download.pdf - 6.3Mb - Viola da Gamba Society

Chelys 7 (1977), article 4
Fantasia no. 12 makes a good starting point for an examination of the
six-part pieces since it is perhaps the most traditional and conservative
example in the collection. Its three sections dovetail into each other: the
first fugal, with a pair of themes, the second more lively, with a texture
typical of Jenkins’s four-part fantasias (indeed this section mostly
employs a four-part scoring of treble, two tenors and bass), the third
again broader with a descending scale motif as its principal feature.
There are no very dramatic moments. The counterpoint is skilfully
managed, certainly not the work of a novice, and there are a number of
features which one soon discovers are characteristic of Jenkins’s writing:
the generally broad scale, smooth-flowing lines (completely avoiding the
angular twists of Lawes’s style) and a relative freedom in the imitation in
which intervals and/or rhythms are not always matched exactly. Some, it
seems, were critical of what seemed to them to be an insipid style
‘wholly devoid of fire and fury’, but this was a matter of taste and there
is no doubt that much of the lyrical fervour of Jenkins’s music arises
from his contrapuntal fluency. Subtle modifications to the shape and
rhythm of his themes enables him to incorporate as many contrapuntal
tricks as he wishes without the part-writing ever appearing forced. Quite
how frequently Jenkins uses a descending scale or similar motif to
conclude his fantasias (as here) is an aspect of his work which must await
further investigation: certainly there are other examples in the six-part
pieces. There are a few touches of chromaticism in Fantasia no. 12, but
key colour is not a dominant feature of this work, though it is interesting
to note that the music moves sharpwards in the earlier part of the piece
while reaching its flattest point towards the close-in true textbook
pattern.
Why was this work omitted from the otherwise `complete’ copy of the
six-part music in Ob. Mus. Sch. MS. C.83 ? If it had been written years
before, it is quite possible that no copy was available, or even that
Jenkins had absent-mindedly forgotten about it, as happened to some
other works
A great Don from Spaine sent over the papers of one part of a consort of 3,
all fantasies, to Sr P. Lely desiring to have the consort compleat costa_ the
costa [whatever the cost]. I chewed the old gentleman ye papers; he sayd
he beleeved ye composition was his, but when made and where to enquire
for them he knew not and they could never be found. 3
[57] A third possibility-that the piece was by someone else-was considered,
in view of the attribution of a pavan to both Dering and Jenkins in the
sources for this work, but no real candidate emerged to challenge Jenkins’s
authorship.
We are now faced with the problem of the two series of pieces, the first
comprising fantasias 1-9 and the second the remaining pieces except for
Fantasia no. 12. Both Ob. Mus. Sch. MS. C.83 and British Library, Add.
29290 show this division into two series and there are strong reasons for
3 Lbl Add. MS. 32536, f. 72v-73.