RICHARD ALLISON

THE HOLMES BOOKS, Dd.9.33: Cambridge, University Library Ms.Dd.9.33 (c1600-1605). One of the books in the extended solo lute collection of Matthew Holmes, singingman in Oxford and London, and also the compiler of an extensive set of broken consort books.

MANUSCRIPT Dd.4.22: Cambridge, University Library Ms.Dd.4.22 (c1615). A short collection of solo lute pieces compiled by two scribes who appear to have been working together.

THE SWARLAND BOOK OF LUTE SONGS: London, British Library Add.Ms.15117 (c1615). Mixed collection of lute songs and solos in two hands. The cover describes the book as 'Psalmes Musicall by Allison'.

THE SAMPSON LUTE BOOK: Private Library of Robert Spencer, manuscript without shelf mark: Sampson lute book (c1610--watermark 1609). The pedagogical book of Henry Sampson, whose copying was corrected and added to by a second scribe.

THE WALSINGHAM CONSORT BOOKS: Beverley (Yorkshire), East Riding Record Office. MSS DD.HO.20/1-3: flute, treble viol and bass viol broken consort part books. The cittern book is in Mills College Library (Oakland, California). Also known as the Beverley and Mills consort books. (1588)

The scribe in these manuscripts was first identified and linked by Robert Spencer, a finding that first appeared in print in the facsimile of Sampson in 1974. In his brief note about the scribal concordances, Spencer was not concerned with the implications of his discovery, rather with the postulation of links between Sampson and other sources from a similar period. In fact, his simple statement masks what must have been a considerable feat of detection, since this scribe is one whose script changes quite radically. His work in Sampson falls clearly into two sections that overlap, but show a hand with significant variation in duct.

Robert Spencer has suggested that the scribe may be Richard Allison, who is known to have been active between 1592 and 1606, and may have been active for longer, as 1606 is simply the date of his last known publication. If this this scribe is Richard Allison, then Allison has much in common with Matthew Holmes who also had strong affiliations with consort music, and in spite of a career as a cathedral singingman, a musician unconnected with the lute, was evidently also an accomplished lutenist. Allison, if this is indeed his hand, would be likely to have known Holmes as a colleague and contemporary as well as through their shared interest in consort music, thus accounting for his activity in a book compiled by a professional, and clearly not one of his beginners. Holmes is known to have been singingman and precentor at Christ Church, Oxford from 1588 to 1597, and then to have held the same post at Westminster Abbey between 1597 and his death in 1621. He may originally have been copying music for the Oxford Town Waits. The compilation of Dd.9.33 dates from the London period of Holmes's working life, and as there is evidence of him using at least this one of the manuscripts in London, it is reasonable to assume that the whole group of MSS travelled with their scribe. It is likely, therefore, that the Sampson copyist may be connected with Westminster, and it is known that Allison lived in London in 'the Dukes place neere Alde-gate'.[1]

Allison's publications include the Psalms of David in Meter (London, 1599/R1968), An Howres Recreation in Musicke (London, 1606);[2] and 10 psalm harmonizations in Thomas East's Whole Booke of Psalmes (1592). In the psalms of David he was described as a gentleman practitioner of music, and he appears to have been in the employ or under the protection of the Duke of Warwick at that time, possibly as a gentleman in the Warwick household. By the time of his last known publication in 1606 ('apt for instruments and Voyces'), he was clearly under the patronage of Sir John Scudamore, to whom that work is dedicated. Whatever his position, the description of him as a 'practitioner' of music implies more than a gentlemanly interest in the arts. Beck[3] proposed that the gentleman who sponsored the publication of Morley's First Booke of Consort Lessons may have been Allison.

Allison's lute works turn up in many of the solo lute sources, sometimes as non-solo music in an otherwise basically solo source. Regardless of whether this scribe is indeed Allison, the dates currently given for his activity seem to be unnecessarily compressed, since he was clearly composing and having his music copied in the early 1580s. If this is Richard Allison, the dates of his activity should probably be revised to c1580-1620, a not unreasonable period of activity for any professional musician.

Allison signs his name to two pieces (R Alisoune; mr Richard Allisoun). These are the only pieces composed by Allison in the sources in which this scribe appears (see table 43). In itself this is not particularly significant.None of the other music in the four sources is by Allison, so it is not possible to see whether Allison might also have added his autograph to copies of his music written out by another scribe. The music in Dd.9.33 that he appears to correct is not composed by him. The cover of Swarland reads 'Psalmes Musicall by Allison' and Allison's interest in the psalms is clear both from his contributions to East's Whole Booke of Psalmes in 1592 and his own The Psalmes of David in Meter (1599), thus providing another tenuous link between this scribe's work and the composer Richard Allison. Other composers he names are John Dowland (though his name is not attached to every piece by him copied by this scribe: Jho Dowland; mr Dowland; Jo: Dowland), Daniel Bacheler (Dani: Batchi:; mr D: B:; ), Robert Johnson (Rob: Jho:; Robart Jhonson), James Harding (Jam: Ha:), John Danyel (Jhon Danniell) and Mr Marchant (mr Marchant).

How likely is it that the two attributions in Sampson and Dd.4.22 represent Allison's signature? Some signatures of lute composers and other musicians show a flair and panache that is unmistakable, though some lack the embellishment that marks them out as the work of the composer, nor do they always spell their names the same way. Dowland signs his name with a flourish, but without the artistic flair of John Johnson. Table 44 illustrates the signatures of several known lute composers, or musicians associated with the instrument.

The evidence to suggest this scribe's identity as Allison is very little more than circumstantial, and the scribe could just as easily be one of the many other composers whose work was popular at this time. But it is convenient to be provided with a name to facilitate discussion. Nevertheless, the idea is essentially little more than a likely hypothesis and should be treated as such.

Allison's activity in Sampson, although it may simply have been that of a subsequent owner of the book, seems most likely to have been that of Sampson's teacher, particularly considering his appearances in the other sources. If Allison only appeared in this book, the implication would have been that he was a subsequent owner who played Sampson's music, particularly as the original scribe's name was deleted, though it is not possible to say who deleted it or why. However, Allison appears in many other sources in a similar capacity (i.e. as a secondary scribe who corrects the work of the original). In Sampson, Allison entered a number of pieces both after and during Henry Sampson's work, adding graces to Sampson's tablature, and changing the cadence of one piece. Sampson's work is exceptionally neat and precise, and extensive correcting was clearly unnecessary.

TABLE 44 SIGNATURES OF LUTE COMPOSERS AND SCRIBES
John Dowland	Robert Dowland
John Johnson	Robert Johnson
Matthew Holmes	John Sturt
William Corkine	Richard Goosey
Daniel Bacheler	George Handford
Richard Reade	Mathathias Mason
Richard Allison

Allison's is a script that essentially does not maintain a rigidly identifiable form, despite the fact that on the whole its appearances are not chronologically very widespread, and in one case, Sampson, his work appears to change quite dramatically between the copying of one piece and the next. Other even relatively young scribes seem to have developed a uniform style of writing by the time they came to copy into a bound book. Even Richard Mynshall, who appears to have copied music and tablature in an italic hand that he found less comfortable than the secretary that he used for his index, and which creeps into his use in the Swarland source of his hand, does not show quite such significant variations to his script, even over a period of about 20 years. The four appearances of the "Allison" hand in tablature are shown in examples 64-68 in chronological order as far as that can be determined, with both forms of the hand as it appears in Sampson.

The Sampson source for this hand is the most difficult to assess, as the scribe was clearly alternating between two pens. The result is two very different hands which, although very similar in duct, are affected quite drastically by the different hardness of the pens. Since pens had a very short life, the various forms of Allison's hand would all have been written with different types of pen, and the variations to be seen are the result.

It appears that Sampson is the work of two distinct hands (the second with a variable script), with a third who appears only to correct the title of piece 24 on f.12v. The book is written in such a way that its layout, and particularly its blank lines and leaves, suggest some form of pre-determined order or distribution, methodically written from the first folios onwards. This causes the gaps in the compilation to appear enigmatic, since there is sufficient evidence to suppose that there was an intended purpose for the empty pages. The scribal activity is summarized in table 45.

Taken in isolation, the versions of Allison's script give the appearance that there are two quite distinct secondary scribes in the book (i.e. apart from the principal, Henry Sampson). Separating them is not difficult since they use different flagging systems, and different pens. The amount of variation is unusual enough to warrant further examination, since it throws some light on the degree of variation that might be expected from a particular type of scribe. First examination leaves the distinct impression that the two hands must have been written by two different people. In some ways the clear evidence that the two hands were copying music at the same period is another indication that they must belong to different people--if a scribe changed his hand over a period of years, then one might expect a later group of pieces to appear to be written by a different scribe. However, these two hands are linked, not simply through a progression of duet parts, the first two copied by Allison (i), and numbered 'i' and 'ii' by him, the third copied by Allison (ii) and marked '3', but also by the fact that the work of Allison (i) is interrupted by Allison (ii) half way down f.11v, and Allison (i) resumes again halfway down f.12v, without any break between the pieces copied. Neither hand could therefore have been filling in gaps left by the other. Matters are further clouded by the appearance of a further duet, in Allison (i), but marked '5' using the Arabic numerals of Allison (ii) while copying in the duct of Allison (i)--clearly part of the earlier progression of three duets, though not the progression seen in Sampson since there are three other duet parts between these numbers three and five. Allison (i) uses Roman 'ii' to indicate 'two' lutes, while Allison (ii) uses an Arabic figure '2', though both scribes use the `-es' contraction when writing `Lutes'. This is consistent with the numbering of the pieces, so perhaps we could argue that the anomalous Arabic '5' for the last in the sequence was added by the other hand. It can certainly look that way if one is convinced the two hands are not related.

The answers remain unsatisfactory until the fact that the scribe was deliberately alternating between two pens is taken into consideration. It seems clear from Sampson that Allison was simply switching frequently between two quite different pens to avoid either one becoming too soggy to use. The superficial (and sometimes not so superficial) differences between the hands easily persuades the reader not to look further or deeper to discover more subtle facets of the duct that might make one suspicious of the original decision, and were it not for the obvious appearance of this hand in other sources and in transitional forms between the two seen in Sampson, they might have been classified as two separate scribes. The appearance of Allison in Swarland is for an instrument with at least 8 courses, and the rhythmic indications are in mensural notation, rather than rhythm-change flagging. This type of notation may have been adopted to conform with that of the lute song which it accompanies. The music by Allison in Dd.9.33 is written for a lute with at least nine courses, and more probably ten. The appearance of this scribe in Dd.9.33 on f.65r is also accompanied by the mensural rhythm notation, and on f.47r of the same manuscript replaces the italic letter 'h' with a secretary one which is slightly irregular in form. Folios 4v-11r of Dd.4.22 form the greater part of the manuscript, and this is the largest single source of this scribe's writing. The scribe uses three forms of flagging here--continuous flagging, rhythm-change flagging and mensural notation--and it is this source that ties together all the different forms that Allison's script can adopt with considerable certainty. Two of the pieces in Dd.4.22 are concordant with pieces in Sampson copied in the hand of Henry Sampson, though the second is only concordant for the statement of the tune, supplying a new set of divisions.

Any doubt that the various sources of this hand were written by the same scribe is confounded by the appearance of the titles, and in particular the ascriptions to the pieces by Richard Allison, shown in examples 65 and 66 above.

Although the features of this scribe's hand are not as predictable as his overall duct, the type of activity he shows in all these sources is surprisingly consistent. Firstly, he is never the primary scribe of a source, even where the pieces copied by him outnumber those by other s cribes, making him the main scribe in terms of contribution;secondly, he always appears to be the second scribe to work in a book, and his copying always seems to overlap the activity of the primary scribe, interspersing his work with theirs, and putting markings in the other scribe's tablature. Finally, he oftencorrects the work of the scribe with whom he overlaps, and this factor, together with other features of his relationship with the other scribes, suggests that he may have been teaching them.

Thus the indications are that, with the exception of Dd.9.33 in which he came in contact with Matthew Holmes after Holmes had already reached f.47, Allison's work was contemporary with the earliest period of compilation of each source and he probably had a pedagogical relationship with the initial scribe, who is most likely to have been the original owner of the book. His relationship with the scribe is particularly significant in the case of Dd.9.33; notably earlier in date than the other four sources, but the only one known to have been compiled by a professional musician, even if not one who made his living by playing the lute. Here, his first appearance is in copying out a piece of Dowland, but shortly after he is to be seen correcting the flags of Matthew Holmes, the principal scribe. The music that Allison copied was undoubtedly added during the latter part of the overall compilation of Holmes (1597-1603), probably from 1600: and this, together with the fact that he corrected and added flags to Holmes's work, suggests strongly that he was teaching him rather than simply using the book after Holmes had discarded it. One final source for this scribe seems to be in Walsingham, dated 1588. This would extend his activity quite considerably, but in fact, his copying here seems to be limited to enlarging on the ascriptions to some pieces (e.g.by adding the name of the composer to an unascribed piece), and this copying may easily not be contemporary with the initial period of copying of Walsingham. Any set of consort books (particularly considering the amount of copying time they represented) is likely to have had a relatively extended active life, and since the composers represented in this collection were still having their music copied into manuscripts around 1615, there is no reason to suppose that the repertory they contain had gone out of fashion by the time the Allison books were being copied.

If Allison was principally a teacher this would imply that all the sources in which he appears are pedagogical sources.However, Swarland does not seem to fit these criteria, and indeed Allison's activity here is quite limited (as it also is in Dd.9.33) and does not extend to correcting the work of the primary scribe. Dd.9.33 is certainly a professional book, but since Matthew Holmes was officially a professional singing man, rather than a professional lutenist (though as a professional musician he may easily have been of a professional standard as a lutenist as well), he may have availed himself of the opportunity to take some lessons with Allison while he was still collecting music in this, one of his earlier books. It is clear from the early intrusion of another scribe into Holmes's copying in this book that he permitted experienced copyists to add to his work. Allison's copying in Dd.4.22, almost certainly a pedagogical book, has hold signs added to some pieces, though it is not clear who added them--perhaps the third scribe--and his activity in Sampson seems to fit the pedagogical framework well. There are no musical concordances between Allison's copying in any of the sources where he is active. There are concordances between Sampson, Dd.9.33 and Dd..4.22, despite their being unrelated in other respects. However,the relationship is so vague as to be virtually immaterial. Allison apparently never copied the same piece twice in different manuscripts.

Just as the Holmes books are a highly significant collection of sources, so the secondary scribe of the Sampson, Dd.4.22, Dd.9.33 and Swarland manuscripts, perhaps the well-known composer of consort music, Richard Allison, is probably the most significant of any surviving from this period, since his widespread activity suggests not only links between a spectacularly large proportion of the extant source, but also indicates a degree of activity that can only satisfactorily be explained as the practice of a teacher. A musician of Allison's stature and reputation would be more likely to have had a sphere of influence as wide as this than someone unknown. The Sampson, Swarland and Dd.4.22 manuscripts cluster chronologically around 1610-15, but Dd.9.33 the earliest (and possibly the most interesting) source was probably begun about 1600, perhaps a few years earlier, and seems to have been completed not many years after 1603. The Walsingham consort books are dated 1588. If the dating of these sources is correct, a fact that does not seem to be in dispute at present, then the known activity of this scribe appears to cover a period of about 25-30 years. This would not be an unreasonable working span for any scribe, whatever his purpose in copying, and would certainly be a reasonable working life for a teacher.

The scribe responsible for the samples of tablature discussed here appears to have been active in four otherwise discrete manuscript sources of this period. That he may have been associated with 10% of all the surviving sources of English lute music suggests one of two things: either that he had an exceptionally wide sphere of activity and influence, or that the surviving sources from this period, which had hitherto appeared to be a representative sampling of a generation of books, are in fact not so. The transmission of the contemporary consort repertory through scribal publication may provide some clues to the apparently exceptional connection between so many of the sources, but the indubitably peculiar characteristics of the lute playing and copying community seem to exclude this type of relationship.

The situation of the Allison group is further complicated by the addition of other sources linked by other scribes active in the books. If, as is suggested above, Mynshall and Swarland are linked by Richard Mynshall's hand, then Mynshall must also be brought into the group, as must the other Holmes books which, although normally considered as separate sources, should more accurately be considered as one extended source.[5] If Diana Poulton's comment that Euing appears to be closely related to the Holmes books, even to the extent of reproducing some of Holmes's errors, is accurate then this book also enters the discussion. 31392 may be linked to Dd.2.11 stemmatically, bringing yet another book into the circle. Even Pickeringe may find its way into this complex set of books, though through the name of a possible owner, Puckering, rather than one of its scribes, although the relation of his name to Jane Pickeringe is very tenuous to say the least. This brings the total of linked sources to 12 (possibly 13 with Pickeringe, though the link is not generic) sources out of only 41. This is over 25% the surviving sources. If all the Holmes books are considered as one (albeit very large) source, this means that there are only actually eight manuscripts linked to Richard Allison out of a total of 35. However, this is still over 20% Group Two sources, a spectacularly large proportion of the whole.[6]

Close relationships between such a significant proportion of the surviving sources suggests that what survives may not be a representative sampling of the sources around at the time. If this were the case, then we should expect to find at least one observable instance in the sources as a whole of a stemmatically provable relationship between exemplar and its copy. However, the only possible case of this type of relationship is between the Holmes books and Euing, and even this is not a full case of exemplar and copy. This suggests that all the other sources may have used the same (now lost) exemplar(s). So perhaps what remains is representative of the contemporary corpus. Is it actually so surprising that such a high proportion of books linked with London and possibly the court should come to be connected in such a straightforward manner? It does suggest a sort of lutenist's atelier encompassing not only beginners, but also the talented amateur player and the mature professional musician. The implication that there should be a vanished exemplar (or exemplars) from which all these pieces were copied is very strong, and supports once again the hypothesis that teachers did not have lute books, but worked from something more ephemeral.

0 Dd.9.33 Sampson Dd.4.22 Swarland

0 c1600-1605 c1610 c1615 c1615

0

0

00Dd.2.11 0Dd.5.78.3 0 Mynshall

0c1585-95 c1595-1600 1597-1600

0 Euing (Royal arms

0Nn.6.36 c1610 on cover)

0 c1610-15

031392

c1605 0Walsingham

0 0Dd.3.18 etc. consort books [?0Pickeringe

c1585-1600 1588 1616]

If Allison was a well-known teacher, then perhaps the suspicious number of sources in which he is active is not quite as peculiar as the statistics would seem to suggest. It is clear that he tended to make more than just passing acquaintances with either these manuscripts or their owners, and he may indeed have been a teacher to whom many Londoners gravitated or were directed, suggesting a respectable reputation, particularly as a player of Dowland's reputation seems to have held him in some esteem. John Dowland, where he writes in manuscripts, does not appear to have been a particularly active copyist, perhaps because his hand was often not as neat or legible as that of his pupil. His fame rested on his abilities as a player and a composer though, not as a teacher. The fact that Allison appears in Matthew Holmes's book in an apparently didactic guise is another suggestion that he was considered a fine teacher by his professional contemporaries, though it is equally possible that he was a professional colleague of Holmes rather than his teacher. The Holmes books seem to be the work of a mature player, though he may have 'gone back to school' in the middle of an active performing life if he came into contact with Allison through consort music, particularly as his profession was that of a singingman, not a lutenist.

Conclusion

Although the evidence pointing to the identity of the scribe in Sampson, Swarland, Dd.9.33 and Dd.4.22 as Richard Allison is undoubtedly circumstantial, it is nevertheless clear that all those factors regarding the activity of the scribe, regardless of his name, remain unchanged. He was clearly a teacher of some reputation, working in London between about 1585 and 1615, and one who had an impressive atelier and sphere of influence. The sources that are linked in this small London circle facilitate the understanding of the other very small hints that can be seen as each source in the repertory is examined in detail, allowing the extrapolation of what is probably a reasonably accurate picture for the lute playing world in England during the height of the instrument's popularity.

[2] ed. E. H. Fellowes: The English Madrigalists xxxiii (1924, rev. 2.1961).

[3] Alison Beck: The First Book of Consort Lessons (New York, 1959) [incl. preface].

[4] The part of the manuscript copied c1630 is not relevant here, the same applies to the similar portions of ML and Board.

[5] The Holmes books should, in fact, always be considered as a single source, since neither the type of repertory they contain nor the purpose in compiling the books changes between one manuscript and the next. Of course, it is attractive to have five large sources each filled with very mainstream repertory, but in fact it does distort the picture of the surviving repertory that is built up as a result.

[6] See table 4, page 37.

The Lute Page

Julia Craig-McFeely's Thesis

Index