John Dowland’s
‘Lachrimae’ in its Continental Context
Michael Gale and Tim Crawford
King’s College, London
By 1603, the famed Elizabethan lutenist John Dowland
was so closely associated with his most popular composition, the
‘Lachrimae’ pavan, that he was already signing his name as
‘Jo: dolandi de Lachrimae’.[1]
(Figure 1) The very fact that Dowland felt it appropriate to do so in a
Continental book indicates that the fame of this work was not just restricted
to his home country of England. The widespread dissemination of this piece is
unsurprising for two reasons; firstly, Dowland travelled extensively as one of
the most sought-after lute virtuosi of his age, holding various posts in
Germany and Denmark and, secondly, the vogue for English dance music spread
rapidly throughout the German-speaking courts of Northern Europe during the
later years of the sixteenth century. Until now, however, no systematic attempt
has been made to assess the legion of ‘Lachrimae’ settings and
imitations that materialised during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth
centuries. The aim of this study, then, is to collate as much of this material
as possible and present some preliminary hypotheses regarding in particular the
transmission of this piece across mainland Europe. And although a number of
‘Lachrimae’ arrangements elude classification, several
‘families’ of settings nevertheless emerge, including one derived
from a distinctive English G minor lute piece (perhaps originating from Dowland
himself) which was transmitted in both Continental and English sources.
Elsewhere across Europe, a number of interesting lute settings arose which
appear to have their roots in lost consort versions, whereas, in other
instrumental and vocal repertories, ‘Lachrimae’ became reduced to a
two-part framework, often used as a harmonic template for virtuosic
elaboration.
The ‘Lachrimae’ pavan is perhaps best
known as either the opening pavan of Dowland’s seminal consort collection
LoST (1604) or in song
form, as ‘Flow my teares’ from 2nd Booke (1600). Robert Spencer (amongst others)
has convincingly argued that the latter is a texting of an earlier instrumental
model, something which is strongly supported by the fact that the song bears
the subheading ‘Lacrime’.[2]
Whilst an ‘original’ model for the song cannot be firmly identified
(and is quite probably a chimerical notion), a number of earlier settings of
the pavan survive in English lute sources. These can be subdivided according to
their tonality and warrant a brief summary.
The ‘English’ version
Although it is by no means a certainty, there is
circumstantial evidence to suggest that a G minor setting preserved in a number
of English manuscript sources may have originally emanated from Dowland
himself. The earliest sources for this setting are Dd.2.11, 81v and Dd.5.78, both of which are thought to have been compiled in
the late 1580s or early 1590s by Matthew Holmes; later sources include Euing, 31392, JP, Board,
Welde, and Herbert. (See Example 1.) On the whole, the piece
is transmitted with remarkable stability, with most variants appearing to be
‘performance-orientated’ or minor scribal errors rather than attempts
at recomposition. For instance, rhythms are often dotted in later sources
(especially throughout bars 11a-14a), cadential formulae slightly varied, and
pitch inflections and chord voicings are occasionally the subject of minor
alterations. In some later sources, the piece has been adapted for an
instrument with additional bass strings. Unusually, the divisions on each
strain of the pavan are reproduced with great consistency, the only exceptions
being ML (which has
some added flourishes) and 6402 (which omits the divisions altogether).
Given the stability of this piece’s
transmission, it is interesting to note that Dd.2.11 bears Dowland’s signature (although
not alongside any of the ‘Lachrimae’ settings) whilst Board is thought to be connected with Dowland’s
teaching activities and contains some autograph material. Furthermore, FD contains a very closely related version of
the piece which differs only in that it features an alternative A division and
a variant of the final four bars of the C division. Since this source includes
five pieces signed by Dowland and is thought to have belonged to a student of
his, it seems plausible that this version may be another of his own creation.
It is also worth noting that the earliest firmly datable version of this piece,
that printed from wood-blocks in Barley (1596), is a G minor setting of a similar ilk to
those already discussed. It is not always clear whether the many variants
contained in this print arise from typesetting errors or constitute genuine
attempts at recomposition. (See 
Figure 2.) However, Dowland’s famous
complaint in the following year that his pieces had been ‘lately printed
without my knowledge, falce and unperfect’, whether musically or
financially motivated, implicitly suggests that there was at least one ‘approved’ version in
circulation which stemmed directly from the composer.[3]
Of course, the proliferation of sources for the G
minor version does not necessarily mean that it is the ‘original’;
the fact that this version does not fit altogether satisfactorily onto a
6-course lute (g-d-a-F-C-G) might be seen as a further reason to doubt this.
The problem of enforced registral displacement of the bass line between bars 13
and 14 of the G minor versions (the low F is not available on a six-course
lute) is avoided in A minor settings (Example 2),
although this key requires higher hand positions throughout and generally asks
more difficult stretches of the player. Certainly, there were A minor versions
dating from at least the same time as the early G minor sources, with a unique
A minor setting with divisions also occurring in Dd.2.11, 76v (a C minor solo bandora version also
appears in the same source (Dd.2.11, 84v)). Two sources, Hirsch and the fragmentary 2764, preserve another, possibly earlier, A
minor setting. Whilst this, an ABC setting without divisions, is in some
respects simpler than the G minor one, they share certain characteristic
features, such as the upper auxiliary in bar 2 (omitted in ‘Flow my
teares’ and its derivatives), the inner parts to bars 1 and 4-6, and the
major triad at bar 11iii (LoST has a minor triad here). Either (or neither) lute setting might be
Dowland’s original, with no convincing reason to prefer one over the other.
The English lute settings abroad
As has already been stated, Dowland’s frequent
travelling and his fame as a performer resulted in a wide dissemination of his
works overseas. Peter Holman has suggested that the 5-part consort version of
the ‘Lachrimae’ pavan in Kassel is a pre-publication copy of the LoST version, perhaps circulated by Dowland
around 1594-5 when he was in the service of Moritz, Landgrave of Hesse
(1572-1632), and there is no reason to suppose that his lute pieces were not
similarly distributed.[4]
Another route of transmission would be through the lutebooks of travelling
noblemen (such as Lord Herbert of Cherbury, whose lutebook happens to contain a late copy of the
English G minor version); if foreign pieces were added to such a book whilst
the owner was abroad, it is quite possible that some of the English contents
would also have been copied by local musicians.
It is interesting to note that there are no surviving
Continental sources of the early English A minor lute setting. (In fact, there
are no Continental lute versions in A minor at all; even the lute part to LoST, which constitutes a perfectly respectable
solo setting in its own right, is not amongst those LoST parts reprinted by Van den Hove in his Delitiae
Musice). The G minor
version, however, fared slightly better, being both directly copied (although,
curiously, without the divisions so popular in England) and used as the basis
for further recomposition. The version in Thysius (compiled ?1620s) is a testament to the
longevity of this version, being a very close copy of a piece that was by now
well over a quarter of a century old. The adjacent page to this includes
another lute part apparently in D minor; it is presumably a duet part for a
different sized instrument pitched a fifth lower or a fourth higher, unless it
is a simple consort part for a D minor setting analogous with those in Morley and Cambridge Consort.
Although not primarily a musical source but a
patriotic account of political conflict between the Netherlands and Spain, Valerius includes many songs and instrumental
pieces, amongst which are three versions of ‘Lachrimae’ presented
together on adjacent pages. These pieces (a two-part vocal version in D minor,
a cittern piece in D minor and a lute setting in G minor) were clearly not
intended for simultaneous performance, since they all carry the melody (with
varying degrees of elaboration and differing harmonic detail). Simon Groot has
recently shown that much of the music in this print is taken from printed
sources either from England or with strong English connections, and has
suggested that the cittern parts were produced either by Valerius or by someone
within his circle, since they are derived from the vocal versions of the
melodies.[5]
This may well be the case in some instances, but the ‘Lachrimae’
setting contains a bar rest during the imitative passage in strain C (bar 20),
which strongly suggests that this unusual piece belongs to an ensemble
arrangement of some description. There can be little doubt that the lute
version is a second- (perhaps third-) generation derivative of the English G
minor setting, being replete with printing errors (bar 3 opens with an
incorrect chord) and recompositions (the flourish from bar 2iii, or the
ornamented sequential passage from bar 12), yet clearly a close relative.
Romers also contains a G minor ‘Lachrimae’ which has much in
common with the English sources, particularly the version in 6402. Whilst the melodic contour of the English
piece has been both eroded (bar 4) and elaborated (bar 6) in places (Example 3), the Romers version is largely harmonically consistent with its
probable model, and displays the characteristically English auxiliary note in
bar 2. There are some odd substitute chords in bar 9 and bar 22-23 but these,
in all likelihood, result from a scribe attempting to make corrections when
copying from an exemplar in which some of the bass notes have been positioned
on the wrong strings, rather than representing a genuine harmonic innovation (Example 4). Although little is known for sure about this
manuscript, it would appear to be of Westphalian origin, and the numerous
English pieces might well have been imported via Kassel, since it includes
works by ‘M[oritz] L[andgraf von] H[esse]’.
Another instance of a Continental lute arrangement
derived from the English G minor version can be found in Fuhrmann, ascribed to V[alentin] S[trobel].
Although featuring an elaborate and unique set of divisions, this
setting’s model is quite apparent. Most notably, this would appear to be
an example of a Continental version being exported back to England, since, as well as the south-German
copy in Haslemere, it
appears (alongside a good deal of other Continental music) in Cosens, 36v, which is certainly of English provenance.
In this source, however, it is initialled ‘C.K.’[6]
An interesting approach to the English G minor setting
can be found in the Thesaurus Harmonicus of the French lutenist Jean-Baptiste Besard (Cologne, 1603), who spent much of his
career in Germany as a lute teacher. Despite its title, his ‘Fantasia
Ioannis Doland Angli Lachrima’ (
Figure 3) is by-and-large a version of
the English piece with ‘improvements’ added to its divisions.
Besard’s choice of title possibly provides a degree of insight into his
view of the ‘Lachrimae’ pavan as a starting point for compositional
and performative elaboration rather than as a sacrosanct entity.[7] The most notable melodic deviations from
its English model can be seen in the A strain, whilst a number of interesting
harmonic substitutions are evident throughout. The most notable of these are a)
the strong bass progression in bar 2 (something that Besard later employed in
the odd consort version included in his Novus Partus) and b) the 6/4 chord in bar 20iii (Example 5). However, this piece, like much of
Besard’s printed output, is also riddled with misprints (especially
rhythmic ones), which often render it difficult to discern between error and
invention. To single out just one instance, the highest pitch of the very first
chord is carelessly omitted, thus ruining the famous descending tetrachord.
(See Figure 3.) Bearing in mind the early date of this setting and the
popularity and influence enjoyed by Besard, it is easy to imagine how the
‘Lachrimae’ pavan metamorphosed so rapidly and radically. This
process would have been exacerbated by the copying of flawed printed versions
into manuscript anthologies with all errors intact; the direct copy of this one
in Nauclerus serves as
an excellent case in point.
Some notable Continental lute
arrangements
Besides the derivatives of the English G minor version
that were in circulation on the Continent, there were a number of interesting
lute settings with no apparent connection with surviving English sources. The
earliest firmly datable Continental setting is the ‘Pavana a 5 voc.
Dulandi Angli’ published by Rude in 1600. (Example 6) The somewhat intriguing rubric
attached to this piece seems to suggest that it is an intabulation of a lost
consort setting, something which is further supported by the fact that a point
of melodic imitation disappears from the texture during bars 20-21. However,
one should take care not to assume that this is necessarily a successful
intabulation of its model, nor that it is an intabulation of a good
arrangement. Indeed, the clumsy attempt at an inner voice suspension in bar
4iii-iv (perhaps a misprint?), not to mention the uniquely condensed / adjusted
harmonic rhythm of bars 21, suggest that, somewhere earlier along the
evolutionary line, a less-than-satisfactory source may have contributed to this
particular version.
A few other lute settings (Dlugoraj 78, Königsberg 24, Brussels), all of which are in G minor, lack divisions and
bear little in common with their English counterparts, can be fruitfully
considered as a group alongside Rude’s version. This is a disparate
group, with no clear sequential relationship discernible between them (although
this is perhaps unsurprising when one considers that their period of
compilation spans approximately 35 years). Nevertheless, a number of salient
features are shared between these versions and Rude, none of which are encountered in the
English transmission(s).
To give only a handful of examples, all four feature a
substitute chord (an inserted IV) in bar 2 unseen in any English sources (Example 7a). Furthermore, Rude’s distinctive
ascending bass motif in bar 19 is also featured in Königsberg 24 (Example 7b),
whilst the exposed descending run in bar 20 is mirrored in both Königsberg
24v and Brussels. All four versions seem to share from a
common fount of elaborative melodic material, often resulting in a marked
erosion of the original ‘Lachrimae’ melody; particularly
characteristic are the prominent melodic auxiliary notes in bars 1 and 3 (Brussels, Dlugoraj 78) and bar 9 (Rude, Königsberg 24 and Dlugoraj 78) (Example 7c &
Example 7d). Whilst these four sources do not by any
means share all of the
same features, the web of cross-references between them strongly suggests that
this group might have either derived from Rude’s intabulation, or be based
upon the same distant original model.
It is worth mentioning briefly the two versions in
Montbuysson 5
and Montbuysson 55v, both of which display a closer stylistic
affinity with the G minor English setting than the previously discussed
sources, whilst simultaneously exhibiting some of the features which we have
identified as being distinctly ‘Continental’ (e.g. the important
chord substitution in bar 2). Montbuysson was based at Kassel from 1598 to
1627, where he might well have encountered (either in manuscript or
performance) English versions of the piece stemming from Dowland himself (who
had been employed there in 1594). The two closely-related settings in this
source were not committed to paper until 1611, and thus might well represent a
composite of a number of English and Continental versions known to Montbuysson.
The melodic simplifications incorporated into these pieces and their relative
simplicity might well have arisen from the pedagogical function of
Montbuysson’s manuscript.
Joachim van den Hove’s
‘Lachrimae’ settings
Two more interesting Continental lute settings lie in
close chronological proximity to Rude’s, namely the one which is included
in Joachim van den Hove’s Florida (1601) and the anonymous setting in Herold, according to its title-page a copy of a
German lutebook made in 1602 by a student studying in Padua. There are some
exterior indications that there may be a connection between these two versions,
since both are in G minor, are coupled with triple-time versions, and use the
unusual formal scheme AAiBCBiCi.[8]
Most notably, perhaps, both are exceedingly florid throughout, with little
attention paid to the melodic contour of the English pavan. Furthermore, close
examination of the undivided strains reveals a greater similarity between the
two versions than initially meets the eye or ear, although the divisions are
largely unique. The undivided strains employ essentially the same structural
pitches throughout, suggesting that they are derived from a common harmonic
template. Both settings also exhibit a penchant for virtuosic writing in
parallel thirds and sixths and, on occasions (such as between bars 3-8) even
duplicate passagework more-or-less verbatim (Example 8a).
Another interesting feature almost unique to these two versions (only the
version for violin and bass instrument in Schermar has it too) is the dominant chord
substituted into bar 10 (Example 8b). These musical
details suggest very strongly that the Herold setting is also the work of Van
den Hove, something which is further supported by the fact that many of the
pieces located nearby in Herold are either ascribed to him or were included in Florida a year before Herold was copied from its exemplar. Perhaps,
then, these settings might be thought of as two contrasting yet more-or-less
contemporary ‘snapshots’ of one performer’s use of the pavan
as a framework within which to display his virtuosity. Even at this early
stage, the melody of the English version is disappearing and the piece is
beginning to be treated as a chord sequence , serving as a basis for further
elaboration. However, by the time Van den Hove added another setting to the Schele lutebook (dated 16th February 1614), he
had obviously experimented with other models, since the unorthodox AAiBCBiCi
layout has been replaced with a more conventional AAiBBiCCi and the
contrapuntal template differs somewhat. Virtuoso passage-work remains prominent
throughout however; this setting is one of the most elaborate of all lute
versions.
Arrangements for Other Media
After Barley’s lute arrangement, the next
earliest firmly datable ‘Lachrimae’ setting is the mixed consort
arrangement published in Morley (1599). This collection obviously acheived considerable popularity as
it was reprinted in 1611, whilst some of the bandora parts (including that for
‘Lachrimae’) were copied into Königsberg 38v. Morley’s version appears to be
closely related to that found amongst the Cambridge Consort manuscripts, the excellently-crafted lute
part of which (Dd.3.18)
has been used by Sydney Beck in lieu of the missing Morley lute partbook.[9] This part also seems to have been the
basis for the curious ‘contra’ part, not, presumably, to be played
on the lute, of an incomplete consort-song version that was appended to Thomas Wode’s partbooks some time after 1610. (Example 9)
It was as a song, however, that the
‘Lachrimae’ pavan really seems to have become the ubiquitous
‘hit’ of its age. ‘Flow my teares’ was published in
2nd Booke
(1600) as two texted
vocal parts with a lute accompaniment, although it enjoyed a lengthy life as a
solo continuo song without the lute part (Tenbury, Earle, Och 439 (actually a variant version in D minor), Forbes (3 eds. from 1666-1680s). Indeed, the
transmission of the ‘Lachrimae’ pavan throughout the seventeenth
century can be understood as stemming almost exclusively from the publication
of this song. There are perhaps two main reasons for this, the most obvious of
which is the size of its print-run; one thousand copies was immense for this
period (and the publishers presumably expected to sell every copy).[10] Secondly, the scoring of the song
arrangement transformed the piece from a somewhat tricky lute piece (or
something that required an instrumental ensemble to perform it) into a
contrapuntally coherent two-voice entity, despite the written-out lute part.
Thus, not only was the ‘Lachrimae’ pavan more readily available as
a text, but it was ironically now more accessible to performers without a lute
at hand. As we shall see, the simple two-part reduction offered great potential
to both composers and performers.
An early example of the exploitation of this model
stems from none other than Dowland himself. The ‘Lachrimae
Antiquae’ of LoST
(and its related versions in Kassel and Melville) is clearly based upon the two vocal parts from
‘Flow’, the inner parts presumably worked into place afterwards.
Several clues suggest this dependancy upon the song, not least a handful of
melodic details which mirror the syllabic patterns of the texted cantus part
(e.g. the reiteration of the melody note of bar 3iv (‘ev-er’) and
the exquisite setting of ‘sad in-fam-y’ in bar 6) (Example 10). The previously-discussed auxiliary note in
bar 2, so typical of the English lute versions but a notable absentee in
‘Flow’, is also omitted here and, in most instances, the registral
shifts and use of accidentals in LoST match those of ‘Flow’. Craig Monson has
convincingly argued that a similar creative process resulted in ‘Mr
Dowland’s Lachrimae’, a D minor consort setting attributed to
William Wigthorpe, as
well as a consort-song version of ‘Sorrow stay’ in the same source;
both appear to be based upon the respective vocal parts printed in 2nd Booke with inner parts added later.[11]
The creation of new settings from the voice parts to
‘Flow’ has been traced by Werner Breig in a study of various
Northern European keyboard settings (Byrd FVB, Sweelinck and Schildt; a few more are discernible).[12] But besides being employed as a
compositional framework for elaborations of this nature, it is important to
note that a number of other more modest 2-part versions, both instrumental and
vocal, were circulated across mainland Europe. Valerius, for instance, included a double-texted
2-part version in D minor. Although the cantus in particular is highly
ornamented, it bears a close resemblance to the Wigthorpe outer parts in the same key which, of
course, would appear to stem from 2nd Booke. Valerius could have based his parts directly on 2nd Booke, or one of any number of derivatives that
may have been circulating in manuscript. Camphuysen 1652 gives another 2-part version, this time
with a devotional Dutch text, supplied with instrumental divisions (for both
cantus and bassus) by one Joseph Butler, a Londoner working in Amsterdam.
Clearly then, whilst the melody and bass of the ‘Lachrimae’ pavan
(and, implicitly, the harmonic content of the piece) continued to be
transmitted, the common fount of inner parts employed in the earliest English
lute and consort settings had ceased to be considered of much importance.
A number of interesting European instrumental versions
also survive from the mid-seventeenth century. Many of these suggest that
‘Lachrimae’ was no longer considered to be a typical pavan and was
now considered to be almost an instrumental genre of its own. The unusual ABC,
AiBiCi (etc.) scheme of Van Eyck 12 (1648) certainly seems to suggest that instrumental
divisions were now considered more important than the formal scheme of the
original pavan. Furthermore, in the same year that van Eyck’s collection
was published, its dedicatee, the polymath and expert musician Constantijn
Huygens, was enjoying the company of the virtuoso viol player Ditrich Stoeffken
in The Hague and wrote of his delight in accompanying him in terms that suggest
the piece was used for extempore divisions:
‘… Mr Stöfkens and I are doing a kind of wonders upon two Leereway Viols … in time of necessitie I have hands enough to play a wofull Lachrime and such other stuffe upon my organs to have that wonderfull bowe rowle upon my Bases.’[13]
Elsewhere, two-part arrangements designed to show off
the newest developments in violin technique had begun to appear, such as the
modest one in Schermar
(1620) and Schop’s
contribution to t’Uitnement Kabinet (1646). The latter is particularly interesting since,
beyond the opening tetrachord descent, its ‘melody’ bears little
resemblance to that of either the early lute version or either of
Dowland’s published versions. A similar situation can be observed in some
later lute settings, such as Stobaeus (possibly as late as the 1630s?); the melody has
become eroded to the point that ‘Lachrimae’ is largely just a
suggestive chord sequence, albeit one with certain motivic and contrapuntal
conventions attached to it.[14]
(See Example 11.)
Nevertheless, ‘Lachrimae’ continued to be
considered fertile ground for variation-writing long into the seventeenth
century. A keyboard setting by Schildt survives in three sources, one of which (Clausholm - possibly autograph?) is dated 1634 and
another can be dated from after 1642 (Voigtländer); the fine version by his teacher Sweelinck, survives in only one source, a rather
corrupt tablature possibly dating from as late as the 1670s. These settings,
along with that attributed to another Sweelinck pupils, Scheidemann, are particularly flamboyant, each
featuring complex (and unique) divisions. In Schildt and Scheidemann, the melody is liberally decorated even in
undivided strains, with the floridity of Schildt’s treatment being
comparable with that of Van den Hove’s. Indeed, in many respects, these
keyboard settings are the aesthetic bedfellows of Van den Hove’s lute
arrangements, indulging in similar passage-writing in parallel thirds and
sixths and displaying the same penchant for instrumental showmanship
throughout. However, the keyboard composers are able to exploit a contrapuntal
dimension unavailable to Van den Hove (and lutenist-composers in general),
allowing them to make imitative interplay of paramount importance in their
settings. Schildt
and Scheidemann also experimented with sesquialtera passages, something Van den Hove himself
dabbled with briefly in the final division of Schele, and which is briefly foreshadowed towards
the end of Dd.2.11, 76v.
Schildt’s and Scheidemann’s settings, then, not only share the
virtuoso aesthetic of van den Hove’s lute solos but give a strong
impression of being compositional tours de force as well.
Summary
The ‘Lachrimae’ pavan was evidently a bona
fide ‘hit’ of
its age. Unfortunately, such are the huge number of settings, derivatives and
imitations it spawned that only a small sample can be fruitfully discussed
here. Furthermore, we are undoubtedly left with an incomplete picture of what
was once in circulation. We know, for instance, of several missing consort versions
from single parts preserved in Dlugoraj 122, TCD Tallis,
the Browne bandora book
and the Valerius
cittern part, as well as from the title to Rude’s lute setting. Several perplexing unica serve to emphasise the incompleteness of
the surviving picture, not least the fascinating F minor lute setting in Eysertt, which, although tangential to the
patterns of transmission identified in this paper, nevertheless seems to be a
good, error-free version. Dowland, of course, was in Nuremburg in 1595, so it
is not beyond the realms of possibility that this piece may have originated
from him in some sense. Of course, not all sole survivors are so musically
satisfying; the consort version which might have accommodated Valerius’
bizarre cittern part is perhaps best left to the imagination, while the odd
4-part vocal setting transmitted in Camphuysen 1647 and Camphuysen 1655 and Besard’s Novus Partus arrangement (devoid of any trace of the
melody, or any other melody, for that matter …) remain inexplicable
oddities for the time being.
Directions for Further Research
This study has only scratched the surface of a large
topic and would be hugely enhanced by similar research into the multitude of
similarly-transmitted English pieces that were popular across late-sixteenth and
early-seventeenth century Europe.[15]
By cross-referencing our hypotheses regarding the dissemination of
‘Lachrimae’ settings with the results of similar studies, a much
fuller picture of cross-repertorial interchange could be achieved, shedding a
good deal of new light over patterns of musical import- and exportation and
perhaps providing new insights into the compilation of some of these sources.
Although this research was carried out within the
context of a computer-assisted electronic corpus-building project[16], the analysis of the musical material
has been carried out entirely manually. Electronic resources have been used,
certainly, but mainly for auditioning and printing out the 60 or so versions of
‘Lachrimae’ discussed in this paper. Our corpus currently contains
over 90 settings of Dowland’s pavan and closely-related pieces. The kind
of detailed comparative examination we have begun here on a modest subset of
this corpus would only be feasible on the full collection (let alone larger
corpora) with the aid of computer analysis software tools. A principal aim of
this work has been to identify the types of comparison and analysis that might
in future be done by machine (and to define the limits beyond which
machine-analysis can, or should, not venture), and to provide some kind of
benchmark against which such development might be assessed. It is our belief
that the work reported in this paper represents about the limit that could be
undertaken manually within a reasonable period of time. For larger-scale
repertory studies, such as a long-overdue assessment of all English
instrumental music in 17th-century Continental sources, the
laborious work of bar-by-bar comparison could be much eased by intervention
from analysis software. This means that the intense human labour could be
devoted to the major task of data-entry and subsequently to the subjective interpretation of the results of the analysis.