The Gyffard Partbooks, 1 and 2 (review)

Abstract

A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF ENGLISH POLYPHONY The Gyffard Partbooks, 1 and 2. Transcribed and edited by David Mateer. 2 vols. (Early English Church Music, 48, 51.) London: Published for British Academy by Stainer and Bell, 2007-9. [Vol. 1: Foreword, p. [v]; contents, p. [vii-viii]; introd., p. ix-xv; score (with crit. notes preceding each work), p. 1-314. Vol. 2: Foreword, p. [v]; acknowledgements, p. [vi]; contents, p. [vi-vii]; introd., p. ix-xv; score (with crit. notes preceding each work), p. 1-256. ISMN M-2202-2160-6, ISBN 978-0-85249-892-7 (vol. 1); ISMN M-979-0-2202-2234-4 [sic], ISBN 978-0-85249-910-8 (vol. 2). £70 each vol.] One of most important sources of Tudor music, Gyffard partbooks (British Library Add. Mss. 17802-5) contain, as editor David Mateer describes (1:ix), broad and representative selection of sacred Latin polyphony produced in England just before Reformation. Given editorial decision to omit from these two volumes those works from Gyffard partbooks that have already appeared in composer-based volumes of Early English Church Music (EECM)-everything by Taverner and Tye, for example-the present edition might perhaps be more accurately described as selections from Gyffard partbooks. The decision to reproduce remainder of works in manuscript order is an excellent one that stays close to source itself. Noting where works previously published in EECM volumes would appear in a complete, continuous edition of partbooks would be a welcome inclusion, however, if only in table of contents. This would allow readers a complete overview of content and organization of source, which one would assume is reason for presenting editions in manuscript order. Mateer's introductory essay dates manuscripts to relatively late window of the 1570s and early 1580s (1:x). By relying heavily on watermarks, biographical evidence, and ownership of manuscripts, he dispels common misconceptions and flawed theories that date sources to 1550s, and offers more recent dates as a convincing alternative. In tracing Gyffard partbooks' provenance and ownership, Mateer offers an engaging narrative that also draws reader into a world of political intrigue in both government and academy. He begins by disputing early attributions of partbooks' ownership to a certain Dr. Philip Gyffard, asserting that this incorporeal figure (1:x) was a conjuration of misinterpreted evidence. Instead, a flesh-and-blood Dr. Roger Gifford (ca. 1536-1597) is identified as likely owner of partbooks, and his biography fills bulk of introduction. Mateer compares Gifford's biography to repertoire contained in each layer of partbooks, linking Gifford's time in Oxford to earliest layer of manuscripts. The second layer contains many works by composers working in or connected to London; Gifford was appointed one of Censors of Royal College of Physicians there in 1570. Mateer successfully links repertoire of final layer to social circles in which Gifford traveled, in spite of challenges presented by large number of anonymous works. The scribes of Gyffard partbooks cannot yet be identified conclusively, but editor suggests that Roger Gifford was not one of them (though he likely instructed them on what repertoire to copy), pointing to Latin mistakes that learned doctor would certainly not have made. He identifies two scribes, second of whom likely began work on partbooks much later than first. The discussion that follows details qualities of both hands and role each scribe played in text underlay, music copying, and other responsibilities. Taken as a whole, introduction provides a compact overview of Gyffard partbooks and their contents, as well as a persuasive argument for rethinking dating, provenance, and ownership of manuscripts. …