Jaroslaw I do agree with you and the study of past mentalities and culture has been my daily bread for the last 35 years or so. I know exactly what you are talking about.. Let’s leave it here as you suggested in your email and thank you for your very well informed contribution. All the best, Jean-Marie
> Le 7 févr. 2018 à 21:56, Jarosław Lipski <jaroslawlip...@wp.pl> a écrit : > > Jean-Marie, > > This is a vast subject for a long debate. To judge a man’s behaviour from > 17th century and predict probability of its consequences is not a trivial > matter. As historian Miles Fairborn says that: „impossible, strange and > bizarre are less so when placed in their proper context. This is one of the > goals of the social historian - to endeavour to see the past from the > native’s point of view.” > In other words if we want to asses if certain facts which may seem shocking > to people from 21st century would be also shocking 4 centuries ago, we would > have to try to understand the reality that people lived in then. > Firstly, most man normally wore various types of weapon. One of the most > commonly used swords in 17c was the rapier which had both military and > civilian applications. In Europe rapier was a sword that civilians used to > bring with them as regular attire. Gentleman wore rapiers to show signs of > rank. The more embellished the sword was, the richer and more noble you were. > It was also used for duelling. By the end of the 17th century it was turned > into a small sword. This change began around 1630’s, and small swords were > considered fashionable to wear. Swords were elegant instruments of death that > were a symbol of power to anyone who owned one. The gentleman that did have > swords as part of their daily attire, probably wanted to benefit from the > elegance and power that was present in the sword. Many civilians used daggers > as a symbol of prestige and honour. Stilettos (Italian dagger) were developed > for self-protection. Some of them had blades that divide into 3 sections at > p! us! > h of a button. They were known as duelling daggers and were invented in > France. Also it wasn’t uncommon for civilians to also own pistols, which were > used for various reasons. Apart from this, one could encounter armed soldiers > and guards either on streets or in taverns. > Another important factor were drinking habits in 17th century. We don’t > realise that most of the rivers resembled sewage. There was no filters, > ecology etc. So, all impurities went directly to the water. In consequence > people drank only spring water, rainwater, or alcohol. As spring and > rainwater was rather difficult to get, people normally drank big amounts of > alcohol. Mostly some kind of an ale, beer or wine. Stronger alcohols were > used for special occasions. I didn’t realise how much they drank until I saw > Bach’s receipt from an Inn were he stayed overnight. > Another important factor is their acquaintance with death. Public executions > were very much a spectator sport for all classes of society. Execution always > guaranteed to draw huge crowds. > The legal system that we take for granted nowadays, did not exist yet. > Usually your betters were your law. > So, now imagine that you enter an Inn were almost every man is armed, drunk > to some degree, and law doesn’t protect you. If one of them have high level > of testosterone, and big ego, a problem is imminent. There is plenty of > reports from these times on such occasions. Some more drastic, some less. One > of them happened in Erfurt were Bach wanted to be employed. > In Hartung, Hauser-Chronik der Stadt Erfurt we read: > „In 27 February 1635, it had happened that a citizen named Hans Rothlander, > had taken a soldier into his house. He persuaded the town musicians, to play > to him to amuse him, because the master was his godfather. When they were all > tolerably drunk the soldier, who was a cornet from Jena, stretched himself on > the bench and fell asleep. Rothlander’s wife roused him, intending to dance > with him. He started from his sleep, crying out - What, is the enemy upon > us?. Then he snatched up the brass candlestick, and gave the man nearest to > him 3 wounds in the head and a gash in the cheek, thus extinguishing the > light. Then he seized his sword, and stabbing backwards, pierced another > through and through; he clutched a musician from Schmalkalden, who was a > superior player, and stuck him through the body so that he died twelve hours > after, and was buried in the churchyard of the Kaufmanns-Kirche.” Actually > this sad incident was fortunate for Bach as the master of the guild perishe! d ! > in this scene of butchery, and Bach took his place. > This kind of things we could call accidents, but one has to remember that > duelling was legitimate since around year 501, when King of Burgundy codified > the duel as a judicial combat (so called Gombette law). It was seen as a tool > to tame criminality. Duels have a long tradition especially in France, so > I’ll stop here, but one thing is relevant to Gaultier’s story. Henri IV’s > edicts of 1602 and of Fontainebleau registered at parliament on 26th June > 1609 making duelists guilty of the crime of lèse majesté (offence against the > crown). Louis XIII went on this direction and tried to stop duelling > altogether. The declarations of Louis XIII on 1 July 1611, 18 January and 4 > March 1612, 1 October 1614, 14 July 1617 and 26 June 1624, February 1626 and > on 29 May 1634 were more and more restrictive. > Sorry, for such a long introduction, but this is very important background > for proper understanding Gaultier’s story. Anyway, Louis XIII was not always > consistent when he was to penalise suspects. He secretly excused if a > subject of a duel was a noble man, and banished severely if he was from lower > classes. We can’t be sure, but the chances are that Gaultier had not an > aristocratic ancestry, so killing a noble man in a duel was seen as a serious > crime (murder). > In this light his first imprisonment was a consequence of killing a nobleman > in a duel, as duels were prohibited also in England since 1614 he was > imprisoned in the Tower of London pending extradition. However later he was > pardoned by the king. Since then he played important role on English court, > (as I mentioned in my previous post) almost to the end of his days. He > outlived even the King Charles I. The only unfortunate episode happened in > 1627. This affair was well described by Mathew Spring : > Gaultier was among a group of 4 French servants of the Queen who were > arrested and imprisoned by Buckingham and Charles. This was during the > unhappy period after their marriage when Charles and Henrietta Maria were > estranged and Buckingham sought to displace the French servants around the > queen, and gain influence over her by having his own relatives and friends > put into positions close to her.” > This was nothing new, as similar situation happened before. In Parliament > there was a debate which caused anger among English courtiers about the > share of royal bounty. Scots were accused of being privileged in that > respect. Since then the king monitored Queen Anne’s attendants and the > household of the French princess Henrietta Maria,( who married Charles I ) > was restructured to eliminate many of French attendants and replace them with > English courtiers. Buckingham had become king’s favorite then. All these > gossips about Gaultier most probably were procured by Buckingham to achieve > his goals. And gossip spread in court with a speed of light. In general court > life abounds in intrigues, plots, suspicions, whispers, rumours, innuendos, > and accusations during Tudor and Stuart dynasty. > Gaultier wasn’t really seriously accused which we can read in a short excerpt > from a set of letters between Sir Martin Stuteville and the Reverend Joseph > Mead: > „That Gottier the lutenist had no pistols, hath not been racked, nor examined > by any but the duke, and that some talk strangely of it. Another account is > that he was apprehended on Wednesday, at the solemnisation of a marriage at > Sir Robert Kilegrew’s between Mr Kirk and Mrs Killegrew, Sir Robert’s sister, > was there present, and that the king or duke of Buckingham made the match”. > Being put to jail was nothing special at that time. Even Bach was imprisoned > almost for no reason. Bach was introduced to the Court of Anhalt-Cöthen, and > as a result he was offered the post of Capellmeister, which he accepted. This > infuriated the Duke of Weimar, so that when Bach put in a polite request for > his release, he was arrested and put in the local jail. Obviously this is a > simplified version of the story, but Bach spent there the whole month just > for nothing. > But returning to Gaultier, notice that it is mentioned in the letter that „he > hath not been racked, nor examined by any but the duke” which means that > accusations were not serious, otherwise he would be racked for sure (as this > was a normal procedure to interrogate someone). When he was released he was > also reimbursed for all the time he spent in jail. King Charles I esteemed > Gaultier very highly and offered him his own Laux Maler lute to recompense > his 30 years of service. > As for Lionel de La Laurencie, he wasn’t really consistent as he wrote that > it was Jacques Gaultier who was mentioned in Van der Burgh letter to Huygens. > BTW. I never wrote that Jacques Gaultier was related to Enemond, so don’t > know were is this supposition from…Enemond probably visited English court, > but it can’t be compared to Jacques’s contribution into English court music. > > Jean-Marie, thank you for interesting conversation. I do respect your views. > Probably we’ll never know who was right. I propose that we leave it here, as > this subject is really too big for this forum, so we could go on and on and > on… for ever :) > > Best > > Jaroslaw > > >> Wiadomość napisana przez Jean-Marie Poirier <jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr> w dniu >> 06.02.2018, o godz. 14:56: >> >> Just a reminder : >> Jacques Gaultier fled to England c. 1617 because he had murdered a noble man >> on the Continent. >> As early as 1618 he was imprisoned in the Tower of London for no clear >> reason... >> He got away with it and managed to get appointed as one of Henriette-Marie's >> musicians in 1625 and thrown into the Tower again in 1627, >> for more serious reasons this time. Here is what Alvise Contatini, the >> Venitian Ambassador in London, reposrts to the Doge and the Senate : >> >> "A certain Frenchman, a lute player, Gotiers by name, who was in the Queen's >> service, has been put in the Tower. It seems he proposed to >> murder the duke [of Buckingham], as they say they found a pistol on him. >> Really, however, he traduced the king himself and the duke and >> boasted that by the dulcet tones of the lute he could make his way even into >> the royal bed and he had been urged to do so in a manner that >> became well-nigh nauseous. This fellow will not escape lightly, as the king >> himself has examined him, assisted solely by the duke, extreme >> vigour and secrecy being observed owing to the nature of the charges." >> >> He, again, managed to got way with it ! >> >> Here is the conclusion to Ian Spink's article "Another Gaultier Affair", >> Music and Letters, vol. 45, IV, (Oct., 1964) p. 347 : >> >> "From the accounts of the two ambassadors it seems clear that Gaultier was >> unpopular with everyone, and some tasteless boast or indiscreet >> behaviour may have come to the ear of someone in authority-or been conveyed >> there by an ill-wisher-and thence to the king. There were always >> those at court eager to discredit the queen's French servants, given the >> slightest opportunity, and opportunities were certainly not lacking, even >> genuine ones. In this case Charles and Buckingham acted at once to preserve >> the queen's honour, and their investigations probably uncovered some >> relatively harmless but nevertheless unsavoury scandal. Gaultier himself >> seems to have emerged with his professional reputation at least unimpaired." >> >> I can hardly imagine a person like Herbert of Cherbury, a personal friend of >> Buckingham, getting along with this "boisterous" character... >> >> And, by the way, one of the first musicologists to be interested in Jacques >> Gaultier was Lionel de La Laurencie, in his article "Le Luthiste Jacques >> Gaultier", >> La revue musicale, n°3 (1924) pp. 33-39, more than thirty years before Mr >> Dart... >> >> And, yes, Jacques was no relation of Ennemond "de Lyon", Pierre "de Rome" or >> Denis "de Paris" - Ennemond's "cousin" - who was anyway too young >> to be concerned by Cherbury's manuscript... >> >> Best, >> >> Jean-Marie >> PS : Thank you Jaroslaw for intereting remarks about Cherbury but no clear >> evidence of their possible relationship, not clearer anywan than with >> Ennemond >> in Paris or in England, where old Gaultier was a star at court after his >> visit which must have been earliuer than the usually announced 1630, as he >> was >> a protégé of Buckingham who paid him lavishly to encourage him to stay >> longer at the court, but was assasinated in 1628 ! So he must have visited >> several >> times, including 1630 for the "birth of the Prince of Wales" on behalf of >> Marie de Medicis, his patroness and the mother of Henriette-Marie... >> >> -------------- >> >>> NB: Jacques Gaultier was not a relative of Ennemond or Denis. >>> For pieces in Cherbury also listen to Jacob Lindberg's "Jacobean Lute >>> Music" BIS-2055 (2013) >>> G. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> To get on or off this list see list information at >>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >> > > >
