download.pdf - 6.3Mb - Viola da Gamba Society

Chelys 7 (1977), article 4
Ex. V. Bars 27-29 from Fantasia no. 10
another in the relative minor, with the mediant of the first binding the
progression together. The two trios, bars 35-39 and 39-42, provide a
welcome change from the six-part texture and Jenkins is again content to
adopt the procedures of his contemporaries, such as White and Ward, by
making the second phrase an exact transposition of the first, and by
giving it to the three instruments rested during the first phrase. Usually,
sequential repetition in Jenkins’s music is on a smaller scale, but here the
long phrases creep gradually higher and into progressively sharper keys
before an arresting entry for all six instruments leads us back down
again. Was Jenkins stuck for six-part counterpoint at bar 43 (Example
Vl)? The minim rest in [60]
Ex. VI. Bar 43 from Fantasia no. 10
tenor 1 is odd! As with Fantasia no. 12, the last section is built from
descending scales, and there is lovely variety in the scoring.
It may be co-incidental, but all the ‘Series II’ pieces, except for the
second In Nomine, require some use of the C-clef in the bass parts, whereas
this is not necessary in the first group. Wide-ranging bass parts, then, are a
particular feature of the ‘Series II’ pieces.
In noting that the two In Nomines are in the same keys as the twofantasias
in the group (nos. 10 & 11), one wonders whether they were ever
paired—though there is no indication in either source that this was so—each
pair is transcribed separately. Both are, as North says, ‘most elabourate’; but
again the E minor work seems finer than the G minor. Is the very active
writing a deliberate foil for the slow-moving plainsong? Again Jenkins is