect of each sources physical characteristics, including the type of paper used, its watermarks, rastrology, the collation of its leaves of paper, and the hands involved in copying its contents. While this information is often recorded for reference purposes, its principal use—as has become characteristic of Thompsons work especially3 —is as primary material with which the authors carry out a detailed reassessment not only of the sources themselves, but often also of the music they contain.
2.1 What makes their work stand out is the tremendous attention to detail, which, though at times bordering on the pedantic, makes their conclusions thoroughly convincing. This is most noticeable in their analysis of Purcells hand and the alterations it underwent: it is astonishing to realize that this fundamental aspect of the study of Purcell sources has hitherto been addressed only briefly, the main account having been published over a century ago.4 Shay and Thompson therefore begin by placing Purcells writing in the context of the changing styles of seventeenth-century England (pp. 23–26) and go on to use independent dating evidence to establish more or less exactly when various aspects of his hand developed (pp. 30–32). In subsequent chapters they are then able to use the characteristics of his writing to suggest dates of copying and, sometimes, composition. For example, they are able to ascertain the various stages at which Purcell added works to the great autographs, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum (GB-Cfm) Mu MS 88 (pp. 41–46), and London, British Library (GB-Lbl) Royal Music MS 20.h.8 (pp. 127 and 130–33), and to make observations about the compilation of GB-Lbl Additional MS 30930 (pp. 99–100). Elsewhere, handwriting and other evidence, such as the presence of pieces within particular concordances, allow them to challenge previously accepted datings, including those of Hear My Prayer—usually considered to date from around 1680 but here moved to c. 1685 (p. 46)—and They That Go Down to the Sea in Ships, which they think could relate to incidents in 1682 rather than the 1685 suggested by its position in MS 20.h.8 (pp. 145–50).
2.2 Although there is an understandable emphasis on Purcells autographs, Shay and Thompson in fact investigate in detail a much wider body of sources, comprising much of the major copying activity centered around the royal court in the Restoration period. They suggest identities for a number of previously anonymous copyists, such as London A, whom, due to his close links with Purcell and the Chapel Royal, they believe could have been the organist Francis Piggott (pp. 134–35). Where positive identification is not possible, they are still able to group together manuscripts apparently copied by a single person, such as the sets of theater music by London E (pp. 241–44). Perhaps most useful, however, is the way in which they treat these manuscripts not as individual sources which happen to contain music by Purcell, but instead as groups of interconnected concordances, many of which relate directly to one another. For instance, they are able to demonstrate that GB-Cfm 88 was used as the exemplar for groups of anthems copied by the Windsor musician William Isaack into his great scorebook, GB-Cfm 117 (pp. 40–41), and also by the singer John Gostling in his collection now known as The Gostling Manuscript (US-AUS Pre-1700 85; p. 66), while the latter source in turn has close links with Blows autograph organ score (GB-Mp BRm370Bp35; pp. 210–11). Their confident and convincing establishment of such stemmata will obviously be useful to those involved in the editing of Purcells music—indeed, to any scholar who undertakes source-based work on Restoration music—but, as they themselves claim, it also has a broader value in giving us a deeper appreciation of the place of each major manuscript source in the working life of the musicians who copied and used it (p. xiii).
2.3 The book is organized so that the early chapters concentrate on the three major Purcell autographs, while in the later sections the emphasis switches to sources containing particular repertories. While it is difficult to see how the authors might have arranged their material differently, this approach inevitably results in some overlaps, particularly in Chapter 5, Performing materials from the London sacred establishments, where frequent reference has to be made back to sources already treated in connection with the sacred music contained in the great autographs in Chapters 2 to 4.5 One also feels occasionally that these later chapters are slightly weaker than the earlier ones because the authors necessarily have to treat a large number of manuscripts quite briefly: the book is at its most revealing in the chapter on Cfm 88 where just three concordances are analyzed in considerable depth. One other slight criticism is that, occasionally, the source-based approach results in observations about individual pieces which, while they are indisputably valuable and interesting in their own right, are nevertheless isolated in a way that makes it difficult to draw overall conclusions about Purcells music.
2.4 It would be easy to perceive this book simply as a reference tool cataloguing the physical characteristics of Restoration manuscript sources. Certainly there are aspects of the book which are designed with this reference purpose in mind: there are indexes cataloguing where information on particular manuscripts, copyists, works and even paper types occurs; and copious tables are used in the text itself to summarize details of codicology, relationships between manuscripts, and source contents. At times the writing itself is dense and some material appears to have been included more for the sake of completeness than to pursue any particular argument or hypothesis. Occasionally ideas are also repeated in sections on different manuscripts, suggesting that the authors do not expect their text to be read from cover to cover.6 But to view Purcell Manuscripts from the perspective of individual, isolated sources does not do it justice: through their minute examination of an enormous body of manuscripts relating to Purcells musical circle, Shay and Thompson have greatly enhanced our knowledge of copying activity and of the interaction between professional musicians during the Restoration period. Moreover, by on the whole restricting their investigations to those which relate directly to the manuscripts—rather than, for example, exploring the implications of their revised datings—they often end up asking as many questions as they answer: there is enough material here to keep many of us who work on Purcellian sources occupied for some time to come.
* Rebecca Herissone (firstname.lastname@example.org)
read Music at Cambridge University, then studied for a Masters degree
at Kings College, London before returning to Cambridge to complete her
PhD. She held a research fellowship at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and
is now Lecturer in Music at Lancaster University, UK. Her first book, Music Theory in Seventeenth-Century England, was published by
Oxford University Press in 2000.
1. Robert Thompson, Purcells Great Autographs, in Purcell Studies, ed. Curtis Price (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995), 6.
2. See Thompson, Purcells Great Autographs, 6; and
Robert Shay, Purcell as Collector of Ancient Music: Fitzwilliam MS
88, in Purcell Studies, 31–50. Some of the material contained
in Purcell Manuscripts is taken directly from these earlier papers,
such as Thompsons reconstruction of the original collation of British
Library Add. MS 30930 (pp. 90–97 and pp. 24–29 in Purcells Great Autographs),
but most of the common ground is covered in much more detail here, and
some of their theories—notably the idea of John Blow as the original copyist
of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Mu MS 88—have clearly developed since the publication
of the earlier essays.
3. See, for instance, Robert Thompson, Some Late Sources
of Music by John Jenkins, in John Jenkins and his Time: Studies in
English Consort Music, ed. Andrew Ashbee and Peter Holman (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1996), 271–308; and Paper in English Music Manuscripts:
1620–1645, in William Lawes (1602–1645): Essays on his Life, Times
and Work, ed. Andrew Ashbee (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 143–154.
4. See Augustus Hughes-Hughes, Henry Purcells Handwriting,
The Musical Times 37 (1896): 81–3.
5. See, for instance, p. 211 on the Service in B flat,
and p. 226 on the music for the funeral of Queen Mary.
6. For example, on p. 161 they assert in connection
with the partial autograph of Hail Bright Cecilia in GB-Ob Mus.c.26 that Purcell could have intentionally composed the beginnings
and ends of his major odes independently of their central sections or
at least have organized his scores so that these passages could easily
be separated. On p. 163 virtually the same idea is repeated for the autograph
of Who can from joy refrain? in GB-Lbl Add. 30934 as if
mentioned for the first time: Purcell organized his work so that the
overture and final chorus could conveniently be separated from the rest,
perhaps to facilitate the copying of parts or for rehearsal; a similar
procedure seems to have been followed for the autograph of the St. Cecilias
day ode in GB-Ob Mus.c.26.
Copyright © 2001 by the Society for Seventeenth-Century Music. All rights reserved.
 Copyrights for individual items published in The Journal of Seventeenth-Century Music (JSCM) are held by their authors. Items appearing in JSCM may be saved and stored in electronic or paper form, and may be shared among individuals for purposes of scholarly research or discussion, but may not be republished in any form, electronic or print, without prior, written permission from the author(s), and advance notification of the editors of JSCM.
 Any redistributed form of items published in JSCM must include the following information in a form appropriate to the medium in which the items are to appear:
 Libraries may archive issues of JSCM in electronic or paper form for public access so long as each issue is stored in its entirety, and no access fee is charged. Exceptions to these requirements must be approved in writing by the editors of JSCM, who will act in accordance with the decisions of the Society for Seventeenth-Century Music.
 Citations to articles from JSCM should include the URL as found at the beginning of the article and the paragraph number; for example:
This document and all portions thereof are protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. Material contained herein may be copied and/or distributed for research purposes only.