Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice For my parents Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

English ‘Singing Psalms’ and Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’, c. 1547–1640

Timothy Duguid Texas A&M University, USA © Timothy Duguid 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

Timothy Duguid has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work.

Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company Wey Court East 110 Cherry Street Union Road Suite 3-1 Farnham Burlington, VT 05401-3818 Surrey, GU9 7PT USA England www.ashgate.com

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows: Duguid, Timothy. Metrical psalmody in print and practice : English ‘singing psalms’ and Scottish ‘psalm buiks’, c.1547–1640 / by Timothy Duguid. pages cm. – (St Andrews studies in reformation history) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4094-6892-9 (hardcover : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-1-4094-6893-6 (ebook) – ISBN 978-1-4094-6894-3 (epub) 1. Psalms (Music)–England–16th century–History and criticism. 2. Psalms (Music)–England–17th century–History and criticism. 3. Psalms (Music)–Scotland–16th century–History and criticism. 4. Psalms (Music)–Scotland–17th century–History and criticism. 5. Church music– Protestant churches–16th century. 6. Church music–Protestant churches–17th century. 7. Church music–England–16th century. 8. Church music–England–17th century. 9. Church music–Scotland–16th century. 10. Church music–Scotland– 17th century. I. Title. ML3131.2.D84 2014 782.2’94094109031–dc23 2013051050

ISBN 9781409468929 (hbk) ISBN 9781409468936 (ebk – PDF) ISBN 9781409468943 (ebk – ePUB)

Bach musicological font developed by © Yo Tomita IV Contents

List of Figures and Tables vii List of Music Examples ix Conventions and Abbreviations xi Acknowledgements xiii

Introduction 1

1 Metrical Psalters in Exile 13

2 Completing Sternhold’s Work 49

3 Completing the Exilic Psalters 77

4 Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 105

5 Between Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 141

6 Anglo-Scottish Interactions in Print 165

7 English Metrical Psalmody in Practice 181

8 Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 201

Summary and Extension 229

Appendix A 235 Appendix B 263

Select Bibliography 269 Index to Biblical References 293 General Index 297 This page has been left blank intentionally List of Figures and Tables

Figure

4.1 Count of tunes printed in the Whole booke, 1562–1600 115

Tables

1.1 Revised texts of Psalm 7 31 1.2 Revised texts of Psalm 49 32 1.3 Tune suggestions in the Forme of prayers (1558) 38 1.4 New tune suggestions in the Forme of prayers (1560–1561) 46

2.1 Versifiers used in Day’s Whole booke project 55 2.2 Tune comparison between the 1558 Forme of prayers and the 1562 Whole booke 56 2.3 Printing the Actes and Monuments, Whole booke, and Residue 59 2.4 Metres of psalm versifications in the Whole booke (1562) 64 2.5 Tunes in the Whole booke (1562) vs. the Forme of prayers (1560–1561) 66

3.1 Authorial distribution of psalm versifications in the Whole booke (1562) and Forme of prayers (1564) 88 3.2 Tune origins for Craig’s psalm settings 100

4.1 Tunes printed in East’s 1592 psalter 122 4.2 Disappearing proper tunes in the Whole booke 127 4.3 Tunes paired with Psalms 6 and 117, 1600–1640 138

5.1 Tune variations in the Scottish psalters up to 1596 145

6.1 Musical content from Schilders’ 1599 English psalter 169 6.2 Common Tunes in Scottish Psalters 176

8.1 Editions of the Scottish metrical psalms printed without tunes 213 This page has been left blank intentionally List of Music Examples

1.1 Tune from Psalm 15, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a] 28 1.2 Tune from Psalm 129, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a] 28 1.3 Psalm 7:2, 5, and 15, 1556 Forme of prayers [STC 16561] 31 1.4 Psalm 49:5, 12, and 15, 1556 Forme of prayers [STC 16561] 32 1.5 Psalm 124, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a] 36 1.6 Psalm 49, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a] 43 1.7 Portion of Psalm 2:1, 1556 Forme of prayers [STC 16561] 43 1.8 Portions of Psalm 2:1, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a] 44

2.1 Psalm 72:1, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430] 67 2.2 Psalm 135:1–2, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430] 69 2.3 Psalm 78:1–3, 1561 Foure score [STC 2428] 71 2.4 Psalm 78:1–3, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430] 71 2.5 Psalm 1:1–2, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a] 72 2.6 Psalm 1:1–2, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430] 72

3.1 Psalm 80, 1564 Forme of prayers [STC 16577] 94 3.2 Excerpt from Psalm 57, 1564 Forme of prayers [STC 16577] 96 3.3 Psalm 102:1, Forme of prayers (1564) 101 3.4 Phrase 3 of Psalm 56, Forme of prayers (1564) 102

4.1 Tune from Psalm 77, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430] 108 4.2 Tune from Psalm 77, 1565 Whole booke [STC 2434] 108 4.3 Tune from Psalm 77, 1577 Whole booke [STC 2448] 109 4.4 Tune from Psalm 30, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430] 113 4.5 Tune from Psalm 30, 1598 Whole booke [STC 2493] 113 4.6 Tune from Psalm 30, 1600 Whole booke [STC 2500.5] 114 4.7 Third line from Psalm 137, 1604 Whole booke [STC 2513] 129 4.8 Third line from Psalm 137, 1620 Whole booke [STC 2570.5] 129 4.9 Tune from Psalm 30, 1604 Whole booke [STC 2513] 130 4.10 Tune from Psalm 30, 1610 Whole booke [STC 2536] 130 4.11 Tune from Psalm 119, 1604 Whole booke [STC 2513] 133 4.12 Tenor of Psalm 119, Ravenscroft’s 1621 Psalter [STC 2575] 133 4.13 Tune from Psalm 69, 1604 Whole booke [STC 2513] 134 4.14 Tenor of Psalm 69, Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke [STC 2575] 135 x Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

4.15 Psalm 126, 1604 Whole booke [STC 2513] 135 4.16 Tenor of Psalm 126, Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke [STC 2575] 136

5.1 Tune from Psalm 51, 1564 Forme of prayers [STC 16577] 157 5.2 Tune from Psalm 51, 1614 CL Psalmes [STC 2705] 157 5.3 Tune from Psalm 51, 1625 CL Psalmes [STC 16594.5] 158 5.4 Tune from Psalm 69, 1635 Psalmes of David [STC 16599] 161 Conventions and Abbreviations

Original spelling and punctuation have been retained in quotations and music examples, with unfamiliar words explained in square brackets. Unless otherwise specified, Biblical quotations as well as psalm and verse numbers come from the Geneva Bible. Since Bible verses and stanzas did not always align in metrical psalm settings, ‘verse’ refers to the Bible reference (often indicated in metrical psalters) and ‘stanza’ refers to the unit(s) of poetry that occupies a strophe.

Abbreviations

APGA The Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1560 to 1618, ed. Duncan Shaw (Edinburgh: Scottish Record Society, 2004). D. Appended to a metre (i.e. 8.6.6.D.); this means the preceding was repeated (i.e. 8.6.6. 8.6.6.). Frost Maurice Frost, English & Scottish Psalm & Hymn Tunes c. 1543–1677 (London: Oxford University Press, 1953). GPSS Robin Leaver, ‘Goostly psalmes and spirituall songes’ English and Dutch Metrical Psalms from Coverdale to Utenhove 1535–1566 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). HTI Nicholas Temperley, Hymn Tune Index (4 vols, Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press, 1998); also available online at Nicholas Temperley, Hymn Tune Index, http://hymntune. library.uiuc.edu/. JAMS Journal of the American Musicological Society. MEPC Nicholas Temperley, Music of the English Parish Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), Vol. 1. ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), http://www.oxforddnb.com. OMO Oxford Music Online (Oxford: Oxford University Press), http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com. RR Beth Quitslund, Reformation in Rhyme: Sternhold, Hopkins, and the English metrical psalter, 1547–1603 (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2008). STC A.W. Pollard, G.R. Redgrave and K.F. Pantzer, eds, A Short- title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640 (2nd edn, rev., London: Bibliographical Society, 1990). xii Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Manuscript Sigla

Unless otherwise noted, all manuscript sigla follow the Répertoire international des sources musicales (RILM), indicating the country and library.

GB-En National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, UK GB-Eu University of Edinburgh Library, Edinburgh, UK GB-Gu Glasgow University Library, Glasgow, UK GB-Lbl The British Library, London, UK IRL-Dtc Trinity College Library, Dublin, Ireland US-SM Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, San Marino, CA, USA US-Wgu Georgetown University Library, Washington, D.C., USA Acknowledgements

Among the people, Lord, I shal giue praises vnto thee: And eke amidst the nations all, to thee my song shalbe Psalm 108:3 (1564 Forme of prayers)

This book originated as my doctoral thesis at the University of Edinburgh, and I am grateful to a number of individuals and institutions for their generous support and encouragement. As the joint supervisors of my thesis, I am particularly indebted to Dr Noel O’Regan and Professor Jane Dawson. Their combined knowledge in early-modern music and history enabled me to bridge the divide between the two academic disciplines. I am thankful to them for their patience and encouragement. A number of individuals have also freely given of their time and expertise. Jamie Reid-Baxter, particularly, has always been ready for enlightening discussions of Scottish metrical psalm singing, and provided much editorial advice on my manuscript. Dr Robert Copeland also offered many helpful comments, continuing with the care and advice he has given since my undergraduate years. My thanks also go to my doctoral examiners, Professor Alec Ryrie and Professor Robin A. Leaver, for their initial critiques and continued interest in this work. Of course, only I am responsible for the instances in which I have ignored the advice that has been generously given me. In addition, the archivists and librarians at the following institutions have provided courteous and invaluable assistance: the Bodleian Library, Oxford; Boston Public Library; the British Library; Cambridge University Library; Canterbury Cathedral Library; Carleton University Library; Christ Church, Corpus Christi, Harris Manchester, and Mansfield College Libraries at Oxford; Durham University Library; Emmanuel and Trinity College Libraries at Cambridge; the Folger Shakespeare Library; General Theological Seminary Library; Harvard University Library; the Huntington Library; the Morgan Library; the National Library of Scotland; New York Public Library; Princeton Theological Seminary Library; the Royal College of Music Library; the Senate House Library at the University of London; the Society of Antiquaries Library, London; St Paul’s Cathedral, London; University of Aberdeen Library; University of xiv Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Edinburgh Library; University of Glasgow Library; University of Liverpool Library; Winchester Cathedral Library and Hampshire Record Office; and Worcester Cathedral Library. I am also thankful for generous contributions of the following bodies: The Clan MacBean Foundation, The Clan McDougall Society of North America, The Moray Endowment at the University of Edinburgh, The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, The Reid School of Music at the University of Edinburgh, and the Arts and Humanities Research Council because of the research assistantships offered through ‘The World of Reformation Britain: As seen and heard in the Wode Psalter’. Finally, I wish to thank Professors Laura Mandell and Maura Ives at the Initiative for Digital Humanities, Media, and Culture at Texas A&M University, for the opportunity to serve as a post-doctoral fellow for them and for allowing me the time to finish my digital catalogue of metrical psalters and to finish this book. On a more personal note, my most significant debt belongs to my parents, who have supported and encouraged me throughout what probably seemed an interminable postgraduate education. Without their continuing support none of this would have been possible. Introduction

I … wolde reioyse so moche the more … yf it were so comenly spoken of, of all maner men in all maner languages that the ploughman holdynge the plough dyd synge from what of the mystycall Psalmes in his owne mother tonge yea and yf the weuer, sytting at this worke, dyd synge som what of the gospel, for his solace and conforte in his labours and more ouer yf the mayster of the shyppe, syttynge faste at the sterne, do synge also from what of the same and for to make an ende yf the wedded wife, when she sytteth at her dystaffe, haue some companyon, or kynneswoman nere vnto her, whiche doth reade and reherse from what herof vnto her.1

This quotation comes from a 1534 English translation of Erasmus’s Paraclensis, in which he stated his goals for the general populace. About a year later, another publication appeared in England that expressed similar desires. Fresh from a period of exile on the European mainland, the English Bible translator Miles Coverdale wrote in his introduction to Goostly psalmes and spirituall songes:

wolde God that oure mynstrels had none other thynge to playe vpon, nether oure carters and plow men other thynge to whistle vpon, saue Psalmes, hymnes, and soch godly songes as Dauid is occupied with all. And yf women syttynge at theyr rockes, or spynnynge at the wheles, had none other songes to passe theyr tyme withall, than soch as Moses sister, Elchanas wife, Debbora, and Mary the mother of Christ haue song before them, they shulde be better occupied, then with the hey nony nony, hey troly loly, and soch lyke fantasies.2

This volume of Biblical psalms and other sacred texts set to verse and music was actually a collection of Lutheran texts and tunes that had been translated and modified to fit English verse forms. Despite somewhat different content, both Erasmus and Coverdale clearly hoped that people

1 Desiderius Erasmus, Exhortacyon to the study of the Gospell [STC 10494], trans. [William Roy] ([London]: Robert Wyer, [1534]), fol. giir–v. 2 Miles Coverdale, Goostly psalmes and spirituall songes drawen out of the holy Scripture [STC 5892] ([London]: Iohan Gough, [1535]), fol. ✠iiv. 2 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice would begin to sing religious songs with understanding, and that these songs would occupy people whether at work or at home.3 The extent to which Coverdale‘s volume influenced the English populace has been a matter of debate.4 However, a quick survey of the English psalters published until 1625 reveals a similar raison d’être to that of Goostly psalmes. The most common title for these books was The Whole booke of Psalmes and each title page reproduced the following text (with variant spellings): ‘Very mete to be vsed of all sortes of people priuately for their solace & comfort: laying apart all vngodly Songes and Ballades, which tende only to the nourishing of vyce, and corrupting of youth … ’5 It may be difficult to distinguish these comments as either Erasmian or Coverdalian, but the particular focus on the Psalms and other sacred texts was more emblematic of the latter. In that regard, Goostly psalmes began a trend in British liturgical and devotional music that today continues throughout the English speaking world: the practice of singing metrical psalms.6 After Coverdale completed his Goostly psalmes, Scottish Protestants began collecting and circulating a similar set of musical settings. Although first printed in 1565 as Ane compendious Buik of Godlie Psalms and Spirituall Sangis, parts of this collection of metrical psalms, catechetical material, hymns, and religious contrafacta were known as early as the 1540s.7 It eventually became known as the Gude and Godlie Ballatis, the Wedderburn Psalter, or the Dundee Psalter. The latter two titles stem from the generally held belief that one of the three Wedderburn brothers – assumed

3 This parallel is noted by both Beth Quitslund and Elisabeth Jones. See RR, p. 70; Elisabeth R. Jones, ‘From Chamber to Church: The Remarkable Eergence of Thomas Sternhold as Psalmist for the Church of England’, Reformation & Renaissance Review 11, no 1 (2009), p. 30n. 4 since few of Coverdale‘s psalm texts and tunes were included in later English metrical psalters, many have assumed that the Goostly psalmes was not a particularly popular volume. See RR, p. 18; MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 23. However, Robin Leaver has argued to the contrary, noting that the book’s presence on Henry VIII‘s book burning lists of 1546 suggests it was widely available at that time. GPSS, pp. 80–81. 5 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englysh metre by T. Starnhold I. Hopkins & others [STC 2430] (London: John Day, 1562). 6 Metrical psalms such as Psalm 100, ‘All People that on Earth do dwell’ and Psalm 23, ‘The Lord is My Shepherd’ can be found in most English-language hymnals today. 7 on the night that fellow Scottish reformer George Wishart was captured, John Knox recalled singing the version of Psalm 51 that would be included in the Ballatis. Wishart was later burned at the stake for heresy. John Knox, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: George Stevenson, 1846), pp. 139–40. Leaver speculates that an earlier edition is probable considering the amount of material that appeared before 1546. GPSS, pp. 84–6. introduction 3 to be from Dundee – translated and compiled them,8 but recent analysis has called into question the ascription of the Ballatis to the Wedderburns and the connection with Dundee.9 Despite the fact that no printed tunes were provided, parts of the Ballatis were very similar to Coverdale‘s Goostly psalmes. Indeed, the Ballatis actually included several versifications from Coverdale‘s Goostly psalmes, duly Scotticized, in addition to several newly translated Lutheran texts. Thus, while different psalm versifications existed in England and Scotland in the 1530s and 1540s, vernacular metrical psalmody on both sides of the border was similarly Lutheran.10 Perhaps the most influential set of Biblical Psalms in English poetic metre was authored by a contemporary of Coverdale, Thomas Sternhold. Sternhold served the royal family as the groom of the king’s robes for both Henry VIII and Edward VI, and it is possible his position may have exposed him to the process of versifying the psalms in the vernacular already underway in France11 and the Netherlands.12 However, Coverdale and his Goostly psalmes also may have inspired Sternhold to start writing his own metrical psalm versifications, as Coverdale worked for the royal family as Queen Catherine’s almoner.13 Whatever the source of Sternhold’s inspiration, he eventually began to sing his psalms while going about his duties for Edward VI, and the young king became fond of the

8 Historians have traditionally credited the three Wedderburn brothers – James, John, and Robert – with the Ballatis. They have assumed that the ‘manie of Luther’s dytements’ that John Wedderburn translated into Scottish metre were those contained in the Ballatis. See David Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. Thomas Thomson, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1842), p. 143; Millar Patrick, Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 5; Jamie Reid-Baxter, ‘Metrical Psalmody and the Bannatyne Manuscript: Robert Pont’s Psalm 83’, Renaissance and Reformation 30, no. 4 (Fall 2006), pp. 41–2; and J.K. McGinley, ‘Wedderburn, James (c. 1495–1553)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/28956. 9 Although he concedes the possibility that John may have contributed to the Ballatis, Alasdair MacDonald is not convinced of the involvement of any of the Wedderburns. Alasdair A. MacDonald, ‘On First Looking into the Gude and Godlie Ballatis (1565)’, in Older Scots Literature, ed. Sally Mapstone (Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers, 2005), p. 232. 10 MacDonald, ‘Ballatis’, p. 236. 11 For discussions of the possible influence of French court poet Clément Marot, see Leaver, GPSS, pp. 117–18; Rivkah Zim, English Metrical Psalms: Poetry as Praise and Prayer, 1535–1601 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 121–4; Hugh M. Richmond, Puritans and Libertines: Anglo-French Literary Relations in the Reformation (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 24–5, 149–78. 12 Robin Leaver postulates that the Dutch Souterliedekens (1540) influenced Sternhold’s work as well. Leaver, GPSS, pp. 118–19. 13 In particular, Coverdale‘s Psalter or boke of Psalmes [STC 2368] and his translation of Campensis’ Paraphrasistica interpretatio [STC 2372.6], as well as George Joye’s translations of Martin Bucer’s Latin psalms [STC 2370] and Zwingli’s Enchiridion Psalmorum [STC 2372] influenced Sternhold. See Jones, ‘Chamber to Church’, pp. 29–56. 4 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice versifications.14 Sternhold printed his first volume of metrical psalms in about 1547, entitling it Certayne psalmes chosen out of the Psalter of David and dedicating it to his king. Certayne psalmes started several new trends in English poetry, one of which was the popularization of Common Metre (8.6.8.6). Described as a ‘transitional form between fourteener couplets and iambic quatrains’, Sternhold’s psalms employed a metre that was relatively uncommon in the 1540s.15 However, Sternhold’s versifications used the popular ballad to provide a familiar basic structure for the English populace. His skeleton of four-line stanzas split into iambic couplets was common in English balladry, even if the actual metre was not.16 Owing to the instant success of Sternhold’s first printed edition in 1547, other poets immediately began to produce their own metrical psalters imitating Sternhold’s style and metre. One of the more notable of these was Robert Crowley‘s 1549 Psalter of Dauid, because it was the first to produce all 150 psalms in metre, and he used Sternhold’s Common Metre exclusively.17 However, neither Crowley‘s nor any other Edwardine edition eclipsed the popularity of Sternhold’s psalms.18 Sternhold himself also endeavoured to create a complete metrical psalter.19 He began to add more versifications but died before he could finish an enlarged edition. Recognizing the potential market for such an edition, Edward Whitchurche – the printer of Sternhold’s Certayne psalmes – enlisted the help of the clergyman and schoolmaster John Hopkins to continue the work. Hopkins and Whitchurche worked quickly, adding Sternhold’s 18 new versions and appending seven by Hopkins in a separate

14 Thomas Sternhold, Certayne psalmes chosen out of the Psalter of David, and drawen into Englishe metre [STC 2419] (London: Edward Whitchurche, [1549]), fol. Aiiir; Quitslund devotes an entire chapter to this early edition of Sternhold’s psalms. See RR, pp. 19–57. 15 RR, p. 71; Edward Doughtie, Lyrics from English Airs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), p. 17. 16 While most ballads were narrative, Sternhold’s use of thematic content distinguished his versifications from ballads. They also used different clichés and ‘padding’ phrases than were common in ballads. See Richard B. Weir, ‘Thomas Sternhold and the Beginnings of English Metrical Psalmody’ (PhD. diss., New York University, 1974), pp. 71–6. 17 Robert Crowley, The Psalter of Dauid newely translated into Englysh metre in such sort that maye the more decently, and wyth more delyte of the mynde, be reade and songe of al men [STC 2725] (London: [R. Grafton and S. Mierdman], [1549]). 18 other than Crowley’s, the most notable editions were: William Hunnis, Certayne psalmes chosen out of the Psalter of Dauid, and drawen furth into Englysh meter [STC 2727] ([London]: [Widow of Ihon Herforde], [1550]); and Francis Seager, Certayne Psalmes select out of the Psalter of Dauid, and drawen into Englyshe Metre, wyth Notes to euery Psalme in iiii. parts to Synge [STC 2728] (London: William Seres, 1553). 19 This is implied in his preface. STC 2419, fol. Aiiiv–r. introduction 5 section.20 Fearing that some may have thought it presumptuous to place his own versifications alongside Sternhold’s, Hopkins wrote:

Thou hast here (gentle reader) vnto the psalmes that were drawn into Englishe metre, by M. Sternholde. vii. mor adioyned. Not to the intent that they should be fathered on the dead man, and so through his estimacion to be the more highly estemed: Neyther for that they are, in mine opinion (as touching the Metre) on any part to be compared with his most exquisite doings. But especially to fill vp a place, whiche els should haue bene voyde, that the booke may ryse to his iust volume. And partly for that they are fruitful, although they be not fine …21

Later editions of All suche Psalmes would continue to print Hopkins’s versifications, but they would intersperse them with Sternhold’s.All suche Psalmes would also become the most frequently re-printed publication of Edward’s reign.22 Owing to this popularity, Sternhold’s and Hopkins’s names became synonymous with metrical psalmody in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and their versifications would provide the textual foundation for British metrical psalmody through 1640 and beyond. Sternhold and Hopkins primarily intended their psalms to be used for devotional purposes.23 As historian Eamon Duffy observes, lay people wanted materials that would prepare them for significant religious festivals and observances while helping them with the challenges of their daily lives.24 The Sternhold and Hopkins psalms certainly filled this need, employing a simple and accessible vocabulary that people of all educational levels could understand.25 Despite widespread acceptance of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms, some were unapologetic in their disdain for them.26 Robert Browne

20 Thomas Sternhold and John Hopkins, Al such psalmes of Dauid as Thomas Sternehold late grome of [the] kings Maiesties Robes, didde in his life time draw into English Metre [STC 2420] (London: Edward Whitchurche, 1549). 21 sternhold and Hopkins, Al such psalmes, fol. Giiv. 22 RR, pp. 59. 23 The evidence indicates that parish churches also purchased metrical psalters, but it is uncertain which editions they bought. John Craig, ‘Psalms, groans and dogwhippers: The soundscape of worship in the English parish church, 1547–1642’, in Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe, ed. Will Coster and Andrew Spicer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 106–7. 24 Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c.1400– c.1580 (2nd edn, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), p. 234. 25 MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 26. 26 There was a multiplicity of music philosophies in early modern England, and these are discussed at length in Jonathan Willis, ‘Protestant Worship and the Discourse of Music 6 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice frequently complained of the practices of the English church, and one of Browne’s principal concerns about the metrical psalms was that the Biblical texts were forced into human constructs that damaged their purely divine character.27 Henry Barrow agreed with Browne, writing in 1606 that he opposed ‘the riming & paraphrasing [of] the psalmes’.28 Although some continued to express similar religious reservations about the metrical psalms, others began to criticize their artistic merit. For instance, Thomas Fuller wrote in 1655 concerning Sternhold and Hopkins, ‘their piety was better than their poetry; and they had drank more of Jordan, than the Helicon’.29 John Phillips added in the same year, ‘Straight then the Clerk began with potsheard voice | To grope a tune, singing with wofull noise … | Tom Sternholds wretched Prick song to the people’.30 These criticisms were prevalent from the middle to the end of the seventeenth century, and they continued to colour twentieth-century psalmody research insofar as the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms were generally relegated to the sidelines of musical and historical enquiry.31 Regardless of these religious and poetic evaluations, the fact remains that the Sternhold and Hopkins metrical psalms exerted a substantial, prolonged influence in both England and Scotland, and hence, ultimately, on British society. In belated recognition of this, early modern English metrical psalm singing has received some renewed consideration in the past 50 years. In the 1970s, Nicholas Temperley began to examine the sources and development of the tunes that were associated with English-language hymns, which led to his seminal two-volume Music of the English Parish Church. This work preceded a much more comprehensive project in which Temperley compiled a census of the tunes that were associated with English- language hymns and that were printed in sources dating before 1820. Published in 1998 as the Hymn Tune Index, the database continues to be updated and made available through a website served by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A number of monographs have followed, in Reformation England’, in Worship and the Parish Church in Early Modern Britain, ed. Natalie Mears and Alec Ryrie (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2013), pp. 131–50. 27 Browne also believed that all praise and prayer should be extemporaneous. Sung prose translations of the psalms were allowable only for private instruction and comfort. Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1948), p. 168ff. 28 Henry Barrow, A plaine refutation of M. Giffards booke, intituled, A short treatise gainst the Donatistes of England [STC 1524] ([Amsterdam]: [G. Thorp], [1606]), p. 254. 29 Thomas Fuller, The Church-History of Britain (London: Printed for Iohn Williams, 1655), p. 406. 30 John Phillips, A satyr against hypocrites (London: Printed for N.B., 1655), p. 5. 31 Quitslund provides a brief historiography of these disparaging commentaries. See RR, pp. 1–4. introduction 7 building on Temperley’s efforts and exploring many facets of the psalm- singing phenomenon that swept through England after the Reformation.32 Scottish metrical psalmody, on the other hand, has not received the same attention. The most recent monograph is Millar Patrick’s 1949 survey,33 which did not eclipse the accuracy or content of Rev. Neil Livingston’s ‘Theses’ appended to his 1864 edition of the 1635 Scottish Psalms of David in Prose and Meeter.34 Gordon Munro’s unpublished doctoral thesis on Scottish song schools and musicians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries stands as the most significant recent writing dedicated to Scottish music during the Reformation, and it questions many of the traditional views on the practice of metrical psalm singing and the dissemination of Scottish metrical psalm tunes.35 Munro’s work is part of a trend of growing interest in Scottish Renaissance metrical psalmody that began to reach the public in 1997 with the 450th anniversary of John Knox’s first Protestant sermon, preached in St Andrews in April 1547. Marked by a conference that included a concert of sixteenth-century Scottish psalmody in the church where Knox preached,36 this anniversary has since sparked a series of live performances – generally with some audience participation – in venues throughout the British Isles and North America, and there are now several commercial recordings available featuring metrical psalms. Most notably, the British Arts and Humanities Research Council project from 2009 to 2012 titled ‘The world of reformation Britain as seen and heard in the Wode Psalter’ produced a CD alongside its much-visited exhibition at the University of Edinburgh that considered the impact of metrical psalms on early modern British culture.37 Despite recent interest in the metrical psalm traditions of England and Scotland, some serious problems and gaps in scholarship remain. One of the most significant of these is a lingering belief that English and Scottish

32 Though not a complete list, consider: MEPC; GPSS; Zim, Metrical Psalms; Hannibal Hamlin, Psalm Culture and Early Modern English Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); and Jonathan Willis, Church Music and Protestantism in Post- Reformation England (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2010). 33 Patrick, Scottish Psalmody. 34 Though based on incomplete data, Livingston’s discussion remains the most accurate description of reformation Scottish psalmody. Neil Livingston (ed.), The Scottish Metrical Psalter of A.D. 1635 (Glasgow: Maclure & Macdonald, 1864). 35 Gordon Munro, ‘Scottish Church Music and Musicians, 1500–1700’ (2 vols , PhD diss, University of Glasgow, 1999). 36 see Roger Mason (ed.), John Knox and the British Reformations (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998), pp. xiii–xiv. 37 see Jane Dawson, Timothy Duguid, and Noel O’Regan, ‘Singing the Reformation: The World of Reformation Britain as Seen and Heard in the Wode Psalter’ (Edinburgh: The Wode Project Team, 2011), http://www.wode.div.ed.ac.uk/. 8 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice metrical psalmody were essentially the same in both print and practice.38 At the heart of both traditions were the Edwardine versifications by Thomas Sternhold and John Hopkins that were edited and augmented by the Anglo-Scottish exile community in Geneva. Both traditions also employed many of the same tunes. However, the psalter editions printed in the two countries used at least 46 differing texts and set 99 psalms to differing tunes. To merge the two into a single tradition is to cloud significant differences in textual and musical content as well as performance practice.39 Some have recognized the distinction between the English and Scottish editions of the metrical psalms, but there has never been a study dedicated to a comparison between the two.40 Considering the influence that the English and Scottish metrical psalters had on each other during the early modern period, this is a surprising gap in current scholarship.41 The present study examines manifestations both in print and practice of these two interrelated metrical psalm traditions. The first part surveys the melodies found in approximately 460 English and Scottish editions of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms printed in Britain and on the European mainland from 1556 to 1640.42 The latter part of the study, using the evidence both of historical accounts and the printed editions themselves, addresses the question of how closely people actually adhered to the

38 Robert Illing, ‘The English Metrical Psalter of the Reformation’, Musical Times 128 (Sept. 1987), pp. 517–21. 39 This compares the first complete psalters printed in both countries, 1562 Whole booke and the 1564 Forme of prayers. The actual count of different texts is discussed more fully in Chapter 3. For information on the musical content, see Timothy Duguid, ‘Early Modern British Metrical Psalters’, Edinburgh Research Archive (2013), http://www.era.lib. ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/6684. It is difficult to know how many would have been different in practice. See Chapters 7 and 8 for discussions of singing practice in the two countries. 40 Quitslund, fully aware of the difference between the two countries, consciously limits herself to the English psalm tradition. Leaver acknowledges that the two traditions are different, but the scope of his study limited his observations on Scottish metrical psalmody to a few passing comments. GPSS, pp. 255–6. Jamie Reid-Baxter, on the other hand, has stressed the distinction on numerous occasions. See, for example, Jamie Reid-Baxter, ‘Thomas Wode, Christopher Goodman and the Curious Death of Scottish Music’ Scotlands 4, no. 2 (1997), p. 7; and Jamie Reid-Baxter, Michael Lynch, and E. Patricia Dennison, Jhone Angus: Monk of Dunfermline and Scottish Reformation Music (Dunfermline: DoubleBridge Press, 2011), pp. 35–6. 41 Alec Ryrie’s study of the psalms in England and Scotland has recently shown how these texts influenced people in the two countries. Alec Ryrie, ‘The Psalms and Confrontation in English and Scottish Protestantism’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 101 (2010), pp. 114–37. 42 These more than 460 editions are the ones that the author has been able to view either in person or through download from Early English Books Online (Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC, 2014), http://eebo.chadwyck.com, and are listed in Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. introduction 9

‘proper’ and ‘suggested’ tunes found in their printed psalters. ‘Proper’ tunes were those that were printed with particular psalm texts, and ‘suggested’ tunes were the textual indications of which psalm tune should be used for those psalms that lacked a ‘proper’ tune. While acknowledging the fact that some psalters printed between 1547 and 1640 featured harmonized melodies, the sheer number of editions to be considered in this study precludes a systematic and detailed analysis of the harmonized tunes that appeared in print and manuscript. The following discussions, rather, centre on the monophonic psalm tunes printed and suggested in England and Scotland’s respective metrical psalters, noting the changes in successive editions from 1547 to 1640. Any discussion of the influence of harmonized settings is therefore limited to their effect on the melodies printed in these monophonic editions. Examining both English and Scottish metrical psalmody, the date range for this study represents the period during which the two countries produced their respective versions of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms. Quitslund’s textual analysis of Sternhold’s Certayne psalmes estimates that Whitchurche first printed Sternhold’s psalms in 1547, and the 1640 edition of the Scottish Whole booke of Psalmes in Prose and Meeter is the last known edition of the Scottish ‘Sternhold and Hopkins’ psalters with music. But between 1641 and 1643, seven further editions of the psalter without music were issued, and some Scots probably continued using these ‘old psalms’ even after the General Assembly formally replaced them with the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter. The English, on the other hand, continued to print and use the Sternhold and Hopkins texts long after 1643, as the last edition appeared in 1828.43 This book seeks to open up the issue of early modern British psalm singing and how we discuss it, but it is important to note that its considerations of print and practice are limited to the Sternhold and Hopkins psalters. For instance, it does not deal with the short-lived metrical psalter issued by King Charles in 1631 and reissued in a heavily revised form in 1636.44 Similarly, the present study’s conclusions do not necessarily apply to Wales, the Highlands of Scotland, or Ireland. Welsh and Gaelic metrical psalm singing were relatively late developments, with the first Welsh psalter not appearing until 162145 and the first complete

43 The last edition printed in England was The Whole Book of Psalms: Collected into English Metre (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1828). 44 Patrick, Scottish Psalmody, pp. 80–88. 45 While Edward Kyffin printed a Welsh metrical psalter in 1603, it was not practical for congregational singing. For more on Welsh metrical psalmody, see Sally Harper, Music in Welsh Culture before 1650: A Study of the Principal Sources (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 337–70. 10 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Gaelic psalter in 1694.46 Although these two traditions are not treated here, the present initial discussion of metrical psalmody should eventually be incorporated into an even larger discussion of British metrical psalmody that includes the Welsh and Gaelic traditions. Likewise, this study concerns itself primarily with the 150 Scriptural texts that constitute the Book of Psalms and does not engage with the limited number of non-psalmic texts (Scriptural canticles, the Decalogue, Lord’s Prayer, Creeds, Te Deum and a handful of newly composed hymns and canticles) which were a permanent feature of the English psalter from a very early stage and were gradually added to the Scottish psalter.47 The English and Scottish metrical psalters had their common roots in the Anglo-Scottish editions of the Forme of prayers, and Chapter 1 therefore begins with the development of those early psalters.48 Chapters 2 and 3 consider how England and Scotland reacted to the Anglo-Scottish psalm settings, examining the process by which each country produced its first complete metrical psalter within the Sternhold and Hopkins tradition. In particular, they evaluate the personalities and motives that shaped the English and Scottish editions. Chapters 4 and 5 explore how these metrical psalters progressed after the initial complete psalters had appeared. To aid this discussion, a complete catalogue of each edition’s musical contents has been compiled, including the tunes that were printed with or suggested for each psalm text. While indebted to Temperley’s Hymn Tune Index, this new catalogue lists the tune suggestions that appeared when a psalm text was not supplied with a printed melody. It also provides unique insight into the volatility of English metrical psalm printing during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which Chapter 4 discusses at length. The sheer amount of information contained in this new catalogue – 150 psalm texts in each of the 460 editions – means that it has not been possible to print it here; it is available in-full, online through the Edinburgh Research Archive. This data is synthesized in Appendix A, which lists the tunes printed for each psalm text both before and after 1604, in which year the Company of Stationers acquired the rights to print the metrical psalms in England and after which year Andro Hart began printing psalters in Scotland.

46 The earliest Gaelic metrical psalter included only 50 psalms and was printed in 1659. An ceud chaogad do Shalmaibh Dhaibhidh, ar a dtarring as an eabhra, a meadar dhana gaoidhilg, le seanadh earraghaoidheal (Glasgow: Andrew Anderson, 1659). 47 Many of theses texts and their origins are discussed in Reid-Baxter, Jamie, Michael Lynch, and E. Patricia Dennison, Jhone Angus: Monk of Dunfermline and Scottish Reformation Music (Dunfermline: DoubleBridge Press, 2011), pp. 45–56. 48 Recent research has revealed that the Genevan exile community traditionally referred to as ‘Anglo-Genevan’ actually included a significant number of Scots. Clare Kellar,Scotland, England, and the Reformation 1534–1561 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003), pp. 149–83. For that reason, the present monograph, like Quitslund, uses the term ‘Anglo-Scottish’. introduction 11

Chapters 1 to 5 describe the distinctive features of the English and Scottish metrical psalters – commonly called ‘singing psalms’ and ‘psalm buiks’, respectively49 – but Chapter 6 considers two significant points of contact between the two, revealing how the English and Scottish editions reacted to attempts to combine the two traditions. First, it considers the Middelburg Psalters, which originally consisted of two pairs of psalter editions printed by Richard Schilders. While these psalters did not have a lasting impact on the music of the English and Scottish metrical psalters, they did popularize the practice of printing the prose text in the margin next to each metrical psalm. Rather more significant for English and Scottish metrical psalmody was the emergence of the Common Tunes, and the remainder of the chapter considers how and when these were first introduced and popularized. The Common Tunes provided people with a more contemporary set of tunes that were simpler and shorter than the traditional proper psalm tunes. Appearing first in England as part of an English psalm-singing practice that already freely mixed-and-matched texts and tunes, these new Common Tunes could be used for any Common- Metre psalm versification and would dominate English practice from as early as 1590. They slowly made their way north to Scotland, where they were modified to become more Scottish. Chapters 7 and 8 discuss historical accounts of psalm singing and several issues surrounding performance practice in each country from 1558 to 1640. Psalm singing was common practice in England and Scotland, though few specific records survive of its presence in secular life, parish churches, and even in larger churches and cathedrals. Appendix B presents a list of Scottish sources that mention the performance of a particular psalm text or include a psalm text and tune in a collection of other works. Despite these accounts, scholars can still only speculate about certain aspects of performance practice. The present study relies heavily on the printed metrical psalters to augment and interpret what descriptions do survive, as sixteenth- and seventeenth-century authors seldom bothered to provide details of such commonplace activities. This approach has its difficulties, because it is impossible to know precisely the ways in which printed psalters described, prescribed, or ignored common practice. However, combining historical accounts with the printed editions does help to illuminate the relationship that existed between print and performance.

49 Beth Quitslund notes that the English Whole booke was commonly called ‘the singing psalms’, and the Scottish Forme of prayers was known as ‘the psalm buik’. Beth Quitslund, ‘Singing the Psalms for Fun and Profit’, in Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain, ed. Jessica Martin and Alec Ryrie (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2012), p. 243. 12 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Two divergent psalm traditions grew out of the original Sternhold and Hopkins psalms, one in England and the other in Scotland. Despite very different attempts to unite the two by Richard Schilders at the turn of the seventeenth century and by Charles I in the mid-1630s,50 the two traditions remained distinct. At the heart of the difference was a contrasting approach to psalm texts and their tunes, but in both countries, the population took the Psalms to their hearts, without regard to age, gender, or social status. Secular balladry, love lyrics, and bawdy songs were never silenced in either nation, but the omnipresence of metrical psalmody meant that in a real sense, the goals of Erasmus, Coverdale, and others were realized in the British Isles.

50 Although this falls outside the scope of the present volume, another attempt to marry the two came in the 1640s from the Westminster Assembly. Francis Rous’s version was heavily edited and eventually accepted by the Scottish General Assembly and Westminster Assembly. The resulting version became known as the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter, and while it supplanted the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms in Scotland it was not accepted or widely used in England. See Patrick, Scottish Psalmody, pp. 79–104. Chapter 1 Metrical Psalters in Exile

Protestants living in England in 1553 faced hard choices due to the restored Roman Catholic polity of their new queen, Mary I. They could remain in their country and either outwardly conform to Catholicism or openly rebel against it. The first option required them to compromise their consciences, but the second carried the near certainty that they would face real hardship, persecution, imprisonment, or even death. A third option was also possible to a few who had the financial means: they could leave their homes to become religious exiles in another country. For the few who chose this route and escaped to the European mainland, each one had to decide what possessions to take with them into religious exile. It is clear from subsequent developments that copies of the metrical psalms versified by Thomas Sternhold and John Hopkins were amongst the items that were taken abroad by these exiles. These poetic psalms were not merely a link with home; they became expressions of exilic identity, as they offered the exiles a form of self-expression in divinely sanctioned, emotionally charged songs. For instance, words directed at ungodly rulers in Psalm 2 took on a new meaning:

But he that in heauen dwelth, their doings will deryde: And make them al as mocking stockes through out the world so wyde.1

As these refugees gathered in different parts of the European mainland, some exile communities received permission from the local authorities to start their own worship services. Some adopted modified versions of the Edwardine liturgy, but their most significant musical innovation was the official liturgical use of metrical psalms. Although these had probably been unofficially sung in some English parishes during the reign of Edward VI, this was the first time in English-language liturgical practice that metrical

1 thomas Sternhold and John Hopkins, Al such psalmes of Dauid as Thomas Sternehold late grome of [the] kings Maiesties Robes, didde in his life time draw into English Metre [STC 2420] (London: Edward Whitchurche, [1549]), fol. A.v.r. 14 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice psalms became the sole musical component in worship services.2 Liturgical metrical psalmody further ingrained the psalms into the minds of exiles and led some to begin to modify and expand upon the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms. They also began to print tunes with the metrical texts, and there was nothing haphazard or random about the way they paired texts and melodies. The clear declamation of Scriptural texts was a priority for Protestants, so they chose and wrote melodies that would help to bring out and express the meaning of the texts. Since these exilic metrical psalms would provide the foundation for later complete metrical psalters produced in England and Scotland, both the historical circumstances underpinning them and the ways in which these editions married text and melody deserve closer scrutiny.

Psalm Singers in Exile

Those who fled England for the European mainland included merchants, students, theologians and former church officials. Some were French subjects who had been religious exiles in England under the reign of Edward VI, while others were English and Scottish nationals.3 They settled in cities all over Europe, but mainly concentrated in the Holy Roman Empire and Switzerland. Some communities such as those in Zürich and Strasbourg followed the liturgical traditions of their hosts.4 Others such as those in Emden and Frankfurt established their own confessions, arrangements for church discipline, and even liturgies.5 It was the exile church in Frankfurt, however, that would most influence the future of metrical psalmody in both England and Scotland. One of its members, William Whittingham, was the first to begin editing and adding to the Sternhold and Hopkins metrical psalms. A linguist and translator who had graduated from Brasenose College, Oxford, Whittingham became one of the more influential members of the Frankfurt exile community. Much has been written about this church

2 John Craig, ‘Psalms, groans and dogwhippers: the soundscape of worship in the English parish church, 1547–1642’, in Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe, ed. Will Coster and Andrew Spicer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 106–7. 3 See Clare Kellar, Scotland, England, and the Reformation 1534–61 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003), pp. 149–83. 4 henry J. Cowell, ‘The Sixteenth-Century English-speaking Refugee Churches at Strasbourg, Basle, Zurich, Arau, Wesel and Emden’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London 15, no. 4 (1936), pp. 612–55. 5 Michael S. Springer, Restoring Christ’s Church: John à Lasco and the Forma ac ratio (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007), pp.123–32. Metrical Psalters in Exile 15 and its liturgical ‘Troubles’, in which Whittingham played no small part.6 A brief introduction to the church and its debates will contextualize Whittingham’s work on the metrical psalms. In 1554, Whittingham settled in Frankfurt am Main along with a group of other British exiles intending to set up an English exile church.7 Earlier that year, their friend Valérand Poullain, formerly the minister of the French Stranger Church in Glastonbury, had settled in the city.8 Whittingham and his companions successfully petitioned the Frankfurt Magistrates for permission to remain in the city and worship in the same building as Poullain’s congregation, but the Magistrates ruled, ‘that the Englishe shulde not discent from the French men in doctrine, or ceremonyes, least they shulde thereby minister occasion off offence … ’.9 The exiles adopted Poullain’s confession of faith, but they found a round- about way of fulfilling the Magistrates’ liturgical stipulations. In the sole account of the proceedings in Frankfurt, the 1575 A Brieff discours of the troubles begonne at Franckford in Germany Anno Domini 1554 [STC 25443], the anonymous author notes that they chose to use a revised version of the English liturgy as printed in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer instead of Poullain’s liturgy.10 However, the distinction between their revised liturgy and Poullain’s was one in name only. Although the English group reportedly used the Edwardine Prayer Book as their starting point, they modified it so significantly that it resembled Poullain’sLiturgia sacra more than the Prayer Book.11 With regard to music, however, they

6 an updated chronology of events is presented in Timothy Duguid, ‘The Troubles at Frankfurt: A New Chronology’, Reformation and Renaissance Review 14, no. 3 (2012), pp. 243–68. See also Euan Cameron, ‘Frankfurt and Geneva: The European Context of John Knox’s Reformation’, in John Knox and the British Reformations, ed. Roger A. Mason (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998), pp. 59–73; and Martin A. Simpson, ‘Of the Troubles Begun at Frankfürt. A.D. 1554’, in Reformation and Revolution, ed. Duncan Shaw (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1967), pp. 17–33. 7 Clare Kellar has shown that many of the exile communities also included Scottish nationals. Since most of the officials in Frankfurt referred to the community as ‘English’, that term has been chosen for the current discussion. Kellar, Scotland, England, pp. 149–83. 8 Andrew Spicer, ‘Poullain, Valérand (c.1509–1557)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ ref:odnb/68327. 9 A Brieff discours off the troubles begonne at Franckford in Germany Anno Domini 1554 (1575) (Reprint, London: Gilbert & Rivington, 1846), p. VI (page citations are to the reprint edition). 10 though this work remains anonymous, some attempt has been made to ascertain the identity of the author. See Martin A. Simpson, ‘Of the Troubles Bugun at Frankfürt. A.D. 1554’, pp. 17–33; and Patrick Collinson, ‘John Knox, the Church of England and the Women of England’, in John Knox and the British Reformations, ed. Roger A. Mason (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998), p. 95. 11 Springer, Lasco, pp. 123–9; Duguid, ‘New Chronology’. 16 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice officially stipulated, for the first time, that in worship ‘people singea psalme in metre in a plaine tune … ’.12 The Frankfurt community’s decision to modify the English Prayer Book resulted from the belief that it retained Roman Catholic practices that were not specifically instituted by Scripture, but this decision encountered strong opposition from those who upheld the use of the Prayer Book largely unchanged. They argued that the persecution of those who had used it in England confirmed the Prayer Book’s Biblical orthodoxy.13 From the autumn of 1554 to the autumn of 1555, the English-speaking community in Frankfurt would be embroiled in a series of long and emotional disputes that would involve many of the English exile communities throughout the Continent. The first series of disputes over the autumn and winter of 1554–55 seemed to have ended in March 1555, when the Frankfurt congregation agreed to use a compromise liturgy for a period of three months.14 Just over a month later, however, Dr Richard Cox – the former Dean of Christ Church College, Oxford – arrived with several others from Strasbourg and insisted that the church return to the official 1552 Prayer Book. After several failed meetings and attempts at reconciliation, Cox and the Prayer Book supporters convinced the city’s Magistrates to banish John Knox, the community’s pastor and most vocal supporter of the compromise liturgy.15 The exile church then embraced the 1552 Prayer Book with only a few modifications.16 Although the Frankfurt exiles’ addition of metrical psalm singing to their official liturgy was an innovation, psalmody was not a major issue in the debates or findings of the various committees, which instead concentrated on other aspects of liturgical practice and ecclesiastical polity. Some individuals did question the use of metrical psalms instead of prose texts, but such cavils were very subdued compared with the bitter fierceness that characterized the other debates at Frankfurt. The tone of these discussions of the metrical psalms can be illustrated by a letter from Erkynwald Rawlyns to Richard Chambers:

12 Brieff discours, p. VII. For more on Edwardine use of metrical psalms, see John Craig, ‘Psalms, groans and dogwhippers, pp. 106–7. 13 the martyrdoms of leading English Protestants starting in 1555 (and particularly the death of Archbishop Cranmer, author of the Prayer Book, in 1556) would serve as additional evidence of the Prayer Book’s orthodoxy for many exiles. 14 GPSS, p. 223; The details of this new liturgy are discussed in Robin Leaver (ed.), The Liturgy of the Frankfurt Exiles 1555, no. 38, Grove Liturgical Studies (Nottingham: Grove Books, 1984), p. 5. 15 Brieff discours, pp. XXXVIII–XLV; John Knox, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, vol. 4 (Edinburgh: Thomas George Stevenson, 1846), pp. 31–49. 16 this liturgy, now known as the ‘Liturgy of Compromise’, is a misnomer considering the events that preceded its formulation. Leaver, Liturgy, pp. 3–4. Metrical Psalters in Exile 17

Thus for this presentes I com(m)end you to God. & for Godes sake waye those wordes that you & I talked of concerning the Psalmes songe in miter, which as it seamed to me you cold not alowe to be used in the churche so well as the texte it selffe. Indeade it must be graunted, that the texte above all thinges is to be esteamed, but when a man of God shall other in miter or prose wright or preache upon any parte of the scripture not dissentinge frome the true sence and meaning therof, it owght both to be receaved & allowed. Againe, all Christian churches so fare as I have harde & seene, do use to singe their Psalmes in the same order.17

Rawlins’s statement suggests that churches regularly sang the psalms in metre to plain tunes. However, Chambers’s personal liturgical preference was for the reading or chanting of the psalms in prose, as laid down by the Prayer Book. After Rawlins briefly reiterated a defence of metrical psalm singing, he moved on to his more significant concerns about the liturgy and the ‘forme’ of the Frankfurt church.18 After Cox and his supporters adopted (or from their opponents’ point of view, imposed) the Prayer Book with some minor changes, Whittingham began a three-month search for a new home for those who preferred the revised liturgy. He first stopped at Basle, and then continued to Zürich and Geneva.19 This last he and 27 others (including their dependents) chose to make their new home, as John Knox had already done. Once settled in the city, this Anglo-Scots community was free to establish the church they had originally intended to set-up in Frankfurt. The liturgy they adopted reflected the influence of Poullain’s Liturgia sacra, John à Lasco’s Forma ac ratio, and Calvin’s La forme des prières et chants ecclésiastiques.20 In addition to a ‘purer’ liturgy, the Genevan Anglo-Scots community sought both a better English-language Bible and an improved metrical psalter. The first emerged in 1560 as the Geneva Bible, but the community was unable to complete versifications of all 150 psalms. However, during their four years in Geneva, they managed to publish a catechism, liturgy, form of discipline, some major polemical works, and 43 new metrical psalm versifications.

17 erkynwald Rawlyns, Strasbourg, to Richard Chambers, Frankfurt, 24 November 1554, Denbighshire Records Office, DD/PP/839, pp. 40–41; Transcript by Jane E.A. Dawson, ‘Letters from Exile: Documents of the Marian Exile’ (2013), http://www.marianexile.div. ed.ac.uk. 18 dawson, ‘Letters from Exile’. 19 duguid, ‘New Chronology’. 20 See Springer, Lasco, pp. 123–32; Dan G. Danner, Pilgrimage to Puritanism: History and Theology of the Marian Exiles at Geneva, 1555–1560 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999). 18 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Compiling a New Psalter

While work on the Geneva Bible may have eventually taken priority over other projects, the metrical psalms and liturgy were the initial foci of the community. They printed their liturgy along with metrical versions of 51 psalms and the ‘Ten Commandments’ as The Forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments [STC 16561] on 10 February 1556. This was the first English-language publication to print metrical psalms for use in worship, and it would serve as a template for the liturgies of the Scottish national church as early as 1562, as well as for several separatist congregations in England. Extant copies include a clearly dated title page, but there has been some disagreement about the publication date.21 The confusion stems from the differences between the insular and Continental calendars during the sixteenth century. In England and Scotland, the year began on 25 March (‘Lady Day’, the Feast of the Annunciation), but Geneva began its year on 25 December. Some have therefore asserted that the 1556 Forme of prayers was actually printed in 1557. However, this later date is unlikely for several reasons. First, the printer of the volume, John Crespin, was located in Geneva, so it seems unlikely he would have used an English dating for his work. An examination of personal correspondence between the Anglo-Scottish exiles living on the Continent also confirms that they predominantly used either Holy Roman (with the year beginning on 1 January) or Genevan dating during their stay on the European mainland.22 Finally, the exiles printed a Latin translation of the Forme of prayers, titled Ratio et Forma Pvblice Orandi devm, atqve Administrandi Sacramenta et caet [STC 16565] in 1556. William Maxwell has convincingly argued that the Forme of prayers preceded the Ratio et Forma because the Latin version was translated from the English and not vice versa.23 It was common practice for sixteenth-century printers to have Latin translations made of vernacular works when seeking the approval of an authority – in this case, Calvin – who was unacquainted with the vernacular in question.

21 david Hay Fleming noted the disagreement. See David Hay Fleming, ‘Hymnology of the Reformation’, in Shorter Writings of David Hay Fleming, ed. Chris Coldwell (Vol. 1, Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2007), p. 11. More recently, Nicholas Temperley asserted that it was printed in 1557, but he has since dated it to 1556. Respectively, see ‘Source: *P AG 1’, HTI; and Nicholas Temperley, ‘“If any of you be mery let hym synge psalms”: The Culture of Psalms in Church and Home’, in ‘Noyses, sounds, and sweet aires’: Music in early modern England, ed. Jessie Ann Owens (Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2006), pp. 93, 190. 22 There are numerous examples included in Hastings Robinson (ed.), Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation (2 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1846). 23 William D. Maxwell, The Liturgical Portions of the Genevan Service Book (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1931), p. 9. Metrical Psalters in Exile 19

Therefore, it is most likely that Crespin printed the two volumes – both the Forme of prayers and the Ratio et Forma – in January and February of 1556. Beyond the publication date of the 1556 Forme of prayers, there has been some discussion about the identity of its compiler as well as the time and place of its compilation.

Compilers of the 1556 Forme of prayers

Historians have traditionally attributed the volume to Whittingham because he wrote all of the new versifications that were printed in its metrical psalter. Alongside these new psalms, the Forme of prayers included revised versions of the original Sternhold and Hopkins versifications, and it has generally been assumed that these were also Whittingham’s work. Recent focus on the use of the plural pronoun ‘we’ throughout the preface of the Forme of prayers has led some to suggest that Whittingham had help in reworking the Sternhold and Hopkins versifications. John Bale – the polemicist and historian who, like Whittingham, was also resident in Frankfurt – has been named as one possibility.24 However, Bale’s 1554 letter to his sympathizer Thomas Ashley indicates otherwise:

They sayde that in the latter tymes should come mockers, lyers, blasphemers and fearce dispisers, we have them, wee have them Mr Ashley, we have them even from amonge our selves yea they be at this present our Elders and their fact[ious] [torn MS] affinitie … But the truthe of it is, they seeke to set up in their ydlenes (as they are all ydle savinge in this one poynte) a seditious sacte in contempte of the Englishe order, for their owne pharisaycall advau[n]cement plantinge the forsayd lyes, mockings and blasphemyes as the first prynciples of their building … 25

As an elder in the Frankfurt church, Whittingham would have been one of the ‘mockers, lyers, blasphemers, and fearce dispisers’ that Bale describes later in the letter as ‘unnaturall bastardly brethren.’26 Such sentiments indicate that Bale would have had a tough time working with Whittingham on the revision of the Sternhold and Hopkins texts. Apart from Whittingham, only William Kethe and John Pulleyne are known to have contributed psalm versifications to the Anglo-Scottish

24 robin Leaver, ‘John Bale, Author and Revisor of Sixteenth-Century Metrical Psalms’, Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie 34 (1992–93), pp. 98–106. 25 Inner Temple Library, Petyt MSS, 538/47 fos. 380r–v; John Strype (ed.), Ecclesiastical Memorials; Relating Chiefly to Religion, and the Reformation Of It (Vol. 3, Part 1, London: 1721), p. 109. This letter has been re-dated to the winter of 1554–55; see Duguid, ‘New Chronology’. 26 Petyt MSS, 538/47, fol. 380r. 20 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Forme of prayers. Pulleyne was an English clergyman who remained in England until 1557, so it is unlikely that he had any significant input into the Sternhold and Hopkins revisions or any other Continental work before his arrival.27 Kethe, on the other hand, had settled in Frankfurt by 3 December 1554, when he signed a letter from the Frankfurt exile congregation to the English exiles residing in Strasbourg.28 Like Bale, Kethe was a practised poet, having written several Protestant broadside poems during the reign of Edward VI. Unlike Bale, however, Kethe sided with Whittingham in the Frankfurt debates and followed him to Geneva in the autumn of 1555.29 If Whittingham did have help revising the Sternhold and Hopkins texts, Kethe is the most likely candidate.

Compilation Location and Dates

Because the Forme of prayers was printed in Geneva, some assume that work started after the Anglo-Scottish exiles arrived there.30 Considering that Whittingham and the rest of the Frankfurt exiles arrived in Geneva on 13 October 1555, it would have been difficult for them to produce all the material for the 1556 Forme of prayers before 10 February 1556. Within this period, they would have had to revise the Sternhold and Hopkins texts, make eight new metrical versifications, translate Calvin’s Catechism, produce a copy of the new liturgy, and translate it all into Latin as Ratio et Forma so that Calvin could approve it.31 In addition, someone would have had to transcribe, arrange, or compose 52 tunes for the metrical psalm versifications. This would have been a monumental task forone man, even if he did have help. Therefore, it is extremely probable that much of the book’s content was already in existence before the group’s arrival in Geneva, as Robin Leaver noted: ‘Although not issued in print until February 1556, the liturgy, and presumably the metrical psalms and catechism, had been in use, in manuscript form, since the exiles founded their congregation in November 1555.’32

27 Andrew Pettegree, ‘Pulleyne, John (c.1517–1565)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ ref:odnb/22874. 28 this letter is printed in Brieff discours, pp. XXIIII–XXVI. 29 J. Fielding, ‘Kethe, William (d. 1594)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/15482. 30 Maxwell, Liturgical Portions, p. 8. 31 the title page of the 1556 edition states that it was ‘approued, by the famous and godly learned man, Iohn Caluyn’. The forme of prayers and ministration of the Sacraments, &c, vsed in the Englishe Congregation at Geneua [STC 16561] (Geneva: John Crespin, 1556). 32 GPSS, 226. See also Charles Martin, Les Protestants Anglais réfugiés à Genève au temps de Calvin 1555–1560 (Geneva : Albert Kundig, 1915), pp. 39, 331–2; also see Dawson, ‘Letters from Exile. Metrical Psalters in Exile 21

English liturgical revisionism gained momentum only after the exiles fled to the Continent, so work on the metrical psalms inthe Forme of prayers probably began during the exile.33 In particular, Whittingham probably wrote his versification of the ‘Ten Commandments’ in Frankfurt in order to fulfil the liturgical requirements of the exile community there.34 Poullain’s Liturgia sacra stipulates that the ‘Ten Commandments’ should be sung before the Lord’s Supper, and his French exiles in Frankfurt used Clément Marot’s version of the text as printed in Calvin’s Geneva psalters. Though the Anglo-Scottish exiles in Frankfurt initially adopted a liturgy similar to Poullain’s, no English-language versification of the ‘Ten Commandments’ was available. Whittingham’s paraphrase, modelled on Marot’s, was in all probability produced to fill this gap.35 Whittingham probably also versified a number of psalms for liturgical use by the Frankfurt congregation, who sang a metrical psalm after the statements of remission and absolution from sin.36 Though the Forme of prayers did not specify any particular psalms for this, the most fitting texts would have been the Penitential Psalms (Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, and 143). These were arguably the psalms most familiar to clergy and laity alike in pre-Reformation society,37 so it is no surprise that Sternhold’s versifications include Psalms 6 and 32. Both would have suitably fitted among the confession of and absolution from sin in the Frankfurt liturgy, as would Whittingham’s Psalms 51 and 130. Indeed, Psalm 51, the Miserere, was perhaps the best known of the seven Penitential Psalms. Attributed to King David after his love-affair with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of her husband, this psalm has long been viewed as the Bible’s quintessential expression of repentance. In medieval England, people commonly learned at least the opening of the psalm (in Latin), since it was a ‘neck verse’ for those who sought the ‘benefit of clergy’, namely to avoid, by reciting the first verse of Psalm 51, trial in secular courts or stiff penalties and punishments (including hanging). Rather less dramatically, recipes often referenced the recitation of this psalm as a method for measuring time.38

33 Despite some Edwardine efforts to reform the English liturgy, significant change was first made by the Frankfurt exile church. Cameron, ‘Frankfurt and Geneva’, pp. 61–5. 34 Modelled on Poullain’s Liturgia sacra, the Frankfurt liturgy required that the ‘Ten Commandments’ be sung before Communion. GPSS, p. 220. 35 GPSS, p. 220; ‘Tune: 178’, Frost; Maxwell, Liturgical Portions, p. 64. 36 Maxwell, Liturgical Portions, p. 18. 37 For an introduction to the Penitential Psalms and their import in English culture before and after the Reformation, see Clare Costley King’oo, Miserere Mei: The Penitential Psalms in Late Medieval and Early Modern England (South Bend, IN.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012). 38 Jane E.A. Dawson, ‘Miserere/Psalm 51 in the Wode Part-books’, (presentation for the Wode Research Network, Edinburgh, 15 October 2009). 22 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

For John Knox, the co-pastor of the Anglo-Scots in Geneva, this psalm had particular significance. He joined his mentor, the reformer George Wishart, in singing it the night before Wishart was arrested for heresy (a charge for which he would eventually be convicted and executed).39 Reflecting the popularity and importance of this psalm, Whittingham’s version, like that of Psalm 130, increased the repertory of Penitential Psalms available to the exiles for their personal devotions and for corporate use in the Anglo- Scottish liturgy. Whittingham’s versifications of Psalms 133 and 137 also had direct relevance both to the strife-torn situation in Frankfurt and to the spirit of solidarity that imbued those who moved to Geneva. Psalm 133’s opening couplets, ‘O how happie a thinge it is, | and ioy full for to see | bretherne together fast to hold | the bande of amitie?’ would have been particularly meaningful to Whittingham and his friends. As would, in a rather different way, Psalm 137, where the plaintive cries of the Israelites during their Babylonian captivity would resonate both with the exiles’ own sorrow over the destruction of the Protestant religion in England and with their search for ways to praise God in a foreign land. The prose introduction, or argument, for the latter psalm found in the 1556 Forme of prayers confirms the exiles’ focus on this text, proclaiming, ‘The people of god in their banishement seinge gods true religion decaye, lyued in great anguishe and sorrowe of hearte … ’40 There is a clear parallel here between the Jewish situation in Psalm 137 and that of the Marian Exiles, who regularly heard of the martyrdoms of their Protestant brethren in England.41 Writing in the introduction to the Forme of prayers, Whittingham insisted:

for nowe the day of our visitation is come, and the lorde hath broght the plagues vpon vs, wherof before we were admoneshed, and moste iustely menaced. For the false prophets are sent forthe with lies in their mouthes to deceyue England, and the scarsetie of gods worde is so great that altogh they seke it from one sea coaste to an other, yet they can not find yt …42

Whittingham’s remaining three 1556 psalm versions, Psalms 23, 114, and 115, were not specifically relevant to the situation at Frankfurt. Yet their proper tunes indicate it was at Frankfurt that Whittingham versified the texts and added tunes to them, for none of the melodies paired with these

39 Knox, Works, vol. 1, pp. 139–40. 40 Forme of prayers, p. 153. 41 Jane E.A. Dawson, ‘Apocalyptic Thinking of the Marian Exiles’, in Prophecy and Eschatology, ed. Michael Wilks (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), pp. 84–5. 42 William Whittingham, ‘To Ovr Bretherne in Englande, and ElsWhere … ’ in Forme of prayers, p. 5. Metrical Psalters in Exile 23 three psalms originated in Calvin’s Geneva psalters. In fact, of the seven metrical psalms Whittingham published in the 1556 Forme of prayers, only Psalm 130 was paired with a Genevan tune. The extent to which Whittingham’s later versifications are paired with Genevan melodies reflects the Anglo-Scots community’s direct exposure to Calvin’s Geneva psalters, and strongly suggests that the pairing of Whittingham’s Psalms 23, 114, and 115 with their melodies took place in Frankfurt. A psalter published in Wesel also helps to date Whittingham’s work. This volume is without a title page or colophon but has been given the title Psalmes of Dauid in Metre [STC 2426.8]. Robin Leaver has already discussed the Wesel congregation, their ecclesiology, liturgy, and metrical psalter in great detail.43 Briefly, the community’s first members settled in the city in the spring of 1555, led by the Henrician Bible translator and psalm versifier Miles Coverdale.44 He was pastor there for less than a year before he left for Aarau. The former Bishop of Bath, William Barlow, replaced Coverdale as pastor, and much of the community’s liturgy and proceedings during his pastorate are recorded in Lambeth Palace Manuscript 2523. During their stay in the city, the Wesel community produced a metrical psalter that they used in their liturgy, but they had to depart the city in the spring of 1557 due to conflicts with the local magistrates, providing the terminus ante quem for the Wesel Psalmes of Dauid. That the terminus post quem is November 1555 is convincingly suggested by a specific feature of the book’s contents. The volume includes many of the same prayers, confessions, catechisms, and original versifications by Whittingham found in the 1556 Forme of prayers.45 But unlike the latter, however, the Wesel Psalmes of Dauid not only prints the original Sternhold and Hopkins metrical versions, but also employs a unique label to distinguish Whittingham’s contributions, attributing them not to ‘W.W’. (William Whittingham) but to ‘Ge’ (Geneva). This can only mean that the compilers of the Wesel Psalmes of Dauid printed the edition after receiving news that, in November 1555, Whittingham and the others had moved to Geneva. The similarities between the Wesel Psalmes of Dauid and the 1556 Forme of prayers are also helpful in ascertaining Whittingham’s order of work. Since the Wesel Psalms of Dauid incorporates all the Whittingham psalm versions available to the compilers, they were almost certainly completed before Whittingham settled in Geneva. Similarly, Wesel’s use of the unmodified Sternhold and Hopkins texts indicates that Whittingham had yet to begin his revision of the Sternhold and Hopkins texts. These

43 GPSS, pp. 195–215. 44 Christina Howell Garrett, The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Protestantism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938), p. 88. 45 GPSS, pp. 199–215; Leaver, Liturgy, pp. 4–5. 24 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice revised texts would go on to be used with demur, which makes it extremely unlikely that the Wesel compilers would have had any strong objections to them so that they deliberately ignored them.46 Finally, the fact that a lengthy defence of the Sternhold and Hopkins revisions appears in the preface to the 1556 Forme of prayers indicates that Whittingham had not begun the revisions prior to his arrival at Geneva:

Nowe to make you priuie also, why we altered the ryme in certeyne places, of hym whome for the gyftes that God had geuyn him we estemed and reuerenced, thys may suffice: that in this our entreprise, we did onely set God before our eyes and therefore wayed the wordes and sense of the Prophete: rather consideringe the meanyng therof, then what any man had wrytt and chiefly beinge in this place where as moste perfite and godly iudgement dyd assure vs, and exhortations to the same encourage vs, we thought it better to frame the ryme to the Hebrewe sense, then to bynde that sense to the Englishe meter and so either altered for the better in such places as he had not attayned vnto, or els where he had escaped parte of the verse, or some tymes the whole, we added the same: not as men desirous to find fautes, but onely as suche which couuete to hyde theym, as the learned can iudge.47

This defensive and apologetic explanation of motives and processes shows that these revisions were a post-Frankfurt innovation, not a fait accompli already known and approved before the Anglo-Scots’ move to Geneva.

Adding Music to the Metrical Psalms

The origins of many of the melodies in the 1556 Forme of prayers remain a mystery, as psalm-tune composers did not identify themselves. Some suggest that the 1556 melodies had been a relatively early development, replacing the tunes that Sternhold used when singing them to Edward VI.48 While it is possible that someone in England may have first begun to use these tunes with the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms in the early 1550s,49 the historian David Hunter has postulated that Whittingham first paired the melodies with their respective psalm texts during the Marian Exile.50 Little is known about Whittingham’s musical training, but his later duties

46 dawson, ‘Letters from Exile. 47 Forme of prayers, p. 21. 48 MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 33–7. 49 GPSS, pp. 121–31. 50 Richard Edward Hunter, ‘William Whittingham: A Study of his Life and Writings with Especial Reference to the Geneva New Testament’ (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1953), pp. 4–18, 50. Metrical Psalters in Exile 25 as Dean of Durham during the reign of Elizabeth I included leading the grammar and song schools, and he was ‘very carefull to provide the best songs and anthems that could be got out of the Queen’s chapel to furnish the quire with all, himself being skillfull in musick’.51 It is therefore likely that such a musical versifier would have had some direct involvement in the musical activities of the Anglo-Scottish community at Geneva, including composing and adapting tunes for the metrical psalms. Whenever the melodies were composed – whether in England under Henry VIII or Edward VI, or during the Marian Exile – it is clear that they were not reincarnated ballad tunes.52 The musical psalm settings in the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers reflected the Reformation emphasis on Scripture in several ways. First, its compilers sought to make the Sternhold and Hopkins versifications more faithful to the sense of the Hebrew. In fact, the title page of the psalter in the Forme of prayers insists that the psalms were ‘Conferred with the hebrewe’. While Beth Quitslund has shown that the exiles did not use Hebrew-language sources for their revisions, their reliance upon certain Latin and French-language versifications and commentaries from Geneva did lend them a greater degree of authority among the exile communities.53 Second, the tunes assigned to the psalm texts in the Forme of prayers embodied Calvin’s musical aesthetic for worship.54 That is, they were monodic and had an ambitus (range) that rarely extended beyond an octave. They were also syllabic, allowing only one note per syllable of text, and rhythmically simple, mostly employing semibreves and minims.55

51 David Marcombe, ‘Whittingham, William (d. 1579)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ ref:odnb/29329; Mary Anne Everett Green (ed.), ‘Life of Mr. William Whittingham, Dean of Durham’, in Camden Miscellany, Vol. 6 (Westminster: Camden Society, 1870–71), p. 23. 52 GPSS, pp. 121–31; Waldo Selden Pratt’s comments build on the seminal work of Emmanuel Oretin Douen. Douen first noted the relationship of Genevan psalm tunes to secular chansons. See Emmanuel Oretin Douen, Clément Marot et le psautier Huguenot (Paris: l’Imprimerie nationale, 1878–79; reprint, Amsterdam: P. Schippers, 1967), Vol 1, 679–735 (page citations are to the reprint edition); and, Waldo Seldon Pratt, The Music of the French Psalter of 1562: A Historical Survey and Analysis (New York: AMS Press, 1966), 6. 53 In addition to the Loïs Budé Bible and Théodore Beza metrical psalms, Calvin probably lent manuscripts of his commentary on the psalms to Whittingham and his colleagues. RR, pp. 142–53. 54 See Charles Garside Jr., ‘Calvin’s Preface to the Psalter: A Reappraisal’, Musical Quarterly 37, no. 4 (October 1951), pp. 566–77 and Charles Garside Jr., ‘The Origins of Calvin’s Theology of Music: 1536–1543’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 60, no. 4 (August 1979), pp. 5–35. See also Pierre Pidoux, ‘Au XVIe siècle la Genève de Calvin et le chant des psaumes’, Revue Musicale de Suisse Romande 44, no. 1 (April 1991), pp. 139–59. 55 While the vast majority of the tunes from Calvin’s Geneva Psalter treated their texts syllabically, the tunes for Psalms 2, 6, 10, 13, 91, and 138 were not strictly syllabic. 26 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

This basic approach stylistically separated the melodies from most ballads where word-setting had to be free and flexible, since the tune had to accommodate extra syllables when necessary. Calvin’s approach, by prioritizing clear linguistic communicability, also allowed Reformers to focus more on the texts themselves by removing many of the emphases that resulted from melismas and widely varying note lengths. Although music was of secondary importance to compilers of the Forme of prayers, they followed Calvin’s teaching about music. Arguing from a negative point of view, Calvin had written in his 1543 Epistle:

It is true that every bad word (as St Paul has said) perverts good manners, but when the melody is with it, it pierces the heart more strongly, and enters into it; in a like manner as through a funnel, the wine is poured into the vessel; so also the venom and corruption is distilled to the depths of the heart by the melody.56

Although this approach to music has been the source of much criticism, it is important to consider its positive implications: if Calvin thought that melody could allow ‘bad words’ to influence a person, the same was true for good words. Echoing these views, the compilers of the Forme of prayers wrote:

As if the holy ghoste wolde saye, that the songe did inflame the heart to call vpon god, and praise him with a more feruent and lyuely zeale, and as musike or singing is natural vnto vs, and therefore euery man deliteth therein: so our mercifull god setteth before our eyes, how we may reioyce and singe to the glorie of his name, recreation of our spirites, and profit of our selues.57

According to the Forme of prayers, the purpose of music was to allow people to praise God more fervently and zealously. It would follow that compilers sought some way to ‘connect’ their tunes to their texts and so to incite such praise. One of the most frequently discussed methods of attaching extra- musical significance to a sixteenth-century melody was through what music theorists called modal ethos. Most agreed that the medieval church modes were associated with particular moods, though they often disagreed about which moods matched each mode.58 Today theorists may disagree about

56 Garside, ‘Calvin’s Preface’, p. 571. 57 STC 16561, pp. 17–18. 58 Claude V. Palisca, ‘Mode Ethos in the Renaissance’, in Essays in Musicology: A Tribute to Alvin Johnson, ed. Lewis Lockwood and Edward Roesner (Philadelphia: American Musicological Society, 1990), pp. 126–39; Bernhard Meier, The Modes of Classical Vocal Polyphony Described According to the Sources, trans. Ellen Beebe (New York: Broude Metrical Psalters in Exile 27 the applicability of modal designations to anything other than plainchant, but they do agree that a piece’s system (key signature), ambitus (range), cadences, and finalis(final note) remained important.59 Therefore, if those responsible for the psalm tunes in the Forme of prayers took modal ethos into consideration when devising and selecting the tunes, they would have consistently paired similar psalm texts with similar tunes. However, the successive editions of the Forme of prayers did not consistently match the content of psalm texts with these basic musical characteristics. The tunes for Psalms 15 and 129 (Examples 1.1 and 1.2) are quite similar, using the same system, and having the same finalis. The most significant basic difference between the two is the octave difference between their respective ambituses, except that since both men and women participated in congregational singing – presumably singing an octave apart – the ambituses of these tunes are essentially the same. And yet, the compilers of the Forme of prayers did not note any significant congruence between their two psalm texts. They introduced Psalm 15:

This psalme teacheth on what condition, God did chuse the Iewes for his peculiar people, and wherfore he placed his temple amonge them, which was to the intent, that they by liuing vprightlie and Godlie, might witnes that they were his speciall and holy people.60

Psalm 129, by contrast:

… admonisheth the Church to reioyse, thogh it haue bene afflicted in all ages for God wil deliuer it: and the ennemies, for all their glorious shewe, shall sodeinly be destroyed.61

For the compilers of the Forme of prayers, Psalm 15 listed the qualities of God’s holy people; whereas Psalm 129 exhorted God’s people to praise God even when they were persecuted by evildoers.

Brothers, 1988), pp. 385–405; Bernhard Meier, ‘Rhetorical Aspects of the Renaissance Modes’, JAMS 115, no. 2 (1990), pp. 182–90. 59 For example, see Harold S. Powers, ‘Tonal Types and Modal Categories in Renaissance Polyphony’, JAMS 34, no. 3 (Autumn 1981), pp. 428–70; Cristle Collins Judd, ‘Modal Types and Ut, Re, Mi Tonalities: Tonal Coherence in Sacred Vocal Polyphony from about 1500’, JAMS 45, no. 3 (Autumn 1992), pp. 428–67; Jessie Ann Owens, ‘Concepts of Pitch in English Music Theory, c. 1560–1640’, in Tonal Structures in Early Music, ed. Cristle Collins Judd (London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998), pp. 187–246. 60 The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments, &c. vsed in the Englishe Congregation at Geneua [STC 16561a] (Geneva: James Poullain and Antonie Rebul, 1558), fol. 19v. 61 STC 16561a, fol. 102v. 28 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 1.1 Tune from Psalm 15, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a]

Example 1.2 Tune from Psalm 129, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a]

There are numerous other examples of this non-application of a consistent modal ethos, but one more will serve to confirm the premise. Psalm 21 is a text in which:

Dauid in the person of the people praiseth God for the victorie which he gaue them against the Syrians and Ammonites 2.Sam.10,31. Wherin he had the Metrical Psalters in Exile 29

riche crown of the kyng of Ammon set vpon his heade. 2.Sam.12. and was indued with the manifolde blessinges of God, and contrariwise his ennemies destroyed.62

The tune used for this psalm of praise to God for his victory is comparable to that for the heart-breaking lamentation voiced in Psalm 137, which as noted earlier carried particular significance for the Marian Exiles:

The people of God in their banishement, seing Gods true religion decay, liued in great anguishe and sorrowe of hearte, the which grief the Caldeans did so litell pitie, that they rather increased the same daily, with tauntes, reproches, and blasphemies against God. Wherfore the Israelites desire God, first to punishe the Edomites who prouoked the Babylonians against them, and moued (by the spirit of God) [to] prophecie the destruction of Babylon, where they were handled so tirannouslie.63

Despite glaring differences in mood and content, the two psalms appear with tunes that use the same ambitus (g–a2), system (), and finalis (c1); they also use many of the same cadences (mainly on C, E, or G). In short, by sixteenth-century standards, the compilers of the Forme of prayers often paired similar tunes with dissimilar texts and vice versa. This apparently random pattern of pairing psalm texts and tunes raises the question of whether the tunes were arbitrarily assigned to their texts, an aspect of early modern English-language metrical psalmody that has been hitherto virtually ignored by scholarship. Considering the value the Anglo-Scots community placed on music, did compilers practise what they and their colleagues preached by choosing tunes that were consciously designed to aid religious praise and devotion? In order to answer this question, it is important to take a closer look at the psalm versifications. Setting Hebrew poetry to English metre is a daunting task, and many have failed throughout the centuries, including no less a poet than John Milton.64 Psalm versifiers often must choose between textual fidelity and poetic art, and Geneva’s Anglo-Scottish versifiers often preferred the former over the latter. The revised Sternhold and Hopkins versifications that first appeared in the 1556 Forme of prayers were commonly charged to be filled with ‘barbarity and botching’, and Anthony Wood added that the Sternhold and Hopkins revisions were ‘modernized without being improved, and the

62 STC 16561a, fol. 25v. 63 STC 16561a, fol. 106r. 64 Consider Hunter’s brief discussion of Milton’s versification of Psalm 1. Hunter, ‘Whittingham‘, pp. 187–9. 30 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice translation varied without approaching nearer to the original’.65 Many have echoed the assertion that Anglo-Scottish versifiers ‘had drunk more of Jordan than the Helicon’.66 Despite the venerable pedigree of such sweeping statements, it was not until 1974 that the work of Richard Weir provided a detailed analysis of the Sternhold and Hopkins revisions, noting that the work was methodical and that it improved the versifications in many ways. In the end, however, Weir concurred with Wood’s assessment that as poetry, the original versions were superior to the revisions.67 The problem with these poetic assessments of the Forme of prayers and later related publications is that the raison d’être of these texts is generally overlooked, namely that they were intended for singing. The metrical psalms in the Forme of prayers need to be re-evaluated within their original contexts, that is, with their tunes. It is particularly important to investigate whether the music moderated any of the poetic ‘issues’ that have resulted in such harsh criticism. Weir’s analysis of the Sternhold and Hopkins revisions provides a good basis for evaluating the tunes’ relation to the poetic weaknesses of the Sternhold and Hopkins texts.68 He reveals that the revisions suffer from a number of different types of poetic problems, most commonly relating to enunciation and accentuation. While the question of accentuation in sixteenth-century English prosody is still debated, the most prevalent problems posed by the revisions concern very obvious misappropriations of accents such as throwing stress onto conjunctions and verb endings.69 The following examples focus on these clear-cut examples of misplaced poetic accents. Psalm 7 has several changes of varying quality (Table 1.1). The modifications to the second verse have destroyed Sternhold’s run-on, and they have unnecessarily added to the violence of the verse by substituting ‘rent’ for ‘soule’. While the music cannot restore the poetic beauty of Sternhold’s original, it makes the best of the revision. The minim rhythms paired with the verse (Example 1.3) de-emphasize ‘he’ by quickly passing over it to arrive at the word ‘teare’. The melody then follows the action in the text, as it uses the largest leap – a fifth – between the words ‘and’ and

65 See Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxoniensis: An Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops who have had their Education in the University of Oxford, ed. Philip Bliss (Vol. 1, London: Printed for F.C. and J. Rivington et al., 1813), pp. 184, 187. 66 Hunter, ‘Whittingham, p. 200. 67 Richard Weir, ‘Thomas Sternhold and the Beginnings of English Metrical Psalmody’ (PhD diss., New York University, 1974), pp. 156–61, 205. 68 Weir, ‘Sternhold’, pp. 166–96. 69 Alison Wray has written about English pronunciation, especially as it was sung in the sixteenth century. See Alison Wray, ‘English Pronunciation, c. 1500–1625’, in English Choral Practice, 1400–1650, ed. John Morehen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 90–108. Metrical Psalters in Exile 31

Table 1.1 revised texts of Psalm 7

Al such psalms (1549) Forme of prayers (1556)

Least lyke a lion they deuour, 2. Lest lyke a lyon he me teare, my soule in pieces small: and rent in pieces small: Or haue rewarded ill for ill, 5. Or to my friend rewarded euell, in those that harmed me: or left him in distresse, Or rashly robde mine enemye, Which me persued moste cruelly with great extremitie. and hated me causeles: For why, the wicked trauailed, 15. But loe, thogh he in trauaill be in mischief men to cast: of his diuelish forcast,and of his Conceiued sorrow, and brought forth, mischief once conceiued, vngodly fraud at last. yet bringth forth noght at last.

Example 1.3 Psalm 7:2, 5, and 15, 1556 Forme of prayers [STC 16561]

‘rent’ to express this violent tearing. This is followed by two pairs of notes that are a third apart, suggesting the small pieces rent by the lion.70 A number of accentuation issues also arise in these revised verses. Weir notes that the revision of verse 5, ‘and hated me causeless’ makes more rhetorical sense, but it replaces an absurd statement with an absurd accentuation (emphasizing ‘hat-’, ‘me’, and ‘-less’).71 Since the line occurs at the end of a stanza, it is difficult to fix the problem musically. While the tune could have used its rhythm to help alleviate the problem, its pair of minims leading up to the final only emphasizes the poetic weaknesses. Other verses in the psalm did not have these same problems, as shown

70 Some may question whether word painting was used at this early stage, but Franklyn Gellnick has shown that word painting was used in the medieval chant repertories, long before the appearance of these metrical psalms. See Franklyn M. Gellnick, ‘The Disposition of the Tritone in Gregorian Chant’ (PhD diss., University of Kent at Canterbury, 1997), pp. 109–18. 71 Weir, ‘Sternhold’, p. 169. 32 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Table 1.2 Revised texts of Psalm 49

Al such psalms (1549) Forme of prayers (1556)

The wicked days and euell tyme, 5. Why should I feare afflictions, why should I feare or doubte: We see agayne it is not geuen, 12. Yet shal no man alwaies anioye with ryches to haue rest: high honor welth and reste: But in that point, aryche man is, But shall at length taste of deaths cup, compared to a beast as well as the brute beaste. Yet for all this I trust that God, 15. But god will surely preserue me wyll saue my soule from payne: From death and endless paine.

Example 1.4 Psalm 49:5, 12, and 15, 1556 Forme of prayers [STC 16561]

in verses 2 and 15 (Example 1.3). Both verses are iambic, so the melody suits their accents. Of verse 15, however, Weir rightly states, ‘that they can be sung is the best that can be said for lines two and four of the Whittingham version’.72 Though the tune uses the unsettling paired note pattern described earlier to express the ‘diuelish forcast’, the accentuation pattern of the words does not fit the tune. The revision of Psalm 49 (Table 1.2) provides another characteristic example of how editors mediated poetic problems, and Example 1.4 reproduces these along with the tune. Word choice aside, the revision raises three significant issues. The first occurs in verse 5, where Whittingham uses the word ‘afflictions’ to fill four syllables. While the placement of the word within the phrase rightfully allows ‘flic’ to receive an accent, it also places a cadence on ‘ons’. The tune, on the other hand, is an example of a neutral backdrop that does not impose unwarranted emphases. First, it

72 Weir, ‘Sternhold’, p. 170. Metrical Psalters in Exile 33 stresses ‘why’ through the use of a semibreve followed by two minims, and afterwards it accents ‘af’ by skipping up a fourth to another semibreve. The subsequent semibreve–minim–minim–semibreve pattern then stresses ‘af’ and ‘ons’. This allows for a more natural accentuation of ‘af-flic-ti- ons’ in the fifth verse. It also helps to redeem a similarly unnatural poetic accentuation of the word ‘preserue’ in verse 15, as the pair of descending minims equalizes the accentuation of the word. Although the melodies of the 1556 Forme of prayers helped to eliminate a significant number of misplaced poetic accents, some still remained. As Weir notes, however, ‘this is a phenomenon of ballads in general’.73 Quoting from J.W. Hendren, Weir added:

In the long stanza of the average ballad there are often one or two, perhaps several, such instances where the stress of the melody strikes upon a syllable of the language which in poetic form would not be naturally accented.74

This indicates that misplaced poetic accents would not have been as offensive to the sixteenth-century performer and listener as they would be today. However, it is important to note that unlike ballad tunes, the metrical psalm melodies in the 1556 Forme of prayers were not initially intended to be randomly paired with psalm texts. Those compiling the 1556 Forme of prayers were aware of the issues that had arisen as a result of their textual emendations, and they actively sought melodies that would rectify them. Psalm tunes were intentionally paired with or composed for each psalm text in the 1556 Forme of prayers, in order to ensure that the psalms could be more easily sung and more clearly understood.

Continuing the Work

As in Calvin’s Geneva psalters, Anglo-Scots compilers sought to provide metrical versifications for all 150 psalms contained in the Book of Psalms. The 1556 edition of the Forme of prayers included 51 metrical psalm settings, which provided a good number of options for fulfilling the liturgical needs of the church. Other projects now took precedence, despite the fact that the psalter remained incomplete. In particular, after the Forme of prayers was issued, Whittingham had other significant demands on his time, printing a number of works over the next few years. These included a translation of reformer Theodore Beza’s A Brief Declaration of the

73 Weir, ‘Sternhold’, p. 101. 74 Weir, ‘Sternhold’; J.W. Hendren, A Study of Ballad Rhythm (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1936), p. 130. 34 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Chief Points of the Christian Religion, and prefaces to Nicholas Ridley’s Brief Declaration of the Lord’s Supper and Christopher Goodman’s How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed [STC 12020]. Whittingham also translated the New Testament in 1557 and began work on the Old Testament. Beyond these, he was married in 1557, had two children by the end of 1558, and had significant pastoral responsibilities to the Anglo- Scots congregation as one of its leaders. Whittingham was no doubt relieved when John Pulleyne arrived in Geneva in June 1557, for Pulleyne quickly became involved both in translating the Bible and in the task of compiling the metrical psalter.75 Most probably, the two men worked together with Kethe to produce a second edition of the Forme of prayers, printed in 1558 [STC 16561a], containing a total of 62 metrical psalms. Pulleyne contributed two of these new versions, while Whittingham, despite all his other commitments, found time to write no fewer than nine new psalms, including his monumental Psalm 119, and added a metrical ‘Song of Simeon’ to his ‘Ten Commandments’.

Whittingham’s New Versifications and Tunes

Melodies continued to be used to serve their texts in the second edition of the Forme of prayers. However, Whittingham’s workload did not allow him to exercise the same level of care in pairing tunes with his new versifications. Since these new versifications deployed a broader range of metres and verse forms in direct emulation of Calvin’s Geneva psalter, it is unfortunate that the melodies did not consistently do a better job of aiding the poetic weaknesses of Whittingham’s new texts. Many commentators have focused their criticisms on these new versifications, especially those that used ‘unusual’ metres. A.G. Gilchrist was far from disparaging of all of Whittingham’s work as a versifier:

give Whittingham an English tune, and an English metre to fit it, and instead of breaking his teeth on the French metrical forms, how well he can use long, short, or common measure, as in his spirited Ps. 114, either as sung to its proper tune in the Scottish Psalter or to the tune we now know as the Old 44th.76

But she is dismissive of the versifications using more peculiar metres or ‘French’ tunes. This criticism deserves more consideration, especially in light of the tunes that were paired with these texts.

75 pettegree, ‘Pulleyne’, ODNB. 76 A.G. Gilchrist, ‘Psalm-Versions and French Tunes in the Scottish Psalter of 1564’, Records of the Scottish Church History Society 5 (1935), p. 210. Metrical Psalters in Exile 35

Of Whittingham’s total of 16 versifications, seven used these more peculiar or ‘French’ metrical forms.77 However, the fact is that all of these psalms were more successful than Gilchrist suggested and, indeed, this group includes ‘Now Israel may say’, the magnificent version of Psalm 124 still sung today (Example 1.5). Here, both metre and melody have been adapted from the French Genevan metrical version of this psalm. Both the tune and Whittingham’s text subdivide each line with four syllables followed by six, which allows for a regular iambic pulse. The only rhythmic deviations from an otherwise regular pattern occur at the beginning of the third line and again at the end of the fifth. In the third line, this acts to emphasize particular portions of the text such as ‘had not our right susteined’ (v. 2), ‘doth us safely keep’ (v. 6), and ‘God … is our helpe … ’ (v. 8). The tune’s intervals and melodic contours also suit the text. It progresses mostly stepwise, forming two complete melodic arches. A leap of a fourth, the tune’s largest, marks the beginning of the second arch, which ultimately climaxes at the end of the fourth line before moving back down in the final line. These melodic heights align with the climax of each stanza, emphasizing the furious uproars (v. 2), mighty floods (v. 4), and cruel voices of the wicked (v.6) as well as God’s saving help (v. 8). On the other hand, the tune for Psalm 67 is considerably less consistent, metrically. Here, each 10-syllable line is subdivided into two groups of five syllables. Some of these groups consist of a spondee followed by an anapaest. Others use a dactyl followed by a spondee, and yet others use an amphibrach followed by a spondee. This would not be a problem if the textual accents of each stanza aligned with the melodic ones in order to help singers navigate these changing accentuation patterns. Unfortunately, this is not the case, which requires the singer to apply a series of elisions and epentheses to match the constantly changing rhythmic patterns. In the second line of the first verse, the foot of Whittingham’s versification, ‘Turne to vs poore soules’, is either a dactyl-spondee or cretic-iamb, but the tune’s corresponding rhythm is a spondee-anapaest because it uses two semibreves, two minims, and another semibreve. In the second verse, this passage is not an issue, as the melody is now paired with the spondaic- anapaestic, ‘Thy ways may be knowen’. Similar issues with conflicting accentuations can be found throughout the psalm, but particularly in verses 2 through 5. A different set of issues presents itself in verses 5 and 6. These verses result in awkward accentuations because of some required epentheses. In

77 These were Psalms 50 (10.10.10.10.11.11.), 67 (10.10.10.10.), 121 (8.6.6.8.7.7.), 124 (10.10.10.10.10.), 127 (8.8.8.8.8.8.), 129 (10.11.10.11), and 130 (7.6.7.6.D.). Based on evidence in sources such as the Goostly Psalmes [STC 5892] and the Gude and Godlie Ballatis [STC 2996.3], it is debatable whether some of these metrical forms were uncommon in sixteenth-century English and Scots-language poetry. 36 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 1.5 Psalm 124, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a]

the third line of the fifth verse, ‘in euery place’ requires ‘euery’ to occupy three syllables, something unexceptionable for the period. Unfortunately, the melodic rhythm awkwardly emphasizes the ‘-ry’ ending of the word. The same problem occurs in the second line of verse six, where ‘euery’ is once again expected to occupy three syllables in the line, ‘and euery where’. Of Whittingham’s versifications that use metres other than Common, Long, and Short, some successfully paired texts and tunes and others did not. Most of the versifications lie between the two extremes described in Psalms 124 and 67 above. His versifications of Psalms 50, 121, and 129 suffer from problems like those of Psalm 67, but Psalms 127 and 130 were arguably more successful, like Psalm 124. Gilchrist’s criticisms are, in short, unnecessarily harsh. Metrical Psalters in Exile 37

Theological Troubleshooting

Although the 1558 Forme of prayers should be viewed as a continuation and extension of the 1556 edition, there was a significant departure in its approach to musical content. It removed 27 tunes from the 1556 edition and added only 17 new tunes, so that there was no longer a proper tune paired with each psalm text. Whittingham and Pulleyne’s heavy workload is probably in part to blame, but this failure to keep musical pace with the versifying of the psalms is particularly helpful for researchers today, given that the liturgical portions of the Forme of prayers did not generally specify which psalms should be used in worship services. The removal of 27 tunes provides interesting insight into the musical practices and preferences of the Anglo-Scots congregation. Reinforcing the argument that Whittingham’s versifications were a regular part of the liturgy in both Geneva and Frankfurt, the group of tunes retained in the 1558 Forme of prayers included those used for all seven of Whittingham’s original psalm versifications and his ‘Ten Commandments’. A further 22 tunes from the 1556 edition remained with their original texts in the 1558 edition, bringing the total of retained tunes to 29.78 In addition, the tunes for Psalms 2 and 42 were moved to Psalms 10 and 33, respectively. The logical conclusion is that these 31 metrical settings were the most popular of the psalms that were sung by the Genevan Anglo-Scottish church from 1556 to 1558. Even though the compilers were unable to continue to provide a unique tune for each psalm, they still wanted to pair texts with suitable tunes. Their chosen solution marked another significant advance in metrical psalmody. When a text appeared without a proper tune, the 1558 edition provided the instructions: ‘Sing this, as the n. Psalme’. These suggestions were not made as a hasty stopgap in the interests of getting the volume into print. Just as the tunes were composed and arranged with their proper texts in mind, so too these ‘tune suggestions’, if we may thus designate them, were carefully chosen to bring further insights into the texts to be sung. Table 1.3 lists these suggestions, including the psalm texts and their prescribed tunes. Each of these suggestions fits into one of two categories. The first pairs the tune with texts that have similar content, andthe second pairs the tune with texts that combine to produce a development of ideas or events. These psalm tune suggestions have generally been ignored by historians, and their potential theological significance and musical compatibility has not been examined. The prose introductions or

78 The psalm texts in the 1558 edition that remained with their 1556 tunes were Psalms 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 21, 23, 29, 30, 41, 44, 51, 73, 78, 103, 114, 115, 130, 133, and 137. Timothy Duguid, ‘Early Modern British Metrical Psalters’, Edinburgh Research Archive (2013), http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/6684. 38 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Table 1.3 tune suggestions in the Forme of prayers (1558)

Psalm text Psalm tune HTI ID Category

2 1 60 1 4 3 94a 1 5 3 94a 1 8 7 66a 2 11 10 61 2 12 7 66a 1 13 6 65 1 17 16 75 1 19 14 113a 2 20 15 74 2 28 14 113a 2 32 29 83 2 34 15 74 1 42 33 89 2 43 14 113a 2 49 44 91a 1 52 41 88 1 63 44 91a 1 82 68 117a 1 123 23 80 2 128 114 102 2 146 103 101a 1 arguments preceding each psalm very usefully highlight some of what the sixteenth-century compilers deemed to be that psalm’s more important themes and concepts. Category 1 conflations use the same melody to highlight a similarity of import in psalm texts. For example, Psalms 3, 4, and 5 use the same tune in order to show that all three are pleas to the Lord for aid that also recognize that His grace sustains the psalmist. The arguments for these psalms confirm that the compilers viewed the three in a similar light. They introduce Psalm 3, ‘Dauid being persecuted, and driuen out of his kingdome by his own sonne, Absalom … therefore calleth vpon God … Metrical Psalters in Exile 39 against the great terrors of his enemies … Finally he reioyseth for the good successe, and victorie, that God gaue him … ouer his ennemies’.79 While the argument for Psalm 4 instead calls to mind David’s persecution at the hands of Saul, the tone of the psalm is very similar to Psalm 3. Its argument asserts, ‘When Saul persecuted him [David], he called vpon God, trusting moste assuredly in his promesse, and therefore boldely reproueth his ennemies, who by wilfull malice resisted his dominion … ’80 The argument for Psalm 5 recounts how David was betrayed by Doeg to Saul (I Sa. 22:6–10), and by Ahitophel to Absolom (II Sa. 15:12). Whether or not this psalm was indeed written with these events in mind, the argument provides an illuminating summary of its contents, explaining that David ‘calleth to God for succor … After beinge assured of prosperous successe, he conceueth comfort: concluding that, when God shall deliuer him others also shall be partakers of the same mercies’.81 Another trio of related psalms use the same tune to convey a singular theme: one should trust in God despite one’s circumstances. The first of these psalms, Psalm 44, was particularly meaningful to the Anglo-Scots community because they believed that their exile was a result of their refusal to secure a fuller reformation of the English Church during the reign of Edward VI.82 The argument describes Psalm 44 as ‘A moste earnest prayer made in the name of the faithfull, when they are afflicted by their enemies’,83 but goes on to add that this psalm is a song in which God’s people ‘acknowledge that this affliction came by his iust iudgement’.84 The psalm concludes with the following prayer, which the exile community would have sung with heartfelt emotion:

Rise vp therefore for our defence and helpe vs lord at neede: we thee beseche for thy goodnes to rescue vs with speede.85

Some individuals might think that worldly wealth could somehow help their standing before God, but the 1558 Forme of prayers presents Psalm 49 to reprove this view. Those who are consumed by their wealth are

79 STC 16561a, fols 4r–4v. 80 STC 16561a, fol. 5v. 81 STC 16561a, fol. 6v. 82 Dawson, ‘Apocalyptic Thinking’, pp. 84–5. 83 STC 16561a, fol. 47r. 84 Psalm 44:9i, The Bible and Holy Scriptures Conteyned in the Olde and Newe Testament [or Geneva Bible, STC 2093] (Geneva: Rouland Hall, 1560), fol. Pp.iiiir. 85 STC 16561a, fol. 93r. 40 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice styled as ‘worldly misers’ who are destined to ‘euerlasting tormentes’.86 However, the Anglo-Scots had a broad view of wealth, not limiting it to an excess of money and possessions. Their other writings leave little doubt that the ‘wealthy’ included those in positions of power. In the fifth verse, the psalmist asks,

Why shuld I feare afflictions, or any carefull toile? Or els my foes which at my heeles are prest my life to spoile?87

The Geneva Bible comments, ‘Thogh wickednes reigne & enemies rage, seing God wil execute his iudgements against the wicked in time conuenient’.88 For the exiles, the Roman Catholic Church and Queen Mary I of England were the quintessential manifestations of wickedness on earth. Therefore, the deliverance and blessing promised in this psalm concerned rescue from ‘wealthy’ oppressors both religious and political. The rescue promised in Psalms 44 and 49 reappears in Psalm 63, which promises worldly relief and blessing, as opposed to the spiritual relief and blessing promised in Psalm 49. The prefatory argument once again turns to David’s trials, this time at the hands of Saul in the desert of Ziph (I Sa. 23), saying that it prophecies ‘the destruction of Gods enemies and contrariwise, happines to all them that trust in the Lorde’.89 Using one melody for these three psalms, with their particular resonance for the exiles, served as a singular exhortation for them to continue to trust in the Lord, whether they were experiencing divine discipline or worldly oppression. Category 2 juxtapositions produce a development of events or ideas, and the pairing of Psalms 7 and 8 is a good example of this type. David begins Psalm 7 stating that God is his refuge from those seeking to kill him without cause.90 After stating his case, he closes:

I wil giue thankes to God therfore, that iudgeth righteuouslie: And with my song shall praise the Name of him that is moste hie.91

86 STC 16561a,fol. 49v. 87 STC 16561a, fol. 50r. 88 Psalm 49:5b, Geneva Bible, fol. Qg.i.r. 89 STC 16561a, fol. 57r. 90 STC 16561a, fol. 9r. 91 STC 16561a, fol. 10v. Metrical Psalters in Exile 41

Psalm 8 then begins, ‘O God our Lord how wonderfull, are thy works euery where?’92 According to the psalm’s argument, it considers ‘ … the excellent liberalitie, and Fatherlie prouidence of God towardes man, whom he made as it were a God ouer all his workes, doth not onlie giue great thankes, but is astonished with the admiration of the same as one nothing, able to compasse suche great mercies, and so endeth’.93 Thus, the tune joins these two psalms as a single statement of trust in the Lord and praise for His goodness. While singing of the trials in Psalm 7, people would have been reminded of the Lord’s blessings in Psalm 8. Similarly, the praises of Psalm 8 are more fully appreciated in the context of the suffering in Psalm 7. Psalms 15, 20, and 34 form another trio linked by the same tune, but this group forms an interesting political exhortation. Psalm 15 declares that ‘they by liuing vprightlie and Godlie, might witness that they [the Jews] were his special and holy people’.94 It continues by listing the qualities of the godly, asserting that they keep their promises, promote the cause of the just, reject bribes, and do not take advantage of others. The 1558 Forme of prayers juxtaposed this with Psalm 20, which it introduces as:

A prayer of the people vnto God, that it would please him to heare their king, and receiue his sacrifice, which he offred before he went to batell against the Ammonites, declaring how that the heathen put their trust in horses and chariottess but they trust only in the name of the Lorde their God. Werefore the other shall fall, but the Lorde will saue the king and his people.95

Using the tune from Psalm 15 with this text implies that the Lord will hear, save, and bless only those who meet the qualifications set forth in Psalm 15. It also infers that the king, no less than his people, is under God’s Law, and is responsible for ruling them justly. In fact, Christopher Goodman, a minister of the Genevan Anglo-Scottish church, argued this point in his epoch-making 1558 tract, How superior powers oght to be obeyd of their subiects, writing that a king:

… be none such as hath great nomber of horses: meaning, as trusteth in his owne power, and preparation of all thinges, for defence of him selfe, and to ouercome his enemies … Other observations he geueth also … chiflie that he have an example of Goddes Lawes prescribed vnto him, to reade them in all the dayes of his life, that he maye learne to feare the Lorde and to keepe his

92 STC 16561a, fol. 11r. 93 STC 16561a. 94 STC 16561a, fol. 19v. 95 STC 16561a, fol. 25r. 42 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

commandements, and not to lifte him self vp aboue his brethren: meaning, he shulde rule with all holynesse and humblenesse, as did Moyses and Dauid.96

The third psalm in this trio, Psalm 34, confirms this reading of the grouping. The Forme of prayers describes it as a psalm ‘ … prouoking all others [kings and rulers] by his example to trust in God, to feare and serue him, who defendeth the Godlie with the Angels, and utterlie destroyeth the wicked in their sinnes.’97

Musical Enhancement of Poetic Expression

In addition to promoting theological connections between texts and tunes, the 1558 Forme of prayers continued and indeed improved on the achievement of its predecessor by using melody to help mitigate the poetic weaknesses of the texts. By pairing problematic texts in the 1556 edition with different tunes, many of the outstanding problems described earlier were solved. This was done both by shuffling existing tune and text pairings, and by introducing new tunes. The effect of the 1556 melody on the poetic weaknesses of Whittingham’s revision of Psalm 49 has already been discussed, noting three prosodic problems identified by Weir, and showing that only a minor issue in verse 12 remained unresolved. However, it has also been noted that the 1558 edition deleted this psalm’s proper tune and suggested the tune of Psalm 44 (Example 1.6) instead. This tune suggestion not only had an important effect on the overall perception of the psalm, but also provided a new melodic formula for dealing with the poetic weaknesses of the text. The suggested tune corrects the same problems as the original proper tune for Psalm 49. It preserves the downward moving minims in the first phrase of verse 5 and again in verse 15 to allow for more normal accentuations of the words ‘afflictions’ and ‘preserue’, respectively. In verse 12, it uses another series of minims to correct the displaced poetic emphasis on ‘of’ in ‘But shall at length taste of deathes cup’. While the original tune still problematically stressed the word ‘the’ in the final phrase of verse 12, the suggested tune corrects this. It pairs the phrase ‘as well as the brute beast’ with a series of stepwise-moving minims that de-emphasize the poetic accent on ‘the’ and allow for a more natural accent on ‘brute’ instead. The cumulative effect of the suggested tune pairing is a marked improvement.

96 Christopher Goodman, How superior powers oght to be obeyd of their subiects: and Wherin they may lawfully by Gods Worde be disobeyed and resisted [STC 12020] (Geneva: John Crispin, 1558), pp. 56–8. 97 STC 16561a, fols 37v–38r. Metrical Psalters in Exile 43

Example 1.6 Psalm 49, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a]

Example 1.7 Portion of Psalm 2:1, 1556 Forme of prayers [STC 16561]

Psalm 2, verse 1 provides another example of how the 1556 proper tune could not help resolve prosodic accentuation issues (Example 1.7). The melodic rhythm mirrors the iambic foot of the poetry by using a semibreve on the second note of the phrase, but this unduly emphasizes the verb ending in ‘sey-ing’. By suggesting that Psalm 2 be sung to the tune from Psalm 1, the 1558 edition solves this problem (Example 1.8). The 1558 tune begins the phrase with a semibreve gathering note, allowing the emphasis to fall on the root and not the termination of ‘se-ing’.98 Since the

98 a gathering note is a long note that begins a phrase, and was used to get the congregation’s attention and to establish the pitch. 44 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 1.8 Portions of Psalm 2:1, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a]

remaining stanzas pair this phrase with monosyllabic words, the melodic change has little negative effect on the rest of the psalm.99 Despite a few minor issues, the 1558 Forme of prayers successfully consolidated and expanded upon the repertory of psalm tunes from the 1556 edition. It removed tunes that were not much sung, and paired these texts with either new melodies or tunes from other psalms that dealt effectively with the poetic weaknesses of their texts. With a few exceptions, the tunes did not overshadow the texts by forcing the poetry into inappropriate accentuation patterns but instead helped the text along when needed. Besides maintaining and improving these basic musical- textual relationships, another layer of theological significance was added to the text and tune pairings in the psalter. The compilers may have been unable to provide a proper tune for each psalm, but they grouped psalms together meaningfully, by using tunes to highlight similarities in overall mood or specific theological and narrative content.

The Final Anglo-Scots Edition

Mary I died in November 1558 and was replaced by her half-sister, Elizabeth I. Hoping that Elizabeth would restore Protestantism in England,

99 arguably, the lone exception to this is verse 7, which pairs these notes with the words, ‘to day’. Although modern spelling combines the two, it often appeared as two words in the sixteenth century. Metrical Psalters in Exile 45 many who had taken refuge on the European mainland immediately returned to their homes in England. In Geneva, two significant projects kept a handful of exiles on the Continent: a new translation of the Bible and the completion of the metrical psalter. The first, later known as the Geneva Bible, was completed in 1560, but the latter remained unfinished when the last exiles returned to the British Isles. Before leaving, however, they printed one final edition that was printed in at least two runs in 1560 and 1561, again under the title The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacramentes, &c [STCs 16561a.5 and 16563].100 It reproduced the 1558 edition, now expanded to include 87 metrical psalms as well as three versions of the ‘Lord’s Prayer’, and one version each of the ‘Ten Commandments’ and the ‘Song of Simeon’. No tunes were removed from this latest edition, and its texts were paired with a total of 62 tunes, 23 of which were new. Of these new tunes, 18 came from the French Genevan psalters, reaffirming and strengthening the musical relationship between the Forme of prayers and the French psalters. Strikingly, despite the falling out in Frankfurt, Richard Cox and his metrical versifications still commanded some respect among the Geneva exiles, whose 1560–61 Forme of prayers included his translation of Luther’s ‘Vater unser’ (‘Our father which in heaven art’). The text had appeared in the Wesel Psalmes of Dauid and Laurence Saunders’s A trewe mirror or glase wherein we maye beholde the wofull state of England [STC 21777], but John Day’s 1560 Psalmes of David in Englishe metre [STC 2427] was the first to print it with its original Lutheran tune, which was also used in the 1560–61 Forme of prayers.101 There were also five new tune suggestions in the 1560–61 Forme of prayers, and Table 1.4 lists these new pairings. Compilers continued to group texts together by using a single tune to highlight theological interrelationships. For instance, the paired Psalms 90 and 103 both dwell on God’s mercy towards and deliverance of the present generation of his people while asking Him to show that same kindness to future generations. Psalm 90 ‘ … prayeth God to turne their [Israel’s] heartes and continue his mercies towardes them and their posteritie for euer’.102 Psalm 103 is a more general call for people to praise God, but it asks Him for ‘ … deliuerance

100 Because it was printed in both years, the following discussion will refer to it as the 1560–61 Forme of prayers. 101 extant copies of Saunders’s volume appear without a date, so it has been generally assumed to have been printed in 1556. Quitslund notes that textual evidence indicats that Day must have used the Saunders volumes for his source rather than the Wesel Psalmes of Dauid. RR, p. 121n. 102 [The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments, &c. vsed in the English Congregation at Geneua] [STC 16561a.5] ([Geneva]: [Zachary Durant], [1560]), p. 265. 46 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Table 1.4 new tune suggestions in the Forme of prayers (1560–1561)

Psalm text Psalm tune HTI ID Category 54 ‘Ten Commandments’ 111a 90 103 101a 1 94 41 88 1 101 37 115 1 107 119 120a 2 of his people from all euils, for his prouidence ouer all things, and the preseruation of his faithful’.103 The pairing of Psalms 107 and 119 is classified as a Category 2 conflation. Psalm 107 praises God for his deeds throughout history, and his works for the children of men, especially in the way He gathered the Israelites together from distant lands and preserved them through distress, drought, and slavery. Psalm 119, however, is a series of 22 meditations on the blessings of the Law, acrostically based on the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, with all of the verses within each successive meditation beginning with the same letter. Considering the differing content of these two psalms, it is not immediately obvious why they share the same tune. Proverbs 22:6 may be the key, asserting that parents should train their children according to God’s Law,104 and additionally, teach their children about the Lord’s works throughout history and especially about the Passover.105 While the Anglo-Scots community understood these as commands from the Old Covenant, the exiles maintained that they still applied to Christians under the New Covenant. In the Order of Baptism, the Forme of prayers had the pastor recite the following to parents:

Moreouer, ye that be fathers and mothers may take hereby moste singuler comfort, to se your children thus receyued in to the bosome of Christes congregation, wherby you are daily admonished that ye norishe and bring vp the children of Gods fauor and mercye, ouer whom his fatherly prouidence watcheth continually … So oght it to make you diligent, and carefull, to nurture and instruct them in the true knowledge and feare of God … Therefore it is your duety, withal diligence to puide that your children in tyme conuenient, be instructed in all doctrine necessarie for a true Christian: chiefly that they be

103 STC 16561a.5, p. 278. 104 ‘Teache a childe in the trade of his way, and when he is olde, he shall not depart from it’ (Geneva Bible). 105 See Ex. 12. Metrical Psalters in Exile 47

taught to rest vpon the iustice of Christ Iesus alone, and to abhorre and flee all superstition, papistrie, and idolatrie.106

This aligns with the sentiments common to the two psalms’ prefatory arguments. The compilers of the Forme of prayers wrote that Psalm 107 ‘ … exhorteth all those that are redemed by the Lord and gathered vnto him, to giue thankes for this merciful prouidence of God … ’107 Writing of Psalm 119, they suggested that ‘it is mete that all the faithful haue it alway bothe in heart, and in mouth’.108 Considering the Anglo-Scots thought that Christians should continually praise God with these two psalms, the compilers may have been seeking to highlight their shared didactic function by applying the same tune to both. One final new pairing in the 1560–61 Forme of prayers deserves comment: Psalm 54 and the ‘Ten Commandments’. Although it is short, Psalm 54 has two sections. The first is a plea for deliverance and vindication, but the second confesses faith that the Lord will rescue the supplicant and avenge evil, before concluding, ‘Mine eyes haue sene mine hearts desire’.109 The themes of this psalm do not match those in Whittingham’s version of the ‘Ten Commandments’. Therefore, there must have been another reason for employing this particular melody for the five stanzas of Psalm 54. Perhaps the answer lies simply in the metres of the two texts. The only existing tunes from the 1558 edition that could have fit Psalm 54 were the Long-Metre (8.8.8.8.) tune from Whittingham’s ‘Ten Commandments’, and the Double-Long-Metre tunes from Psalms 27, 51, 70, 88, and 91 (most of which would have produced a suitable theological pairing with Psalm 54). Since the five stanzas of Psalm 54 would have required these Double-Long-Metre tunes to be sung through only two-and-a-half times, perhaps the compilers sought a shorter tune to force more musical repetition.110 But musically, a Long-Metre tune was better suited to the five stanzas of the relatively brief Psalm 54, and the compilers’ choice may well have been determined by the fact that the only such tune on offer was that of the ‘Ten Commandments’. In their ultimately unfinished labours on a complete metrical psalter, the Anglo-Scots compilers of the Forme of prayers had been concerned to ensure the clear declamation of the texts. In this they were eminently

106 STC 16561, fols E.iir–v. 107 STC 16561a.5, p. 290. 108 STC 16561a.5, p. 309. 109 STC 16561a.5, p. 246. 110 the half-stanza would not have been an issue, as the 1560–61 Forme of prayers includes the following note after Psalm 47: ‘The last verse is sung with the last two clauses’. STC 16561a.5, p. 201. 48 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice successful. They avoided many potential clashes between texts and tunes by intentionally selecting and shaping the melodies for each metrical versification. Faced with the reality that musical composition was lagging behind psalm versification, they innovatively chose to group texts together by assigning a shared tune in a way that complemented the themes and poetry of each text. As will be discussed later, such care is symptomatic of an Anglo-Scots performance practice in which the metrical psalms were sung as printed. Both the 1556 and 1558 editions of the Forme of prayers probably became well known to English exiles throughout the Continent. Providing tunes with the reportedly improved translations of the Sternhold and Hopkins texts possibly allowed them to gain favour among the other exile communities, slowly replacing the older versions.111 After Elizabeth assumed the throne, these new editions were carried back to England and Scotland with the returning exiles, as evidenced by the early English metrical psalters that appeared in 1560 and 1561.112 All of these reprinted Whittingham’s revisions of the Sternhold and Hopkins texts with their tunes as suggested in the 1556 and 1558 Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers. While the 1560–61 Forme of prayers followed in the same pattern as its predecessors, it had a mixed reception in Britain. This followed religious alignments: those who followed the Prayer Book generally preferred the earlier editions of the Forme of prayers, and those who preferred the liturgical practices of the Anglo-Scottish community readily embraced the latest Anglo-Scottish edition. Significantly, these preferences also generally followed ecclesiastical and political boundaries, with the English national church opting for the earlier versions, and the Scottish Kirk choosing the later versions.

111 as discussed previously, these revisions were not translated directly out of the Hebrew, as their compilers claim. In addition, many agree that the changes were not improvements, poetically. See RR, pp. 142–53; Weir, ‘Thomas Sternhold’, pp. 156–61, 205. 112 RR, pp. 197–210. Chapter 2 Completing Sternhold’s Work

On 8 June 1544, parliament passed the Third Act of Succession, whereby Prince Edward, the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, was made first in line as heir to the English throne. Next in the line was Mary, daughter of Catherine of Aragon, and Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn. Few in 1544 would have anticipated that these secondary and tertiary plans of succession would have taken effect, but the deaths of both Edward VI (d. 1553) and Mary I (d. 1558) within a period of just over five years saw Elizabeth crowned as Queen of England.1 Alongside the sudden shifts in political power that resulted from such a close series of successions, there were also significant changes in religious policy. Edward VI promoted Protestantism, and Mary I very forcibly returned the country to Roman Catholicism. Through her 1559 Act of Supremacy and Act of Uniformity, Queen Elizabeth re-established Protestantism in England. This Elizabethan Protestantism was in many ways deeply indebted to that practised in England under the queen’s half-brother, Edward VI, a Protestant faith for which many in England had given their lives during Mary’s reign. Among the most popular and influential of all the publications by Protestant printers were the books of the metrical psalms, particularly those by Sternhold and Hopkins. As observed in the Introduction, editions of these psalms had been reprinted more frequently than any other book during Edward’s reign, and under Elizabeth they would regain this popularity.2 Just as certain products become synonymous with quality, so the Edwardine ‘Sternhold and Hopkins’ brand of psalters had become the standard for metrical psalmody. The fact that they had been modified by the exiles during Mary’s reign did not have a negative impact on their popularity when they were brought back to England after Elizabeth’s accession. The most notable Elizabethan printer of Sternhold and Hopkins psalters was John Day. Recognizing their appeal at the start of Elizabeth’s reign, Day swiftly positioned himself to receive exclusive printing rights to the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms. His first psalter appeared in 1560, and it was an expanded version of the 1558 Forme of prayers. Entitled Psalmes

1 there was an attempt through the ‘Devise of Succession’ to make Lady Jane Grey the successor of Edward VI, but her reign lasted only nine days before Mary I was proclaimed the Queen by the Privy Council on 19 July 1553. 2 RR, pp. 59, 192. 50 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice of Dauid in Englishe metre [STC 2427], it would be Day’s first step towards producing a complete metrical psalter. Over the next two years, he would print four editions now collectively termed Day’s ‘Whole booke project’, into which he integrated the latest psalm versifications from John Hopkins and an up-and-coming poet and politician, Thomas Norton. When Day had secured versifications of all 150 psalms in 1562, he issuedThe Whole booke of psalmes [STC 2430], the first complete ‘Sternhold and Hopkins’ psalter. It would become the most popular music book of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England, and although it would be replaced by the Tate and Brady version in the eighteenth century, it would continue to appear in print until 1828. Considering the extended impact and influence of Day’s psalter, it is important to consider the motives of those involved in the Whole booke project. The compilers of the earlier Anglo-Scots editions were motivated by purely religious ideals, but nationalism, politics, and business principles, as well as religion, factored heavily into Day’s psalters. This chapter introduces Day and those who were involved in the project and considers their biases and motives. It then examines how these shaped the musical and textual content of the culminating edition of the project, the 1562 Whole booke.

John Day and his Psalters

John Day was born in Dunwich, Suffolk, and probably started working in the printing trade in 1540 under the tutelage of printer and physician Thomas Raynalde.3 In 1546 Day became a member of the London Stringers’ Company and later formed a partnership with the printer William Seres.4 Day’s initial imprints were largely Protestant tracts and books, and thanks to the employment of skilled immigrant printers, his were some of the best printings in England during Edward’s reign. However, his partnership with Seres probably introduced him to a man who would prove to be one of his most valuable contacts throughout his life. Namely, William Cecil was Seres’s employer while he was also junior secretary for Edward VI, and Cecil would become Elizabeth I’s Secretary of State.5 During the reign of Mary I, Day moved to one of Cecil’s properties in Barholm, Lincolnshire, where he continued to print Protestant literature from 1553 to 1556 under the

3 elizabeth Evenden, Patents, Pictures and Patronage: John Day and the Tudor Book Trade (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2008), p. 6. 4 Evenden, Patents, pp. 9–12. 5 Wallace T. MacCaffrey, ‘Cecil, William, first Baron Burghley (1520/21–1598)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/4983. Completing Sternhold’s Work 51 pseudonym Michael Wood. Based on a much-quoted excerpt from Henry Machyn’s diary, authorities discovered Day’s true identity and arrested him for printing ‘noythy bokes’ on 16 October 1554.6 Though this incident did not change his Protestant beliefs, it did convince him to follow Cecil’s lead and show outward conformity to Mary’s policies. In 1556, Day accepted a position as one of John Wayland’s printers back in London. As the patent holder for primers and works of private devotion – a patent formerly held jointly by Seres and Day – Wayland offered Day an opportunity to continue religious printing while avoiding further problems with the law.7 After Mary’s death, Day worked to re-establish himself as a printer of Protestant materials in London, and the early years of Elizabeth’s reign showed him to be a shrewd businessman.8 To keep a broad clientele, his output displayed little bias between the more radical Calvinists and the Prayer Book supporters; his printing preferences were based on what he could sell to his London customers. The popularity of the metrical psalms during Edward’s reign and thereafter among the Marian exiles, showed Day that they offered an opportunity for generating substantial income. So substantial was this potential, in fact, that Day risked violating the patent for printing the psalms held by his former colleague, printing a small edition of psalms before October 1559.9 There is some disagreement as to whether Day intentionally pirated the book or simply miscalculated the date on which he would receive his own patent, already applied for.10 In any case, on 11 November 1559 he received licence ‘to Imprint or cause to be Imprinted … all suche Bookes, and works, as he hath Imprinted, or hereafter shall Imprinte, being diuised, compiled, or set out by any learned man, at the procurement, costs, & charge, only of the said Iohn Day’.11 The ambiguous wording of this patent granted Day a foothold in the market

6 henry Machyn, The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant-Taylor of London, from A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1563, ed. John Gough Nichols (London: AMS Press, 1848), p. 72. 7 elizabeth Evenden, ‘The Michael Wood Mystery: William Cecil and the Lincolnshire Printing of John Day’, Sixteenth Century Journal 25, no. 2 (Summer 2004), p. 393; Elizabeth Evenden, ‘John Wayland (c.1508–1571x3)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/57739. 8 Evenden, Patents, pp. 47–67. 9 edward Arber (ed.), A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640 A.D., (5 vols, London: Stationers’ Company, 1875–94), Vol. 1, p. 124. 10 Beth Quitslund suggests Day’s quartron of psalms was a simple miscalculation of the time it would take to ascertain his patent. RR, pp. 199–200. However, Elizabeth Evenden indicates that Day may have often broken patent and licensing laws early in Elizabeth’s reign, noting that he also printed a copy of Nostradamus without licence. Evenden, Patents, pp. 48–9. 11 In the edition of William Cunningham’s Cosmographical Glasse from 1559 dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, Day printed this privilege granted him by the Queen. Quoted from Robert Steele, The Earliest English Music Printing (London: Bibliographical Society, 1903), p. 21. 52 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice for printing a wide variety of materials.12 For his immediate purposes, however, he had gained the legal right to start printing metrical psalms. Over the next two years, Day would work with his compilers to produce the first complete version of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms. The four editions that led up it have been examined in detail by Beth Quitslund, but the following basic introduction will facilitate an understanding of Day’s editorial process.13 The Anglo-Scots exile community in Geneva was not the only exile community to establish its own musical traditions during the reign of Mary I. Day’s first effort in what would become his Whole booke project could accurately be termed ‘The Exiles’ Psalter’, as it combined various exilic musical productions into a single volume. Printed as the 1560 Psalmes of Dauid in Englishe metre [STC 2427], this volume included several hymns and canticles from the Wesel psalter along with its setting of Psalm 95.14 The Psalmes of Dauid also incorporated the entire 1558 Forme of prayers, including its 62 metrical psalms and Whittingham’s ‘Ten Commandments’. Finally, it contained a number of psalms and hymns written by Robert Wisdom that probably originated in Strasbourg.15 While Day printed this volume to meet a public demand for metrical psalters that still lingered from Edward’s reign, it also allowed Day to stake his claim to all of the worship materials that had been produced by the Marian Exiles. Also titled Psalmes of Dauid in English metre [STC 2429], Day’s second instalment appeared between 1560 and 1561. This was the first of his editions to incorporate the work of his contemporaries in London. Excluding William Kethe’s version of Psalm 100, in fact, all of this edition’s new material came from local writers. It used to be thought that some new versifications by Sternhold had been discovered and included in the volume, but these have recently been attributed to the poet and politician Thomas Norton.16 John Hopkins also added several new versifications of his own. The evidence suggests that these two men worked systematically,

12 Jeremy Smith, Thomas East and Music Publishing in Renaissance England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 23. 13 RR, pp. 197–211. 14 psalm 95 was mistakenly numbered as Psalm 94 in the volume. The full list of canticles and hymns from the Wesel Psalter included in the volume is: Benedictus, Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, ‘The xii Articles of the Christian Faith’, and Cox’s ‘Lord’s Prayer’. RR, p. 202. 15 These included Psalms 67 (mistakenly numbered Psalm 66) and 125, and ‘An Addition’ (later known as ‘A Prayer’). Since the only extant volume of this edition is incomplete, Quitslund argues that it may have included other hymns and canticles from Strasbourg and Wesel that were included in later editions. These included the anonymous ‘Prayer unto the Holy Ghost, to be sung before the Sermon’, Edmund Grindal’s Da Pacem Domine, Samuel’s ‘Thanksgiving after receiving the Lord’s Supper’, and Wisdom’s ‘Preserve us’. RR, p. 202. 16 RR, pp. 283–97. Completing Sternhold’s Work 53 filling the gaps left by the 1558Forme of prayers. This 1560–61 instalment of the Psalmes of David included versifications of Psalms 1–34 and 62–74. It may be easy to read some conscious bias into Day’s exclusion of the new material from the 1560–61 Forme of prayers, but the evidence suggests that he simply did not have a copy of this psalter when Hopkins and Norton began their work. The primary purpose of Day’s 1560–61 Psalmes of Dauid mirrored that of previous psalters, stating on its title page that it was ‘veri mete to be vsed of all sortes of people priuatly for their godly solace and confort’.17 But while preserving this emphasis on private, devotional use, Day found a way to expand the potential consumer base for his psalter. The 1560–61 edition departed from tradition by placing several Scriptural and extra- Scriptural hymns and canticles both before and after the metrical psalms, thus making it more suitable for use in the public services of the national church.18 Day would eventually place the canticles and hymns associated with the Prayer Book before the metrical psalter, and include the other (extra-liturgical) settings after the psalter. This reorganization reveals how Day found a way to break into the business of publishing for the national church, a position that Seres enjoyed as the exclusive printer of the Prayer Book and prose psalter. As Jonathan Willis recently noted, records indicate that churches regularly bought copies of the psalms from Elizabeth’s accession in 1558 until 1580. Before Day released his first psalter in 1560, most of the psalters purchased by churches would have been the prose versions printed by Seres, but from 1560, these would have been in competition with Day’s psalters.19 Day’s intention to secure the rights to all the religious musical products of the Marian Exile are confirmed by his next volume in the Whole booke project, his 1561 Foure score and seuen Psalmes of Dauid in Englishe mitre [STC 2428]. It reproduced the psalms from the Anglo-Scottish 1560–61 Forme of prayers without addition or subtraction, and he probably used a copy from 1561 as the template for his own edition. Each stave printed in Day’s Foure score begins and ends on the same notes as the 1561 Forme of prayers, and there are very few differences in pitch between the two editions.20

17 The Psalmes of Dauid in Englishe metre [STC 2429] (London: John Day, [1560–61]). 18 STC 2429, p. 203. 19 Jonathan Willis, Church Music and Protestantism in Post-Reformation England (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2010), pp. 122–8. 20 the volume housed at St Paul’s Cathedral, London reveals this correlation. The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments &c. sed in the English church at Geneua [STC 16563] (Geneva: Zacharis Dvrand, 1561). Most of the differences can be attributed to misprints. For instance, in Psalm 15, Day’s version prints a finalis on a1, rather than g in the Forme of prayers. Another example is found in Psalm 42, where the word ‘for’ in the phrase, ‘which shal for … ‘ appears with an f rather than g. 54 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Beyond staking his claim to exilic liturgical music, Day sought to gain the rights to print a complete metrical psalter. He received a second licence in 1561 that was specifically directed towards printing metrical psalms. According to the Stationers’ Register, 4 pence was ‘Received of John Day for his license for printing of the Residue of the psalms not here to fore printed So that this maketh up the whole’.21 While the first portion of the licence would allow Day to start compiling yet another psalter edition, the latter portion was just as important. It proves that Day intended to hold the patent for all metrical psalms so he could print a ‘whole’ edition. The decision to print this latest edition of the Forme of prayers thus falls in line with that of his 1560 Psalmes of Dauid. As the first to reprint the latest English metrical psalms from Geneva, Day exercised his patent on those items that he ‘hereafter shall imprinte’ and preserved his copyright over all English metrical psalm versions within the Sternhold and Hopkins tradition.22 Day’s latest licence from the Stationers’ Company also allowed him to print The residue of all Dauids Psalms in metre [STC 2429.5]. It is unclear whether he printed this or The Whole booke of Psalmes [STC 2430] first, but the Residue is now understood as the complement to Day’s 1560–61 Psalmes of Dauid.23 A quick examination of the edition’s contents reveals that it printed only those psalms that had not appeared in the 1560–61 volume.24 This indicates his continued commitment to completing his own earlier editions rather than the Anglo-Scots editions. Of the 77 metrical psalms contained in The residue, 68 were versified by the London-based Hopkins, Norton and John Marckant. The remaining nine metrical versions came from Day’s own Foure score, revealing his preference for the work of his ‘in-house’ writers over the Anglo-Scots of Geneva. In 1562, Day finished his complete metrical psalter, printed as the Whole booke of Psalmes [STC 2460]. It included the entire metrical psalter and an expanded selection of prayers, hymns, and canticles. The bulk of its textual content came from the 1560–61 Psalms of David and the Residue, with Foure score used to fill the remaining gaps. Such prioritizations again suggest a bias towards Day’s own earlier editions over the Anglo-Scots ones and towards London writers over Genevan ones. Table 2.1 shows this bias, listing the distribution of textual authorship in the Whole booke.

21 Arber, Stationers’ Registers, Vol. 1, p. 182. 22 RR, p. 207. 23 GPSS, p. 251. 24 Compare STC 2429 with STC 2429.5. Timothy Duguid, ‘Early Modern British Metrical Psalters’, Edinburgh Research Archive (2013), http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/ handle/1842/6684. Completing Sternhold’s Work 55

Table 2.1 Versifiers used in Day’sWhole booke project

Psalmes Psalmes of Foure Residue Whole of Dauid Dauid score (1561) (1562) booke (1560) (1560–61) (1562)* Hopkins 7 20 7 38 58 Kethe 0 1 25 9 9 Marckant 0 0 0 4 4 Norton 0 4 0 26 31 Pulleyne 2 2 2 0 1 Sternhold 37 37 37 0 37 Whittingham 16 14 16 0 11 Wisdom 2 1 0 0 0 Anonymous 1 0 0 0 0

* The Whole booke included 151 psalm versifications, as it printed both Whittingham’s and Norton’s versification of Psalm 51.

Hopkins wrote at least 58 versifications in the Whole booke,25 and all but 25 of its 151 psalm texts (including two versions of Psalm 51) came from Sternhold, Hopkins, or Norton. Based on this evidence, Day probably recruited Hopkins and Norton in 1560 to help him finish the metrical psalter. Whether or not Day knew at the time that Kethe and others in Geneva were continuing their work on the psalms, he arranged for Hopkins and Norton to versify the psalm texts outstanding from the 1558 Forme of prayers. This resulted in a thoroughly English metrical psalter that was rooted in the traditions established during Edward’s reign, while also acknowledging selective achievements of the Marian Exile. For, in addition to its textual independence, the Whole booke established its musical independence from its Anglo-Scots and French Genevan predecessors, printing only 63 tunes for its total of 172 texts.26 Comparatively, the ratio of texts to tunes in the 1561 Forme of prayers was higher, as it used 62 tunes for its 90 texts. There could be any number

25 Quitslund’s analysis places serious doubt on whether Sternhold and Hopkins versified a number of psalms. SeeRR , pp. 293–7. 26 While the HTI lists 65 tunes, two are duplicates. The Whole booke printed the same tune for both the Lord’s Prayer (Our Father, which in heaven art) and Psalm 112. It also used the same melody for both Psalms 77 and 81 with some rhythmic differences. Since later psalters did not preserve these rhythmic differences, it is difficult to argue that English people considered them as different tunes. For discussion on the rhythms of Psalms 77 and 81, see MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 58–9. 56 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice of reasons for the differing emphasis on music in the Whole booke, but it is most likely that Day preferred the musical freedom of the ‘mix and match’-style introduced in the 1558 Forme of prayers over the higher text- to-tune ratios found in the editions of Calvin’s Geneva psalter and the 1560–61 Forme of prayers.

Table 2.2 tune comparison between the 1558 Forme of prayers and the 1562 Whole booke

Retained tunes Dropped tunes

Tune Original source Tune Original source

Ps. 3 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 1 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 6 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 7 1556 Forme of prayers 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 14 [Ps. 8] Ps. 9 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 25 1558 Forme of prayers Ps. 10 1556 Forme of prayers [Ps. 2] Ps. 30 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 15 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 41 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 16 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 44 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 21 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 51 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 23 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 68 1558 Forme of prayers Ps. 29 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 103 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 33 1556 Forme of prayers [Ps. 42] Ps. 119 1535 Goostly psalmes Ps. 37 1558 Forme of prayers [Creed] Ps. 120 1547 Cinquante Ps. 73 1556 Forme of prayers pseaumes [Ps. 107] Ps. 121 1551 Pseaumes Ps. 78 1556 Forme of prayers octantetrois Ps. 124 1551 Pseaumes Ps. 79 1558 Forme of prayers octantetrois Ps. 130 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 114 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 137 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 115 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 148 1558 Forme of prayers Ps. 127 1551 Pseaumes octantetrois Completing Sternhold’s Work 57

Retained tunes Dropped tunes

Tune Original source Tune Original source Ten 1556 Forme of prayers Ps. 129 1551 Pseaumes Command- octantetrois ments Ps. 133 1556 Forme of prayers

Ps. 50 1547 Cinquante pseaumes [Ps. 1] Ps. 67 1558 Forme of prayers Ps. 71 1558 Forme of prayers Ps. 149 1558 Forme of prayers Nunc 1547 Le premier livre Dimittis des pseaumes

Despite this deviation, the Whole booke does not display a bias against the Anglo-Scots and Genevan tunes. As Table 2.2 shows, the Whole booke included as many tunes from the 1558 Forme of prayers as it dropped. Of the 24 tunes from the 1558 Forme of prayers that did not make it into the Whole booke, it was metrical differences which forced compilers to omit the five tunes listed below the line in Table 2.2. Ignoring these five, the Whole book dropped only one more tune from the 1558 Forme of prayers than it kept. Even more interestingly, the Whole booke showed little bias against the French Genevan tunes, keeping three and rejecting only two. The three that the Whole booke retained were arguably among the most popular tunes in the 1558 Forme of prayers, especially with those exiles outside of Geneva. Given that Day worked on the Whole booke for two years and had had several preparatory editions that should have helped ensure its accuracy, it still contains a surprising number of errors. Various writers have commented on the many textual mistakes in the Whole booke, which include printing a significant portion of Psalm 109 in the middle of Psalm 115. There are also several musical misprints, including missing and displaced notes, and incorrect note lengths. However, the most startling feature of the Whole booke is that 11 psalm texts appeared with no music at all, either as a proper tune or tune suggestion.27 Since each of these texts was a new versification in the 1562 editions, it is probable that these were

27 These are Psalms 91, 92, 115, 129, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 149, and 150. See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 58 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice the last that Day received.28 Nine of the 11 were the work of Norton, indicating that he probably had more to do with the final stages of Day’s Whole booke project than did John Hopkins. More importantly, these omissions, like the numerous misprints, are symptomatic of a volume printed without careful editorial supervision. One possible explanation is that political and ecclesiastical pressure forced Day to complete the edition as soon as possible. The French Genevan psalter was also finally issued in complete form in 1562, something which would have been anticipated by many in England who were in regular communication with Calvin and his psalm-paraphrasing lieutenant Theodore Beza. In particular, one of Day’s contributors, Norton, regularly wrote to Calvin, so he may have known that the 25-year-long project was nearing completion.29 Perhaps Day, aware of this fact, felt pressure to complete his edition either before or shortly after Calvin’s, as the Whole booke sought to establish English metrical psalmody as a valid rival to that of Geneva. Such nationalistic motives would have appealed to those who, like Norton, later sought to defend the English national church from the perceived religious extremes of Roman Catholicism and Geneva-inspired puritanism.30 While nationalistic concerns may have influenced Day, rushing the Whole booke may also have been a business decision. Within months of finishing the Whole booke, Day’s attention had turned to John Foxe’s Actes and Monuments [STCs 11222 and 11222a].31 Day finished this monumental edition on 20 March 1564, and historian Andrew Pettegree suggests that it would have occupied three of Day’s presses for at least 12 months.32 This means that work would have begun on Foxe’s book before March 1563 (Table 2.3). Following Pettegree’s figures, Day’s three presses would have taken just under six months to complete similar runs of 1,250 copies of both the Whole booke and Residue.33 According to this scenario,

28 this includes both the Whole booke and the Residue. 29 Michael A.R. Graves, Thomas Norton, the Parliament Man (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), pp. 24–6. 30 the record of Norton’s work in parliament suggests that he was violently loyal to Elizabeth and her church, despite his personal preferences. He believed that while the national church may have been imperfect, only a unified church would defeat the continuing Catholic threat. Graves, Norton, pp. 279–336. 31 evenden has discussed that Day often operated on a tight printing schedule. Evenden, Patents, pp. 66, 71–5. 32 The Actes and Monuments lists 20 March 1563 as the publication date, but this is according to the old English calendar. For the purposes of clarity, modern dating has been used. Pettegree, ‘Day’. 33 Leaver suggests that the Residue had a significant print run since there were at least three reissues of the first part of the psalter, which was originally printed as the 1560–61 Completing Sternhold’s Work 59

Table 2.3 printing the Actes and Monuments, Whole booke, and Residue

No. of Publication Estimated printing Latest start date Presses duration

3 Actes and Monuments 52 weeks (1 year) March 1563 Whole booke 13 weeks (3 months) September 1562 Residue 11 weeks (3 months) 2 Actes and Monuments 78 weeks (1 year, 6 months) September 1562 Whole booke 20 weeks (5 months) January 1562 Residue 16 weeks (4 months)

Note: These numbers are based on Pettegree’s estimates. See Andrew Pettegree, ‘Day, John (1521/2–1584)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/7367.

Day would have begun work on the Whole booke and Residue by the end of September 1562. These estimates assume that Day owned and used three presses between 1562 and 1563, but he may in fact have had fewer. Since it would have taken over three years to print the Actes and Monuments on one press, it is clear that Day must have used more than one printing press. According to Table 2.3, it would have taken two presses two years and three months to print the Actes and Monuments, Whole booke, and Residue. In addition, the STC recognizes only two other works from Day’s presses in 1562. The first of these, The first and second examination of Thomas Haukes, before Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London [STC 12955a.5], lacks a title page and colophon, so the STC’s dating is an estimate. The other Day publication from 1562, 27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant matir (sic) of Iesus Christe, Maister Hugh Latimer [STC 15276], was a smaller publication, like The first and second examination, that probably did not have a significant printing run. In other words, had Day printed more in 1562, he would have had to be using three presses throughout the year, whereas his output suggests he only had two presses working from 1562 to 1563. Foxe’s comments confirm this conclusion. Writing in the preface of the Actes and Monuments, he noted, ‘we had scarce 18 months’ to print the book.34 What is more, the evidence reveals that Foxe may have been resident in Day’s house as early as August 1562.35 With a resident author, Day must have surely felt pressure to finish theWhole

Psalmes of Dauid. GPSS, p. 252. 34 Quoted in Evenden, Patents, p. 64. 35 Evenden, Patents, p. 64. 60 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice booke as soon as possible. Taken altogether, these factors indicate that Day must have begun printing the Whole booke and Residue by January 1562, which also would have allowed him time to squeeze in the other two works.

Editors of the Whole booke

As shown above, Day’s Whole booke asserted its independence of Genevan and Anglo-Scots editions of the metrical psalms, and it established a uniquely English brand of metrical psalmody that catered to the wide variety of religious and musical interests found in the country. A convinced Protestant, Day wanted to produce a devotional volume that would benefit his readers, but he was also interested in devising the volume so that it would provide a steady income while he worked on more ambitious projects such as Foxe’s Actes and Monuments. However, it is as yet unclear what influence other individuals may have had on theWhole booke. The prevailing opinion over the past 20 years has been that Day was the sole editor of his Whole booke project. Addressing the numerous mistakes in the Whole booke, Quitslund most recently argued that Day worked as the chief editor, with some help from John Hopkins. She writes:

there is little evidence that anyone besides Day was significantly involved in compiling the texts, so there was no author hovering over the proofs. Hopkins probably had a role in editing the psalms themselves, although it was restricted to the new compositions; there are no changes to any of the arguments or psalm paraphrases that were imported from the Genevan 1558 edition, including Whittingham’s revisions of Hopkins’ own Edwardian psalms.36

Few would doubt that Day had a significant hand in the editorial process; as a commercial publisher, he needed to ensure that the volume would appeal to his English customers. The bias towards London-based authors in the Whole booke reflects Day’s understanding of those customers and of the early Elizabethan regime’s ideological priorities. Hopkins had firmly established his superior psalm-versifying credentials during Edward’s reign. Norton, on the other hand, was not known as a psalm-paraphrist, but he had developed his poetic skills and a sound reputation through his contributions to Tottel’s Miscellany in 1557 and his co-authorship of Gorboduc in 1560, England’s first blank-verse tragedy.37 The Anglo-Scottish versifiers from Geneva, by

36 RR, p. 210. 37 these are the common names for both works. Their full titles are: Songes and sonettes, written by the right honorable Lorde Henry Haward late Earle of Surrey, and others Completing Sternhold’s Work 61 contrast, would not have been so popular in early Elizabethan England. Although Kethe was a well-respected scholar, his associations with John Knox and Christopher Goodman, the bêtes noires of Elizabeth I and the English political and ecclesiastical hierarchies, must have cast a shadow over his reputation. Kethe had supported Knox and Whittingham in Frankfurt, and he went on to write an introductory poem for Christopher Goodman’s How superior powers ought to be obeyd of their subjects [STC 12020], a tract so controversial that it saw many distancing themselves from Goodman and his book’s revolutionary assertion that ungodly rulers should be violently resisted.38 This Knoxian view of political resistance was clearly reflected in Kethe’s metrical psalm versifications.39 Whittingham was in a similar position as Kethe. Before the Marian Exile, he had been widely respected for working as a translator for the English diplomat to France, Sir John Mason, but his involvement in the troubles at Frankfurt and his continuing friendships with Knox and Goodman had many in England questioning his loyalty.40 Day thus had the choice of associating the result of his labours with either two well-respected, London-based poets or two demonstrably more radical and subversive poets. The Whole booke also displays an understanding of the musical abilities of Day’s clientele. As a mainly devotional book, the Whole booke’s success relied on its accessibility to people with a wide range of musical aptitudes and financial means. A simplified musical repertoire added to the wide appeal of the Whole booke. First, it helped Day to minimize his printing costs (and hence retail prices) by saving both on space devoted to musical type, and on the time spent setting it. This musical consolidation also made the Whole booke more immediately usable than the Genevan and Anglo- Scottish psalters. The diminished corpus of Whole booke tunes was not

[STC 13862] and The tragedie of Gorboduc [STC 18684], respectively. 38 together with Knox’s The first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regiment of women [STC 15070], Goodman’s tract had become notorious in England for its resistance theory. See Jane E.A. Dawson, ‘Trumpeting the Resistance: Christopher Goodman and John Knox ‘, in John Knox and the British Reformations, ed. Roger A. Mason (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), pp. 131–53. 39 For instance, his version of Psalm 94 has been tied to Knox’s views, urging people to ‘up and rise with me against the wicked band’. See Jasper Godwin Ridley, John Knox (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 278; J. Fielding, ‘Kethe, William (d. 1594)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/15482. 40 While Kethe wrote the introductory poem for Goodman’s How superior powers Ought to be obeyd, Whittingham wrote its introduction. For his part, Knox was perhaps unfairly ostracized in England due to his infamous publication of First Blast. Unfortunately, as Jane Dawson noted, his clumsy efforts to apologise to Elizabeth were ineffective. Jane E.A. Dawson, ‘Knox, Goodman and the “Example of Geneva”‘, in The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain, ed. Polly Ha and Patrick Collinson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 108. 62 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice only more quickly memorized, but many of the tunes became templates that people could sing with several psalm texts. Such considerations indicate that Day had a significant influence on theWhole booke. Nonetheless, others may have exercised some influence over the Whole booke as well. In particular, Day may have had help from a music editor. Not much is known about Day’s educational background, but it is clear that he had minimal experience of printing music in 1560. The only musical publication to issue from either Day’s or Seres’s press during the 1550s was Christopher Tye’s Acts of the Apostles [STC 2985], which Seres printed in 1553. By that time, however, the two men had dissolved their partnership, so Day can have had little involvement in the project. The 1560 version of the Psalmes of David in Englishe metre [STC 2427] is the earliest extant publication from Day’s presses containing music, but his illegal and now lost ‘quartron of psalmes’ from 1559 may have also included music.41 For the Whole booke, Elizabeth Evenden uses circumstantial evidence to suggest that Day may have employed Thomas Causton, Gentleman of the Chapel Royal and one of the composers included in Day’s 1565 Certaine notes set forth in foure and three parts to be song at the morning communion, and euening praier [STC 6418], as his music editor.42 However, the time constraints for the Whole booke simply did not allow for a significant amount of music editing. There is also some evidence that Day may have used a textual editor, and Hopkins is a possibility. First, there would have been no clearer choice than the person who first added to Sternhold’s metrical versions. Hopkins’s psalm versions also account for over a third of the psalter (Table 2.1), and while these new versions simply filled the gaps left by previous editions, it is difficult to overlook such a significant number of texts by one author. Furthermore, as Quitslund notes, Hopkins edited many of the arguments that appear before each psalm.43 Another person deserving consideration as textual editor for Day’s 1562 Whole booke is Thomas Norton. Born in London in 1532, Norton graduated from Cambridge and began his political career as secretary to Protector Somerset during Edward’s reign. He married Archbishop Cranmer’s daughter, Margery, and served in parliament as the MP for Gatton. Norton was also a skilled translator and poet. In addition to co- authoring Gorboduc with Thomas Sackville, he produced several sonnets

41 D.W. Krummel, English Music Printing 1553–1700 (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1975), p. 14. 42 Evenden suggests that Causton may have acted as Day’s music editor from 1560, when work on the Certaine notes began until Causton’s death in 1569. Evenden, Patents, pp. 75–8. 43 Evenden, Patents, pp. 215–16. Completing Sternhold’s Work 63 and a translation of Calvin’s Institutes.44 It is difficult to confirm precisely when Norton met Day,45 but their professional association began sometime before 1560, when Norton completed his first scholarly publication, Orations of Arsanes agaynst Philip the trecherous kyng of Macedone [STC 785].46 In addition to his literary achievements, Norton’s political connections to Cecil and several members of parliament must have made him an attractive choice as a contributor to Day’s psalters. The textual evidence from the Whole booke suggests that Norton also had some control over which psalms he versified. As mentioned earlier, Hopkins added several versifications found in Day’s editions, but these are concentrated in the first 100 psalms. Norton, however, may have chosen not only to work on the final 50 psalms, but on a handful of other texts that interested him. Quitslund has revealed that Norton probably versified Psalms 18, 22, 23, 24 and 51.47 Such deviations from an otherwise normal pattern indicate either that Norton had already completed these psalms before choosing the other texts, or that he had a large amount of editorial control. The latter is more likely, since many of these additional versifications appeared in Day’s earliest psalters, meaning that Day probably included Norton from the beginning of the Whole booke project and allowed him to choose which texts he would versify. Although Norton quickly turned out a number of psalms, his attention was then diverted to Gorboduc and translating Calvin’s Institutes. Once these other projects were complete, he returned to Day’s metrical psalter, supplying the rest of his metrical psalm versifications by 1562. One of the most obvious ways in which both Hopkins and Norton influenced the content of theWhole booke was through the texts that they contributed and the metres they chose to use. Their predecessors in Geneva – both the French psalters and the Forme of prayers – employed a wide variety metres for their psalm versifications. On the other hand, theWhole booke used only 12 metres, almost exclusively with iambic feet (Table 2.4 below). The only exception was Psalm 104, a 10.10.11.11. anapaestic paraphrase by Kethe. Common Metre – established as it had been in the Edwardine psalters by Sternhold, Hopkins, and Robert Crowley – was the most popular metre for psalm versifications, with some limited use of Short

44 Norton completed the first English translation of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion [STC 4415] in 1561. 45 a brief examination of the common acquaintances of both men reveals several possible points of introduction, including William Cecil, Edward Whitchurch, Richard Grafton, Thomas Becon, and Robert Dudley. Graves, Norton, pp. 13–46. 46 The STC estimates that Orations was printed in 1560. STC 785. 47 Quitslund discusses the misattributions of psalms especially in the English psalters. Of principal interest are those Sternhold versions that mysteriously appear for the first time in the 1561 Foure score and seuen psalmes. RR, pp. 218–19, 293–7. 64 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Table 2.4 Metres of psalm versifications in theWhole booke (1562)

Metre Number of texts Common Metre (8.6.8.6. iambic) 133 Long Metre (8.8.8.8. iambic) 2 Short Metre (6.6.8.6. iambic) 4 10.10.10.10.11.11. iambic 1 10.10.11.11. anapaestic 1 6.6.6.6.6.6. iambic 1 8.8.8.8.8.8. iambic 3 10.10.10.10.10. iambic 1 8.8.8.8.6.6. iambic 1 12.12.12.12.10.10. iambic 1 7.6.7.6. iambic 1 6.6.6.6. 4.4.4.4. iambic 2

Metre (6.6.8.6) and Long Metre (8.8.8.8.). Not a poet himself, Day may not have specifically instructed Hopkins and Norton to use Sternhold’s metre. Some have questioned whether the two poets consciously rejected Continental patterns, but it seems clear that in choosing to model their Whole booke contributions after their great Edwardine exemplar by using Common Metre almost exclusively,48 Hopkins and Norton consciously promoted an English brand of psalmody.49

Music of the Whole booke

Is the effort made to suit the new versifications to English sensibilities also reflected in the tunes that Day printed? Of the 63 tunes in the Whole booke, only 27 came from the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers, while the remaining 36 made their debut during the course of Day’s Whole booke project. The Whole booke contained nearly twice as many texts as the 1560–61 Forme of prayers, but it only provided about the same number

48 Of the 77 estimated new versifications written by Hopkins and Norton (those not included in the original Edwardine editions of Certayne psalmes), only Hopkins’s Psalms 45, 50, 67, and 70 (in Double Short Metre); and Norton’s Psalms 111 (in 6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.) and 136 (in 8.10.8.10.D.) do not use Common Metre. 49 RR, p. 213. Completing Sternhold’s Work 65 of tunes as that publication. Given that there were a significant number of additional tunes available that were not taken up, Day and his editors must have viewed the question of music differently from their continental counterparts. As already argued, a consolidated tune repertory was more advantageous for Day, cutting production costs and retail price, and enabling the resultant increased customer-base to learn to sing the psalms more quickly. Beyond these practical issues, however, there is evidence to suggest that musical characteristics factored into which tunes Day and his editors ultimately chose. These are most evident when the psalm tunes are grouped as tunes used, introduced, or rejected by the Whole booke. The category of ‘used’ tunes (first column, Table 2.5) contains 10 tunes that originated in the 1556 Forme of prayers. These include all three of that volume’s Penitential Psalms – Psalms 6, 51, and 130 – as well as Whittingham’s versifications of Psalms 103, 137, and his ‘Ten Commandments’. In addition to suggesting that these melodies were popular in early Elizabethan England, the fact that Day continued to pair them with the same texts indicates the Marian Exiles commonly sang these psalms with the tunes that accompanied them in the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers. The same is true of the eight tunes from the 1558 Forme of prayers that made their way into the 1562 Whole booke, including Psalms 14, 25, 68, 119, 120, 121, 124, and 148. Finally, the 1560–61 edition of the Forme of prayers impacted the English populace as well, and Day’s Whole booke, as Psalms 104, 111, 113, 122, 125 and 126 all appeared with their original Anglo-Scottish tunes. The Whole booke also included a number of tunes from other sources. Three tunes from German sources appeared with Psalms 112, 113, 119, and Cox’s ‘Lord’s Prayer ‘; and ten other tunes originated in Calvin’s Genevan psalters.50 This shows that while the Whole booke editors preferred tunes from English sources, they did not go out of their way to exclude tunes from other countries. Compilers of the Whole booke chose tunes on the basis of their singability, and not a particular religious or political bias. In the cases in question, the original pairings of texts and tunes were retained because they were already familiar to a significant portion of Day’s paying customers. The second category of tunes in the Whole booke comprises those that appeared for the first time in Day’s metrical psalters (second column, Table 2.5). When a new text appeared with a proper tune in Day’s psalters,

50 psalm 112 used the same tune as Richard Cox’s ‘Lord’s Prayer’, the melody from ‘Vater unser im Himmelreich’ in Schumann’s Geistliche lieder of 1539. The tune from Psalm 113 originally appeared in the 1526 German Psalter, and Calvin adapted it for Psalm 36 in his 1539 Psalter. Used for Coverdale’s ‘Creed’, the tune that originated in German sources as ‘Wir glauben all’ was adapted for Psalm 119 starting in the 1558 Forme of prayers. ‘Tunes: 125, 132, and 180’, Frost. The melodies that originated in Calvin’s psalters were the Whole booke tunes for Psalms 25, 104, 111, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, and 134. 66 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Table 2.5 tunes in the Whole booke (1562) vs. the Forme of prayers (1560–1561)

Tunes used Tunes introduced Tunes rejected Psalms 3 (62a), 6 (65), Psalms 1 (158a)*, 18 Psalms 1 (60), 7 (66a), 14 (113a), 25 (114), 30 (159a), 21 (79)*, 35 9 (68), 10 (61), 15 (74), (84b), 41 (88), 44 (91a), (170b), 46 (171), 50 16 (75), 21 (79), 23 (80), 51 (93a), 68 (117a), 103 (172)*, 52 (161a), 59 27 (135a), 29 (83), 33 (101a), 104 (144a), 111 (173), 61 (174a), 69 (89), 36 (136a), 37 (115), (145a), 112 (130a), 113 (162a), 72 (163a), 78 47 (137), 50 (116a), 58 (146a), 119 (120a), 120 (164a), 77 and 81 (175a), (138a), 62 (139), 67 (132), (121), 121 (122a), 122 88 (176a), 95 (177), 132 70 (140), 71 (118), 73 (147a), 124 (123a), 125 (178a), 135 (179a), 136 (97), 78 (98a), 79 (119), (148a), 126 (149a), 130 (180a), 141 (181), 145 85 (141), 88 (134a), 91 (107a), 134 (150a), 137 (182), and 147 (183a); (142a), 100 (143a), 114 (109a), and 148 (126a); Benedicite (169a), (102), 115 (103), 127 Lord’s Prayer (130a), Benedictus (128a), (124a), 129 (125), 133 ‘Ten Commandments’ ‘Complaint of a Sinner’ (108), 138 (151), 142 (111a) (153a), ‘Creed’ (129), Da (152), and 149 (127); Pacem Domine (154a), Lord’s Prayer (143a), ‘Humble Suit of a Sinner’ Lord’s Prayer (134a), (170a), ‘Lamentation’ Nunc Dimittis (112a) (184a), ‘Lamentation of a Sinner’ (155), ‘Lord’s Prayer’ (156)*, Magnificat (131a), ‘Preserve Us’ (157a), Quicunque Vult (165), Te Deum (166a), Ten Commandments (167a), Venite Creator (168a), Nunc Dimittis (77a) Note: Numbers in parenthesis refer to the HTI number for a particular tune. * Tune replaced an Anglo-Scottish tune used for that particular text. it was paired with one of these new melodies. This suggests that they were either written or adapted with these particular texts in mind. Indeed, the musical evidence indicates that the relationship between these melodies and their texts extended beyond their metrical and rhythmic qualities. The tune from Psalm 72 (Example 2.1) is one of these newly composed or adapted proper psalm tunes that displays a close connection with its text. Calling on the Lord to bless the king and the king’s son, this psalm is unquestionably celebratory, as it focuses on the different blessings David asks for his son Solomon. The tune matches this celebratory character through the careful use of several prominent leaps that would have caught Completing Sternhold’s Work 67

Example 2.1 Psalm 72:1, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430]

many sixteenth-century ears.51 It begins by moving mostly stepwise, but its first two couplets employ leaps of a perfect fourth or perfect fifth. These perfect intervals reinforce the perfect power and justice that the Lord gives to David and Solomon as his appointed rulers.52 The melody for the second two couplets uses a broader range of intervals, including two that were uncommon in sixteenth-century music. For instance, the melodic interval of a minor seventh following the poetic hemistich in the third couplet does not reappear in any of the tunes of the Whole booke. The upper note was seemingly corrected with a b1 in Day’s 1564 First parte of the Psalmes collected into Englishe meter [STC 2433], changing the interval to a perfect fifth. However, the original note and interval were

51 For more detailed discussion of this, see Timothy R. McKinney, Adrian Willaert and the Theory of Interval Affect (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2010). 52 the psalm’s argument similarly highlights these concepts, ‘He prayeth that the kingdom of God by Christ may come vnder the parson of Salomon, vnder whom shall be rightuousnes, peace and felicitie … ‘ The Whole booke of Psalmes collected into Englysh metre [STC 2430] (London: John Day, 1562), p. 169. The fact that Scotland’s Regent Moray sang this same psalm at his inaugurated after the overthrow of Mary Queen of Scots also confirms this understanding of the psalm. See Joseph Bain (ed.), ‘Sir Nicholas Throckmorton to Queen Elizabeth, 23 August 1567’, Calendar of State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 2, pp. 371–91, in British History Online, http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=44173. 68 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice used in the rest of Day’s psalters, including William Parsons’s four-part harmonization of the tune found in Day’s 1563 Whole psalms in foure partes, whiche may be song to al musicall instruments [STC 2431]. This suggests that the melodic fifth was the misprint rather than the seventh. The second rare interval forms the transition between the third and fourth couplets. Appearing in only three other psalm tunes in the Whole booke, this ‘harsh’ melodic interval of a major sixth was often used by composers to add emphasis to the text.53 Here it is used to provide a contrasting mood that parallels the text. In the second verse, the melodic sixth acts as a musical interjection followed by softer intervals of a minor third that mark the textual shift in which David changes his focus from his royal son to ‘the poore that have no myght’. Verses three and four focus on the king’s aid to the poor, and the contrasting melody at the end of the fourth verse highlights his obligation to defend the poor against their antagonists: ‘And eke destroy for euermore, | all those that doo them wrong’.54 A similar shift occurs again in verse 14, which expresses faith that the king will redeem the poor, ending ‘And eke the bloud that they shall blead, | is precious in his sight’.55 Other ‘new’ melodies, though more generic in their interactions with the text, do not detract from their proper texts. One example is the tune from Psalm 135 (Example 2.2). Like Psalm 72, Psalm 135 is one of the four tunes to employ the interval of a melodic sixth. Unlike in Psalm 72, however, the composer did not use this interval to highlight portions of the text in Psalm 135. First, he used the much more common minor sixth to correspond to the hemistich of the second couplet. Though the interval acts to distinguish between the two textual phrases, it does not highlight any significant words. In the first stanza, the interval appears on the words, ‘be’ and ‘the’, and later stanzas are the same, as it corresponds with ‘all, that’ in stanza 6 and ‘them, or’ in stanza 9.56 In addition to this interval, the tune’s ambitus, scale patterns, and interval qualities do not suggest any specific connection with the text. This tune instead is more generic, making it suitable for several texts. Its rhythm suggests a formulaic rather than textually informed approach to composition because the rhythm of the first couplet is used as a pattern for couplets 2 and 3. Though the fourth deviates from this, the changes were not the result of textual

53 McKinney, Adrian Willaert, pp. 44–7. Ascending leaps of a minor sixth were common in the sixteenth century, but their scarcity in the Whole booke, would have made them stand out to sixteenth-century psalm singers. In addition to the three psalms discussed presently, the fourth tune using an interval of a sixth, Psalm 135, is discussed below. 54 STC 2430, p. 170. 55 STC 2430, p. 172. 56 In stanza 2, it appears on the phrase, ‘thing, al-[ways]’. The third occurs on the words, ‘Goddes, most’. The fourth ‘[al]-so, He’, the fifth: ‘kyng, and’; the sixth ‘all, that’. Completing Sternhold’s Work 69

Example 2.2 Psalm 135:1–2, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430]

considerations like the tunes in the 1556 Forme of prayers. The goal for these more generic tunes seems to have been to do as little harm as possible to the communication of the text. The third and final category of tunes in theWhole booke (third column, Table 2.5) has two subsections. The first includes the 32 tunes that Day did not print and did not replace in the Whole booke. Of these, the Whole booke omitted 16 because the metres of the new versifications did not match the metres of the originals in Foure score. This left 16 tunes that Whole booke compilers could have included but chose to omit. These could be ascribed to Day’s time constraints in printing the Whole booke, but he had already printed each of these tunes in Foure score. Since copying them over to the Whole booke would have required less work than composing new tunes from scratch, something else clearly lay behind their lack of appeal to Day, his editors, and potentially his customers. Of the tunes in the Whole booke, the seven tunes found in the second subcategory of this final group could provide some important evidence for understanding why Day and his editors chose some tunes and rejected others. Four of the tunes in this second subcategory were rejected on metrical grounds, leaving three tunes for melodic trend analysis.57 These three exhibit a number of characteristics that may have made the

57 The tunes within this subcategory were printed with Psalms 1, 21, 50, 78, 88, Whittingham’s second version of the ‘Lord’s Prayer’, and his ‘Song of Simeon’. The paraphrases of Psalms 50 and 88, along with the two Whittingham texts, used different metres, so different tunes would have been needed to accommodate these changes. 70 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice replacement tunes more appealing to Day and his editors. As in the French Genevan psalters and the Forme of prayers, the new tunes in the Whole book often limit their ambitus or range to an octave and their note lengths to semibreves and minims. They also often feature two sections. The first concludes at the end of the second couplet with a cadence on the same note as the finalis. A significant leap of a fifth or an octave often follows this cadence at the start of the third line. Unlike many of these Genevan and Anglo-Scottish tunes, however, the three replacement tunes represent differing approaches to system (key) and melodic contour that may have caused Day and his editors to favour them over the originals. One of these, the melody for Psalm 78, first appeared in the 1556 Forme of prayers and was popular enough to survive the musical consolidation of the 1558 edition. While it may have never gained acceptance back in England, there is reason to believe that Day and his editors exchanged it for a reason. Both it and its Whole booke replacement appear with the same text, and the two are similar (Examples 2.3 and 2.4). One of their most significant differences, however, is the number of flats they use. The systems of both tunes have one flat,but the Genevan tune also regularly uses Es. While four of these flats are necessary to avoid the tritone – or so-called diabolus in musica – between b1 and e1, none of the tunes in the Whole booke use an E.58 Therefore, the original tune would have been odd within the context of the rest of the Whole booke tunes. Since the Whole booke was intended to be used by musically untrained individuals along with those who were trained, it is possible that the compilers chose a simpler tune that limited the number of flats that it employed. Melodic contour may have factored into the tune choices as well. Psalm 1 is the opening statement for the Book of Psalms, directing people to follow God’s Law. While the Lord will bless and nourish His followers, just as a tree beside a river, the heat of God’s judgement will wither sinners, who will pass like chaff in the wind. Since the psalm text discusses such a wide spectrum of people and emotions, one could expect the Anglo-Scottish and English psalters to use very different tunes. In fact, the two tunes are similar (Examples 2.5 and 2.6). Both use the same clef and system, and both use the same two opening notes. Both, especially the Anglo-Scottish tune, prepare each cadence with a set of repeated minims, and both end on d. While these likenesses suggest a similar musical approach to this text, their differences may help explain why the tune from the Forme of prayers may

58 there has been some discussion about the use of a melodic tritone as opposed to a harmonic tritone when it is part of the structure of a tune. However, the augmented fourth in Psalm 78 is not such an example. See Franklyn M. Gellnick, ‘The Disposition of the Tritone in Gregorian Chant’ (PhD diss., University of Kent at Canterbury, 1997), pp. 172–209. Completing Sternhold’s Work 71

Example 2.3 Psalm 78:1–3, 1561 Foure score [STC 2428]

Example 2.4 Psalm 78:1–3, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430]

have been less acceptable – or at least less popular – than the Whole booke tune. The first line of the original melody generally moves upward, and the second follows this with a downward phrase followed by an abbreviated arch-like phrase that acts like an extended cadence. Thus, the first two lines can be heard as a single arch contour, with a coda at the end. While the Anglo-Scottish tune spreads its first melodic arch over its first two lines, 72 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 2.5 psalm 1:1–2, 1558 Forme of prayers [STC 16561a]

Example 2.6 Psalm 1:1–2, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430]

the Whole booke tune placed complete arches in each of its first two lines. The first line begins on d, and works upward to the hemistich on b1 and then back down to d. In similar fashion, the second works its way up to c1 before ending down on f. Of the 21 psalm tunes that first appeared in Day’s psalters, the first lines of 13 follow this full-arch pattern, as well as eight of Completing Sternhold’s Work 73 its 16 hymn and canticle tunes.59 This suggests English compilers preferred melodies in which the first line outlined a full arch. The Whole booke tunes in the third category – the new tunes introduced into English-language psalters – display a wide variety of characteristics. Metrical differences between the texts of the Whole booke and Forme of prayers necessitated a different set of tunes in the Whole booke. These tunes, as discussed above, display similarities in melodic contour and system. Limiting the number of flats for the tunes in theWhole booke may have made it easier for untrained musicians to sing its psalms. Moreover, tunes that employed a full melodic arch in their first line may have been more characteristic of English metrical psalmody. On the other hand, these tunes maintained some connection with their texts, just like the Anglo- Scottish editions. By aligning the musical emphases with the accentuation patterns of their texts, the English compilers created psalm settings that were easier for people to memorize.60

Tune Suggestions in the Whole booke

One further aspect of the Whole booke added to its apparently conscious ‘Englishness’. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Anglo-Scottish compilers of the Forme of prayers used tune suggestions to bring additional theological insight to a psalm setting. These suggestions could highlight either a similarity in mood between multiple psalms or it could present a continuum of events, thoughts, or theological concepts. Here again, the Whole booke distinguished itself from its predecessors, returning to its roots in Edwardine metrical psalmody. When Sternhold printed his first edition of psalms for Edward VI, he noted how the young king ‘ taketh pleasure to heare them song sometimes … ’ by Sternhold.61 Based on extant evidence in the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers as well as the Lumley and Wanley partbooks, Leaver has argued that Sternhold originally sang his texts to secular melodies such as ‘Blow thy horn, hunter’.62 Edwardine churches began to use Sternhold’s texts, adapting plainchant and composing new melodies for them. These melodies were

59 Since Day’s Foure score and seuen psalmes was a reprint of an earlier Anglo-Scottish edition, these numbers exclude any tunes that made their first appearance in that edition. 60 For evaluations of musical-textual connections in the Anglo-Scottish editions, see Chapter 1. 61 thomas Sternhold, Certayne psalmes chosen out of the Psalter of David, and drawen into Englishe metre [STC 2419] (London: Edward Whitchurche, [1547–49]), fol. A.iiiir. 62 GPSS, pp. 121–31. See also Judith Blezzard (ed.), The Tudor Church Music of the Lumley Books (Madison: A-R Editions, 1985); and James Wrightson, ed., The Wanley Manuscripts (3 vols, Madison: A-R Editions, 1995). For the use of ballad tunes in 74 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice simple, aligning with the reforming desire for ‘sober, discreet, and devout singing’, and they made the Edwardine Sternhold and Hopkins psalter adaptable to any audience or circumstance.63 This new repertory of tunes could be paired with any psalm text, allowing them to be sung by people who may have known only a handful of Common-Metre tunes. While some tunes in the 1562 Whole booke were connected with particular texts, Day and his editors also brought to the volume a measure of the adaptability that had characterized Edwardine psalm singing. While they still sought to group similar texts by a common tune, Day and his editors took a more practical approach to their tune suggestions by spreading the proper tunes more evenly throughout the Whole booke. This allowed them to predominantly suggest tunes that were printed in close proximity to each text, which arguably made the volume more user- friendly than the Forme of prayers. Readers and singers would only have to turn a few pages to find the recommended tune, singing Psalms 5, 7–13 and 15, for example, to the tune from Psalm 3 and using the tune from Psalm 30 to sing Psalms 32–34. Such pragmatism notwithstanding, the new groupings in the Whole booke were still theologically meaningful, albeit in a much broader and more generic sense. With a smaller tune repertory, more texts had to be paired with each tune (on average). In some instances, this new approach created awkward pairings, such as the juxtaposition of Psalms 23 and 29. Both of these psalms had appeared with their own proper tunes in the Forme of prayers, but Day chose to suggest that both should be sung to the tune from Psalm 21, along with Psalms 22, 24, and 28. These psalms are cohesive in that they broadly encourage people to trust in God for deliverance from evil. However, there is something distinctly odd about using the same tune to express the ‘pastors [sic] fayre’ and ‘waters calme’ of Psalm 23 and the power of God’s voice in Psalm 29 that ‘doeth rent and break’ cedar trees and ‘deuideth flames of fyre’. Another curious pairing occurs with the tune from Psalm 95. The Whole booke described this psalm as ‘An earnest exhortation to prayse god for the gouernment of the world and the election of his church. An admonishion not to folow the rebellion of the olde fathers, that tempted God in the wilderness: for the which they might not enter into the land of promise’.64 This tune was used for the similar expressions of praise for God’s acts throughout history found in Psalms 97, 98, 99, 105, 106,

English psalmody, see also Nicholas Temperley, ‘The Old Way of Singing: Its Origins and Development’, JAMS 34, no. 3 (Autumn, 1981), pp. 516–23. 63 Wrightson, Wanley Manuscripts, p. xvi. 64 STC 2430, p. 236. Completing Sternhold’s Work 75 and 108. Psalm 109, which does not fit thematically with the rest, was introduced thus:

Dauid being falslye accused by flatterers vnto Sawl, prayeth God to helpe him and to destroye his enemyes. And vnder them he speaketh of Iudas the traitour vnto Iesus Christ, and of all the like enemyes of the children of God: And desireth so to be deliuered, that his enemies may know the work of God. Then doth he promise to geue prayses vnto God.65

Using the categories established in the previous chapter, this pairing of text and tune would be a category 2 conflation, as the singer would recall the exuberant praises of Psalm 95 as a confirmation of the expressions of faith found in Psalm 109. Nonetheless, the latter’s string of harsh curses on the wicked and their families sits ill with a psalm of praise such as Psalm 95. As already mentioned, 11 Whole booke psalms appeared without a proper tune or a tune suggestion. Additionally, several texts were paired with melodies that used incompatible metres. The Short-Metre versification of Psalm 67 was paired with the Common-Metre tune from Psalm 30, and the Short-Metre versification of Psalm 70 was similarly paired with the Common-Metre tune of Psalm 72. Commentators are therefore left guessing which tunes were used for these psalms. Did people fit the tunes to the texts by slurring a few of their notes? Or did they just accept that these were misprints and choose a different tune? Both suggestions are written using Roman numerals, so it is possible that they were misprints. The suggestion for Psalm 67 appeared in the 1562 Whole booke as ‘XXX’. Since later editions would suggest the Short-Metre tune from Psalm 25 for Psalm 67, it is possible the 1562 suggestion was a misprint for XXV. The errant suggestion for Psalm 70 is similar. Written as ‘LXXII’, it is possible that Day intended to print LXVII. By suggesting that Psalm 70 be sung to the tune from 67, Day’s editors would have really been suggesting that Psalm 25 be used. Indeed, this suggestion for Psalm 67 appeared in many later editions.66 The problem with this theory is that the 1562 suggestions for Psalms 80, 84, 88, 100, and 102 would need to be misprints as well. Each of these psalms appears with the suggestion to sing them as the ‘LXVII’ psalm. As with the other two, it is possible that Day had intended people to use the Common-Metre tune from Psalm 77 for these Common- Metre psalm texts and simply missed one of the Xs. The question is how many of Day’s readers would have picked up on this problem. With the

65 STC 2430, p. 281. 66 Editions such as the 1564 Firste parte [STC 2433)] and the 1571 Whole booke [STC 2442] also suggest that Psalm 70 be sung to the tune from Psalm 25. See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 76 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice errant tune suggestion for Psalm 67, singers would have been directed to the Common-Metre tune from Psalm 30, which also fits each of these Common-Metre texts. This conjures up a scenario in which some of Day’s readers will have used the tune from Psalm 77 for these psalms (which was also supported in later editions), while others used the tune from Psalm 30. This must have led to some confused sounds on occasion. Despite these issues, there is no doubt that the tune suggestions in the Whole booke were generally intended to group psalms together in a way similar to the Forme of prayers, even if Day and his editors seem to have been more concerned with ensuring physical proximity between text and tune than with underlining theological or affective links. Later chapters will consider the overall success and permanence of this approach, but the important point here is that initially, texts and tunes were not randomly paired in the Whole booke. The content of the Whole booke reflects the wide range of priorities its many contributors, editors, and compilers were responding to. By combining Anglo-Scottish efforts with the work of Hopkins and Norton, Day’s psalter project included versifications produced within a period of 15 years by seven authors. It also included the work of an unknown number of musicians, and at least five editors.67 It is no wonder that the resulting Whole booke was so diverse. The work of Hopkins and Norton helped Day to counteract this diversity by completing the 1558 Forme of prayers according to the traditions established by Sternhold and Hopkins during the reign of Edward VI. Hopkins and Norton also added some solidly native flavour, as against the ‘foreign’ efforts of Whittingham, Kethe, and Pulleyne. Musically, Day’s compilers selected a set of simple tunes from various sources for the people to use with the metrical psalm texts. Such a varied volume provided Day with the greatest chance of success in the religiously diverse city of London by appealing to staunch cosmopolitan Calvinists, faithful ecclesiastical nationalists, and all those in between.68

67 Whittingham, Kethe and others edited the Anglo-Scottish editions, whereas Day, Hopkins, and Norton edited the Whole booke. 68 Seventeenth-century poet and hymn writer George Wither acknowledged that these public pressures continued to influence which texts were included in the Whole booke, even when the Company of Stationers began to print it starting in 1604 (see Chapter 4). He wrote, ‘[My book of hymns] being allowed by Authority, are as fitt, I trust, to keepe company with Dauid’s Psalms, as Robert Wisdom’s Turk and Pope; and those other apocryphall Songs and praiers, which, the stationers add to the Psalme booke for their more advantage. Sure I am, that if their additions shalbe allowed of by the most voices, yet mine shalbe aprooued of before those, by the best Iudgments.’ George Wither, The schollers purgatory [STC 25919] ([London]: [G. Wood], [1624]), p. 35. Chapter 3 Completing the Exilic Psalters

The Marian exiles included both English and Scottish nationals, and both began to return to their respective homelands after the death of Mary I. However, these exiles went back to contrasting religious and political climates. The English exiles returned to a re-established Protestantism under Elizabeth I. The Scottish exiles, pre-eminent amongst whom was John Knox, returned to an officially Roman Catholic country with a Roman Catholic national church and regent, Mary of Guise, ruling on behalf of her daughter, the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. But for some years, Scotland had seen growing support for Protestant religious reform on the part of large numbers of merchants, lairds, and nobles, weary of a corrupt Catholic hierarchy and of French government interference in Scotland. They had been consistently encouraged by the missionary preaching tours of John Knox in 1555–56, and his publications from his Genevan exile. Knox’s definitive return to his native land on 2 May 1559 saw a full-scale rebellion break out against the Regent and the Catholic establishment. After months of fighting and widespread iconoclasm, the crucial intervention of Scotland’s English ‘auld enemie’ gave the Protestant rebels the upper hand against their ailing Regent. Her death in June 1560 cleared a path for a ‘Reformation Parliament’ that, in defiance of the young Mary Queen of Scots, abolished the authority of the Pope and established a reformed Kirk.1 Thanks to the influence of Knox and his supporters – not least his close friend and fellow pastor in Geneva, the Englishman Christopher Goodman – the brand of Protestantism that would be established in Scotland would mirror that of the Anglo-Scots exile community in Geneva instead of the Edwardine or Elizabethan national churches.2 Crystallized during the Troubles at Frankfurt, this Anglo-Scottish brand of Protestantism had been strengthened by the example of Calvin’s Geneva.3 The prominence of Knox

1 For more on the events leading up to the Scottish Reformation, see Alec Ryrie, The Origins of the Scottish Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006). 2 the lines between these two brands of Protestantism had been drawn in Frankfurt. See Timothy Duguid, ‘The Troubles at Frankfurt: A New Chronology’ Reformation and Renaissance Review 14, no. 3 (2012), pp. 243–68. 3 Jane E.A. Dawson, ‘Knox, Goodman and the “Example of Geneva”’, in The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain, ed. Polly Ha and Patrick Collinson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 107–35. 78 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice and Goodman in the newly reformed Kirk made it entirely logical that the Scottish metrical psalter, eventually completed in 1564, would constitute a deliberate continuation of the 1560–61 Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers.4 Since John Day’s Whole booke of 1562, as noted in the previous chapter, had built on the 1558 Forme of prayers, there would be significant musical and textual differences between the metrical psalters of the two nations.5

Reforming Scotland

The Scottish Lords took control of the kingdom and called Parliament in August 1560. After formally rejecting Roman Catholicism, this Reformation Parliament established a committee to devise and recommend the liturgical forms and ecclesiastical polity that would be adopted by the church in Scotland. Meeting at the Magdalen Chapel in Edinburgh in 1560, this committee of the six Johns – Douglas, Knox, Row, Spottiswoode, Willock, and Winram – drew up the First Book of Discipline. It focused on issues of fundamental theology and church discipline, but also briefly dealt with the new Kirk’s musical liturgy: ‘Moreover, men, women, children, would be exhorted to exercise themselves in the Psalmes, that when the Kirk doth convene and sing, they may be the more able together with common hearts and voyces to praise God’.6 The committee recognized that smaller churches perhaps would find it difficult to learn the psalms:

The other is profitable, but not merely necessarie: that Psalms should be sung; that certain places of the Scripture be read when there is no sermon; that this day or that, few or many, in the week, the kirk should assemble. Of these and

4 As discussed below, the Scottish psalter nevertheless reflects various influences, as had the Scots Confession adopted in 1560. 5 The first edition of the ScottishForme of prayers has traditionally been dated 1564–65 because the two extant volumes of it have differing dates. Unlike the editions comprising the 1560–61 Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers, the 1564 and 1565 Scottish Forme of prayers are identical apart from their dates. Neil Livingston and David Hay Fleming have noted this confluence between the two editions, but have argued they should be titled the 1564– 65 Forme of prayers. See Neil Livingston, ed., The Scottish Metrical Psalter of A.D. 1635 (Glasgow: Maclure & Macdonald, 1864), p. 13; and David Hay Fleming, ‘Hymnology of the Reformation’, in Shorter Writings of David Hay Fleming, ed. Chris Coldwell (Vol. 1, Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2007), pp. 11–12. The similarity between the two volumes indicates they were part of the same print run that was dated afterwards. In addition, the Assembly considered the psalter in December 1564 when it recommended its use, so this is the date that will be used for this edition of the Scottish Forme of prayers. 6 James Cameron (ed.), The First Book of Discipline (Edinburgh: St Andrew Press, 1972), 186–7. Completing the Exilic Psalters 79

such others we cannot see how a certaine order can be established. For in some kirks the Psalms may conveniently be sung; in others, perchance, they cannot.7

In other words, the First Book of Discipline acknowledged the beneficial effect of singing psalms in church services each week, but it allowed these services to continue without a ‘certaine order’, musical or otherwise. Since it would seem that any musical content was permissible at this early stage, some congregations probably sang the metrical psalms with which they were familiar, while others may have had other kinds of music or none at all. For those churches that chose to sing psalms, the committee’s recommendations were similarly meagre. In 1560, there were three metrical sources available: the Scots-language so-called ‘Dundee psalms’ or Gude and Godlie Ballatis, the original Sternhold and Hopkins psalms published in England under Edward VI, and the various exilic editions of the Forme of prayers.8 However, the committee did not specifically recommend a particular edition or set of psalms. This ambiguity remained until the General Assembly approved the Scottish Forme of prayers in 1564. Extant records do not explicitly state which versions were used most frequently by Scottish churches from 1560 to 1564, but they do hint at which versions may have been the most popular in these early days of the Reformed Kirk. The Scots-language ‘Dundee psalms’, as mentioned in the introduction to this volume, are anonymous metrical settings, translated from Lutheran sources. They are to be found in successive editions of the markedly Lutheran publication known as the Gude and Godlie Ballatis, the earliest known edition of which dates from 1565.9 Widely available in the 1560s, some of these metrical versions had probably circulated among Scottish Protestants for the better part two decades. The most famous story concerning the Ballatis comes from Knox, who recounted the evening in January 1546 when George Wishart was captured:

After suppar he held confortable purpose of the death of Goddis chosen childrin, and mearely said, ‘Methink that I desyre earnestlye to sleap’; and thairwith he said, ‘Will we sing a Psalme?’ And so he appointed the 51st Psalme, which was put in Scotishe meter, and begane thus, ‘Have mercy on

7 Cameron, First Book, p. 180. 8 By 1560, Day had only printed his 1560 Psalmes of Dauid, which was a reprint of the 1558 Forme of prayers. Therefore, none of the new versifications by Hopkins and Norton would have been available to Scots. 9 alasdair A. MacDonald, ‘On First Looking into the Gude and Godlie Ballatis (1565)’, in Older Scots Literature, ed. Sally Mapstone (Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers, 2005), p. 230. 80 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

me now, good Lord, After thy great mercy, &c’. Which being ended, he past to chalmer, and sonar then his commoun dyet was past to bed, with these wourdis, ‘God grant qwyet rest’.10

The incipit comes from the version of Psalm 51 found in the Ballatis, and Knox’s story has generally been taken as proof of the manuscript or broadside circulation of unknown numbers of the Ballatis’s psalm paraphrases (and other material) among Protestants in the 1540s. Doubtless they continued to be popular after the Reformation. Writing about his experiences with the Ballatis in 1569, James Melville, the nephew of Scottish Reformer Andrew Melville, noted that he ‘lerned diverse par ceur, with great diversitie of toones’.11 The evidence also suggests that in Melville’s home town of Montrose, post-Reformation burial services featured the singing of texts from the Ballatis.12 Whether or not material from the Ballatis was used liturgically outside of the Montrose area, its texts enjoyed significant popularity for decades, as the last known edition dates from 1621. The Scottish Kirk, however, never approved any of the metrical psalms from the Ballatis for liturgical use, and with a single exception, there is no trace of them in the complete Scottish psalter of 1564.13 Their exclusion strongly suggests that they had not been used extensively in worship services during the period between the 1560 Reformation Parliament and the Assembly’s 1564 order for churches to purchase and presumably to start using the newly completed psalter, the Forme of prayers.14 Like the Ballatis, the original Sternhold and Hopkins texts were probably available to pre-Reformation Scottish Protestants. The historian Millar Patrick provided no evidence to back his suggestion that they had appeared in Scotland around 1550,15 but he may have been referring to Knox’s account of the death of Elisabeth Adamsoun, wife of the burgess of Edinburgh, James Baron, in 1555. She was attended by her husband and sisters in her final hours, and Knox recalled that she asked the group to

10 John Knox, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing (Vol. 1, Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1848), pp. 139–40. 11 James Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, ed. Robert Pitcairn (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Printing Company, 1842), p. 23. 12 ‘The Forme and Maner of Buriall used in the Kirk of Montrois’ is discussed and printed in David Laing, ed., The Miscellany of the Wodrow Society (Vol. 1, Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1844), pp. 293–300. See also Gordon Munro, ‘Scottish Church Music and Musicians’ (Vol. 1, PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 1999), p. 122. 13 The lone exception to this is Psalm 83, which Robert Pont used for his versification. 14 See discussion later in this chapter. 15 Millar Patrick, Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), pp. 45–6. Completing the Exilic Psalters 81 sing a psalm.16 Ascertaining just which psalm was sung on that occasion is problematic. Although Knox records that Adamsoun asked the group to sing Psalm 103, he provides the incipit from Hopkins’s versification of Psalm 146, ‘My saule praise thow the Lord alwyes’.17 To be fair to Knox, he could have been misremembering the incipit of the Ballatis Psalm 103, ‘My Saule dois magnifie the Lord’. Even so, Hopkins’s versification was first printed in the 1549 Al such psalmes of Dauid … [STC 2420] and had plenty of time to make its way to Scotland before Adamsoun’s death. Since many of the versifications from Miles Coverdale’s Goostly psalmes migrated north to be included in the Ballatis, it is reasonable to assume that the Sternhold and Hopkins versifications had also made their way to Scotland long before 1560.18 The ‘Six Johns’ meeting in committee at the Magdalen Chapel, however, clearly preferred the Anglo-Scottish psalms that had been printed in Geneva. They may not have prescribed a specific psalter for use in the Scottish Kirk, but they made their preferences known in a roundabout way. In the First Book of Discipline, the committee described the 1556 Forme of prayers as ‘oure book of Common Ordour’, which was an interesting choice of words, given the committee’s membership.19 Of the six Johns, only Knox would have been the most likely to claim it as his. Willock, Row, and Knox had spent considerable time on the continent. As pastor in Emden, Willock was accustomed to the liturgy created and printed by Polish reformer John à Lasco in his Forma ac ratio.20 While Row had visited Geneva, on the other hand, he was not converted to Protestantism until 1559 or even later. Therefore, neither of these men would have referred to the 1556 Forme of prayers as their book. For the remaining three men to have agreed that it was their book, Knox must have convinced them of its use. Two of the Johns had become ministers of their own congregations at about the same time: Row at Kennoway and Spottiswood at Calder, so it is possible that these churches had either begun to use the Anglo-Scottish liturgy by the time the ‘Six Johns’ met or

16 Knox, Works, Vol. 1, pp. 246–7. 17 Knox, Works, Vol. 1, pp. 246–7. 18 the 1565 Gude and Godlie Ballatis edition contains the texts of Hopkins’s Psalm 146 and the Edwardine pre-Genevan version of Sternhold’s Psalm 1. Despite the often violent contention between England and Scotland, it is clear that music travelled freely between the two countries in the sixteenth century. See Isobel Woods Preece, Our awin Scottis use: Music in the Scottish Church up to 1603 (Glasgow and Aberdeen: University of Glasgow Press and University of Aberdeen Press, 2000), pp. 55–98. 19 Cameron, First Book, pp. 130–31, and 182; Knox, Works, Vol. 2, pp. 210 and 239. 20 although related, the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers was different from the Forma ac ratio. See Michael Springer, Restoring Christ’s Church: John à Lasco and the Forma ac ratio (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007), pp. 123–32. 82 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice would begin to use it shortly thereafter. The final member of the group, John Douglas, was a member of the reformed congregation at St Andrews, where Winram was pastor and both Knox and Goodman spent significant amounts of time. It is possible that the committee had at least these three congregations in mind when they insisted that the Forme of prayers was ‘the Order of Geneva, which now is used in some of our Churches … ’21 Although these only refer to the Forme of prayers by name, it is important to note that sixteenth-century Scots did not distinguish between the liturgy and metrical psalter printed in the Forme of prayers. Both books were referred to as the ‘Psalm buik’, and booksellers encouraged the conflation by binding the two books together. Thus, the committee’s statements about the Scottish Forme of prayers would by implication have automatically included the metrical psalter, a conflation that Scottish phraseology would continue to propagate throughout the next couple of centuries.

Launching a Scottish Psalter

Despite advocating the use of the exilic editions of the Forme of prayers, the six Johns did not deal with the incomplete state of these metrical psalters. Knox and his colleagues were focused on more urgent political and theological issues surrounding the transplantation of the ethos and ideals of the Genevan Anglo-Scots exilic community to Scotland.22 Since work on the metrical psalms was continuing in Geneva, there was little reason to focus precious energy and resources on completing the metrical psalter, especially since the incomplete psalters of 1556 and 1558 had served the Genevan exile community so well. By December 1562, however, it was clear that work in Geneva had come to an end, with 63 psalms yet to versify, and the Scottish General Assembly took action with regard to publishing the psalter. ‘For the printing of the psalmes’, it ‘lent Robert Licprivick printer tua hundreth punds to help to buy irons, ink, and paper, and to fie craftsmen for printing’.23 It is interesting that the Assembly had waited one year after the printing of the 1561 Forme of prayers to take action. Other than John Day’s Foure score, there were at least two editions of the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers printed in 1560 and 1561 that were essentially the same

21 Cameron, First Book, pp. 90–91. 22 Dawson, ‘Example of Geneva’, pp. 107–35. 23 Sir Walter Scott and David Laing (eds), Bannatyne Miscellany: containing original papers and tracts, chiefly relating to the history and literature of Scotland (Vol. 1, Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1836), p. 232. ‘Licprivik’ is also found spelled ‘Lekpreuik’ (and is pronounced Leprek, Lapraik, or Laypraik). Completing the Exilic Psalters 83 as Day’s Foure score.24 Therefore, by 6 March 1560 – the print date of the former of these two volumes – the exilic Forme of prayers was essentially in its final state. Considering the close connections between Scotland and Geneva and the fact that Day was able to obtain a copy to allow him to print his Foure score in 1561, these latest editions had plenty of time to arrive in Scotland in order to be added the agenda for either of the two Assembly meetings in 1561. Though the 1561 edition may have reached Scotland before 1562, a parallel psalter project undertaken by Thomas Wode (pronounced Wood) in St Andrews indicates that Scottish reformers may have expected another edition from Geneva. A former a monk of Lindores Abbey near Newburgh, on the northern coast of Fife, Wode would spend part of the 1560s compiling harmonizations of the metrical psalms set by Scottish composers David Peebles, John Angus, Andro Blackhall, John Buchan, and others. These are contained in what are now known as the Wode partbooks or the St Andrews Psalter.25 Among the informative marginal notes in his books, Wode wrote:

Thir bukis I begouth in the Year of god I m V c lxii yeiris [1562], and I rewlit and wes in purpose to have first wreatin the first vearce of everilk psalme that hes ane tune; and sum that knew this my purpose and preparation, desyrit me to stay a quhyle, for the heall psalmis wes printit in geneva and wer cum hoame shortly, and so I held my hand till the heall psalmis com hame … 26

24 See Timothy Duguid, ‘Early Modern British Metrical Psalters’, Edinburgh Research Archive (2013), http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/6684. 25 although harmonized settings of the psalms from the 1564 Forme of prayers are at the core of the Wode partbooks (and also produced the impetus for their creation), they also include the metrical canticles and hymns from the English Whole booke as well as a number of other pre- and post-Reformation sacred and secular pieces. For more on the Wode partbooks, see Jamie Reid-Baxter, ‘Thomas Wode, Christopher Goodman and the Curious Death of Scottish Music’, Scotlands 4, no. 2 (1997), pp. 1–20; and Hilda S.P. Hutchison, ‘The St Andrews Psalter: Transcription and Critical Study of Thomas Wode’s Psalter’ (DMus diss., University of Edinburgh, 1957). In 2011, the University of Edinburgh undertook an exhibition of all eight extant Wode partbooks. For more information on the books and their context, see ‘Singing the Reformation: The World of Reformation Britain as seen and heard in the Wode Psalter’ (2013), http://www.wode.div.ed.ac.uk; also see Jane Dawson, Timothy Duguid, and Noel O’Regan ‘Singing the Reformation’ (Edinburgh: The Wode Project Team, 2011, published in conjunction with the exhibition ‘Singing the Reformation’ shown at the University of Edinburgh Main Library), http://www.wode.div.ed.ac.uk/resources.html. 26 GB-Eu La.III.483.1, p. 177. Wode’s ‘sum that knew this my purpose’ might well have included the St Andrews minister Christopher Goodman. It is not entirely impossible that Wode’s comment refers to the 1562 completion and publication of the French Genevan psalter, which would undoubtedly have been of interest to Goodman as a former Genevan exile. 84 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Since Wode’s completed partbooks use all the tunes from the 1564 Forme of prayers, both he and the Assembly probably waited to start their respective editions until they were sure that work had ended in Geneva. The delay between the 1560–61 Forme of prayers and the General Assembly’s commission to Lekpreuik is also attributable to the fact that no Scottish printer had the means to print music before 1562. Music printing required particular equipment and specially trained workers, neither of which came cheap. While John Day had no experience of printing music before Queen Elizabeth’s reign, he did have access to substantial funds thanks to his wealthy patrons and thriving printing business. Scottish printers, on the other hand, did not have a prospering book trade like their southern counterparts, and this minimized their profit margins and capacity to undertake substantial, expensive ventures such as metrical psalters and Bibles. The printer Robert Lekpreuik had gained a favourable reputation with Scottish reformers by printing a variety of Protestant materials, but he did not have the resources or expertise to undertake a metrical psalter. The General Assembly’s 1562 loan remedied this, providing Lekpreuik with the substantial sum of £200 to begin work on the first complete Scottish metrical psalter. As will be discussed below, this sum was not enough to complete the project, but it was enough to make a significant start. Little is known about Lekpreuik’s early life. While a Robert Lekpreuik was exiled on 8 August 1532,27 the earliest confirmable information about the printer dates from 1561, when he completed Robert Norvell’s Meroure of a Chrestiane [STC 18688] as well as The confessione of the fayht and doctrin beleued and professed by the protestantes of the realme of Scotland [STC 22018]. The next year, he released the first Scottish edition of the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers [STC 16564], but it did not include a metrical psalter. The significant patronage of the Assembly at the end of 1562 provided a much-needed boost for Lekpreuik’s business, both confirming his favour with the new Scottish religious establishment and providing the prospect of a volume that would be mandatory for Scottish worship services. The Assembly’s loan allowed him to upgrade

27 robert Dickson and John Philip Edmond agreed with the historian Robert Pitcairn that the following reference refers to the printer: ‘Robert Lekpreuik Banished, by Warrant of the King, furth of the Kingdom of Scotland. He was sworn, in Judgement, to remove within xl days, under pain of death’. Robert Pitcairn, ed., Criminal Trials in Scotland (Vol. 1, Edinburgh: William Tait, 1833), p. 161; Robert Dickson and John Philip Edmund, Annals of Scottish Printing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890), p. 199. However, for this order to have referred to the eventual printer, the timing would offer little leeway, as T.F. Henderson estimates that Lekpreuik died in 1581. Since it was not common practice to send children and teenagers into exile, the printer would have been at least 20 years old by the time of his exile in 1532. If this was the case, Robert Lekpreuik would have been at least 69 years old in 1581. T.F. Henderson, ‘Lekpreuik, Robert (fl. 1561–1581), printer’, Martin Holt Dotterweich, rev., ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/16414. Completing the Exilic Psalters 85 his business by purchasing a new set of type and it also effectively granted him a patent for publishing music, as he was the only printer in Scotland who had the materials and workers necessary. Despite these benefits, he remained unable to sustain and modernize his business completely, so he sought further financial support from Robert Clerk, an Edinburgh merchant who supported the Protestant cause through the mid-1560s.28 With this additional financial backing, Lekpreuik finally completed his edition of the Forme of prayers. Lekpreuik sent a draft of all 150 psalms as well as the liturgical Forme to the General Assembly for approval in December 1564. The Assembly approved it and ordered that ‘every minister, exhorter, and reader shall have one of the psalme books lately printed in Edinburgh, and use the order contained therein … ’29 Since the First Book of Discipline only suggested that churches should sing metrical psalms, this new ruling was a significant step in consolidating Scottish liturgical practice. By ordering every minister, exhorter, and Reader, to buy the new psalter the Assembly effectively mandated the use of the psalms contained in the 1564 Forme of prayers in worship services throughout Scotland.30

The Unique Scottish Forme of Prayers

Although the English Whole booke and the Scottish Forme of prayers were both descended from the Edwardine Sternhold and Hopkins psalms via the exilic editions of the Forme of prayers, they were significantly different in purpose, construction, and content. For Day, rejecting the content of the latest editions of the Forme of prayers was not, as noted earlier, necessarily motivated by religious or political sentiments. While the ultimate goal of his Whole booke project was to create a volume that would enhance the spiritual lives of English Protestants – whether at work, church, or home – the survival of Day’s psalter was dependent on its profitability as much as its spiritual value. If the books did not sell, Day would not continue to print them. These financial considerations, and more specifically an understanding of what would sell well in his London bookshops, led to Day’s decision to work independently of the Anglo-Scottish versifiers and printers in Geneva.

28 Clerk must have had a falling out with Regent Moray, as he changed over to the Marian party around 1568. John Durkan, ‘Contract between Clerk and Lekpreuik for Printing the Book of Common Order, 1564’, Bibliotheck 11, no. 6 (1983), pp. 129–35. 29 APGA, vol. 1, pp. 74–5; David Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. Thomas Thomson (Vol. 2, Edinburgh, 1842) , p. 284. 30 throughout the present study, ‘Reader’ refers to the position occupied in Kirks, whereas ‘reader’ refers to any person who could read. 86 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

With regard to the Forme of prayers, there is little evidence of who was involved or the process by which the volume was constructed, but it is generally accepted that a committee of the General Assembly was tasked with its compilation.31 Therefore, Lekpreuik did not have the same freedom to shape his psalter that Day had in England. Since the Kirk was the chief funder and buyer of the 1564 Forme of prayers, Lekpreuik was effectively its employee. It is impossible to know how Lekpreuik might have constructed his psalter if the Assembly had given him carte blanche, but the evidence suggests that he was committed to the cause of reform and to the Assembly’s work. In fact, he may have been more focused on advancing Protestantism than on promoting and preserving his printing business. In March 1570, the General Assembly declared, ‘having respect for his poverty, the great expenses he has made in the buying printing irons, and the great zeal and love he bears to serve the Kirk, at all times, has assigned to him fifty pounds, to be yearly payed … ’32 This indicates that Lekpreuik was an ardent servant of the Reformed Kirk, and had been personally committed to printing the metrical psalter. The Kirk’s official involvement placed constraints on Lekpreuik and the compilers of the Scottish Forme of prayers, but since the success and continued existence of the Scottish psalms relied more on the Assembly’s continued approval than on public sales, the compilers were able to focus on the volume’s spiritual value rather than its commercial profitability. The Assembly sought a volume that would serve their unique needs. As mentioned earlier, they had a number of different psalters to choose from as the basis for their metrical psalter, but they made no use of the pre- Reformation Scots versifications found in the Gude and Godlie Ballatis. Nicholas Temperley has suggested that their Lutheran origins made them incompatible with the Scottish Kirk, but the character of the 1560 Scots Confession indicates that Scottish reformers did not avoid all things Lutheran.33 Ian Hazlett has shown that the Confession did not take over the practice and order of discipline of the Anglo-Scottish exile community in Geneva wholesale, but in fact included much from other Protestant traditions, including Lutheranism.34 Scottish reformers generally preferred Calvinism to Lutheranism, but it would have been extreme for them to

31 Jamie Reid-Baxter, Michael Lynch, and E. Patricia Dennison, Jhone Angus: Monk of Dunfermline and Scottish Reformation Music (Dunfermline: DoubleBridge Press, 2011), pp. 34–6. 32 The minute is dated 9 March 1569, which would be 1570 by modern dating. APGA, Vol. 1, p. 202. 33 Nicholas Temperley, et al. ‘Psalms, metrical, §IV: Scotland and Ireland’, in OMO, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/22479. 34 Ian Hazlett argues that while the Scots Confession was distinctly influenced by Geneva, it also owes much to the other Continental reforms. Such a mixture was unique Completing the Exilic Psalters 87 reject metrical psalms simply based on the Lutheran convictions of their original authors. Instead, the rejection of the Ballatis psalm paraphrases may have been more practical than ideological. No prominent reformer or official ecclesiastical body had approved the paraphrases, so they would have required editing and approval before they could be used in Scottish churches. The only text in the 1564 Forme of Prayers that originated in the Ballatis was Robert Pont’s versification of Psalm 83, but he had to edit the Ballatis version before he presented it for publication.35 Other Ballatis psalms such as Psalms 31 and 51 would have required even more work to make them acceptable to the Assembly. As Jamie Reid-Baxter notes, Psalm 31 in the Ballatis included only the first five verses, and the version of Psalm 51 incorporated several ‘devotional tropes’ as well as a refrain.36 In short, the most likely reason for excluding the Ballatis from the 1564 Forme of prayers was that they were more freely versified from the Biblical texts than other metrical psalms available at the time, and thus would not have suited the sensibilities of the likes of Knox and others who favoured a closer rendering.37 The exilic editions of the Forme of prayers were a much more expedient option as a foundation for the Scottish metrical psalter. Firstly, they had been edited and approved by none other than John Calvin.38 Secondly, these exilic psalters had been used by a number of churches in Scotland since 1560. Admittedly, the Assembly could have chosen to use the related (but intentionally English) Whole booke, but they chose instead to continue where the exilic editions had left off. Their insistence on using the 1560–61 version as opposed to the 1558 edition explains many of the textual differences between the Day and Lekpreuik editions. Altogether, 44 versifications in theForme of prayers differed from the Whole booke, and Table 3.1 (below) displays these by listing the authorial distribution of texts in both volumes. As discussed in Chapter 2, the dominant versifications in the Day psalters were those by Sternhold, Hopkins, and Norton mainly because Day started with to Scotland. W. Ian P. Hazlett, ‘The Scots Confession of 1560: Context, Complexion and Critique’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 78 (1987), pp. 287–320. 35 Jamie Reid-Baxter, ‘Metrical Psalmody and the Bannatyne Manuscript: Robert Pont’s Psalm 83’, Renaissance and Reformation 30, no. 4 (Fall 2006), pp. 41–62. 36 Reid-Baxter, ‘Metrical Psalmody’, p. 42. 37 As mentioned earlier, it is debatable whether the modified Sternhold and Hopkins psalms in the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers were any closer to the Hebrew than the originals. However, this was a stated goal of these psalters. See RR, pp. 142–53; and The Forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments [STC 16561] (Geneva: John Crespin, 1556), p. 21. 38 these two men were widely respected among reformers in Scotland, but the English generally esteemed John Calvin and mistrusted Whittingham due to his associations with Knox and Goodman. 88 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Table 3.1 Authorial distribution of psalm versifications in the Whole booke (1562) and Forme of prayers (1564)

Author Whole booke (1562) Forme of prayers (1564)

Sternhold 37 37 Hopkins 58 35 Whittingham 11 16 Kethe 9 25 Pulleyne 1 2 Norton 31 12 Marckant 4 2 Craig 0 15 Pont 0 6 the 1558 Forme of prayers. Lekpreuik, on the other hand, began with the 87 texts from the 1560–61 Forme of prayers, which included all 25 versifications by Kethe.39 Having chosen their respective base-texts, both English and Scottish compilers filled the gaps by prioritizing versifications by local writers. As noted in Chapter 2, Day’s Whole booke employed Hopkins and Norton, who were both sympathetic to the Edwardine foundations of English metrical psalm singing. The Scottish Assembly, however, chose in the first instance to make up the shortfall by employing two Scottish writers and clergymen, John Craig and Robert Pont, who showed themselves open to the ‘continental’ approach of the Genevan Anglo-Scots. Given the urgent need for a national psalter in both realms, it seems legitimate to speculate that it was due to pressure of time that English and Scottish compilers then filled the remaining gaps with the work of ‘foreign’ poets. The English added the latest paraphrases from the exilic Forme of prayers, while the Scots added those from Day’s psalters. These authorial differences were reflected in the metres used in the Scottish Forme of prayers. In the previous chapter, it was shown that Hopkins and Norton highlighted the Edwardine roots of English metrical psalmody by using the popular Common Metre. The Scottish poets, supplementing the 1560–61 Forme of prayers, similarly relied on popular Scottish metres to accompany those from Geneva. As a result, the Lekpreuik edition, while still dominated by Common Metre, uses many

39 Many of Hopkins’s later versifications duplicated Kethe’s. STC[ 16563]. Completing the Exilic Psalters 89 more metres than its English counterpart. Excluding the variants on the basic metrical units such as Double Common Metre and Double Long Metre, the Forme of prayers uses over 30 different metres that employ iambs, trochees, amphibrachs, dactyls, and anapaests. This corresponds to the variety of metres to be found in contemporary Scottish poetry, not least in the versifications of theBallatis. Besides the textual disparities, the 1564 Forme of prayers approaches the question of tunes quite differently from the Day psalters. The Scots adopted tunes from their Anglo-Scottish, French, and English predecessors; they also added some from German and Italian sources. The Whole booke, on the other hand, did not include any new adaptations of foreign tunes. Each of its originally Genevan and German tunes had already appeared in an English-language publication before 1562. Thus, the only musical sources for the Whole booke were the exilic editions of the Forme of prayers and Day’s own previous metrical psalters. Like its versifications, the musical content of Day’s Whole booke was arguably more exclusively English, while Lekpreuik’s Forme of prayers was more internationally diverse and so mirrored the diversity of the Scots Confession of 1560.40 Providing only 63 tunes for its 172 texts (including 22 canticles and hymns), Day’s Whole booke was a simplified volume that sought to use a consolidated tune repertory to appeal to its customers. Lekpreuik’s Forme of prayers, with its 105 unique tunes for its 150 texts, conversely adopted the musical approach of the 1556 and 1560–61 editions of the Forme of prayers that had sought to provide a unique tune for each text in emulation of the French Genevan psalter with its 125 proper tunes. Though it fell short of the French psalter, the 1564 Forme of prayers had more tunes than any previous metrical psalter printed in the English language. As with the psalm texts, the Scottish compilers had a system of priorities when it came to the tunes for the 1564 Forme of prayers. First, they included all of the tunes from the 1560–61 Forme of prayers. They then restored many of the tunes from the 1556 Forme of prayers that had been removed, and finally they added a number of tunes that were either newly composed or newly arranged from French, German, and Italian sources. To this foundation Scottish compilers added the work of local versifiers and composers before turning to the 1562 Whole booke to provide the remaining tunes.41 As with the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers, Scots continued to try to create meaningful connections between psalm texts and tunes. Not only did they select melodies that helped reduce

40 Hazlett, ‘Scots Confession’, pp. 287–320. 41 according to tunes used in the Forme of prayers, compilers used the Whole booke and not the Residue to provide the remaining content for his 1564 edition. See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 90 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice the poetic weaknesses of their proper texts, but they also elected to create theologically significant groupings of psalm texts assigned to a single melody. This is particularly evident in the new versifications by Robert Pont and John Craig printed in the 1564 Forme of prayers.

Robert Pont, his Texts and their Tunes

Robert Pont was from Culross in Fife and began his collegiate training at St Leonard’s College in St Andrews in 1544.42 It is unclear when he first encountered Protestantism, but he was probably in the burgh when reformer George Wishart was burnt at the stake in 1546.43 Pont must have made a name for himself before 1559, as that year he signed the Protestant declaration to assist the Lords of the Congregation in St Andrews. Shortly afterwards he became an elder at Holy Trinity Church in St Andrews and served as a commissioner of the town.44 He joined his minister Christopher Goodman as a member of the first General Assembly in 1560, at which Pont was himself approved to be a minister. More focused on his legal career at the time, Pont did not in fact enter the pastorate until 1562, when he accepted a ministerial call to serve in Dunblane. After that, he received several different commissions and appointments and continued to exercise notable influence within the Kirk. He left Dunblane to become minister at Dunkeld and later at St Cuthbert’s Church beside Edinburgh. He also became provost of Trinity College, Edinburgh and Commissioner of Moray, Inverness, and Banff; and he was a six-time moderator of the General Assembly.45 His various employments and appointments did not impede an impressive writing career, which included a translation of the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith, his own catechism in Latin verse, and co- authorship of the Second Book of Discipline (1578).46 Nor was appreciation

42 Reid-Baxter, ‘Metrical Psalmody’, p. 46; James Kirk, ‘Pont, Robert (1524–1606)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/22507 43 Both Pont and fellow reformer and minister John Row attended St Leonard’s College, which was known for its reforming views. Kirk, ‘Pont’. 44 Kirk, ‘Pont’. 45 Christopher Fleet, ‘Robert Pont, Timothy Pont’s father (1524–1606)’, Pont Maps Website, National Library of Scotland (n.d.), http://maps.nls.uk/pont/bio/father.html. Pont was the moderator of the General Assembly meetings in 1570, 1575, 1581, 1583, 1596, and 1597. John Row, The History of the Kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1842), pp. 42, 55, 81, 103, 168, and 175; Kirk, ‘Pont’. 46 Pont published in both Latin and the vernacular throughout his long life; the discussion of Biblical chronology that he contributed to the 1579 Bassandyne Bible, a product of his mathematical skills, was probably the most widely read of his publications. See Arthur Williamson, ‘Number and National Consciousness: The Edinburgh Mathematicians Completing the Exilic Psalters 91 of Pont’s stature restricted to the Kirk; in 1572 the Crown appointed him to be a Senator of the Court of Justice, and in 1587 King James VI selected him for the bishopric of Caithness against Pont’s own wishes.47 The Assembly approved the 1572 appointment – allowing Pont to become the only person to be a minster and judge simultaneously – but in 1587 they argued that as a minister and presbyter he was already a bishop. However, ‘they were glad the King had such an estimation of so good a man … ’.48

Pont’s Versifications

Despite the high esteem Pont enjoyed among his contemporaries, his psalm versifications have been a target of modern criticism. One particularly caustic remark came from Millar Patrick, who argued:

These [Pont’s versifications] were mostly in peculiar metres … If he got the requisite number of syllables into the lines of his translations from the French, he does not seem to have cared whether they suited the music or not; his skill as a translator is as small as Kethe’s or Whittingham’s.49

Patrick based his comments on the article by A.G. Gilchrist cited earlier in connection with Whittingham’s metrical psalms.50 While Gilchrist’s article examines the poetic accents of the versifications and insists that the texts do not fit their tunes, it does not provide much in the way of musical analysis. Patrick and Gilchrist’s criticisms deserve closer scrutiny, starting with Patrick’s claim that Pont’s texts used ‘peculiar metres’. Two of Pont’s six texts in the 1564 Forme of prayers employed metres from the Genevan Psalter: Psalms 80 and 81. Using the Ballatis as a representative sample of the metrical range of sixteenth-century Scottish poetry, neither Pont’s 6.5.6.5. 5.5.5.5. metre for Psalm 80 nor his 9.8.9.8. 6.6.5 6.6.5. metre for Psalm 81 were commonplace at the time.51 However, of Pont’s other four metrical texts, two employ metres that were undoubtedly prevalent: Psalm 57 uses Double Common Metre and Psalm 59 utilizes Long Metre. Even the seven-line metres of Pont’s Psalms 76 (8.8.8.8.8.8.8.) and and Scottish Political Culture at the Union of the Crowns’, in Scots and Britons, ed. Roger Mason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 193–7. 47 Kirk, ‘Pont’; APGA, Vol. 2, p. 812. 48 Row, History, p. 133. 49 Patrick, Scottish Psalmody, p. 47. 50 a.G. Gilchrist, ‘Psalm-Versions and French Tunes in the Scottish Psalter of 1564’, Records of the Scottish Church History Society 5 (1935), pp. 208–13. 51 however, even these Genevan metres may not have been too odd for Scots, when considering the other irregular or less common metres (i.e. 11.11.11.12.10.10.10. and 8.6.8.6.9.6) found in the Ballatis. 92 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

83 (10.10.10.10.10.10.10.) were far from unusual: ‘We thank the[e] God, of thy gudnes’ is one of the many instances in the Ballatis that correspond metrically to Pont’s Psalm 76, while ‘Faithfull in Christ vse your riches richt’ corresponds to his Psalm 83. The distribution of syllables in Pont’s versifications was also absolutely typical of sixteenth-century Scottish poetry in that orthographical conventions inadequately represent what was actually heard. Situations in which poetic lines appear to contain too many or too few syllables occur all the time, and Scottish readers and singers automatically applied elisions or epentheses as needed. The Ballatis abound in examples of this, and both can be found in the fourth stanza of the 8.8.8.8. ballad, ‘I come from heuin to tell’:

He is zour rycht Saluatioun, From euerlasting Dampnatioun: That ze may Ring in gloir and blis, For euer mair in heuin with his.52

To modern Anglophone eyes, the first line seems to have only seven syllables, but (as in England) contemporaries would have made a perfectly standard disyllable of the ‘‑tion’ ending of ‘Saluatioun’ and its rhyme, ‘Dampnatioun’. Again, a modern reader would assume there are too many syllables in the second line, but elision of intervocalic ‘v’ was standard (but not absolutely mandatory) in Middle Scots.53 Contemporary singers would have automatically elided ‘euerlasting’ into ‘e’erlasting’. The fact that other texts required singers to apply these standard practices does not in itself make Pont’s poetry any better, however.54 Perhaps it was Pont’s inconsistent usage that aroused Millar Patrick’s ire. For instance, Psalm 80 contains a concentrated number of prosodic inconsistencies that make performance difficult. In verses 8 and 9, Pont wrote:

A vine out of Egipt thou broughtest with great cure. Thou caste out the Gentiles and plantedst it sure.

52 Quoted from A.F. Mitchell, ed., A Compendious Book of Godly and Spiritual Songs (Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, 1897), p. 49. 53 a fossilized survival of the standard Middle Scots elision of intervocalic ‘v’ is still found in the word ‘Halloween’, the Scots name for All Hallows Eve(n). I am grateful to Jamie Reid-Baxter for pointing this out and for his help with the various issues surrounding Middle Scots orthography discussed through the remainder of this section. 54 even Hopkins struggled with placing the correct number of syllables in each line of his versifications. For an example, see the first stanza of his versification of Psalm 45. Completing the Exilic Psalters 93

Thou cleansedst the grounde and rootedst it so, That all the whole land, it fild to and fro.

Pont’s verse demands of modern readers that they make a series of elisions to navigate it successfully. What looks like a prosodic and orthographic mess is, however, entirely characteristic of written Middle Scots, with its fossilized orthographic conventions. Third-person singular verbs and plural nouns ended in ‘-is’, although the scansion of innumerable lines of Middle Scots verse demonstrates that this ‘i’ was often not sounded. Therefore, ‘broughtest’ [scoticé ‘brochtis’] would have been monosyllabic brochts in sixteenth-century Scots pronunciation. However, the second and third couplets of Pont’s stanza use consonance to describe the actions of God on behalf of his people. This consistency is not upheld by the necessary elision of ‘broughtest’, followed as it is by three further second-person singular preterite verb forms that are necessarily un- elided. Occurring at similar places within each couplet, the words ‘plan- tedst’, ‘clean-sedst’, and ‘root-edst’ are all disyllabic, and their apparent awkwardness would have been somewhat mitigated by the fact that the final ‘t’ in second person singular verbs was not pronounced in Middle Scots. But while the orthography of the print is more helpful to singers in the second and third couplets, this prosodic difference between them and the first couplet leaves modern performers questioning their natural inclination to create the consonance between the three couplets by eliding the other three verbs into monosyllabic words. However, these metrical problems are confined to Psalm 80. If this psalm was the focus of Patrick’s ire, the most likely explanation is that he was unaware of the conventions and wild inconsistencies of written Middle Scots.

The Tunes for Pont’s Psalms

More germane to a discussion of the relationship between texts and tunes in the 1564 Forme of prayers, Patrick charged that Pont did not seem to care if his tunes suited their texts. This assumes that Pont was involved in selecting the tunes for his texts. None of the melodies paired with Pont’s texts were newly composed for the 1564 Forme of prayers. Rather, they came from a whole variety of sources, including the ‘Lamentation’ and Norton’s ‘Ten Commandments’ in the Day psalters, the tunes for Psalms 10 and 33 in the Genevan Psalter, the German hymn ‘Jesus Christus, unser Heiland’, and Coverdale’s tune for Psalm 11. Despite the fact that none of these were composed with Pont’s texts in mind, the close relationships between melodies and texts indicate that when versifying his psalm texts, 94 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 3.1 Psalm 80, 1564 Forme of prayers [STC 16577]

Pont may very well have had each respective melody in mind. In an article on Pont’s version of Psalm 83, Jamie Reid-Baxter briefly discussed the success of each of these melodies with Pont’s tunes, but few other individuals have given attention to the specific relationships between Pont’s texts and their proper melodies.55 This warrants further analysis of the interactions between the text and music. Psalm 80 displays a series of problems that are mostly attributable to its stanzaic form and original setting as a German tune. The transition between the first and second phrases of the second line is particularly awkward (Example 3.1). Employing an amphibrachic foot rather than the more common iambic one, the first phrase of both the text and tune match. This is accomplished melodically by using its two leaps to emphasize the second and fifth notes. While most psalm tunes allowed for a pause at the midpoint of each line that coincided with the poetic hemistich, this tune does not provide such a pause. Instead, it pushes singers through the hemistich because it concludes the first phrase with a minim. Early stanzas of the psalm exacerbate this awkward musical–textual relationship, as the punctuation in many of them suggests such a pause (for example, verse 1, Example 3.1). Singers expecting to be able to catch their breath at the midpoint of the line in these stanzas would have had little opportunity to do so without destroying the rhythmic flow of the line. On the other hand, the lack of punctuation in later stanzas mitigates this problem (verse 6,

55 reid-Baxter, ‘Metrical Psalmody’. Completing the Exilic Psalters 95

Example 3.1). While this issue would have made performance awkward, there is a much larger problem at the beginning of the second phrase. By beginning the second phrase with a semibreve, the melody gives the opening note rhythmic emphasis. This destroys the first amphibrach of the second phrase, pairing a dactyl-like musical rhythm with the amphibrach foot of the poetry. The 1564 Forme of prayers’ recommendation for Pont’s Psalm 57 is considerably more successful, even if the volume did not actually contain the suggested proper tune. Although this edition printed versifications of all 150 psalms, it did not include any of the hymns and canticles that had featured in the English Whole booke or the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers. It is therefore surprising that Psalm 57 in the 1564 Forme of prayers would carry the suggestion to sing it as the ‘Ten Commandments’. This poses something of a conundrum. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Whittingham’s setting of the ‘Ten Commandments’ had been in use since the earliest days of the Frankfurt exile church, and it was carried to Geneva where Knox, Goodman, and Whittingham continued to use it on a weekly basis as part of the liturgy for the Lord’s Supper.56 Early editions of the Scottish Forme of prayers did not include this setting, but it nevertheless became well known in Protestant circles in Scotland after the return of the exiles in 1559.57 This version of the Decalogue, ‘Attend my people’, was set in Long Metre and does not fit Pont’s Common-Metre versification of Psalm 57. However, there was another tune and versification for the ‘Ten Commandments’, namely Thomas Norton’s Common-Metre setting, ‘Harke Israel’ that had first appeared in Day’s 1560–61 Psalmes of Dauid in Englishe metre [STC 2429]. Although it would never be adopted by the Kirk, which would eventually start printing Whittingham’s version among other canticles at the end of its psalters, it evidently made its way north to Scotland within a couple of years. Strikingly, in the partbooks that Thomas Wode compiled starting in 1562, he chose to place ‘Harke Israel’ before Whittingham’s version of the ‘Ten Commandments’ in his section of cantcles that followed the section of four-part psalm settings.58 The most plausible explanation of the printed tune suggestion for Psalm 57 is that Norton’s version and tune were known in Scotland by the time Pont set the text to verse and handed it to Lekpreuik for printing. When later editions started to print Whittingham’s ‘Ten Commandments’ and not Norton’s,

56 See Chapter 1. 57 the tune suggested for Psalm 54 in the 1564 Forme of prayers was the ‘Ten Commandments’, and Whittingham’s Long-Metre tune (HTI 111a) would have matched Kethe’s Long-Metre versification of that psalm text. See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 58 hutchison, ‘The St. Andrews psalter’. 96 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 3.2 Excerpt from Psalm 57, 1564 Forme of prayers [STC 16577]

there may have been some confusion.59 In fact, an edition printed by Andro Hart in 1610 would errantly print the tune from Whittingham’s ‘Ten Commandments’ for Psalm 57, despite the fact that it did not fit.60 However, there is little evidence to suggest that any other tune than that of ‘Harke Israel’ was used for Psalm 57 until 1601. The fact is that the tune from Norton’s versification was particularly well suited to Pont’s Psalm 57. Fitting the regular pattern of Pont’s iambic verse, the tune’s rhythm and melodic progressions deviate from the iambic pulse only at the beginnings of the first and third lines (Example 3.2). Both begin with a semibreve that does not follow the iambic foot of the verse. These longer notes would have seemed normal to sixteenth- century metrical psalm singers as gathering notes. While there are a couple of conflicts between the text and melody, these result from the psalm’s stanzaic form rather than laziness or ineptitude on the part of the compiler. One example appears in the first line of the third verse. The skip up from g to c1 does not match its text, ‘send downe’. However, the interval does suit many of the other stanzas. In the first, it highlights the ‘wickedness’ of the trials that are besetting the psalmist, and it gives a tangible feeling of the Lord’s raising himself up by pairing it with the text, ‘Exalt thy selfe, o Lord therefore’, in the fifth and eleventh verses.61 The Kirk intended people of all abilities to be able to use this psalter, but some have raised concerns about how difficult Pont’s texts were to perform. Millar Patrick asserted, ‘some of his [Pont’s] versions defy the efforts of even skilled choirs to fit them to their proper melodies’.62 Were it true that Pont’s texts would be difficult for skilled choirs to sing, it is hard to imagine how the Kirk could expect its untrained congregants to sing

59 Starting in 1571, Scottish printers included Whittingham’s ‘Ten Commandments’ after the metrical psalms (HTI tune 111a). Hutchison, ‘The St. Andrews psalter’. 60 See The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in Meter, with diuers Notes and Tunes augmented to them [STC 2704] (Edinburgh: Andro Hart, [1610]), p. 35. 61 Since there are an odd number of quatrains in this psalm versification, the final quatrain – consisting of verse 11 – was sung to the second half of the tune, following the practice of the Anglo-Scottish community at Geneva. 62 Patrick, Scottish Psalmody, p. 47. Completing the Exilic Psalters 97 them. As discussed earlier, the practice of fitting English texts to French tunes and metres has drawn unfavourable comment in the past.63 Any insistence that this made performance of these metrical psalms in Scotland difficult, however, is mistaken. Analysis of Pont’s texts and tunes shows that their styles are well aligned with other metrical texts and tunes in the 1564 Forme of prayers. Pont’s work was not substandard nor was it too demanding of his singers. As the examples cited from the Ballatis have shown, Pont’s metrical psalms adhered to the styles of his contemporaries, placing no aberrant demands on his singers. Moreover, his contemporaries in the Scottish Kirk respected Pont and his skills as a Scriptural versifier. It was no accident that when James VI asked the Kirk to revise the metrical psalter in 1601, the General Assembly assigned the task of revision to Pont.64 The Assembly would not have made such a recommendation if they felt Pont’s six previous texts demonstrated a fundamental incapacity to versify psalms for singing.

John Craig, his Texts and their Tunes

The other Scottish contributor to the 1564 Forme of prayers was John Craig, who was born in 1512 in Craigston, Aberdeenshire, and whose father died in the Battle of Flodden shortly after his birth. He graduated from St Andrews University and spent some time in England as a tutor for Lord Dacre’s children before becoming a Dominican monk. Within a short time, Church leaders imprisoned him for heresy. After being cleared of that charge, he went to Cambridge and eventually made his way to Rome. Ironically, his time in Italy led to his eventual conversion to Protestantism. He was appointed master of the novices in a Dominican house in Bologna, where he had access to Reformed teachings through the library there. After reading Calvin’s Institutes, he became convinced of the Reformed faith and began to voice approval of Calvin’s ideas. Shortly afterwards, the Inquisition arrested him for heresy and sent him to Rome to be tried and executed. According to extant accounts, Pope Paul IV died the day before Craig’s scheduled execution, and he escaped from prison and made his way back to Scotland, where he arrived in 1560.65 Craig joined the Protestant cause in Edinburgh, initially preaching at the Magdalen Chapel. Since his spoken Scots had become rusty during his 24-year absence from Scotland, he was initially allowed to preach in

63 Patrick, Scottish Psalmody, p. 47; Gilchrist, ‘Psalm-Versions’. 64 Calderwood, History, Vol. 6, p. 124. 65 Craig’s last-minute escape from prison and his eventful and intriguing journey back to Scotland are recounted in Row, History, pp. 457–61. 98 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Latin.66 Once he was again comfortable with the vernacular, he became the minister at Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and became the second minister along with Knox at St Giles’ Cathedral in 1562. Craig would serve the Kirk in a number of capacities, formulating the Order of the General Fast and editing the Form of Excommunication. Like Pont, Craig was also moderator for the General Assembly on several occasions. He helped Pont to draft the Second Book of Discipline and also produced his own catechism.67

Craig’s Texts

Craig must have recovered fluency in his native Scots fairly quickly, since Lekpreuik and others compiling the Scottish metrical psalter chose him as one of their versifiers. In fact, Craig’s paraphrases betray none of the awkwardness that often plagues a non-native speaker writing in another language, and they seldom fall short of the standards set by previous versifications in the Sternhold and Hopkins tradition. A glance over Craig’s 15 texts reveals that only three deviated from the metres common in sixteenth-century Scotland.68 Two of these, however, Psalms 105 and 118, had precedents in other metrical psalms within the exilic Forme of prayers. Only Psalm 136, with its 6.6.6.6. 4.4.4.4. metre, was unique. Craig was more consistent in his application of elisions than his compatriot, Pont. Verse 8 of Psalm 24 is a good example:

Who is this King so glorious? the strong and mightie Lord, Euen he that is victorious In battels tride by sword.

The word ‘glorious’ in the first couplet has to be trisyllabic, since the line contains five other syllables in this Common-Metre text. Similarly, the third line must use four syllables for the rhyme-word ‘victorious’. As commented above, the preceding elision of ‘Euen’ to ‘Een’ was the standard practice in Middle Scots. Though it requires the performer to look ahead, this elision follows the syllabic distribution of the first line by using monosyllabic words for each of its first four words. These are followed by a polysyllabic

66 James Kirk, ‘Craig, John (1512/13?–1600)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/6574. 67 Craig’s catechism was titled, A short sum of the vvhole catechisme wherin the question is propounded and answered in fewe words, for the greater ease of the common people and children [STC 5966.5] (London: [1608]). For more about Craig, his work for the General Assembly, and his dealings with Mary, Queen of Scots and James VI, see Kirk, ‘Craig’. 68 These were Psalms 105, 118, and 136. Completing the Exilic Psalters 99 word before the hemistich. In addition to rhyming these two lines, the division of syllables is the same. Craig’s consistent use of elisions did not carry over to his use of epentheses. As with Pont, Craig’s inconsistent use of epentheses to fill out his poetic lines can be problematic for those who wish to sing his psalms. Psalm 105:39 is one example:

The Lord, a cloude spread out, to guide them by day: And fire to light them the night ouer all.

The third line has only five syllables, but it should have six. To make the text fit, singers must either slur two notes or lengthen the word ‘fire’ to occupy two syllables, which it generally still does in spoken Scots to this day: fy-er. Verse 43 presents a prosodic difficulty that is harder to defend:

And brought foorth his people (that were with wo lade) His owne chosen children, with ioyfull cheare.

In this case, the fourth line does not have enough syllables, requiring singers either to slur two notes or to split the word ‘ioyfull’ into a less than convincing three syllables.69 Craig’s versifications were just as susceptible to crude rhymes as those of Pont, Hopkins, Norton, and the rest. Nevertheless, Craig demonstrates an impressive command of language, and despite their metrical variety, his versifications were characteristic of the Sternhold and Hopkins tradition insofar as they were easy to memorize and sing.

The Tunes for Craig’s Psalms

As with Pont’s psalms, the tunes that were printed with Craig’s versifications are particularly well suited for them. Many of Craig’s versifications were also paired with tunes taken from a variety of sources, including the Anglo- Scottish, Genevan, and Day psalters, as well as some other Continental musical sources. A few of Craig’s texts, however, were paired with tunes that appeared for the first time in the 1564 Forme of prayers. This would

69 Considering the clumsiness of ‘jo-y-ful’, one wonders if Patrick was perhaps confusing Craig with Pont when he criticized Pont for not including enough syllables in his psalms. 100 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Table 3.2 Tune origins for Craig’s psalm settings

HTI Craig’s psalm text Original psalm text Original source 74 24 15 1556 Forme of prayers 140 56 70 1560 Forme of prayers 132 75 67 1558 Forme of prayers 144a 105 104 1560 Forme of prayers 124a 117 127 1558 Forme of prayers 136a 132 36 1560 Forme of prayers 126a 136 148 1558 Forme of prayers 176a 141 88 1562 Whole booke indicate that Craig was closely involved in the process of selecting and composing tunes for his psalms. The majority of Craig’s psalms were paired with tunes from the Genevan psalters and the exilic editions of the Forme of prayers. His versifications of Psalms 102, 110, and 118 were matched with the Genevan melodies for the same psalms, and seven other melodies for his psalms first appeared in the exilic Forme of prayers (Table 3.2). Since none of these tunes were originally intended for Craig’s texts, it is important to consider how they interacted with the latter. Since new melodies in the 1564 Forme of prayers are unique to Craig’s psalms, the remainder of the chapter will then evaluate the relationship between these new melodies and their texts. As Patrick and Gilchrist illustrated, the most frequent complaint against the psalms in the Scottish Forme of prayers was that versifiers tried to fit English verse into French poetic and musical forms. Perhaps these criticisms originate with Craig’s versification of Psalm 118, which he apparently fitted to a Genevan metre and tune. Among the undesirable effects on the versification, Craig required unusual epentheses on words such as ‘Aarons’ and ‘desire’ to cover three syllables, and ‘joy’ to cover two syllables. When coupled with a poetic accent that further highlights the awkward prosody, any melody – regardless of how bright or catchy – will struggle to mitigate the problem. In addition, English-language versifiers often struggled to fit English poetry into French forms because of the French feminine endings. Unlike awkward prosody, however, rhythm could be used effectively to reduce the effect of the French feminine endings by accenting both the penultimate and final notes. Of Craig’s versifications, Psalm 118 was unique in its strict adherence to a French metre and melody. Psalm 102, on the other hand, shows that he often modified the original metres and melodies to suit his purposes. Completing the Exilic Psalters 101

Example 3.3 Psalm 102:1, Forme of prayers (1564)

Instead of retaining the original 8.8.7.7. 8.8.8.8., Craig adapted it to the more regular 8.8.8.8.D, and the melody was also modified to match the versification. The first stanza of Psalm 102 (Example 3.3) provides a representative example of the way in which Craig’s versifications interacted with these modified Genevan melodies. The tune from Psalm 102 uses a basic rhythmic pattern throughout that employs a series of semibreves at the beginning and end of each phrase. Providing a neutral backdrop for the melody and text, these motifs minimize any undue rhythmic emphases. On the other hand, the tune’s melodic intervals do emphasize certain syllables. The significant upward leaps that appear towards the end of the second line and at the beginning of the fourth line have differing impacts on the text. Often conflicting with the text’s iambic pulse, the leap in the second line can highlight crucial words within a line such as in the first stanza: ‘But when I call, thyne ears enclyne’. However, it also highlights unimportant words as in the final stanza: ‘They shal waxe ould as garments wil’. The leap in the fourth line, however, aligns with the poetic accent, causing no adverse emphases. This follows the pattern of the rest of the tune, which progresses largely stepwise, allowing the natural poetic accents to carry in each phrase. Scottish compilers also generally tried to continue in the tradition of the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers by using tune suggestions to provide additional insight into their psalms, but two of Craig’s versifications do not exemplify his pattern. The choice of tunes for his versions of Psalms 75 and 132 seems to have been based on metrical and not theological considerations. First, Psalm 75’s expression of faith and praise that God 102 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 3.4 phrase 3 of Psalm 56, Forme of prayers (1564)

will judge the wicked while exalting the righteous does not match the source-text of its suggested tune, Psalm 67, in which the psalmist prays for God’s blessing.70 Psalm 132 was similarly mismatched with Psalm 36, as the former asks God to fulfil his promises, while the latter complains of the wicked and relies on God’s character for sustenance until the Lord destroys them.71 Since Psalm 67 is the only other text in the Forme of prayers written in the 6.6.6.6.D. metre of Psalm 75, compilers probably chose to use this tune for Craig’s versification rather than composing a new one. The same can be said of the unique 8.8.8.8.8.-metre tune from Psalm 36 that was paired with Craig’s Psalm 132. Most of the suggested tunes for Craig’s versions were nevertheless theologically meaningful. For instance, his Psalm 56 was paired with the tune from Psalm 70. The argument for Psalm 56 in the 1564 Forme of prayers says, ‘Dauid being brought to Achis the King of Gath, 2 Sam 21 12 [sic], complaineth of his enemies, demandeth succour, putteth his trust in God, & his promise … ’.72 Correspondingly, in Psalm 70, in which the psalmist, ‘prayeth to be spedely deliuered: he desireth the shame of his enemies, and the ioyful comforte of all those that seke the Lord’.73 In addition to these textual congruencies, the rhythms and pitches of the tunes generally fit Craig’s texts. However, an entire phrase in Psalm 56 seems at odds with its text. The melody in the third phrase (Example 3.4) can be divided into four pairs of notes. The first pair and the last pair are semibreves, which serve to accentuate the first notes of both pairs. The second and third pairs of notes are all minims, but they are both preceded by leaps. This again emphasizes the first notes of both pairs. The four pairs of accented–unaccented notes would therefore correspond more to a trochaic poetic foot than the iambic one that dominates Craig’s Psalm 56. Verses 1–8 are the most awkward, as words such as ‘to’ in verse 1, ‘what’ and

70 The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments &c. vsed in the English Church at Geneua, approued and receiued by the churche of Scotland [STC 16577a] (Edinburgh: Robert Lekpreuik, 1565), pp. 180, 214. 71 STC 16577a, pp. 95 and 410. 72 STC 16577a, p. 155. 73 STC 16577a, p. 196. Completing the Exilic Psalters 103

‘do’ in verse 4, and ‘-ten’ and ‘and’ in verse 8. The music fits verses 9–13 better. The foot in these latter verses has not changed; rather Craig has used some words that could garner emphases without skewing the clarity of the entire line. In the case of verse 10, the melody stresses ‘wil’, ‘lift’, and ‘my’, which highlights the psalmist’s statement of faith that he will be able to lift his voice in praise of God during times of trial. In addition, the conflicting musical–textual relationships in the earlier stanzas could be explained by the psalm’s argument. It recounts the story from 1 Samuel 21:12 in which David took refuge from King Saul among the Philistines at Gath. David had made a name for himself not only for killing the feared Goliath, the giant from Gath, but also for killing ‘ten thousands’ of Philistines in the service of King Saul (1 Sa. 21). The servants of Achish, king of Gath, reminded him of David’s reputation, one of Gath’s newest residents. Fearing for his life, David pretended to be insane when he was brought before Achish and so avoided being killed. According to the argument found in the 1564 Forme of prayers, David wrote Psalm 56 during this time. Interestingly, the musical and textual accents of the 1564 musical setting align after David ‘putteth his trust in God & his promise’ with the words, ‘This knowe I most assuredly, | For God the Lord he is with me’. The clashing musical and textual accents found in the earlier stanzas may therefore illustrate David’s feigned insanity in the presence of Achish, King of Gath.74 Along with the rest of the Anglo-Scottish tunes paired with Craig’s text, this tune suited its text well, provided meaningful parallels with other psalm texts, and mostly fitted the poetic accents of his versifications. Three tunes paired with Craig’s texts appeared in print for the first time in the Forme of prayers, and two of these had a notable influence on Protestant hymnody for centuries to come. The most important was Psalm 108, which became known as ‘Old Common’. Though an unremarkable tune, its sheer simplicity doubtless helped make it a staple in Scottish and later English metrical-psalm singing. The tune from Psalm 145, on the other hand, became popular in German hymnals, as Michael Praetorius adapted it in 1606 for the hymn ‘Ehre sei dir, Christe’. Later English psalters and hymnals also adapted the same tune to fit a number of metres and texts.75 In these cases, it may be difficult to establish whether the text or tune came first, but the evidence reveals that there was a close relationship between the text and tune that was probably not coincidental. The fact that the Forme of prayers provided more proper tunes for its psalm texts than appeared in the Day psalters naturally gave psalm texts

74 David finds himself in a perilous situation in I Sa. 21, as Saul, the King of Israel, seeks his life and Achish similarly distrusts him because he killed Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath (v. 11), whose sword David was carrying (v. 9). 75 ‘Tune: 207’. HTI. 104 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice in Scotland a greater degree of unique musical expression. However, it is not enough simply to note that there were more tunes in the Scottish Forme of prayers than in Day’s Whole booke. As the evidence from Pont’s and Craig’s versifications suggests, the 1564Forme of prayers followed its Genevan and Anglo-Scottish forebears by pairing each versification with a proper tune or tune suggestion that attempted to match its accentuation patterns and provided it with some sort of meaningful musical expression. Scottish compilers not only maintained many of the textual juxtapositions created by the Genevan exile community, but they also went on to create their own new juxtapositions. With so many tunes that were well suited to their texts, Scots could readily learn and memorize the metrical psalms printed in their psalter. Chapter 4 Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’

John Day’s Whole booke was arguably one of the most successful publications produced in early modern England. According to some estimates, over a million copies had been sold in over 400 different editions by 1640.1 Throughout this period, no new psalm versifications displaced the ones that appeared in the 1562 Whole booke, but there were significant changes made to the tunes. These changes reflect an important shift in the public’s perception of their metrical psalters. Initially, the Whole booke was a psalter that prescribed how the psalms should be sung. As people became familiar with the texts and melodies, they began to take liberties with the tunes. Some melodies were more popular than others, so people freely sang the psalm texts using the tunes they knew rather than the ones that were printed or suggested in the Whole booke editions. Later psalter editions began to reflect these trends in performance practice, adding new tunes and eliminating old ones. Therefore, the Whole booke transitioned from prescribing practice to describing it. The 400 editions produced between 1562 and 1640 can be divided into five groups. The first includes all of the editions printed by John Day. When John died in 1584, the psalter printing patents were passed to his son Richard. Due to an earlier dispute with his father in which his presses were destroyed, Richard did not own a press of his own. The second group includes the psalters that were printed by Richard and his ‘assigns’ – in other words, printers that he employed. The third group comprises a number of psalters that appeared from other printers despite the fact that Richard Day still owned the patent for printing psalms. These psalters had a significant impact on the editions that would follow. The fourth group then consists of the wildly divergent editions that appeared in the years immediately after the Company of Stationers took over the patent from Richard Day in 1604. Finally, the fifth group encompasses the psalters printed from 1621 until 1640, including Thomas Ravenscroft’s hugely influential 1621Whole booke.

1 Ian Green, Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 509. 106 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Group One: John Day’s Metrical Psalters (1563–1584)

Once John Day completed work on the 1562 Whole booke, he focused on other projects such as Foxe’s Actes and Monuments. The steady stream of income from the metrical psalter provided him with the capital to allow him to invest in this and other similarly costly projects.2 This did not mean, however, that the metrical psalms became the ‘also-ran’ of his publishing activity. His 1563 Whole psalmes in four partes [STC 2431] well illustrates a tension between Day the Protestant and Day the astute businessman that Elizabeth Evenden recently noted in all of Day’s metrical psalters after 1562. This set of partbooks featured four-part harmonizations of the psalm tunes set by English composers John Hake, Thomas Causton, William Parsons, and others. Strikingly, while Day used intricate woodcuts for the capital letters for each setting and for some of the borders and other illustrations to make the books highly attractive, he did not print them on quality paper. Evenden notes that works such as the metrical psalms wore out quickly because they were used so often. This meant that owners needed to replace them. Day therefore sought to maximize his profits by reducing his printing costs, and increasing the rate of sales, which he accomplished by using cheaper paper.3 This did not go unnoticed by Day’s patrons and competitors, however. John Wolfe, Day’s former apprentice who often pirated Day’s books, brought several complaints to the Star Chamber in 1584 that Day used questionable business practices for producing his metrical psalms, which included ‘printynge bookes of halfe psalmes which are soulde for bookes of the whole Psalmes’ and using ‘euel paper’.4 The former complaint could refer to Day’s 1562 Residue of the psalmes, and the 1564 and 1569 First parte of the booke of psalmes [STCs 2433 and 2439.7, respectively], but no extant records confirm precisely which editions Wolfe considered to be ‘halfe psalmes’. The charge concerning ‘euel paper’, on the other hand, is clearly substantiated by Day’s surviving psalters, including the 1563 Whole psalmes. In short, Evenden characterizes Day’s efforts as an overall successful attempt ‘to produce books of high visual quality despite their expense’.5 Day’s inconsistent standards carried over into the content of his metrical psalters. Subsequent editions of the Whole booke continued to suffer from

2 Day also used works such as the ABC and Catechism to help fund substantial projects such as William Cunningham’s Cosmographical Glasse. See discussion in Elizabeth Evenden, Patents, Pictures and Patronage: John Day and the Tudor Book Trade (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), pp. 47–176. 3 Evenden, Patents, p. 51. 4 h.R. Hoppe, ‘John Wolfe, Printer and Publisher, 1579–1601’, The Library, 4th ser., 14 (1933), pp. 241–88, quoted in Evenden, Patents, p. 51. 5 Evenden, Patents, p. 52. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 107 mistakes and inaccuracies that plagued the 1562 edition.6 Admittedly, the scale of Day’s other significant publishing work made it difficult for him to spend a significant amount of time or money on correcting the mistakes in the 1562 Whole booke, especially since these mistakes did not hinder its sales, regardless of complaints from some individuals. In 1571, Day printed an edition of songs by Thomas Whythorne, but the musician was angry that it had taken Day so long to complete the task. In his frustration, Whythorne wrote that ‘he [Day] had printed miuzik heer tofor, [th]e which waz very fals printed, and [th]arfor it waz A discredit to [th]at which shiuld follow in print hereafter … ’.7 Although Whythorne made this comment in a moment of anger, there was a grain of truth in his criticism that applied to the Whole booke.

John Day’s Proper Tunes

The proper tunes printed in the editions of John Day’s Whole booke were generally consistent with the 1562 edition. That is not to say that subsequent editions were error-free: they continued to reproduce many of the errors that were found in the 1562 edition, but also introduced new ones. At the same time, Day sometimes adapted his tunes to reflect variations in performance practice. Although this market-led flexibility helped ensure that people would continue to purchase his Whole booke, Day was inconsistent about maintaining these changes. The result was a series of psalter editions that were difficult to sing from concurrently. One of the more popular tunes in Day’s Whole booke series was the one paired with Psalm 77 (Example 4.1 below). This tune was often suggested for a number of texts ranging from Psalm 82 to Psalm 101. For the most part, Day reproduced it without change, as can be observed in editions dating from 1565 [STC 2435], 1570 [STC 2441], and 1576 [STC 2447], to list but three. Nonetheless, despite the tune’s apparent popularity, it was not immune to inconsistencies and errors. In the psalters printed until 1577, the most significant deviation from the 1562 version appeared in the 1565 Whole booke [STC 2434].8 Only two notes in this version differ from the original, and both can be found in the second phrase of the third line (Example 4.2). The stagnant melodic results of these two admittedly

6 Beth Quitslund has noted that Day made textual changes to editions in 1567, 1577, and the 1580s, but he and his successors did not consistently reprint these changes. Beth Quitslund (with Nicholas Temperley), ‘Adaptation and Popularity: Building The Whole Book of Psalms 1547–1577’ (presentation for the Psalm Culture and the Politics of Translation Conference, London, 16 July 2013). See also Beth Quitslund and Nicholas Temperley (eds), The Whole Book of Psalms 1547–1577 (English Text Society, forthcoming). 7 Quitslund and Temperley, The Whole Book, p. 142. 8 this deviation can also be found in the 1567 Whole booke [STC 2438]. 108 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 4.1 tune from Psalm 77, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430]

Example 4.2 tune from Psalm 77, 1565 Whole booke [STC 2434]

minor changes indicate that they were misprints. Taken by themselves, such minor deviations could be dismissed as inconsistencies characteristic of early modern prints, not just Day’s Whole booke. However, these errors were not aberrations but were instead all too typical of Day’s psalters. A more significant example of Day’s inconsistency can be found in the editions he printed from 1577 onwards.9 He had just completed the third

9 there are four extant editions of the Whole booke with notes that were printed by Day in 1577. They are STCs 2448, 2448.5, 2449, and 2449.5. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 109

Example 4.3 tune from Psalm 77, 1577 Whole booke [STC 2448]

edition of Foxe’s Actes and Monuments, and Andrew Pettegree notes that thereafter Day undertook less ambitious printing projects. However, a significant amount of time seems to have been invested in editing the tunes in the Whole booke.10 Melodies such as those for Psalms 25, 68, and 130 were simplified by replacing many of their intermediary semibreves – those that were not gathering notes or cadences – with minims. Other tunes such as Psalms 81 and 137 were modified so that they used consistent rhythmic motifs throughout. Finally, a handful such as Psalm 77, Da Pacem Domine, and the Magnificat were speeded up by halving many of their note values (as in Example 4.3). The problem with the changes made in these late editions was not that Day made them – they show a remarkable flexibility and a desire to make sure that the psalters kept up with the latest trends – but that he did not consistently print them in his subsequent psalters. As noted, Psalm 77 was one of the tunes that was modified, and this modified version appeared in most of Day’s subsequent Whole booke editions. However, the original version twice reappeared, once in 1580 [STC 2453] and again in 1583 [STC 2463]. Although users of these two editions would have had little difficulty singing Psalm 77 with people who were using pre-1577 editions, they may have found it initially difficult to sing with those using the editions printed in and after 1577.

10 nicholas Temperley has also commented on these changes. Nicholas Temperley (with Beth Quitslund), ‘Adaptation and Popularity: Building The Whole Book of Psalms 1547–1577’. For more discussion, see Quitslund and Temperley, The Whole Book. 110 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

John Day’s Tune Suggestions

Though it is difficult to prove how often singers followed the tune suggestions in Day’s Whole booke, they should not be dismissed altogether. Earlier discussion has shown that these suggestions were designed to bring further understanding of the sung text by calling to mind other related psalm texts. Just as with his proper tunes, many of Day’s tune suggestions were given to variation and inconsistency. For example, the set of psalters in the Hymn Tune Index under the label ‘*P E24’ consists of five editions that Day printed from 1579 to 1583, and include STCs 2452, 2454, 2457, 2466.5, and 2467. Two of the psalters, the 1583 [STC 2466.5] and 1584 [STC 2467] versions, differ in only nine tune suggestions.11 Due to similarities in note spacing, spelling, and page breaks, it would be easy to group these two as being one and the same edition, but the differences in tune suggestions indicate otherwise. The other psalters within the HTI ‘*P E24’ designation also have some variant tune suggestions. Perhaps the psalter that most closely resembles the earliest version printed in 1579 was the 1581 version. It corrects many of the mistakes from the earlier edition by providing tune suggestions for psalms that were neglected in the former, including Psalms 106, 109, and 112. In addition, the 1579 version recommends the tune from Psalm 30 for Psalm 45, but the Day psalters had traditionally paired that psalm text with the tune from Psalm 25. Whether this or any of the departures in the other two editions were unintentional or conscious attempts at innovation and variety is difficult to judge. However, in this case the change seems to have been a mistake, since Day’s following psalters, including the 1581 edition, returned to the traditional tune of Psalm 25. The text for Psalm 26 provides another example of varied tune suggestions in the ‘*P E24’ editions.12 Day’s 1562 Whole book pairs the tune from Psalm 18 with Psalm 26, but later editions in the 1560s reveal that Day commonly printed other tune suggestions for this psalm text. In his 1565 edition of the Whole booke [STC 2435], Psalm 26 appears with the recommendation to use the tune from Psalm 30, and the 1567 edition [STC 2438] suggests the tune from Psalm 14. Reiterating Day’s suggestion in the 1562 Whole booke, the 1570 edition [STC 2441] suggested the tune from Psalm 18. Returning to the ‘*P E24’ psalters, the 1579 version follows the 1565 Whole booke by suggesting the tune

11 the tunes suggested for Psalms 20, 23, 27, 39, 49, 74, 75, 90, and ‘A Thanksgiving after receiving the Lord’s Supper’ differed between these two editions. See Timothy Duguid, ‘Early Modern British Metrical Psalters’, Edinburgh Research Archive (2013), http://www. era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/6684. 12 See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 111 from Psalm 30, but the rest of the psalters in the collection recommend the tune from Psalm 14. In addition to revealing just how much the tune suggestions could vary in Day’s psalters, this brief discussion establishes two significant points. First, despite the relatively small variations in the ‘*P E24’ group, each edition varied from the 1579 original and should therefore be considered as a separate musical collection.13 Second, it reveals that the number of tunes that could be suggested for a particular text increased through the 1580s. In fact, up to 1604, the Day metrical psalters printed or suggested multiple tunes for all but 10 metrical psalm texts.14 This would indicate that while Day’s 1562 Whole booke may have used tune suggestions to group similar psalms together, his printing practices began to destroy these relationships by allowing people to mix and match tunes and texts. The misprints, changes in the proper tunes, and the variations in tune suggestions all mean that John Day’s psalters were far from static after 1562. However, their evolution was not chaotic. Misprints in the proper tunes rarely survived multiple editions, and intentional changes made their way into a majority of Day’s editions following their first appearance. Even the varying tune suggestions were limited to a select group of proper tunes. As noted earlier, Day’s customers were aware of these inconsistencies, so they probably became familiar with the problems of the psalters they owned and used. However, these irregularities – though minor – started a trend in psalter printing that would continue to grow after Day’s death.

Group Two: The Whole booke and Richard Day (1584–1603)

As John’s eldest son, Richard Day was groomed to inherit his father’s printing business. In 1578, the two men secured the following agreement with the Company of Stationers:

Jhon Day and Richard Day and their assignes shall at all and eury tyme and tymes hereafter Enioye the sole and only imprintinge of the said psalmes in meter with notes accordinge to the tenor Lymitacon and meaninge of the Queenes ma[jesty’s] p[ri]vilege and graunt to them in that behalf amonge other thinges made and granted: wout any lett clayme.15

13 historians should also use caution not to assign more weight to the content and groupings of the HTI than Temperley gives them. He describes later editions within a group as, ‘Later sources with identical tune contents’; he does not assert that they are the same musical editions. 14 See Appendix A. 15 Cyprian Blagden, ‘The English Stock of the Stationers’ Company: An Account of Its Origins’, The Library 5th ser., 10 (1955), p. 184; Jeremy Smith, Thomas East and Music Publishing in Renaissance England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 24. 112 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Although Richard had been named as a co-patentee along with his father, John was still very protective of his patent. John allowed Richard to print some of his less prominent works in order to allow his son to get some further printing experience. In this classic tale of a controlling father afraid to turn his business over to his son, Richard became impatient with his father’s restrictions and began to print editions of the catechism and psalter without permission. After learning of the pirated editions, John – then master of the Company of Stationers – confiscated Richard’s press along with much of his books and type. This effectively halted Richard’s printing business, and he would never recover. In 1584, John died in Walden in Essex on his way to visit his in-laws, and Richard took over his psalter patents. Without the means to print the psalters,16 Richard ironically had to turn to some of his father’s fiercest rivals. Later known as the ‘Assigns of Richard Day’, Edward White, William Wrighte, Thomas Butter, John Wolfe, and Francis Adams had all brought complaints before the Star Chamber about the value and sweeping nature of John Day’s patents.17 Once they were finally given leave to begin printing the works that were at the centre of their complaints, this group would not maintain their predecessor’s standards when it came to accuracy of reproduction.

Richard’s Proper Tunes

In fact, it is difficult to find a tune from the 1562Whole booke that Richard and his Assigns did not modify. Beyond acknowledging the existence of these changes, it is important to consider whether they were reactions to changes to performance practice or merely indications that the Assigns and their editors were simply careless. Since there were so many changes, it can be challenging to determine between these two extremes. That few of the changes proved lasting, either in the Assigns’ psalters or in the editions that would follow in the seventeenth century could indicate that the bulk of them were misprints that resulted from inconsistent editorial practice. Before dismissing all of the changes as misprints, however, the potential musical value of the changes demands consideration. Psalm 30 provides a particularly illustrative example of the kinds of variations that occurred to tunes under the Assigns. Sometimes great care was taken to reproduce John’s tunes, and the version printed in the 1598 Whole booke [STC 2493] (Example 4.4) was one of the closest

16 elizabeth Evenden, ‘Day, Richard (b. 1552, d. in or before 1606)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/7371. 17 the members of the ‘Assigns of Richard Day’ were listed in a court case from 1588, in which the Day Assigns charged William Ponsonby with piracy. Cyril Bathurst Judge, Elizabethan Book-Pirates (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934), pp. 149–55. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 113

Example 4.4 tune from Psalm 30, 1562 Whole booke [STC 2430]

Example 4.5 tune from Psalm 30, 1598 Whole booke [STC 2493]

reproductions of a John Day tune. Only four of its notes differ from the 1562 Whole booke (Example 4.5). One deviation occurs at the end of the first line, and the others appear in the third. The rhythmic change at the beginning of the third line may be dismissed as a potential printing error, since it does not serve any practical purpose. The change occurring at the end of the first line is similarly suspect. It may be meant to create a parallel between the first and second line by using repeated minims right before the cadence, but the resulting succession of leaps is uncharacteristic of a tune that otherwise moves stepwise after similar leaps. The other two changes, 114 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 4.6 tune from Psalm 30, 1600 Whole booke [STC 2500.5]

on the other hand, do have some melodic value. Appearing in succession towards the end of the third line, the final two notes in the 1598 version extend the phrase to reach down to the eventual finalisbefore moving back up to e. Whether or not these represented bona fidechanges in performance practice, they deserve a degree of attention that the other two do not. A second example found in the 1600 Whole booke [STC 2500.5] represents the other extreme of the tunes found in the Assigns’ psalters. In fact, this version of Psalm 30 is hardly the same tune (Example 4.6). Among the numerous discrepancies between the 1600 tune and the 1562 version, the most significant are the opening note andfinalis . While deviating from the opening by a third may not have confounded too many singers, the other differences in the first phrase would have certainly caused confusion for those who knew the original tune. In addition, placing the finalis a second below the original also would have been confusing. It casts the tune’s cadences and scalar progressions in a different light and undoubtedly made it difficult for people using this version to sing with those who sang with the ones from 1562 and 1598. An examination of the other Day psalters printed from 1590 to 1603 – the other versions within the second group of English psalters printed from 1563 to 1640 – would reveal that they printed a number of different versions of the tune from Psalm 30. Considering that psalters remained relatively close to the original through the early 1580s, this confirms the conclusion of this discussion that the proper tunes did not undergo many Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 115

Figure 4.1 Count of tunes printed in the Whole booke, 1562–1600 significant melodic changes under John Day.18 However, once his son took control of the psalter patent, the printed versions of the tune become more diverse, something which Richard Day and his assigns tempered by settling on a more regular set of proper psalm tunes that would be included in each edition. Figure 4.1 shows the number of tunes that were included in the psalter editions of both John Day and Richard Day’s Assigns. Since the exact print dates for many of the Day psalters remain uncertain, this graph is accurate only to the year in which John or his successors printed each psalter. Despite this limitation, however, an important pattern emerges. Most of the Day psalters printed before John’s death in 1584 contained over 60 proper tunes (though some included fewer). After his death, the

18 as noted previously, the minor melodic deviations in the John Day editions are differentiated from the more significant rhythmic changes that appear in the same editions. 116 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Day psalters polarized between two types: those printing approximately 61 tunes and those with only 47 tunes. This would indicate that Richard Day’s Assigns began to print ‘complete’ editions that contained about the same number of tunes as John Day’s 1562 Whole booke, and ‘abridged’ editions that had a consolidated tune repertory. These abridged versions appeared in octavo format with two columns on each page, and their title pages employ an intricate, two-dimensional geometric – or ‘fleuron type’ – border instead of the more pictorial borders of many of his other editions.19 Richard Day’s Assigns, including Wolfe and John Windet, probably used this combination of layout, book size, and title page border to distinguish between his cheaper abridged psalter and the more expensive complete psalters.20 These abridged metrical psalters joined another type of psalter that had been printed since 1569, the sol-fa psalters.21 This series of psalters printed the solmization syllables next to each note, and they also had their own set of distinguishing characteristics. Under the care of John Day, the sol-fa psalters generally appeared as quartos and had two columns on each page. However, they became even more distinctive under the care of the Assigns, and particularly John Windet. Their title pages began to use the same woodcut depicting Lord’s resurrection, with Jesus crushing the head of the serpent as he steps out of a coffin. Windet probably received the woodcut from John Wolfe, another of Richard Day’s Assigns, who used it on his 1591 sol-fa psalter [STC 2479]. From 1591–1610, Windet used this woodcut only on his sol-fa psalters, with two exceptions: the 1601 and 1604 editions, STCs 2502 and 2513 respectively. Such an almost exclusive use of this particular woodcut suggests that Windet – and perhaps his readers – equated its appearance with sol-fa psalters.

Richard’s Tune Suggestions

If the process of debasing the text and tune pairings in the Whole booke began with John Day, it only accelerated with Richard and his Assigns. Under Richard’s care, the Whole booke continued to suggest more and more tunes for many of its psalm texts, probably following a performance practice that was increasingly comfortable mixing and matching tunes and

19 Jeremy Smith has categorized the borders used on Thomas East’s prints, so the ‘fleuron type’ border description fits with his analysis. See Smith,Thomas East, pp. 148–74. 20 Ian Green has argued that psalter editions were grouped according to size. Green, Print and Protestantism, pp. 508–9. 21 although ‘sol-fa’ is anachronistic in this context, this study retains this description of these psalters that was used by Temperley in the HTI to avoid confusion. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 117 texts based on singers’ knowledge, preferences, and abilities. Psalms 6 and 117 illustrate changes in the Richard Day editions of the Whole booke. John Day had originally printed the first of these psalms, Psalm 6, with a proper tune, but by the 1580s the tune had largely disappeared from the Whole booke. Instead, editions generally alternated between suggesting the tunes of Psalms 1 and 137 for Psalm 6. The first suggestion, Psalm 1, was paired with Psalm 6 for convenience and ease of use rather than any theological parallels or continuities between the two texts. Psalm 1 declares the blessings that come to those who ‘geue themselues wholy all their life to Gods lawe’,22 and Psalm 6 is one of the Penitential Psalms, asking God for physical and spiritual healing and deliverance:

Lord in thy wrath reproue me not, though I deserue thine ire: Ne yet correct me in thy rage, O Lord I thee desire.

Though David knows he merits the chastisement of a righteous God, he asks the Lord to show mercy instead. As he realizes that his longing for God surpasses all else, his physical suffering forces him to ask the Lord for healing, and likewise for deliverance from the cruel oppressors who surround him.23 While Psalm 6 could serve as an imiplicit warning to those who ignore the Law, as described in Psalm 1, this is unlikely. The pairing of Psalm 137 with Psalm 6, on the other hand, may indeed have a theological basis. Psalm 137 is the famous song of nostalgic despair in the face of Babylonian mockery that asks God to take revenge on the captors of Israel, and this would have matched the pleas for relief found in Psalm 6. While the tune repertory for Psalm 6 in the Day psalters was fairly static through the mid-1580s, the evidence suggests that it expanded towards the end of the century. Two other tune choices surfaced towards the end of the 1580s, including a new proper tune in the 1588 Whole booke [STC 2475.2] and a new tune suggestion in the 1589 Whole booke [STC 2476]. The new proper tune would become popular at the turn of the century, but few psalters printed it before 1599. In a similar way, the new tune suggestion, namely Psalm 3, appeared with several other psalm

22 Whole booke of psalmes, collected into Englysh metre [STC 2430] (London: John Day, 1562), p. 1. 23 The argument from Psalm 6 confirms this interpretation of the Psalm: ‘When Dauid by hys sinnes hathe prouoked Gods wrathe, and nowe felt not only hys hand against hym, but also conceyued the horrors of deathe euerlastyng: he desireth forgeuenes, bewayling that if God toke him away in hys indignation, he shoulde lacke occasion to praise him as he was wonte to doo whilest he was amongst men. Then sodeinly felying Gods mercy, he sharpely rebuketh his enemyes, which reioyseth in hys affliction.’STC 2430, p. 9. 118 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice texts around the turn of the century, but the Day psalters did not pair it again with Psalm 6 in the 1590s. The versification of Psalm 117, on the other hand, was a surprisingly late addition to the Day psalters inasmuch as it is the shortest of all the psalms. The metrical text, by Thomas Norton, first appeared in both the 1562 Whole booke and Residue. John Day paired it with more tunes than most other metrical texts, including Psalms 95, 98, 100, and 103.24 By far, the most common suggestion for Psalm 117 was that of the tune from Psalm 95, so any variations to the tunes printed or suggested for the latter often had an effect on Psalm 117 as well. When the proper tune for Psalm 95 began to disappear from the Whole booke in the early 1570s, the proper tune for the Benedictus (‘Benedictus Deus Israel’) often replaced it. Yet Psalm 117 often still carried the Psalm 95 tune suggestion, indicating that Psalm 117 should be sung to the Benedictus tune as well. (Similar examples of tune hunting would become more common throughout the sixteenth century, as tunes were dropped from psalters and referring tune suggestions were not updated.) Several other alternative suggestions for Psalm 117 appeared in the last decades of the century. By 1600, the Day psalters had printed no fewer than ten of them.25 The editions of the 1590s show a clear trend towards a rapidly expanding repertory of tunes for many of the psalm texts.26 In Richard Day’s hands, the total number of proper tunes in the Whole booke decreased, and those that remained became more prone to variation in rhythm and pitch. The repertories of tunes that were printed or suggested for most psalm texts also grew in the 1590s. These melodic and rhythmic diversifications offset any short-lived simplification in tune suggestions that occurred towards the end of the sixteenth century. In other words, after nearly four decades of continuous publication and use, no standard, uniform musical version of the English Whole booke in England had emerged by 1603.

Group Three: Metrical Psalters Outside of the Mainstream, 1567–1628

The Day editions of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms were by far the most successful psalters printed in England in the sixteenth century, but other editions added variety to the psalm repertory available to people in England. The Day’s may have owned the patent for printing the metrical

24 See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 25 the tunes included Psalms 44, 69, 77, 78, 95, 100, 103, 103 (new tune in STC 2475.2), 111, 119, and the Benedictus. Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 26 Similar patterns can be seen with Psalms 1, 8, 22, 38, 59, 131, 136 (both versions), and 145. Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 119 psalms with music through the sixteenth century, but several musicians and poets sought creative ways to print their own editions as alternatives to the Whole booke.27 Though these ‘other’ editions did not enjoy the same sustained popularity as the mainstream Sternhold and Hopkins editions, they did exercise considerable influence on those mainstream editions, particularly after 1603. One of these ‘other’ editions was a collection of metrical psalms by Archbishop Matthew Parker that he probably wrote around 1556 and put into print around 1567.28 For many reasons, Parker’s Whole Psalter translated into English metre, which contayneth an hundredth and fifty Psalmes [STC 2729] should have eclipsed the Sternhold and Hopkins versions. First, Parker’s eventual position as Archbishop of Canterbury should have conferred authoritative status on his psalms. More than that, his versifications were arguably superior in both poetic beauty and translational accuracy than the Sternhold and Hopkins psalters.29 By providing collects and arguments for each psalm, his psalter was also better suited to the liturgy of the English national church.30 It was musically much simpler than the Sternhold and Hopkins psalters, employing eight tunes – by no less a composer than Thomas Tallis – which could fit all 150 of Parker’s psalm versifications.31 Despite the advantages of Parker’s psalter, one significant factor ensured that it would remain in relative obscurity: the simple fact that he was neither Sternhold nor Hopkins, whose names had become synonymous with English metrical psalmody.32 Theirs were the psalms that martyrs sang as they were burned at the stake during Mary’s reign; theirs were the words that sustained others in exile. The strength of this pedigree would prove insurmountable for Parker’s or any other psalm versifications in England until the eighteenth century. In contrast to Parker and Tallis, others chose to develop music for use the Sternhold and Hopkins versifications, and the resultant psalters were much more popular and had a greater impact on English metrical psalmody. The first of these featured musical settings by a member of the queen’s

27 Day constantly had to defend his printing patents against piracy. Evenden, Patents, pp. 179–80. 28 rivkah Zim, English Metrical Psalms: Poetry as Praise and Prayer, 1535–1601 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 135. 29 Zim, English Metrical Psalms, pp. 136–7. 30 Zim, English Metrical Psalms, p. 135. 31 tallis served the Tudor court starting with Henry VIII until his death during the reign of Elizabeth I. His name should therefore have brought some distinction to Parker’s Psalter. Paul Doe and David Alinson, ‘Tallis, Thomas’, OMO, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/ subscriber/article/grove/music/27423. 32 MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 56. 120 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice recorder consort, William Daman.33 Whenever he would visit a friend’s house, Daman was known to harmonize a psalm tune that he would then have his hosts perform during his visit. One of these friends, the goldsmith John Bull, collected a number of Daman’s psalm settings and sent them to John Day without Daman’s permission.34 Day printed them in the 1579 edition of The Psalmes of David in English Meter [STC 6219], which used a similar format as Day’s 1563 partbooks. Although Bull may have tested the limits of Daman’s generosity by having these psalms printed, he did preserve Daman’s devotional intent for the settings. As the title page notes, it was intended for ‘the use of godly Christians for recreating themselves, instead of fond and unseemly ballads’.35 It contains only seven original melodies by Daman, but the psalter has nonetheless become known by his name. The 1579 Psalmes of David was also one of the first psalters to put names to its tunes, a practice that would become more common in both England and Scotland during the seventeenth century. Another major attempt to build on the Sternhold and Hopkins musical repertory issued from the press of John Wolfe in 1585, titled Musike of six and fiue partes: Made vpon the common tunes used in singing of the psalmes [STC 5828]. Using some of Daman’s tunes and modelled after Day’s 1563 partbooks, Wolfe’s set centred on the compositions and psalm harmonizations by John Cosyn. Like Daman, Cosyn made his settings of the Sternhold and Hopkins versifications for private use. At the urging of his friends, Cosyn sent his work to John Wolfe, who had become the printer of choice for Richard Day, the then owner of the patent for printing psalms with notes. In addition to setting some of the traditional proper tunes to different texts, Cosyn provided a new tune for Psalm 67 that had not previously appeared in a metrical psalter. Later named ‘London’, this tune would never gain any permanent place in the Whole booke, but it would be included in many of the other psalters printed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.36 Following William Daman’s death in 1591, two more editions of his psalm settings were printed, this time by Thomas East (Este). These two psalters were titled The former Booke of the Musicke of M. William Daman, late one of her maiesties Musitions [STC 6220] and The Second Booke of the Musicke of M. William Daman, late one of her maiesties Musitions [STC 6221]. Daman’s 1591 psalters retained little of the musical

33 David Mateer, ‘Daman, William (d. 1591)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/7085. 34 peter Le Huray and John Morehen, ‘Daman, William’. OMO, http://www.oxford musiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/07112. 35 STC 6219. 36 these included all of the editions printed by Thomas East and William Barley, as well as those bearing the names of Henry Ainsworth and Richard Allison. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 121 content that had set his 1579 psalter apart from its contemporaries. Of the seven new tunes printed in 1579, only the one for Psalm 23 survived in the 1591 editions. The fact that these later Daman psalters’ title pages claim to print ‘all the tunes of Dauids Psalmes, as they are ordinarily soung in the Church’ suggests two things. First, that people did not sing the omitted tunes of 1579, and secondly that there had been a shift in the role of printed metrical psalters in English life. Rather than prescribing proper melodies for performance in church services, these psalters may in fact have been reflecting (and hence describing) actual psalm performance. However, it is unclear whether these posthumous Daman editions indeed printed all the psalms as they were ordinarily sung, since they included more complex settings of the metrical psalms and canticles in imitative polyphony. Considering the diversity of performance practice in sixteenth- century England, it is possible that this volume included the tunes as they were sung in the churches that maintained choirs.37 As a significant majority of English churches did not have choirs, however, the assertion (whether made by Daman or the printer) that these were psalms ‘as they are ordinarily soung in the Church’ was probably an overstatement intended to encourage sales. Through the experience he gained from printing Daman’s 1591 psalters, Thomas East printed his own The Whole booke of psalms: with their wonted Tunes, as they are song in Churches, composed into foure parts [STC 2482] in 1592. The title is a clear allusion to the Day psalters, but unlike Day’s, East’s psalter eschewed psalm suggestions and actually printed a tune with each individual psalm text. Since the process of finding the correct psalm tune had become increasingly complicated in recent Day editions, this must have been a welcome change. East did not of course provide a unique tune for each text; he used the same text-tune pairings as the 1591 Daman editions, with the exceptions of Psalms 88 and 142. East then added eight new tunes. Of these eight, three tunes predominated, filling most of the gaps left by the absence of proper tunes. Interestingly, East deployed these tunes on a sequential basis instead of suiting them to their texts. The tunes assigned to Psalms 31–38 (Table 4.1) reveal East’s method. While he deviated from this pattern when a single psalm, or a pair or trio of adjacent psalms needed tunes, it is interesting that he used it on groups of four or more adjoining psalms.38 This approach, combined with the simplified tune repertory and the printing of each psalm text with

37 For discussions of these churches, see Jonathan Willis, Church Music and Protestantism in Post-Reformation England (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), pp. 114–21; and Christopher Marsh, Music and Society in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 402–3. 38 Other psalm groups following this pattern are Psalms 8–13, 53–58, 62–66, 73–75, 93–99, and 105–110. See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 122 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice its tune, meant that congregations would have found East’s 1592 edition much more user-friendly than other recent metrical psalters. Similarly, the new homophonic four-part harmonizations printed in East’s edition by the likes of Richard Allison, Edmund Blankes, John Dowland, John Farmer, and Edmund Hooper were much easier to sing than Daman’s more imitative psalm settings.

Table 4.1 tunes printed in East’s 1592 psalter

Psalm Text Tune (HTI number) 31 249a 32 201a 33 250b 34 249a 35 201a 36 250b 37 249a 38 201a 39 250b

Popular appeal clearly remained a goal in East’s second psalter, which appeared in 1594 [STC 2488]. Besides retaining the changes introduced in the 1592 edition, the 1594 psalter removed the proper tunes for 12 psalms, replacing each with one of the three main tunes used in the previous edition.39 These changes could have stemmed from a desire to copy current performance practice, since East asserted, ‘The Psalmes are song to these 4 tunes in most churches of this Realme.’40 However, the extent to which this statement really reflected common practice in England is debatable and is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7. Certainly, his psalter editions of 1604 [STC 2515] and 1611 [STC 2538.5] do retain the musical content of his 1594 edition, but the existence of the unchanged Day editions and the conflicting assertions made in other competing editions cast doubt on East’s claim. Nonetheless, the severely consolidated musical repertoire in East’s psalters would influence later editions that were printed by the Company of Stationers. The earliest of these was the 1601 edition of The whole

39 the psalm tunes replaced in East’s 1594 Psalter are Psalms 2, 5, 7, 20, 24, 26–28, 45, 81, 84, and 138. See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 40 east’s comment refers to HTI tunes 201a, 249a, 250b, and 269c. STC 2488, p. 1. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 123 booke of psalmes [STC 2505] printed by Peter Short. Following the example of East’s editions, this psalter eschewed the more traditional text- tune relationships within the Sternhold and Hopkins psalters. Instead of spreading the music throughout, the bulk of the music contained in Short’s 1601 edition is paired with the first 30 psalms, and the remaining psalms generally refer back to these tunes. Of the editions printed until 1621, at least eight would use Short’s 1601 version as a template, and an additional edition per year would be published from 1621 to 1628. Both the proper tunes and the tune suggestions in the latter editions – those printed after 1621 – would name many of their tunes following the example of Thomas Ravenscroft’s 1621 Psalmes of Dauid [STC 2575] (for example, ‘Oxford’, Cambridge’, and ‘High Dutch’). Short’s editions and those that mimicked them could therefore be best described as ‘Common Tune Psalters’ because they made extensive use of a severely consolidated tune repertory, which included the tunes that would become known as the ‘Common Tunes’. Though Day’s harmonized psalter of 1563 suggested that it ‘may be song to al musicall instruments’,41 Richard Allison’s psalter of 1599 first provided accompaniments expressly written for musical instruments. As its title suggests, Allison intended his settings ‘to be sung and plaide vpon the Lute, Orpharyon, Citterne or Base’.42 An examination of the musical content of Allison’s psalter reveals a close relationship with East’s psalters, as it set the same psalms to the same tunes. Differing harmonizations apart, the only difference between the tunes was the new tune for Psalm 125 that Allison added.43 The circumstances surrounding the printing of East’s and Allison’s psalters deserve further discussion, since none were printed by the Assigns of Richard Day – who still owned the patent for printing the psalms with notes. As the assign of Thomas Morley, William Barley had Allison’s psalter printed, while East printed his psalters as the assign of William Byrd. Navigating the complexities of the English print trade at the end of the sixteenth century is no easy task, but Jeremy Smith’s account illuminates and clarifies the multifaceted dealings of many tradespeople in the industry.44 The key to unravelling the relationship between these psalter editions by East and Allison is the composer William Byrd. Byrd owned the patent on printing music in parts from 1575 to 1596, and he initially exercised his rights through the printer Thomas Vautrollier.45 After

41 STC 2431. 42 STC 2497. 43 See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 44 Smith, Thomas East. 45 vautrollier is also known to have printed several editions of the Scottish metrical psalms. See Chapter 5. 124 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Vautrollier’s death in 1587, Byrd called on the services of East as printer. East’s press duly produced the 1591 Former booke and Second booke of Daman’s psalms, which resulted from Byrd’s dealings with Daman through the Chapel Royal.46 Interestingly, East printed these two editions of Daman’s psalms while Richard Day still owned the psalm patent, but they were ignored by the otherwise rabid defenders of their psalter patent. That these two bore little likeness to the original 1579 Daman Psalter printed by John Day suggests East was trying to avoid any confrontation with Richard Day and his colleagues. The fact that the two psalters were also posthumously dedicated to a well-respected court musician in Daman probably also kept the Day Assigns from taking any action against East. Emboldened by the success of his Daman psalters, East sought to secure his place in the profitable psalter printing business with his own harmonized psalm collections of 1592 and 1594. However, because the protection offered by Byrd’s patent was weak, East sought further security from the psalter’s dedicatee, Sir John Puckering. As Keeper of the Great Seal, Puckering was a powerful ally, but perhaps East’s most successful strategy was to avoid conflict with the Day patent holders altogether.47 Since Byrd allowed his patent to expire in 1596, his former student Thomas Morley sought a similar patent on music in parts. Queen Elizabeth finally awarded him the patent in 1598, but by this time East already owned the printing rights to all of Morley’s compositions. Seeking entry into the metrical psalter market, Morley enlisted the help of a former printing foe, William Barley, to print Allison’s psalter.48 As a freeman and member of the Drapers’ Company, Barley was not under the copyright controls of the Stationers’ Company.49 With Barley’s involvement and the loss of the printing rights granted by Byrd’s patent, East had no recourse to protect his 1592 and 1594 psalters. Morley, however, made the critical mistake of confronting Day in an effort to revoke the Day psalm patent. In the defence of his patent, Richard Day cited as precedent the history of his and his father’s metrical psalter editions, and the Lords of the Star Chamber ruled in his favour. This ended all further efforts to print the metrical psalter in England without the approval of Day and his Assigns.50

46 Smith, Thomas East, p. 56. 47 Smith, Thomas East, p. 72. 48 Barley printed both The pathway to musicke contayning sundrie familiar and easie rules … [STC 19464] and A new booke of tablature … [STC 1433] in 1596, when Morley was working on his A plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke … [STC 18133]. Smith describes Morley’s animated response to Barley’s two volumes. Smith, Thomas East, p. 86. 49 Smith, Thomas East, pp. 85–6. 50 Smith, Thomas East, pp. 92–3. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 125

Outside the country, two Dutch-printed psalters deserve mention. The first was the set of psalters printed by Richard Schilders in Middelburg. As discussed later, his psalters were the first English language metrical psalters to include the prose text alongside their metrical versions. Whether or not Schilders intended them as such, they also became the first experiment in merging the English and Scottish metrical psalm traditions.51 The other noteworthy set of psalters issued from the Netherlands in 1612 used new versifications by Henry Ainsworth STC[ 2407]. His psalter appeared again in 1617 [STC 2411], 1632 [STC 2734.5], and 1644, and printed only 48 tunes that came from various Genevan, English, Scottish, and Dutch sources. Though Ainsworth’s psalters had little impact in England and Scotland, they were popular with the English Separatists and Brownists, who took Ainsworth’s psalters with them when they established the Plymouth Colony in America in 1620.

Group Four: The Company of Stationers and the Psalter, 1603–1621

In 1603, the death of Elizabeth I was followed by the union of the English and Scottish crowns in the person of James VI of Scotland and I of England. About a year after this momentous political shift, metrical- psalter printing in England also experienced a major shift. The Company of Stationers took over the patent to print metrical psalms with music. Ever since 1559, either John or Richard Day had owned this patent, a fact which had drawn much ire from other printers. Many of these printers hoped that this transfer of control to the Stationers would finally give them an opportunity to profit from the substantial psalter market. Despite the passionate appeals made against the Day patents and the almost constant issuing of pirated psalters, these printers’ enthusiasm for metrical psalm printing before 1603 did not translate into better psalter editions once they were legally able to print psalters after 1603.52 As noted above, errors had become more and more frequent and substantial in the psalters printed by the Day family and their Assigns, and errors and inconsistencies continued to appear after the Company of Stationers took over the psalter patent. For example, some editions continued to pair the Short-Metre text of Psalm 67 with the Common-Metre tune from Psalm 30, while others suggested Short-Metre tunes such as Psalm 25 or the tune later known as ‘London’.

51 Chapter 6 discusses these psalters in greater depth. 52 For more discussion about the passionate cases brought against the Day patents, see Elizabeth Evenden, Patents, pp. 170–73; Smith, Thomas East, pp. 24–5; Judge, Book-Pirates, pp. 149–55. 126 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

For those interested in singing the psalms as printed, the Day editions had become increasingly difficult to use. At times, people would have to hunt through several psalms successively in order to find the intended psalm tune. Unfortunately, this persisted in the Stationers’ metrical psalters, and a handful of editions got worse. For instance, an edition of the Whole book from 1611 [STC 2538] had several tune suggestions that never actually referred to a proper tune. Probably printed by one of the most experienced psalter printers for the Stationers, John Windet, this edition suggests the tune of Psalm 25 for the text of Psalm 67.53 Rather than printing the usual proper tune of Psalm 25, however, this 1611 edition suggests that readers use the tune of Psalm 45. The problem here is that Psalm 45 never appeared with a proper tune; instead, it often appeared with the suggestion to use the tune of Psalm 25. This edition was no exception, leaving Psalm 45 suggesting Psalm 25 and Psalm 25 suggesting Psalm 45. Had this problem been limited to just one of the Stationers’ psalters, the mistake would have been understandable. However, it reappeared in a number of later editions.54 Since Psalm 25 was commonly suggested for many of the Short- Metre texts in the Whole booke, this problem had a rolling impact on other versifications such as Psalms 50, 67, 70, and 134.55 Given the issues that resulted from the disappearance of the proper tune for Psalm 25, it is puzzling why Windet’s psalter excluded it. As mentioned earlier, the Richard Day psalters settled into abridged and complete versions, and Windet continued in this vein, maintaining several concurrent psalter series. A survey of the Assigns’ editions shows that the abridged versions commonly omitted 11 proper tunes in addition to Psalm 25, so it is possible that these were departing from common usage.56 Comparison of the prevalence of the proper tunes for each of these psalms before and after 1603 (Table 4.2) reveals that printers did not continue to provide these 12 tunes as often as they had previously. The most drastic of these was the proper tune of Psalm 88 (Tune: 176a, HTI), which before 1603 had appeared in 68 per cent of the metrical psalter editions, and only 11 per cent thereafter. These numbers may indicate that people sang these tunes less often, so printers increasingly omitted them from their psalters.

53 though the printer John Wolfe seems to have printed many of the earliest psalters for the Assigns of Richard Day, Windet took over the psalter printing around 1591, releasing over 28 psalter editions for the Assigns. According to the STC, Windet printed this particular edition for the Stationers. See listing in STC: STC 2538. 54 For more examples, see STCs 2542, 2545, 2552.3, 2556, 2558, and 2561. 55 See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 56 these were Psalms 41, 52, 88, 111, 120, 121, 125, 134, 136, 141, and 145. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 127

Table 4.2 Disappearing proper tunes in the Whole booke

Psalm Traditional proper Appearance rate Appearance rate Tune (HTI ID) pre-1603 (%) post-1603 (%) 25 114 86 43 41 88 80 51 52 161a 87 58 88 176a 68 11 111 145a 74 37 120 175b 74 60 121 122a 84 60 125 148a 71 43 134 150b 42 25 136 180a 84 63 141 181 75 47 145 182 91 81

It is difficult to determine the reasons why these twelve tunes would have been less popular and printed less often after 1603.57 Psalms 111, 120, 121, 125, and 136 used unique metres that did not reappear in the Whole booke. Although this indicates that these tunes were not sung as often because of their metres, several oddly metred tunes evidently were popular. The tunes for Psalms 113, 122, 124, 126, 130, and 148 continued to appear in the vast majority – more than 94 per cent – of psalter editions after 1603.58 This would indicate that these particular texts and their proper tunes were in common usage until 1640, while the other tunes were not as prevalent. It also suggests that a tune’s popularity was not dependent on its metre in the early to mid-seventeenth century. Other possible determining factors in a tune’s popularity could have been its length and sense of modern tonality, but there are problems here as well. The longest tune that began to disappear from the Stationers’ psalters was that of Psalm 111, which used the unique metre, 6.6.6. 6.6.6 .6.6.7. 6.6.7.

57 psalms 41, 52, 88, 134, 141, and 145 were written in either Double Common Metre or Common Metre, while Psalm 25 was Short Metre. On the other hand, Psalm 111 was 6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.7.6.6.7., 120 was 6.6.6.6.6.6., 121 was 8.6.6.8.7.7., 125 was 8.8.8.8.6.6., and 136 was 6.6.6.6.8.8. 58 psalm 122 was 6.6.8.D, Psalm 124 was 10.10.10.10.10., Psalm 126 was 12.12.12.12.10.10., Psalm 130 was 7.6.7.6.D., and Psalm 148 was 6.6.6.6.8.8. See listings under each psalm text in Appendix A. 128 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Given that music literacy rates were fairly low in early modern England, it is understandable how such a long tune might be difficult for people to learn. However, it does not explain why the longer tune from Psalm 113, written in Quadruple Long Metre (8.8.8.8. 8.8.8.8. 8.8.8.8. 8.8.8.8.), appeared in nearly 95 per cent of the Stationers’ psalters until 1640. An examination of the ‘tonal’ and ‘modal’ traits of these 12 tunes that were disappearing in the early to mid-seventeenth century also reveals that while some were indeed more ‘modal’, others were more ‘tonal’.59 In particular, it is difficult to account for the decreasingly popular quasi-tonal tunes such as Psalms 25, 52, 121, and 125. As previous discussions have shown, it is difficult to ascertain the precise reason why any particular psalm tune became less popular, as there is any number of possible explanations. Metre, length, and ‘tonality’ may have contributed to a tune’s reception and survival in popular practice, but harmonies, references to other sacred and secular tunes, ease of performance, and personal preference could have been equally decisive. While some proper tunes found in the metrical psalters were printed less frequently after 1603, the repertory of tunes printed or suggested for each psalm text increased. For the vast majority of psalm texts, as Appendix A shows, the tune repertory either stayed the same or increased. In fact, only Psalms 1, 24, 50, the second version of 51, and 127 were paired with fewer tunes – counting both proper tunes and tune suggestions – after 1603. Besides the text–tune pairings of these psalters, the tunes themselves continued to vary wildly, just as they had under Richard Day and his Assigns. As one of the first of those editions, Windet’s The Whole booke of Psalmes [STC 2513], is an edition that is particularly well suited as a benchmark for later editions. This is not to say that Windet’s 1604 psalter was any more accurate than other metrical psalters printed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Like the other psalter editions, it deviated from the 1562 Whole booke.60 However, it remained fairly close to the original versions of the tunes that appeared in Day’s 1562 Whole booke, which makes it suitable for comparisons.

59 In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, music underwent a significant transformation that has often been discussed in terms of moving from the medieval modes to tonality. However, there are inherent problems with assigning particular modes or keys to these sixteenth-century psalm tunes, as they often display characteristics of both. For a more in-depth discussion of the pitfalls surrounding tonal and modal designations for sixteenth- and seventeenth-century music, see Harold S. Powers, ‘Tonal Types and Modal Categories in Renaissance Polyphony’, JAMS 34, no. 3 (Autumn 1981), pp. 428–70; Cristle Collins Judd, ‘Modal Types and Ut, Re, Mi Tonalities: Tonal Coherence in Sacred Vocal Polyphony from about 1500’, JAMS 45, no. 3 (Autumn 1992), pp. 428–67. 60 even the 1562 Whole booke suffered from accuracy problems. See Chapter 2. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 129

Example 4.7 third line from Psalm 137, 1604 Whole booke [STC 2513]

Example 4.8 third line from Psalm 137, 1620 Whole booke [STC 2570.5]

The proper tune of Psalm 137 provides a characteristic example of how the tunes continued to vary in the Stationers’ psalters. Appearing in many Day and Stationers’ psalters after 1560, most also regularly used this tune as a tune suggestion.61 Despite such popularity, the version of the tune printed in a 1620 edition of the Whole booke (Example 4.8) deviated significantly from the 1604 edition (Example 4.7). The first phrase of the third line deviates from the rhythm of the 1604 version, stressing the third, sixth, and eighth notes rather than the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth notes. The result converts the rhythmic pulse of the line from duple in the 1604 version to triple in the 1620 version, which results in some absurd accentuation patterns in the second and ninth verses especially. Rather than emphasizing the more important words such as ‘hang’d’ or ‘Harps’, the modified rhythm of the 1620 version emphasizes ‘our’. The same change results in accentuating the verb ending of ‘blessed’ in the final verse. In addition to these rhythmic differences, the pitches of the 1620 version contrast sharply with the 1604 version. The 1604 version may be preferable to the 1620 version because of the awkward leap from e1 to b1 in the latter, but the latter has no other fundamental flaws. The fact that later psalters did not employ these changes, suggests these were an aberration rather than a reflection of common performance practice.

61 the Day and Stationers’ psalters often suggested this tune for Psalms 133, 139, and 146. See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 130 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 4.9 tune from Psalm 30, 1604 Whole booke [STC 2513]

Example 4.10 tune from Psalm 30, 1610 Whole booke [STC 2536]

A 1610 edition [STC 2536] displays many of the different variations that appeared in the seventeenth-century versions of the tune for Psalm 30. A few pitches in the first line of the 1610 version (Example 4.10) differ from the 1604 version (Example 4.9), but none is as significant as the first note. Even a difference of a minor third would have had a negative impact on the performance of the tune. For those who could not read the tune and thus relied on the opening few notes to establish in their minds which tune was being sung, a modified opening note could be the Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 131 difference between one tune and another stored in the memories of many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century psalm singers. Minor deviations are similarly observable in the second and third lines, but they also have a harmful collective effect on the flow of the melody. Those differences found in the second line provide no melodic advantages over the original but instead make it more static and repetitive. The third line deviates so much that once again, those singing or listening would probably have been in some doubt as two whether this 1610 version was the same tune as the 1604 version. The most significant change appears at the end. Rather than closing on d, the finalis of the 1610 version is on g. Such significant changes once again leave the twenty-first century analyst wondering about the reasoning behind them, but another anomaly in the fourth line may shed some light. As noted in Example 4.10, there is an extra note printed in the final phrase, suggesting that this version may have been particularly susceptible to misprints. Given the page-turn between the a1 and e in the final phrase of the fourth line, the changed finalis may be due to a careless printer or editor. Whatever the reasons behind these changes, they illustrate, as with the deviations in Psalm 137 described earlier, the fact that the tunes in the Stationers’ psalters continued to vary. Just as the tunes printed in the Day psalters changed over time, so did the tunes printed in the Stationers’ psalters until 1621. While there were occasionally major deviations from the standard forms of the proper psalm tunes, most had no lasting impact on the tunes in later psalters. Given the state of metrical psalm printing in the seventeenth century, it is surprising that more errors did not persist in later editions. Printers often used previous editions as templates, which was conducive to perpetuating misprints. Moreover, the Stationers allowed a range of printers to produce metrical psalters, which also should have allowed mistakes to become more persistent. Since only a few minor mistakes continued to appear in later editions, the evidence suggests that the Stationers provided a measure of quality control that minimized the perpetuation of major aberrations in the proper psalm tunes. Even more importantly, a popular repertory of tunes known to the majority of people probably also preserved a general understanding of how each psalm tune actually sounded.

Group Five: Stationers’ Psalters from 1621 to 1640

The 1621 Whole booke of psalmes: with the hymnes Evangelicall, And Songs Spiritvall [STC 2575] marks the beginning of a fifth and final group of psalters. The 1621 Whole booke included four-part harmonizations 132 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice of psalm and canticle tunes that were ‘Newly corrected and enlarged by Tho[mas]: Rauenscroft Bachelar of Musicke’. A composer and editor, Ravenscroft became known for editing secular songs, ballads, and rounds. At the time that he compiled his psalter, he taught students pricksong – or notated music – as music master at Christ’s Hospital.62 Ravenscroft probably based his edition on East’s psalters, adding 55 of his own tune harmonizations.63 He also harmonized the Common Tunes and named them after the English and Welsh cathedral towns, English collegiate choirs, and locations in Scotland and the European mainland.64 These, along with Ravenscroft’s introductions, provide valuable insights into the state of psalm performance in England at the time. Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke was not the first to provide harmonizations for its psalm tunes. As described earlier, the Allison, Barley, Cosyn, Daman, and East editions also had printed harmonized settings of the psalms. Each of these publications included many of the proper psalm tunes from the 1562 Whole booke, and sometimes they had to change the tunes in order to fit their harmonizations. However, most of the melodic changes introduced did not have a significant impact on later monophonic psalters. Ravenscroft’s changes, on the other hand, did have a lasting impact, as evident in tunes such as Psalms 69 and 126. One aspect of early modern musical performance practice requires some brief consideration before proceeding to a discussion of Ravenscroft’s settings of these two psalms. Before the seventeenth century, it was rare for notated music to include very many sharps and flats. Instead, performers were expected to apply accidentals to written and printed music in order to avoid dissonances particularly in the notes leading up to a cadence. Known as musica ficta or false music, this practice was built around a system of rules based on the hexachord system. Most commonly, fictawas applied to avoid both the harmonic and melodic interval of an augmented fourth (also known as the tritone or diabolus in musica). Ficta was also commonly used to create a leading note, or half step, between the notes preceding a cadence. Although the basic concepts continued to be followed after the seventeenth century, the need for ficta became less common as printers and composers began to specify more accidentals. The tune of Psalm 119 provides a good example of this transition to the inclusion of notated fictaby printers. Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke [STC 2575] included the harmonized version of Psalm 119 by Giles Farnaby that first appeared in East’s 1592 Whole booke [STC 2482]. Returning in each

62 David Mateer, ‘Ravenscroft, Thomas (b. 1591/2)’, ODNB (2004), doi:10.1093/ ref:odnb/23172. 63 robert Illing, Ravenscroft’s revision of Est’s Psalter (Adelaide: Robert Illing, 1985). 64 MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 72–3. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 133

Example 4.11 tune from Psalm 119, 1604 Whole booke [STC 2513]

Example 4.12 tenor of Psalm 119, Ravenscroft’s 1621 Psalter [STC 2575]

consecutive East edition before 1621, this tune variation (Example 4.12) includes a number of accidentals that did not appear in the traditional version (Example 4.11). The accidentals added in the first, second, third, and at the end of the fourth lines all serve to create leading notes to the cadences that immediately follow. Since each of these align with the situations in which singers often employed musica ficta, it is possible that they had been part of normal performance practice for some time, and perhaps since the tune’s first appearance in 1556. The fact that they 134 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice first appeared in 1592 indicates that East may have been printing the accidentals in order to assist his readers, many of whom were untrained in music.65 Accidentals were also added to the tune of Psalm 69 in the 1621 Ravenscroft Whole booke, but these were of a different order from those of Psalm 119 (see Examples 4.13 and 4.14). While the changes to Psalm 119 could be attributable to the application of musica ficta, some of the modifications to Psalm 69 are not. The two sharps added in the second line and the one added at the end create leading notes to their respective cadences on g. However, the sharps added at the end of the first and third lines do not create leading notes, nor do they avoid a melodic interval of a tritone. In both cases, the sharp has been added to change the cadential chord from d-minor to D-major. Also known as the Picardy third or tierce de Picardie, this practice was also common in the sixteenth century, but it was only used for harmonized settings. It would not have been used when singing a melody by itself. Since these two accidentals did not appear in print before 1621, Ravenscroft probably modified the tune in order to create a more interesting harmonization. The accidentals in Ravenscroft’s version of Psalm 126 are also characteristic of the changes he made to the psalm tunes (see Examples 4.15 and 4.16). It was adapted from the tune for Psalm 90 in the 1551 Genevan Octante trois Pseaumes de David. This tune provides an example

Example 4.13 tune from Psalm 69, 1604 Whole booke [STC 2513]

65 however, the use of musica ficta in metrical psalm tunes is questionable according to Nicholas Temperley. MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 51; Ivor Atkins, The Early Occupants of the office of Organist and Master of the Choristers of the Cathedral Church of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary, Worcester (London: Mitchell Hughes and Clarke, 1918), p. 57. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 135

Example 4.14 tenor of Psalm 69, Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke [STC 2575]

Example 4.15 psalm 126, 1604 Whole booke [STC 2513]

of accidentals being used to avoid melodic tritones (between bs on ‘work’ and ‘-ter’ and the f’s on ‘as’ and ‘then’ in Example 4.15), but here the accidentals were printed even in the earliest editions. More germane to the present discussion are the accidentals that appeared for the first time in Ravenscroft’s 1621 version of the tune. The c at the end of the first line acts to create a leading note to the cadence on d, so it could be attributed to the rules of musica ficta.T he f at the hemistich of the fourth line, however, is not used to create a leading note or to avoid a dissonant interval. As with some of the changes to Psalm 69, the only reason for modifying this note 136 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 4.16 tenor of Psalm 126, Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke [STC 2575]

in the melody for Psalm 126 is to make the harmony more interesting.66 This setting of the psalm by the English lutenist and composer Edward Johnson first appeared in Thomas East’s 1592Whole booke, but it did not appear with this c in this or any of East’s other editions. While the other accidentals did appear in East’s psalters, it was not until Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke that this final change was made. As discussed above, the psalm tunes printed by John Day and his successors often appeared with minor changes, but these rarely reappeared in successive editions. East’s changes did reappear in successive psalters, but only in his own publications. His accidentals rarely bled over into the psalters printed by the Assigns of Richard Day and later the Company of Stationers. However, Ravenscroft’s changes began to appear regularly in the Stationers’ psalters after 1621. Most of these later psalters did not print the harmonizations that appeared in Ravenscroft’s edition, but they perpetuated most of his accidentals, including those in psalms such as 69 and 126 that were attributable to the harmonizations.67 This suggests that Ravenscroft’s psalter changed the way the Stationers approached the tunes in many of their psalters.68 Either his edition became the template for many of these later editions, or there was a concerted effort by the Stationers to promote the psalm harmonizations in Ravenscroft’s 1621 edition. Combined with other factors, the modifications to the proper psalm tunes in Ravenscroft’s editions eventually led to the demise of an entire class of Sternhold and Hopkins editions. As noted earlier, English printers since 1569 had been producing so-called sol-fa psalters that provided the

66 the sharp changes the cadence at the hemistich from a d-minor chord to a D-major chord. 67 For examples, see STCs 2576, 2592, 2621, 2642, 2670, and 2696. 68 Other psalm tunes affected include those from Psalms 18, 69, 71, 126, and 130. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 137 solmization or solfège syllables for each note in each psalm tune. These syllables appeared in approximately one edition per year starting in the 1570s, but something changed in the 1630s. Since Ravenscroft’s tune harmonizations often forced him to add accidentals to the psalm melodies, the syllables in the sol-fa psalters would have had to be modified to reflect these changes. In addition, English schools were beginning to move away from the traditional method of solfège, thus decreasing the demand for these editions. This is evidenced in the theoretical treatises that appeared at the time, in which musicians began to favour an eight-syllable system of solfège instead of the more traditional six-syllable (hexachordal) system that was used in the sol-fa psalters.69 Without a standardized method for revising the sol-fa psalters and with declining demand for the psalters from schools, printers stopped producing them after 1634. While Ravenscroft’s Whole booke had an impact on the tunes in later editions of the Whole booke, it did not have a similar effect on the tune suggestions in these later editions. For example, one of the more common suggestions for the text of Psalm 67 was the tune from the ‘Humble suit of a sinner’ in the 1630s. Like many other tune suggestions for Psalm 67, however, it was unsuitable for the Short-Metre text because it was a Common-Metre tune. This incompatibility was exacerbated by the fact that several editions still expected their readers to engage in musical treasure hunts in order to find the suggested tune. As discussed above, this had become an issue in the editions printed by the Assigns of Richard Day, and the Stationers did little to correct it, even after 1621. One edition from 1633 [STC 2642], for example, forced readers to turn to four different texts before finding a tune for Psalm 67. In addition to these exercises in tune hunting, some editions broadened the repertory of psalm tunes paired with each text. The previous chapter discussed the numbers of tunes within the psalters and the diversity of tunes associated with particular psalm texts. An examination of the tunes suggested for Psalms 6 and 117, for example, reveals the same pattern.70 Psalters printed under the Stationers’ control before 1640 paired Psalm 6 with five different psalm tunes either through proper tune ortune suggestion.71 Of these five tunes, four appeared in psalters from 1630 to 1640, and three of those appeared in the final five years of the same time-span (Table 4.3). Though small, these numbers signal a trend in

69 timothy A. Johnson, ‘Solmization in the English Treatises around the Turn of the Seventeenth Century: A Break from Modal Theory’, Theoria 5 (1990), pp. 42–58. 70 as Appendix A shows, most of the tune repertories for each psalm text increased in the 1600s. 71 the tunes printed for this text include HTIs 65 and 250b, while the tune suggestions include HTIs 62a, 113a, and 158a. See Appendix A. 138 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Table 4.3 tunes paired with Psalms 6 and 117, 1600–1640

Psalm Tune pairings Tune pairings Tune pairings text 1600–1640 1630–1640 1635–1640 6 62a, 65, 113a, 158a, 62a, 65, 113a, 158a 62a, 65, 158a 250b 117 62a, 84b, 114, 117, 62a, 84b, 128a, 158a, 62a, 84b, 128a, 158a, 128a, 158a, 159a, 159a, 160a, 162a, 159a, 160a, 162a, 160a, 164a, 170a, 164a, 170a, 171, 170a, 175a, 275a 171, 175a, 177, 201a, 175a, 249a, 275a 205a, 249a, 275a, 379a

Note: Tunes are listed according to designation in the HTI. the other psalm tunes. The Stationers printed over 18 different tunes or tune suggestions for Psalm 117 from 1604 to 1640.72 Thirteen of these appeared from 1630 to 1640, and ten of these can be found in editions from the final five years of that span. Nearly half of the total collection of tunes printed in the Stationers’ psalters for any particular text appeared between 1635 and 1640.73 Overall, then, the numbers suggest that only slight simplification and consolidation occurred for the tunes paired with psalm texts. Though many English psalter editions followed it, none had the impact of Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke until Nahum Tate and Nicholas Brady’s 1696 A New Uersion of the Psalms of David.74 As noted, Ravenscroft popularized the practice of naming most of the Common Tunes by printing these names as alternatives to the normal tune suggestions. He indicates that these Common Tunes were ‘vsually sung in Cathedrall Churches, Colegiats, Chappels, &c. As also, the forraigne Tunes vsually sung in Great Brittaine’.75 Ravenscroft’s proper psalm tune settings were ‘so Composed, for the most part, that the vnskilfull may with little practice, be enabled to sing them in parts, after a plausible manner’.76 Chapter 7 will consider whether his tune settings were successful in appealing to the musically unskilled, but clearly, Ravenscroft sought to make his tunes marketable to

72 the printed tune from Psalm 117 is HTI 249a, while its tune suggestions include 62a, 84b, 114, 128a, 158a, 159a, 160a, 164a, 170a, 171, 175a, 177, 201a, 205a, 275a, and 379a. See Appendix A. 73 See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 74 nahum Tate and Nicholas Brady, A New Uersion of the Psalms of David, Fitted to the Tunes Used in Churches (London: M. Clark, 1696). 75 thomas Ravenscroft (ed.), Whole booke of psalmes: with the hymnes Evangelicall, And Songs Spiritvall [STCs 2575 and 2575.5] (London: Company of Stationers, 1621). 76 ravenscroft, ‘To All that Have Skill’, STC 2575.3. Evolution of the English ‘Singing Psalms’ 139 people with varying musical abilities. This marketability, with help from his colleagues in the Company of Stationers, helped to assure the success of his volume. In consequence, Ravenscroft’s psalter was one of the few individual editions of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms to exercise a lasting influence on the tune versions printed in later editions. This page has been left blank intentionally Chapter 5 Between Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’

As noted in Chapter 3, the official Scottish version of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms was different from the English from the outset. Scotland’s Forme of prayers drew on several sources, versifications, and tunes different from those of the English Whole booke, and Scottish printers preserved their distinct brand of metrical psalters until the Scottish General Assembly approved the use of the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter. It was not merely the presence of different texts and tunes that continued to set the Scottish metrical psalms apart from their English counterparts. The English Whole booke was characteristic of other printed editions of its time, in that successive editions were, as explained in the previous chapter, subjected to continual change due largely to reproduction errors. Although moveable type provided a faster and more durable method of printing than woodblock printing, it often led to more reproduction anomalies due to characters ‘slipping’ from their places on the printing matrices. However, Scottish psalters do not seem to have fallen prey to the same editorial inconsistencies and misprints that plagued the English Whole booke.1 Given the instability and uncertainty that characterized the Scottish printing industry in the early modern era, this level of consistency in Scottish psalters is astonishing. This chapter considers the Scottish metrical psalters printed until 1640 in four sections. The first, focusing on the editions printed until 1601, demonstrates how consistent printed psalters were. Around the start of the seventeenth century, however, Scots briefly relied on Continental printers to produce their psalters, and this introduced some unprecedented volatility into printed editions of the psalter. The second section discusses these changes, and the third explores the ascendancy of Scottish printer Andro Hart and the stability that his metrical psalters re-established. The

1 arguably, there was one exception to this general consistency of the Forme of prayers, namely an edition from 1566, ‘imprimê pour Henri le Mareschal’. Generally assumed to have been printed by Zachary Durant in Geneva, however, the relation of this volume to the Scottish editions of the Forme of prayers is one in name only, as it combined the proper tunes and tune suggestions from both the English Whole booke and the Scottish Forme of prayers. This odd conglomeration would not be reproduced in any edition printed either by Durant or any other English or Scottish printer. 142 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice fourth section considers the contents and influence of the publication that is arguably the pinnacle of the Sternhold and Hopkins line of metrical psalters printed in either England or Scotland, namely the 1635 Psalmes of David printed by the heirs of Andro Hart.

Scottish Constancy (1566–1596)

Following the murder of the King consort Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, and the subsequent marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots to James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, Scotland plunged into civil war. Scottish Protestants had become increasingly frustrated and scandalized by Mary’s insistence on preserving Roman Catholic rites in her private chapel, to which Edinburgh’s numerous Catholic faithful flocked. Mary may have had nothing to do with the death of her husband, but her subsequent marriage to Bothwell – one of those accused in the death of Darnley – convinced many in Scotland of her guilt and gave a firm pretext for bringing her down. A number of Scottish Lords gathered forces against her at Carberry Hill on 15 June 1567, unfurling a banner showing the murdered Darnley and his infant son, James, with the latter crying out the opening words of Hopkins’s Psalm 43, ‘Judge and revenge my cause, O Lord’.2 Mary and her forces surrendered without bloodshed, and she was taken back to Edinburgh as a captive and then imprisoned in Lochleven Castle, where the Lords forced her to abdicate the throne. Her son was subsequently crowned King James VI of Scotland at 13 months of age. Despite these proceedings (and in some cases because of them), many Scots remained loyal to the Queen, and the two sides in the ensuing Marian civil war became known as the Queen’s Men and the King’s Men. Both parties employed a printer to promote their cause.3 Since many of the Kirk’s leaders supported King James VI, Robert Lekpreuik became the official printer for the King’s Men, thanks to his work for the Assembly and especially on the 1564 Forme of prayers. Lekpreuik’s Edinburgh rival, Thomas Bassandyne, became the official printer for the Queen’s Men. Possibly trained in Paris and Leiden, Bassandyne appeared in Edinburgh around 1564, and he quickly fell out of favour with the General Assembly,

2 For this and later extensive Scottish use of this psalm and slogan, see Jamie Reid Baxter, ‘Judge and Revenge My Cause: The Regent Morton, Andro Blackhall, Robert Sempill and the fall of the House of Hamilton in 1579’, in Older Scots Literature, ed. Sally Mapstone (Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2005), pp. 467–92. 3 Alastair Mann, The Scottish Book Trade 1500–1720 (East Lothian: Tuckwell Press, 2000), pp. 150–51. Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 143 which asked him to withdraw several works, one of which was a collection of psalms that included the secular song ‘Welcome fortune’.4 The civil war ended in 1573 with the victory of the King’s Men, but that did not translate into permanent disaster for Bassandyne or continuing success for Lekpreuik. The King’s party arrested Bassandyne for treason and ordered the confiscation of his property, but he secured his release after a year in prison and began to rebuild his printing and bookselling businesses.5 Lekpreuik, on the other hand, was later jailed for illegally printing John Davidson’s verse pamphlet criticizing the Scottish government’s policies toward the church, Ane Dialogue or [mu] tuall ta[lking betu]ixt a [clerk] and[ ane Cour]teour concerning [four Parische Kirks] till ane minister [STC 6323], and his business would never fully recover. Lekpreuik’s imprisonment left the Assembly in an awkward position, as he had been granted a licence to produce an edition of the Bible in 1568. Since a Bible had not yet been printed for the Reformed Kirk, the Assembly needed to find someone with the capacity to undertake such a monumental task while also supplying the Assembly’s own more basic printing needs. Ironically, they turned to Lekpreuik’s erstwhile competitor, Bassandyne, to print a Bible with the help of his partner, Alexander Arbuthnet.6 In addition, a battle for the rights to the metrical psalter followed with both Bassandyne and John Ros printing authorized editions in 1575. Bassandyne’s title page in The CL Psalmes of David in English metre [STC 16580] asserts that he printed it ‘CVM PRIVILEGIO’. However, Ros’s The Psalmes of David in Metre … [Bound with STC 16579.5] similarly states that he printed it ‘CVM PRIVILEGIO REGALI’. While both editions were bound with copies of the Forme

4 APGA, Vol. 1, p. 159; Alastair Mann, ‘Bassandyne, Thomas (d. 1577)’, ODNB (2004), doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/1634. There is some disagreement about whether it was an edition of the Gude and Godlie Ballatis [STC 2996.3] or the Sternhold and Hopkins psalter that was ordered to be retracted by the Assembly in 1568. Most recently, Alasdair MacDonald has asserted that it was the 1567 Ballatis (ironically still extant in its unmodified form) that was censored. See Alasdair A. MacDonald, ‘Contrafacta and the Gude and Godlie Ballatis’, in Sacred and Profane: Secular and Devotional Interplay in Early Modern British Literature, ed. Helen Wilcox, Richard Todd, and Alasdair Macdonald (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1996), p. 38. However, it is also possible, as argued long ago by David Hay Fleming, that the retracted volume was a copy of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms. See David Hay Fleming, ‘Hymnology of the Reformation’, in Shorter Writings of David Hay Fleming, ed. Chris Coldwell (Vol. 1, Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2007), pp. 25–6. If the latter is true, it is possible that the mysterious title page of The hail hundredth and fyftie Psalmes of Dauid, in Ingls meter, be Thomas Sternholde [STC 16578.5] dated 1567 and printed by John Scot (or, by Bassandyne, who was using his types and who also printed the 1567 Ballatis) is all that survives from Bassandyne’s errant edition. 5 Mann, ‘Bassandyne’. 6 This privilege was short-lived for Bassandyne, as he died in 1577, leaving Arbuthnet to finish the Bible, which he completed in 1579. 144 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice of prayers and thus probably accepted by the Assembly, it seems that Bassandyne and Arbuthnet won the battle over the rights to the psalter. Arbuthnet received seven years of printing rights to the metrical psalter in 1579 perhaps as a reward for completing the Bible, even though it was nine months late.7 Arbuthnet did not take advantage of his hard-earned psalter licence before his death in 1584, and it passed to several different booksellers from 1584–89. These included George Young, Gilbert Masterson, and John Gibson. Gibson owned the rights to the psalter from 1589 to 1599, when the printing rights passed to Robert Smyth.8 With the psalter rights changing hands so often in the 1580s, it is understandable why no printer in Scotland produced a copy of the metrical psalter with music during the period. The next known psalter with music printed in Scotland issued from Henry Charteris’s press in 1596. Since Charteris did not own the patent on the psalms at the time, he must have had some sort of understanding with Smyth, the owner of the psalter patent. Although no psalters were printed in Scotland from 1580 to 1595, two editions printed outside of the country may have helped to maintain a stream of new prints to Scottish churches and individuals. In 1562, the French printer Thomas Vautrollier settled in London and later established his own printing business. Problems with the Stationers forced Vautrollier to move to Edinburgh in 1583, but he was in the city for only a year. During his short residency, he became interested in printing editions of the Scottish metrical psalter. By the end of 1584, he was back in London, where he began work on the Scottish book. In 1587, he released two editions of these psalms, both modelled after Bassandyne’s volume and titled, The CL Psalmes of David in Meter. For the vse of the Kirk of Scotland [STCs 16582 and 16583]. Although Richard Day owned the patent on metrical psalter printing in England, Vautrollier avoided problems by asserting his publication’s Scottish lineage and intended audience. Despite the vicissitudes of the Scottish printing world, the musical content of Scottish psalters was impressively stable. In fact, the 11 Scottish metrical psalters printed up to 1596 contained only 12 deviations in both proper and suggested tunes (Table 5.1).9 One of these – the omitted tune suggestion for Psalm 64 in Schilders’s 1596 edition – was probably a misprint, but the others may have been intentional. Three of the changes appeared in John Ros’s 1575 CL Psalmes, which were probably influenced

7 M. Livingstone (ed.), Registers of the Privy Seal (Vol. 7 Edinburgh: General Register House, 1908), p. 305, ‘No. 1870’. Cited in Mann, Book Trade, p. 237. 8 ibid., pp. 238–9. 9 See also Timothy Duguid, ‘Early Modern British Metrical Psalters’, Edinburgh Research Archive (2013), http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/6684. Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 145

Table 5.1 Tune variations in the Scottish psalters up to 1596

Psalm Source Difference

Ps. 2 Ros, 1575 CL Psalmes Prints the 1556 Forme of prayers tune Charteris, 1587 CL Psalmes for Ps. 2 rather than suggesting the Vautrollier, 1587 CL Psalmes tune from Ps. 1 [STC 16582] Vautrollier, 1587 CL Psalmes [STC 16583] Schilders, 1594 CL Psalmes Schilders, 1596 CL Psalmes Charteris, 1596 CL Psalme Ps. 10 Ros, 1575 CL Psalmes Prints the 1556 Forme of prayers Charteris, 1587 CL Psalmes tune for Ps. 10 rather than its normal Vautrollier, 1587 CL Psalmes proper tune [STC 16582] Vautrollier, 1587 CL Psalmes [STC 16583] Ps. 35 Ros, 1575 CL Psalmes (1575) Prints the 1556 Forme of prayers tune for Ps. 4 rather than its normal proper tune Ps. 39 Charteris, 1596 CL Psalmes Suggests the tune from Ps. 15 instead of the tune from Ps. 29 Ps. 49 Charteris, 1596 CL Psalmes Suggests the tune from Ps. 44 rather than printing its normal proper tune Ps. 56 Charteris, 1596 CL Psalmes Suggests the tune from Ps. 27 instead of the normal suggestion of Ps. 70 Ps. 60 Charteris, 1596 CL Psalmes Suggests the tune from Ps. 54 – which used Whittingham’s ‘Ten Commandments’ – instead of the tune from Ps. 59 Ps. 64 Schilders, 1596 CL Psalmes Does not print a tune suggestion (probably a misprint) Ps. 65 Charteris, 1596 CL Psalmes Suggests the tune from Ps. 39 instead of the tune from Ps. 30 Ps. 76 Schilders, 1594 CL Psalmes Prints a new tune to replace the normal Schilders, 1596 CL Psalmes proper tune Charteris, 1596 CL Psalmes Ps. 90 Charteris, 1596 CL Psalmes Suggests the tune from Ps. 44 instead of the tune from Ps. 103 Ps. 93 Charteris, 1596 CL Psalmes Suggests the tune from Ps. 71 instead of the tune from Ps. 77 146 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice by the 1556 Forme of prayers. Since 1558, the Forme of prayers – printed in both Geneva and Edinburgh – had omitted the original proper tune for Psalm 2 and instead suggested it should be sung using the tune of Psalm 1. However, Ros must have seen some value in the 1556 tune for Psalm 2. This caused a problem because the 1556 tune for Psalm 2 often appeared with the text of Psalm 10 in these pre-1575 editions of the Forme of prayers.10 To fill the musical gap left by this change, Ros reintroduced the proper tune for Psalm 10 from the 1556 Forme of prayers. Besides these two replacements, Ros inserted the 1556 Forme of prayers tune from Psalm 4, pairing it with the text for Psalm 35. As opposed to his other changes, this had no influence on later editions, as each either printed Lekpreuik’s proper tune for the psalm or printed a new tune or tune suggestion.11 Changes to tune suggestions in Charteris’s 1596 CL Psalmes With Prayers and Catechisme, according to the forme vsed in the Kirk of Scotland [STC 16585] make up seven of the nine remaining tune differences, and each represents an improved juxtaposition of texts.12 As discussed in Chapter 1, tune suggestions in the Genevan editions of the Forme of prayers were not a random pairing of tunes and texts with matching of metres. By suggesting the proper tune of a similar psalm text, the Anglo- Scottish editors from Geneva had provided a much richer experience of sung worship. In England, this practice had relaxed because of the fluidity of tune and text pairing, but it relaxed on an altogether smaller scale in metrical psalters printed in Scotland. Charteris’s 1596 CL Psalmes was a renewed effort to align the Scottish psalter with its predecessors from Geneva, this time through its tune suggestions. For instance, Charteris’s suggested tune of Psalm 27 for the text of Psalm 56 was much more fitting than Lekpreuik’s suggestion of the tune of Psalm 70. Both Psalms 27 and 56 are expressions of trust in God. Psalm 27:14 ends, ‘Hope in the Lord: be strong, and he shall comfort thine heart, and trust in the Lord’ (Geneva Bible), and Psalm 56:11 states, ‘In God doe I trust: I will not be afrayd what man can doe vnto me’ (Geneva Bible). Similarly, the new tune suggestion of the Long- Metred ‘Ten Commandments’ (‘Attend my people’) for the Long-Metred

10 Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 11 STC 2702 suggests the tune from Psalm 34 for Psalm 35, and a new tune was introduced in STCs 16589 and 16591. Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 12 The STC differentiates between two Charteris editions that it asserts were both printed in 1596: STCs 16585 and 16585.5. However, the metrical psalters included in both are the same. The only difference between the two is their date. The psalter in 16585 is dated 1595, and the one in 16585.5 is dated 1596. This may suggest that Charteris printed the psalter in 1595 but included it with the 1596 Forme of prayers, but there is little additional evidence to contravene the STC. Therefore, this study refers only to 16585 and dates it to 1596. Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 147

Psalm 60 reveals clear understanding of the purpose of the psalm. Like the ‘Ten Commandments’, Psalm 60 was didactic in nature.13 While many of these new pairings involved improved textual juxtapositions, the new suggestions for Psalms 65 and 93 are puzzling. Psalm 65 is a song of joyful praise ‘for the plentiful blessings powred forth vpon al the earth’,14 and Charteris substituted the original tune suggestion of Psalm 30 – a psalm of praise for rescue – with Psalm 39, which the 1564 edition calls a prayer that ‘shew[s] a minde wonderfuly troubled’.15 Even Charteris’s updated argument provides little in the way of reasoning for the change. He wrote, ‘This Psalme conteinis ane singular exampil of ane faithful soule against impacience and despair’.16 He also replaced the original suggestion for Psalm 93, the tune of Psalm 77, with the tune from Psalm 71. In Lekpreuik’s 1564 Forme of prayers, Psalm 77’s tune was well suited to Psalm 93. Psalm 77 praises God for his deliverance, which included rescue from flood waters, thunderstorms, and earthquakes. The psalmist concludes, ‘Thy waies within the sea do ly, | thy path in waters deepe’.17 Similarly, Hopkins’s versification of Psalm 93 says:

The fludes. O Lord, the fludes do ryse, they roare and make a noyse: The fludes, (I say) did interpryse, and lifted vp their voice. Yea, though the stormes arise in sight, though seas do rage and swell: The Lord is strong and more of might, for he on hie doth dwell.18

While both Psalms 71 and 77 deal with the theme of deliverance in one way or another, the writer of the former is currently experiencing distress and looking to God for rescue, and the latter is recalling his distress and subsequent deliverance. However, the purpose of Psalm 93 is to praise God for his power over creation; suffering and rescue are not discussed. Since both Psalms 77 and 93 mention God’s control of the oceans and floods, it

13 The psalm’s argument reads, ‘Dauid now king ouer Iudah, after manie victories, sheweth by euident signes, that God elected him King, assurand the people that God will prosper them, if they approue the same’. STC 16585, p. 187. 14 STC 16585, p. 199. 15 The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments &c. vsed in the English Church at Geneua, approued and receiued by the churche of Scotland [STC 16577a] (Edinburgh: Robert Lekpreuik, 1565), p. 107. 16 STC 16585, p. 123. 17 STC 16585, pp. 150–51. 18 STC 16585, p. 315. 148 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice is unclear why Charteris chose to replace Psalm 93’s tune with one from a text that does not specifically consider God’s power over creation. These two questionable changes aside, Charteris’s revisions generally made the suggested tunes more relevant to their texts and further align his edition with its exilic predecessors from Geneva. The tunes printed and suggested with each psalm text in the Scottish psalters through the sixteenth century remained fairly stable. While 12 deviations occurred in the later sixteenth-century editions, this is far less variance than that found in Day’s metrical psalters. Quite unlike Day’s psalters, most of these changes seem designed to bring the Scottish metrical psalters more in line with the Genevan editions of the Forme of prayers. Beyond the consistency of the tunes and tune suggestions, Scottish editions also reprinted their tunes with an accuracy that is all the more striking in light of the volatility that characterized the editions of the English Whole booke. Scottish printers such as Durand in 1571 [STC 16579],19 and Bassandyne [STC 16580] and Ros [STC 16579.5] in 1575 used Lekpreuik’s 1564 edition as a template for their psalters. While there were changes of notes in these editions, they occurred less often than in the Day psalters. For example, only 15 tunes in Bassandyne’s 1575 CL Psalmes of David in English metre [16580] deviated from Lekpreuik’s 1565 edition, and most of these consisted of a single pitch or note length. Four are attributable to Bassandyne’s seeming reluctance to print dotted semibreves. Instead, he printed a semibreve followed by a minim on the same note. Perhaps Bassandyne did not have the ability to print dots on his staves, but he may also have been trying to make a clearer distinction between dots and the rests that often appeared at the end of each phrase. Whatever his reason for the substitution, Bassandyne’s psalter may have expected too much of its users. Since the tie did not exist in sixteenth- century notation, readers were being asked to recognize when there were too many notes and therefore extend the correct semibreve. For Psalm 137, for example, he expected singers to recognize that there were too many notes for the word ‘instruments’, so they would need to tie the first two notes together. Bassandyne made similar demands in his editions of the tunes for Psalms 77, 95, and 135. Other than these four psalms, however, his proper tunes closely followed those printed in Lekpreuik’s metrical psalters. The same was true of the editions printed by Durand and Ros.20 Later editions by Vautrollier, Charteris, and Schilders probably relied on Bassandyne’s psalter, as his solution for the dotted rhythms in Lekpreuik’s psalter made its way into these later editions. For instance, Vautrollier’s

19 though this edition lacks a title page, the STC suggests that it came from the press of Zachary Durant in Geneva. 20 As noted in Table 5.1, Ros also printed different tunes for Psalms 10 and 35. Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 149 version of Psalm 77 and Schilders’s 1594 version of Psalm 135 both treated Bassandyne’s changes in different ways. Though some confusion persisted in the 1596 editions by Schilders [STC 2701] and Charteris [STC 16585], they were much more consistent in dropping the added minim. Despite the minor shift in source materials between 1575 and the editions printed from 1587–96, printers reproduced the musical content of their sources with remarkable precision. Chapters 2 and 3 showed how the rather different English and Scottish metrical psalm traditions, in the shape of Day’s Whole booke and Lekpreuik’s Forme of prayers, both emerged from editions of the Anglo- Scottish Forme of prayers. Successive printed editions not only preserved these differences through the rest of the sixteenth century, but English psalters introduced new ones despite the fact that John Day, Richard Day, or their assigns printed or assigned a printer for each metrical psalter through the sixteenth century. This continuity in printing personnel was unparalleled in Scotland, where short licences were common. Yet as already observed, the Scottish psalters remained consistently close to Lekpreuik’s original in texts, tune suggestions, and printed musical content. Perhaps this Scottish consistency can be attributed to the General Assembly, which exerted some influence over the metrical psalter in Scotland. Beginning in 1563, the Assembly claimed jurisdiction over printing and publishing all works ‘tuiching religion’.21 As noted above, the 1568 Assembly censured Bassandyne for printing a secular song among some metrical psalms ‘which he had printed without the license of the magistrate, or the revising of the Kirk’.22 Whether or not the Assembly retained this right of ‘revising’ on a blanket basis through the rest of the century is as yet unascertained, but it would help to explain the lack of variation from one edition to another. Printers certainly relied on the Assembly’s permission to print the Bible from 1560 to 1590, and the metrical psalms were often the gateway for acquiring that permission.23 Following the example of Geneva, the Assembly also exercised control over the content of the metrical psalters.24 It was the General Assembly,

21 APGA, Vol. 1, pp. 43–4; Mann, Book Trade, p. 23. 22 APGA, Vol. 1, p. 159; David Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. Thomas Thomson (Edinburgh, 1842), Vol. 2, p. 423. 23 lekpreuik and Bassandyne received permission to print the Bible after they had printed editions of the metrical psalms. Mann, Book Trade, pp. 36–8. 24 For example, Andrew Pettegree notes that the council disciplined one printer for silently correcting a misprinted note, and the Geneva magistrates imprisoned Loys Bourgeois, the psalm tune composer, in 1551 for changing the psalm tunes without licence. Andrew Pettegree, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 58; Frank Dobbins, ‘Bourgeois, Loys’, OMO, http://www.oxfordmusiconline. com/subscriber/article/grove/music/03721. 150 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice not the king or privy council, that commissioned Pont to revise the metrical psalms in 1601, as discussed briefly in Chapter 3. Not only were the metrical psalms central to the worshipper’s participation in the Scottish services that did not utilize ‘responses’ (as in England), but books were expensive luxury items for the majority of Scotland’s relatively poor populace. They therefore needed new psalters to be compatible with older ones because they could hardly afford buying a new psalter each time a new edition appeared. Furthermore, the shortage of fulltime parish ministers entitled to preach, and the consequent prevalence of services taken by ‘Readers’ not so entitled, gave the metrical psalms a crucial teaching role in parish worship. From the outset, there were sustained clerical and civic efforts to ensure that worshippers – learned and unlearned alike – memorized the metrical psalms, which were, as discussed in Chapter 3, designed precisely for memorability. The onus was therefore on the various Scottish printers to make their psalters as accurate and similar as possible. After all, significant differences between editions could lead to a falling out with the Assembly, application of church discipline and, not least, reduced sales. For generations of psalm-singing Scots, worship must have had a real sense of permanence; despite the appearance of new editions, the psalms (and therefore the Word of God) remained unchanged. In England, where there was no shortage of clergy, the metrical psalms occupied nothing like the essential and above all official position in the liturgy, which probably contributed to a freer English psalm-singing practice. Though the English government and later the Stationers’ Company regulated the metrical psalters, this oversight was much more lax than that of the Scottish General Assembly. Day was more at liberty to make changes to the musical content of his psalters, a flexibility not available to Scottish printers because major changes to the psalter needed the approval of the Assembly. The fundamental differences between the English and Scottish churches therefore contributed to the contrast between the static Scottish psalters and the variations in the Day psalters.

The Upheaval (1601–1605)

In England, the psalter patent transferred from Richard Day to the Company of Stationers in 1604. Shortly before this, another significant shift in psalter printing occurred in Scotland that would have a greater immediate impact on its printed psalters. Up to 1601, Scottish printers had introduced distinctly minor musical changes in the Scottish psalters, along with a slow expansion of the short appendix of non-psalmic ‘canticles and hymns’ taken from the English Whole booke. But now, Continental printers such as Richard Schilders, and Abraham and Isaac Canin took Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 151 over. They did not maintain the accuracy and consistency as their Scottish predecessors, and the many variations printed in these Continental editions sent the Scottish psalters into a state of relative chaos at the beginning of the seventeenth century. For about 14 years, printers repeatedly interfered with the proper tunes, removing some and replacing others. Richard Schilders’s editions can arguably be viewed as Anglo-Scottish cross-over editions and are discussed more fully in the next chapter, but the Canin editions are exclusively related to this unstable period for the Scottish psalters and will be discussed here. Around the turn of the seventeenth century, the printer Robert Smyth acquired the patents for printing the psalter from John Gibson, but he did not own them long.25 He died just two years later, and his son sold his father’s patents to Thomas Finlason, the King’s printer. Despite the time and money that Gibson, Smyth, and Finlason each invested in securing the patent, none printed a metrical psalter with music.26 Gibson and Smyth may not have had the necessary capital or resources to undertake such an edition, but Finlason, as King’s printer, probably did. However, his responsibilities to the government may have kept him too busy.27 Oddly enough, it was two men who did not own the psalter patent who either commissioned or printed most of the Scottish psalter editions from 1587 to 1640 apparently without any repercussions. Henry Charteris printed and commissioned several psalters from 1587 until his death in 1599. His son Robert continued the business after 1599, using his father’s partner, Andro Hart, to help produce a number of psalters.28 How Charteris and Hart managed to print and commission these psalters without owning the psalm patent remains a mystery. Alastair Mann postulates that Charteris and Gibson had an arrangement, and that something similar must have existed between Hart and Smyth, and later Hart and Finlason.29 It would be difficult to believe that Charteris and Hart would have been able to maintain their high reputations if they were known book pirates.

25 These were not the only patents acquired by Smyth from Gibson. Mann, Book Trade, pp. 239–40. 26 Curiously, Smyth did undertake the expense of producing a Scots orthography edition of the CL Psalmes between 1599 and 1602 [STC 16586], but this edition did not have any tunes. 27 Finlason did not ever print an edition of the psalter, but as Mann illustrates in the example of The Works of Sir David Lindsay, it was common in Scotland for patent holders to arrange for others to print their patented items for them. Mann, Book Trade, p. 110. 28 henry Charteris passed his business on to his son who was also named Henry. But, another son, Robert, took over most of the business rather than Henry. Joseph Marshall, ‘Charteris, Henry (d. 1599)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/5176. 29 Mann, Book Trade, p. 110n. 152 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

It is similarly difficult to believe that Smyth or Finlason would not have protected their patent from such piracy.30 In 1601, the Heirs of Charteris commissioned two editions of the Scottish psalter from the presses of Abraham and Isaac Canin in Dort. The sixteenmo edition [STC 16588] lists Abraham Canin as the printer and the octavo [STC 2702] lists Isaac Canin. Although the two printers were connected, the two psalters they produced were quite different. Abraham’s sixteenmo edition included only 73 proper tunes and provided no tunes or tune suggestions for 40 psalm texts, whereas Isaac’s octavo printed 110 proper tunes.31 While the octavo version followed the traditional Scottish editions in terms of tune quantity, neither of the Canin psalters adhered to the actual musical content of most sixteenth-century Scottish psalters. Besides omitting a tune or tune suggestion for so many psalms, Abraham’s sixteenmo edition printed 15 tunes and tune suggestions that differed from most sixteenth-century Scottish psalters. Isaac’s octavo edition did include tunes or suggestions for most of its psalms, but it also printed 16 tunes and tune suggestions not found in most previous Scottish editions.32 These were the only editions produced by the Canins. Within a few years, however, Hart had acquired most of the printing rights that formerly belonged to Henry Charteris, and in 1607 he began to add printing to his growing bookselling business. At first he worked with his Presbyterian colleagues, the booksellers Richard Lawson and James Caithkin, to print The CL Psalmes of David in Prose and Meter [STC 16589.5].33 The template was clearly Abraham Canin’s sixteenmo version, as Hart’s first psalter deviated from it only four times. One of these, the omitted tune for Psalm 77, probably was an oversight, because it was one of the more popular tunes in the Scottish psalter. Each edition since 1564 had included the tune, and it was frequently suggested for Psalms 87 and 93. The other three changes that Hart made were probably more intentional. He chose to print the proper tune for Psalm 58 instead of using Canin’s suggestion of the tune of Psalm 48. Since Canin did not print a tune or suggestion for Psalm 76, Hart chose to print the proper tune for the psalm that had been introduced in the 1590s. Finally, in a departure from all previous sources, Hart suggested that Psalm 68 should be sung using the tune of Psalm 3.

30 Mann, Book Trade, p. 110n. 31 This closely resembles an ‘English’ psalter printed by Richard Schilders in 1599. Also known as one of the Middelburg Psalters, this edition is discussed more fully in Chapter 6. 32 the only psalm to appear without a tune or suggestion in Isaac Canin’s edition was Psalm 64. 33 Both Hart and Caithkin were committed Presbyterians, as both men were jailed on 17 December 1596 after allegedly inciting the ‘Presbyterian’ riot in Edinburgh. Mann, Book Trade, p. 26. Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 153

The volatility of text–tune pairings continued into Hart’s next psalter, which he printed in 1610 as the CL Psalmes of David in Meetre [STC 2704]. By this time, he had become the de facto printer for the Kirk and had completed his masterly edition of the Geneva Bible.34 The template for Hart’s 1610 CL Psalmes may have been his own 1607 edition, but there are nonetheless sixteen discrepancies between the two. He printed different tunes or tune suggestions for nine psalms, and an additional six psalms lacked either a tune or suggestion. These changes aligned his 1610 edition with the other volatile Scottish psalters printed around the turn of the century. One year later, Hart’s press issued another psalter [STC 16590] based on his 1607 edition. This time, however, there were only five differences in tunes and tune suggestions between these two psalters. Three of those differences concern tunes and tune suggestions that Hart re-joined with texts that did not have a proper tune or suggestion in 1607. Although this psalter does not provide tunes or tune suggestions for no fewer than 35 psalm texts, Hart nevertheless began to restore a sense of stability to Scottish printing practice. As his printing and bookselling businesses flourished, he also relied less on his colleagues. This is apparent inhis 1611 edition of psalms, which unlike his 1607 and 1610 psalters, makes no mention of Lawson or Caithkin. In 1614, Hart printed what would become one of his most influential Scottish psalters. That edition, printed as the Psalmes of David in Scottish metre [STC 2705], provided 115 proper tunes, and only Psalm 12 appeared without a tune or tune suggestion. Therefore, it was the most musically complete metrical psalter printed for Scottish use since Isaac Canin’s 1601 octavo edition.35 Compared with his 1611 edition, Hart’s 1614 CL Psalmes changed the proper tunes and tune suggestions of 20 texts. The sum of these changes, however, aligned the musical content of the 1614 CL Psalmes with Charteris’s 1596 CL Psalmes, having only 14 differences in tunes and tune suggestions. This suggests that Hart made a conscious effort to discard many of the innovations in Scottish psalters that had been printed by both himself and others over the previous 18 years.

Re-consolidation and Extension (1615–1640)

After nearly two decades of tasting the volatility that characterized the English Whole booke, the Scottish printed psalter’s marked return to the stability of the pre-1600 editions presumably reflects the Scottish market demand. The impact of this restored stability on performance practice will

34 Mann, Book Trade, p. 38. 35 See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. 154 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice be considered in Chapter 8. For the present, it is necessary to consider the editions that re-established consistency in the Scottish psalters and the developments that followed in later editions.

The Printers and their Psalters

In 1615, Hart printed three separate editions of the psalms, and each of these used his 1614 CL Psalmes as a prototype.36 In fact, only four tunes and tune suggestions in these three editions differ from the 1614 template.37 He added a tune suggestion for Psalm 12, which in 1614 had neither a proper tune nor suggestion, and he returned to the more traditional suggestion for Psalm 84, indicating that singers should use the tune of Psalm 67. His suggestion for Psalm 93 – the tune of Psalm 70 – was new to the Scottish psalters, but an even more important departure was his new approach to Psalm 108. Instead of printing the usual proper tune for this psalm, Hart chose to suggest the tune from Psalm 57. This is counterintuitively tied to the immense popularity of Psalm 108’s proper tune, today known and sung as ‘Old Common’. Hart instead included it in a group of so-called ‘Common Tunes’ in two of his 1615 CL Psalmes, STCs 2708 and 16592. As their name indicates, the Common Tunes were all set in Common Metre and could therefore be paired with any text in the psalter that used that metre. These two Hart 1615 editions were the first in eitherE ngland or Scotland to print a separate section of Common Tunes. In England, the Daman and East psalters had started naming their tunes in the sixteenth century, and East began to print a table of tunes and their matching texts. However, East’s tables did not name these tunes and provided only incipits. The lasting effect of Hart’s innovation in 1615 was twofold. First, Scottish editions would henceforth frequently print the Common Tunes as a separate section of the psalter. Second, 10 of the 12 tunes printed in Hart’s editions were enshrined in the group of 12 tunes that the Kirk used exclusively for all its Common-Metre psalms by the end of

36 the three are STCs 2706, 2708, and 16592. 37 in addition to Psalms 12, 84, 93, and 108, there are also differences in Psalms 10, 127, and 148. However, these did not result in changes to the tunes that would have been sung. Psalm 10 suggests the tune from Psalm 2 instead of reprinting it, and Psalm 148 does the same with the tune from Psalm 136. Psalm 127 conversely reprints the tune from Psalm 117 instead of suggesting it. In STC 16592, Hart also reintroduced many of the sacred hymns and canticles that were slowly added to the Forme of prayers starting in the 1570s, and he included a new versification of the ‘Song of Moses’, which has been attributed to James Melville. See See Neil Livingston (ed.), The Scottish Metrical Psalter of A.D. 1635 (Glasgow: Maclure & Macdonald, 1864), p. iv; Fleming, ‘Hymnology’, pp. 14–15; and Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 155 the seventeenth century.38 The sheer popularity and familiarity of ‘Old Common’ is reflected in its status as the only tune fromL ekpreuik’s 1564 Forme of prayers to be included among the Common Tunes. In 1620, a new competitor arrived on the Edinburgh printing scene, Edward Raban. Although Thomas Finlason owned the most profitable patents including the metrical psalter, his responsibilities as King’s Printer kept him busy. Hart was perhaps one of the largest beneficiaries of this situation, as he reached an agreement with Finlason that allowed him to print a number of these works, including the metrical psalter. In addition, Hart had become the official printer of the University and the unofficial printer for the Kirk.39 Finlason and Hart therefore had a stranglehold on the printing market in Edinburgh and arguably throughout the Scottish Lowlands. Raban’s arrival in Edinburgh would break Hart’s iron grip on the metrical psalter. Having learned the printing trade in Leiden, Raban originally set up a press at the Cowgate Port in Edinburgh,40 but he was soon enticed to move north to Aberdeen, which did not have a printer for its two universities or town council.41 Once settled in Aberdeen and unhindered by printing patents and agreements between Hart and Finlason, Raban’s business began to flourish. In addition to printing official documents for the colleges and city, Raban began to print other works, including the metrical psalter. His first edition appeared in 1625 STC[ 16594.5], and its main template was Hart’s two Common-Tune-filled editions of 1615.42 Raban’s decision to rely so heavily on previous psalters indicates that their content had become accepted even in the north-east of Scotland. Desiring to remain religiously and politically neutral, Raban chose to build his reputation in Aberdeen by printing metrical psalters and other works that conformed to established beliefs, practices, and traditions.43

38 The tunes which were later canonized were ‘Olde Common’, ‘Kinges’, ‘Dvkes’, ‘English’, ‘French’, ‘Dvmfermeling’, ‘Dvndie’, ‘Abbay’, ‘Martyrs’, and ‘The Stilt’. The remaining two tunes included among the 12 Scottish Common Tunes were ‘London’ and ‘Elgin’, which originated in the Daman 1579 and Daman 1591 editions, respectively. 39 After 1622, the printing duties for the Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews were split between the Hart heirs and the printer John Wreittoun. The Scottish General Assembly, on the other hand, never officially named a ‘Printer to the Kirk’, but regularly employed the same printers to meet its needs. Mann, Book Trade, p. 8. 40 ian Beavan, ‘Raban, Edward (d. 1658)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/22970. 41 robert Baron, professor of divinity at Marischal College; Bishop Patrick Forbes; Sir Paul Menzies, provost; and David Melvill, bookseller, began to court Raban. Mann, Book Trade, pp. 9–10. 42 For some tunes and suggestions, it followed Bassandyne’s 1575, Schilders’s 1594, and Hart’s 1614. 43 Mann, Book Trade, p. 151. 156 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Raban did make one important departure in his 1625 psalter, however. While Hart’s 1615 psalters were the first to print a separate section of Common Tunes, Raban’s 1625 version was the first to add harmonizations for those same Common Tunes. He claimed these were ‘in more perfect forme than ever heere-to-fore … ’ and were ‘diligently revised and amended, By the most expert Musicians in Aberdene’.44 This is not an instance of the widespread practice of printers falsely boasting about ‘newly revised’ editions in order to boost sales.45 Raban’s work for the universities and community brought him into contact with Aberdeen’s musicians, and it would have been logical for him to utilize their expertise in harmonizing and printing these psalm tunes.46 Furthermore, Raban’s printed harmonizations cannot be traced before 1625, strongly suggesting that they were specially composed for this edition.47 Printing two more editions before 1640, Raban remained close to the traditional tune and text pairings found in the Hart psalters. None of the proper tunes printed in his 1630 edition [STC 16596] depart from the Hart psalters, and only two proper tunes differ in his 1633 edition, those for Psalms 2 and 57. In both cases, Raban replaced the proper tune with a tune suggestion. There were also nine differences in tune suggestions, but none of these appeared in later psalters.48 Therefore, the overall trend of Scottish psalters after 1615 as shown by text–tune pairings in editions by both Hart and Raban was fairly static, like those printed before 1590.

Consistency in Proper Tunes

While the diversity of text–tune pairings of the Scottish psalters at the beginning of the seventeenth century disappeared after 1615, the dissemination of the proper tunes in later editions deserves consideration, using the printed progression of two of the more popular tunes as representative examples. As with the discussion of tune progression in English psalters, the first priority is to set a standard with which the seventeenth-century versions of each tune can be compared. Since the

44 The Psalmes of David, in prose and metre [STC 16594.5] (Aberdene, 1625). 45 For an example, the 1556 Forme of prayers claimed its versifications were newly conferred with the Hebrew, but this did not mean they were translated from the Hebrew. RR, pp. 158–9. 46 Munro details Raban’s connections with the composer Patrick Davidson and his successor at the music school in Aberdeen, Andro Melvill. Gordon Munro, ‘Scottish Church Music and Musicians, 1500–1700’ (PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 1999), Vol. 1, pp. 99–100. 47 While these are the first instances of harmonizations for these tunes in Scotland, some of the tunes appeared with harmonizations in England before 1625. For instance, consider the tune from Psalm 10 in STCs 2482, 2488, and 2575. 48 There were different tune suggestions for Psalms 22, 38, 54, 56, 60, 90, 93, 131, and 144. See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 157

Example 5.1 Tune from Psalm 51, 1564 Forme of prayers [STC 16577]

Example 5.2 Tune from Psalm 51, 1614 CL Psalmes [STC 2705]

destabilization of text–tune relationships in Scottish metrical psalters had begun before 1601, the best edition for such comparisons remains Lekpreuik’s 1564 edition, used either directly or indirectly as the template for later Scottish metrical psalters. A comparison of the proper tune from Psalm 51 in Lekpreuik’s 1564 Forme of prayers (Example 5.1) with Hart’s 1614 version of the same tune (Example 5.2) reveals how closely Hart’s 1614 melody followed the psalters from the sixteenth century. Hart’s slightly adjusted rhythms 158 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Example 5.3 Tune from Psalm 51, 1625 CL Psalmes [STC 16594.5]

comprise the only differences between the two versions. In the same way that John Day began to simplify the rhythms in his psalters in the 1570s, Hart began to simplify the rhythms in his psalters. He retained the gathering tones at the beginning of each phrase, but he minimized the number of semibreves used in the middle. These variations are minor and probably stemmed from a desire to create a more regular rhythmic flow. Despite the small impact they had on the melody, they continued to appear in Hart’s subsequent metrical psalters. Although Raban also used Hart’s psalters as a template, he did not preserve Hart’s rhythmic innovations. As in the tune for Psalm 51 (Example 5.3), Raban chose to retain the original rhythms for his psalm tunes. Between 1590 and 1614, as discussed earlier, the printed Scottish psalters underwent a period of volatility and experimentation. The tune suggestions discussed above and the tune examples from Psalm 30 show printers testing the traditional text–tune relationships and varying the proper tunes they provided with their texts. After 1614, however, Scottish printers took great care to ensure their psalters were as accurate as possible (as shown in the example from Psalm 51), with the exception of one edition.49 Hart admits to returning to the patterns of the traditional psalters on the 1615 edition’s title page. Rather than using the usual title, ‘The CL Psalms of David in

49 This one psalter printed in 1622 [STC 16595.5] contained several inaccuracies, but it probably was the first edition printed by the heirs of Andro Hart after his death sometime in late 1621 or early 1622. Hart wrote his final will and testament on 12 December 1621, but the document does not provide the exact date of his death. Sir Walter Scott and David Laing (ed.), The Bannatyne Miscellany: containing original papers and tracts, chiefly relating to the history and literature of Scotland (Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1836), Vol. 2, pp. 241–9. Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 159

Metre, with diverse Notes and Tunes augmented to them’, he titles his new psalter, The CL Psalmes of David, in Prose and Meeter: With their whole usuall notes and tunes, Newly corrected, and amended (emphasis added). Since this wording deviated from the titles of previous editions printed by Hart and others, it signals a presumably deliberate reversion to the ‘usual’ form of the psalm tunes and tune suggestions. The release of these 1615 editions neatly aligns with another important event for Hart’s business. That same year Hart was appointed official printer to the University of Edinburgh.50 Presumably these psalters were included in the curriculum for divinity students, and Hart surely perceived the value of printing psalters that contained a consistent set of proper tunes and tune suggestions. Similar thinking can be adduced on Raban’s part as official printer to Aberdeen’s two universities, thus cementing his place among other Scottish printers.

The 1635 Scottish Psalter

In terms of musical content, the 1635 The Psalmes of David in Prose and Meeter. With their whole Tunes in foure or mo parts, and some Psalmes in Reports [STC 16599] represents the highest point of development in the Sternhold and Hopkins line of psalters that was produced on either side of the Anglo-Scottish border. Compiled by Edward Millar, the head of music at the Chapel Royal and a graduate of the University of Edinburgh, this edition contains three different types of psalm settings being sung in Scotland at the time.51 As with previous psalters, Millar included proper psalm tunes and Common Tunes. However, his edition distinguished itself not only as the first printed edition to include four-part settings of all the proper tunes (and even one five-part setting), but as containing the largest collection of Common Tunes of any other Scottish psalter.52 Millar’s third achievement was to include so-called ‘Tunes in Reports’, which were more complex, imitative and anthem-like settings of the psalms that nearly all originated in Scotland.53

50 Hart and his heirs alternated this position with printer John Wreittoun from 1622 to 1632. For a year one printer would serve Edinburgh University and the other would print theses for St Andrews, and then the two printers would exchange positions the following year. Mann, Book Trade, p. 8. 51 livingston, Scottish Metrical Psalter, p. 48; Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, pp. 67–8. 52 For the sources of the proper tunes, see Kenneth Elliott, ‘Scottish Music of the Early Reformed Church’, Transactions of the Scottish Ecclesiological Society 15 (1961), pp. 28ff. There were 31 Common Tunes printed in the 1635 Psalmes of David, whereas the most included in any edition leading up to 1635 had been 15. For the various sources of these Common Tunes, see Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, pp. 309, 311–13. 53 The version of Psalm 113 by Claude Goudimel was the lone exception. Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, p. 314. 160 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Millar’s edition could therefore be described as a compendium of early modern metrical psalmody, including everything from the simplest settings used by families and congregations to the most complex settings that were performed by professional choirs and musicians. The 1635 Psalmes of David was the result of a sustained effort to compile the known psalm-singing practices from around the country. Millar seems to have begun to collect the Common Tunes before 1626, as one of the extant editions of Hart’s 1615 edition [STC 2708] in the National Library of Scotland has been re-bound to incorporate a set of interleaved manuscript psalm harmonizations by Millar dated 1626.54 This is presumably the manuscript described in 1913 by the Scottish historian William Cowan, and supposed by Gordon Munro and Kenneth Elliott to be now lost.55 In addition to the Common Tunes, Millar incorporated the works of some of the most prominent Scottish composers, including John Angus, Andrew Blackhall, David Peebles, Alexander Smith, John Black, John Buchan, and a man named Sharp. While this last identity is uncertain,56 the rest are all known to have been active in the Kirk just after the Reformation. Furthermore, the works of Angus, Blackhall, Peebles, and Buchan were all included in the Wode or St Andrews Psalter, discussed in Chapter 3. While the settings in the Wode partbooks may have been known from Aberdeen to Glasgow, the works of Smith and Sharp were may have been scattered around the country, for Millar’s project apparently consumed considerable time and resources.57 He tells his readers:

If you bee curious to know who hath undergone these paines for your benefite,I professe my self a Welwiller to Musick, who in love and paines for advancement thereof will yeeld to s[h]ow, though in qualification to many: I have spent too much tyme, travell and expenses on that facultie … 58

54 GB-En Acc. 12805. 55 William Cowan, ‘Bibliography of the Book of Common Order and psalm book of the Church of Scotland’, Papers of the Edinburgh Bibliographical Society 10 (1913), p. 89; Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, p. 316n; Elliott, ‘Scottish Music’, p. 24. 56 The Psalmes of David in Prose and Meeter. With their whole Tunes in foure or mo parts, and some Psalmes in Reports [STC 16599] (Edinburgh: Heirs of Andro Hart, 1635). As Munro notes, the identity of Sharp has yet to be determined. Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, p. 289n. 57 The Wode partbooks and their content is known to have travelled from Wode in St Andrews to Angus in Dunfermline, Blackhall in Musselburgh, and Buchan in Haddington. It is also likely that Buchan carried them to Glasgow when he became the head of the song school there in 1592 and that Andro Kemp – another contributor to the Wode Psalter – took them to Aberdeen when he was made head of the song school at St Nicholas in New Aberdeen. See Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, pp. 81, 167, 214, 289. 58 edward Millar, ‘To the Gentle Reader’, in The Psalmes of David in Prose and Meeter [STC 16599]. Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 161

Example 5.4 Tune from Psalm 69, 1635 Psalmes of David [STC 16599]

The 1635 Psalmes of David had a close parallel in Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke. Both editions provided four-part harmonizations for their psalm tunes, and both included a set of Common Tunes. The psalm settings printed in both editions also often used modified versions of the melodies in order to fit the harmony. For Psalm 69 (Example 5.4), the 1635 Psalmes of David reproduced many of the same modifications asR avenscroft’s version (Example 4.14). However, its melodic line deviated from Ravenscroft’s version in two ways, and one of these differences would not have been retained in normal singing practice. The second line of the 1635 version did not place a sharp on the f leading to the hemistich on g, but its supporting harmony would suggest that it should be f.59 The cadence at the end of the third line is also different, as Ravenscroft prints an f while Millar prints an a. Traditionally, the English Whole booke had printed an f at the end of the third line of this melody, but the Scottish Forme of prayers and CL Psalmes had normally printed an a. Psalms 6, 83, and 102 underwent similar minor changes, but Millar’s versions of Psalm 30 and 50, on the other hand, remained unchanged. Since Millar used a set of harmonizations different from Ravenscroft’s, it is understandable that some of his resulting melodies were different. Whether consciously or not, Millar therefore maintained the independence of Scottish psalmody that had been established by Lekpreuik’s 1564 Forme of prayers. In terms of ecclesiastical politics, Millar was indeed de facto upholding the independent Scottish tradition:

59 The supporting harmony outlines a d-chord, so performers probably would have normally used the rules of ficta to apply a sharp to the f so that it could be resolved on the g at the hemistich. 162 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Charles I had attempted to replace the Scottish psalter in 1631 with the first edition of the so-called ‘Psalms of King James’, and did so again with the heavily revised 1636 edition of the same. There has been disagreement about the popularity of Millar’s edition. Rev Neil Livingston argued that it included psalm settings that were commonly used in Edinburgh, so that few in the city would have taken issue with the inclusion of any particular psalm version.60 Because it was the only one of its kind, however, perhaps it was not particularly popular. Millar Patrick suggested that the more complicated settings such as those in ‘Reports’ would have been performable by the Chapel Royal only, so the edition may have only been intended for the Chapel.61 However, Gordon Munro’s research suggests that song schools would have been another possible outlet for performance of the more complex musical settings in the 1635 Psalmes of David.62 It is noteworthy that unlike Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke in England, Millar’s changes did not affect the last Scottish edition, the 1640 CL Psalmes.63 This would suggest that Millar’s influence, whether great or small, was short-lived, not least because in 1635, the impending upheaval in the Scottish Kirk and state was already casting its shadow. Two years later, Millar’s publication would be eclipsed by the massive ecclesiastical and political explosion that erupted with the 1637 ‘Prayer Book riots’ in Edinburgh. Above all, it was definitively superseded by a radically new metrical psalter that had resulted from the ensuing Wars of the Three Kingdoms and that would be approved by the Scottish General Assembly in 1650. One reason that Millar’s 1635 Psalmes of David seems not to have had any substantial impact on Scottish psalmody is that some may have opposed the edition outright. Millar argues:

Had I ever thought that this matter [of errors in the printed psalter] would have cost mee half the paines I have bestowed thereon, I should never by attempting the same have ministred such occasion to thee for to spew foorth thy spightful sclanders against mee.64

While pre-emptive denunciation of carping, ignorant critics is an absolutely standard feature of the paratext of early modern printed writings, Millar’s

60 livingston, Scottish Metrical Psalter, p. 48. 61 Millar Patrick, Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), pp. 70–72. 62 Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, passim. 63 Patrick, Scottish Psalmody, p. 72. 64 Millar apparently had his detractors, and his introduction to the psalter acts as a defence against people who will criticize the errors in the book. Millar, ‘Gentle Reader’. Uniformity and Instability in Scottish ‘Psalm Buiks’ 163 self-defence is exhaustively detailed, and could indicate that his long- nurtured project had been the target of much scorn in certain quarters. He also notes:

The motives moving mee hereunto, are chiefely God’s glorie … together with an abuse observed in all Churches, where sundrie Tribles, Basses and Counters set by diverse Authors, being sung upon one, and the same Tenor, do discordingly rub each upon another, offending both Musicall, and rude ears, which never tasted of this art: which unhappie fault I thought might happily bee helped, and the Church Musick made more plausible by publishing this Booke.65

Millar’s written attack here presumably echoes many verbal comments he had made over the years. People cannot have enjoyed being told that what they had been singing with heart and soul for years was simply wrong. Perhaps the largest reason for the edition’s small impact in the immediate short-term was Scottish resistance to change, and the insistence of individuals to sing what they were familiar with, even when it clashed with what others in the congregation were singing. It is clear that the tunes themselves varied little within the Kirk or between one parish and another. Rather, the problem Millar tried to correct was the cacophony of sound caused by people singing various harmonizations of the same tune. Thus, the issue was not which tunes people sang or whether they sang harmonizations, but which harmonizations people sang.66 Whatever its popularity, the 1635 Psalmes of David, more than any other edition, stands as an anthology of metrical psalmody as practiced throughout early modern Britain. Millar intended his psalter for Scottish use, but it included the three most common types of psalm singing practised in both England and Scotland.67 Trained choirs in England and Scotland had been singing versions like those found in Millar’s ‘Reports’ for decades, and the Common Tunes had been gaining popularity in both countries, presumably in smaller parish settings where musical resources were limited. Finally, both countries still maintained a set of proper tunes that, although tied to a particular psalm text, would have suited a number of texts and occasions.

65 Millar, ‘Gentle Reader’. 66 This is important for discussion of performance practice. See Chapter 8. 67 The circumstances surrounding the creation of Millar’s psalter are an area deserving further investigation, as Millar’s reasoning behind compiling the volume and its relation to the Anglo-Scottish liturgical discussions of the 1630s remain largely unconsidered. This page has been left blank intentionally Chapter 6 Anglo-Scottish Interactions in Print

The preceding chapters have focused on the distinguishing characteristics of the metrical psalters that were printed in England and Scotland, and the differing ways in which they developed over the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Although printers and editors maintained and promoted the unique traits of their respective national traditions, this did not necessarily stem from any hostility towards the tradition across the border. Indeed, their first priority was to produce editions that would sell to their clienteles. Some of the printing innovations that appeared throughout the period had an impact on English and Scottish psalters alike. Predating the attempts by King James VI and I and his son to progressively align the national churches of Scotland and England, the Middelburg Psalters may have been the attempt of one printer to align the two countries’ metrical psalters. At the same time, some locations in England were using a severely consolidated and simplified set of tunes to sing the bulk of their metrical psalms. These shorter and more modern-sounding tunes slowly began to gain popularity across England, and they would eventually be codified into a set known as the Common Tunes. These would cross the border into Scotland, where they would be amended for Scottish use. The Middleburg Psalters and the Common Tunes therefore serve as case studies of the interactions between English and Scottish metrical psalters during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They are examples of the tension between a nascent British unity and ancient national loyalties that typified English and Scottish views in the early to mid-seventeenth century.1

The Middelburg Psalters

By 1567, the Calvinist Richard Schilders had moved to London as a refugee from the advancing Spanish armies on the Continent. After spending 13

1 Although focused mainly on a Scottish perspective, Jenny Wormald discusses conflicting views of both English and Scottish subjects at the Union of the Crowns and thereafter. Jenny Wormald, ‘Confidence and Perplexity : The Seventeenth Century’, in Scotland: A History, ed. Jenny Wormald (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 143–65. 166 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice years in London learning the printing trade, he received an invitation from the city of Middelburg in the Dutch state of Zeeland to establish a press there, and he happily accepted.2 Because of its importance as a centre for trade with England, Middelburg had become home to a group of English Protestants who believed the English national church had not gone far enough with its reforms. Schilders set up his press between 1579 and 1580, and for 30 years it would be one of the most important sources for pamphlets and tracts by English Puritans and Separatists residing in Middelburg.3 Though Schilders’s editions were illegal in England, they were approved in Scotland, and he printed editions of the Scottish metrical psalms in 1594 [STC 16584] and 1596 [STC 2701]. These were titled The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in English metre and The Psalmes Of Dauid in metre respectively, and differed from their Scottish predecessors in only two instances: Psalms 64 and 76. The former, Psalm 64, appeared without either a tune or suggestion in Schilders’s 1596 edition. This probably was an oversight since the 1594 edition and all of Schilders’s subsequent editions included the normal tune suggestion for this psalm, the tune from Psalm 18. In addition, Schilders’s 1594 and 1596 editions both printed a new tune for Psalm 76 that replaced the proper tune that had originated in Coverdale’s Goostly psalmes and had been modified in the 1564 Forme of prayers.4 This second difference was probably intentional since it had a lasting impact on the Scottish psalters. It reappeared in each of Schilders’s later Scottish editions and was adopted in most of Hart’s editions.5 Despite these minor changes, Schilders’s metrical psalters must have experienced some early success in Scotland. When his Scottish importer and bookseller Henry Charteris died in 1599, Scottish psalter printing was left in a state of confusion, as no printer in Scotland had the time or resources to print the metrical psalter. However, Schilders’s previous work on the psalms was probably brought to bear that same year, when John Gibson – the new owner of the psalter patent – petitioned for permission to continue to import Schilders’s publications. Gibson received his licence and:

2 alastair Mann, The Scottish Book Trade 1500–1720 (East Lothian: Tuckwell Press, 2000), p. 79. 3 Mann, Book Trade, p. 70. 4 temperley notes that this new tune was possibly related to an adaptation of the German tune for Psalm 124, ‘Wo Gott der Herr nicht bei uns halt’. Nicholas Temperley, HTI, ‘Tune: 277a’. 5 the only Hart edition that did not print Schilders’s new tune for Psalm 76 was his 1610 Psalms of David, which did not print a proper tune or tune suggestion for the psalm. Anglo-Scottish Interactions in Print 167

causit imprent within Middilburgh in Flanderis ane new psalme buik in litill volume contening baith the Psalmes in verse as lykwayis the samyn in prose upoun the margine tharof in ane forme nevir practizit nor devisit in any heirtofoir.6

Schilders first used this new format in the same year that Gibson received the patent, so it is difficult to know whether the patent or the edition came first.7 Regardless, this patent accepted and promoted Schilders’s decision to make a significant change to the Scottish psalms. Up to this point, marginalia in the metrical psalters in both England and Scotland had provided cross-references to other Biblical texts. Schilders chose instead to print the psalms in prose alongside their metricized versions. While a 1561 edition of the Geneva Psalter may have been the first to do this, the assertion that it was ‘ane forme nevir practizit nor devisit in any heirtofoir’ confirms it was an innovation for English-language metrical psalters. Besides the modified marginalia, Schilders’s first psalter under the new patent was significantly different from his previous two Scottish editions in another way: it printed proper tunes for only 75 psalms.8 The reasons for this severely consolidated repertory are unclear. One possibility is that he sought to counter the imminent increase in printing costs because of the prose marginalia. The reduced number of tunes may have allowed him to essentially double the psalter’s textual content without dramatically increasing its price. It is also possible that Gibson commissioned Schilders to adapt the Day psalters for Scottish purposes. While, as Temperley noted, this is not borne out by textual comparisons between Schilders’s 1596 and 1599 editions, the Day psalters could have been a basic musical template for Schilders’s 1599 Scottish Psalter.9 Chapter 2 noted that the Day psalters contained significantly fewer tunes than the Scottish psalters. Possibly people at the time knew of this difference between the two, and equated the Day psalters with a more consolidated tune repertory. Perhaps more importantly, the content of the first part of Schilders’s 1599 CL. Psalmes of Dauid [STC 16587] does not support the theory that he intended to adapt the Whole booke for Scottish purposes. He reproduced the same tunes and suggestions for the first 36 psalms that had been printed in earlier Scottish editions, but beginning with Psalm 37 he

6 nicholas Temperley, ‘Middelburg Psalms’, Studies in Bibliography 30 (1977), pp. 164–5; Mann, Book Trade, p. 79. 7 temperley notes that Gibson claims to have commissioned the psalter, but he may have been trying to claim credit for something that had come directly to Schilders from Geneva. Temperley, ‘Middelburg Psalms’, p. 166. 8 Leading up to his 1599 edition, Schilders’s 1594 and 1596 metrical psalters printed proper tunes for 121 psalms and canticles. 9 Temperley, ‘Middelburg Psalms’, pp. 165–6. 168 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice began to omit proper tunes. Initially he replaced these proper tunes with suitable tune suggestions, and his suggestions generally avoided the tune- hunting exercises that characterized his contemporaries’ editions of the Whole booke. Beginning with Psalm 46, however, he became progressively careless about replacing the proper tunes. Forty-one of the final 104 psalms appear without a tune or suggestion, and most of these omissions occur in the final 50 psalms. This contrasts glaringly with the care that characterizes the first part of the psalter and suggests that Schilders hurried the psalter to its completion. His reasons are unknown, though a similar trend can be found in his second psalter from 1599, an edition of the English psalms. Schilders intended this second version [STC 2499.9] for the English exiles in Middelburg, and Temperley notes that Schilders formed this ‘Englished’ version by starting with his 1599 Scottish edition. In fact, he began the English edition by re-using the first three quires from his Scottish edition, along with the first part of the fourth quire. This time-saving method was practicable because Psalms 1 to 22 in the Day psalter and the Scottish psalter were identical. Although some of the remaining psalm texts within these re-used quires were different, Schilders undoubtedly deemed it pragmatically reasonable to sacrifice perfect congruence with the textual content of the Whole booke to the need to get the psalter into print as quickly as possible. After that point, however, the texts of the two traditions diverged so significantly that Schilders had no choice but to start printing pages unique to the English edition.10 Despite the Scottish opening to Schilders’s 1599 English edition, its musical content did not entirely reflect the contents of the preceding Scottish psalters. Since it included 80 tunes in total, 18 had not appeared regularly in the Day psalters (Table 6.1). Of these 18, only two tunes appeared outside its first three quires: Psalms 66 and 96. The restof the tunes printed in Schilders’s 1599 English edition were commonplace enough in the English Whole booke. Since users could easily substitute familiar melodies for many of the unknown Scottish tunes, Schilders’s English psalter did not make any particularly unusual demands. Though the primary clientele for this English edition was the community of English religious exiles in Middelburg, Schilders sent at least 12 copies to two London booksellers.11 These booksellers then started reprinting Schilders’s psalter. Although the second volume was designed to be more

10 discussing the differences between Schilders’s Scottish and English versions of his 1599 psalter, Temperley noted, ‘The only significant differences are in the tunes …’. Temperley, ‘Middelburg Psalms’, p. 164. Because the text of the Scottish version uses the traditional Scottish editions and the English version meticulously followed the Day psalters, as Temperley notes on p. 166, the texts were another significant difference between the two versions. 11 Temperley, ‘Middelburg Psalms’, p. 164. Anglo-Scottish Interactions in Print 169

Table 6.1 Musical content from Schilders’ 1599 English psalter

Tunes not normally Day psalter tunes paired Tunes normally in the Day in the Day psalters with new texts psalters Psalms 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, Psalms 47, 62*, 67, 71, Psalms 3, 6, 14, 18, 30, 35, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20, 85, 86, 96, 115, 132, 41, 44, 46, 50, 51, 52, 59, 21, 23, 28, 29, 33, 136, 138, 141, 143, 61, 68, 69, 71, 72, 77, 78, 34, 66, and 95 144, and 149 81, 96, 104, 119, 121, 129, 130, 132, and 147; Benedicite, Benedictus, ‘Complaint of a Sinner’, ‘Creed’, Da Pacem Domine, ‘Humble Suit of a Sinner’, ‘Lamentation’, ‘Lamentation of a Sinner’, ‘Lord’s Prayer’ (Whittingham and Cox), Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, ‘Preserve us’, Quiconque vult, Te Deum, ‘Ten Commandments’, ‘Ten Commandments’, Veni Creator

* The tune printed for Psalm 62 is related to the proper tune from Psalm 44, but it is a different tune. palatable for his English readers than the first, neither Schilders’s original nor the reprints sold well in England. It has been speculated that the edition’s Scottish-ness made it unpalatable to English audiences, though the Scottish influence on the English version was limited to the tunes for the first 35 psalms. It is possible, then, that it was not how many psalm tunes deviated from the Day psalters but which psalm tunes deviated that contributed to the volume’s dismal sales in England. In the Day tradition, the tunes for the first 20 psalms were the most static in the Whole booke after 1562.12 Schilders’s introduction of different musical material for these very psalms may have discouraged potential customers used to the Day psalters. To credit the volume’s lack of success solely to its very mild Scottish flavour, however, is to ignore several other issues. The discussion above noted that Schilders did not have a good reputation in England due to his publications supporting Separatist theology. Later these would lead James VI and I to ban all the works Schilders had printed.13 Schilders also

12 See Timothy Duguid, ‘Early Modern British Metrical Psalters’, Edinburgh Research Archive (2013), http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/6684. 13 Schilders’s imprints were banned in England after he printed the anonymous A faithfull report of proceedings anent the assemblie of ministers at Abirdeen vpon Twesday 2. Iuly 1605 [STC 63] ([Middelburg]: Richard Schilders, 1606), which was an account of the illegal General Assembly of 1605. See Mann, Book Trade, p. 79. 170 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice did not own a patent to print or sell his metrical psalters in England, a privilege that still belonged to Richard Day. That Day quickly enlisted the services of Peter Short to print a version based on Schilders’s psalter only further pushed Schilders out of the English psalter market. There is no question that the template for Short’s edition, printed in 1601 [STC 2505], was Schilders’s 1599 English edition, since it used the same texts and many of the same tunes. However, as Temperley notes, Short reinstated many of the traditional tunes, and he included a number of newer tunes that had become popular in the East psalters.14 This quasi-Middelburg edition created by Short enjoyed some popularity in England, appearing in over a dozen editions over the next 40 years.15 Back in Middelburg, Schilders again tried to make his psalters pay, printing a second pair in 1602. This time he started with an English edition, adjusting the tunes to follow East’s 1592 edition. Except for Psalm 66, Schilders changed each of the proper tunes in his original 1599 edition to match those of East’s 1592 edition. Since East was Schilders’s mentor during his time in London, it is understandable that he would turn to East for a template, but he did not print each tune as it appeared in East’s edition. Rather, Schilders preserved many of the tune suggestions that had appeared in his first edition. For his Scottish version [STC 16589], Schilders did the opposite of what he did in his first set, using the first few quires from the English edition in this new Scottish one. The first 30 psalms therefore featured 14 proper tunes that deviated from previous Scottish editions, and the whole edition contained 32 proper tunes that differed from previous Scottish psalters. However, a closer look at these deviations reveals that its proper tunes were not particularly dissimilar from those with which Scots had long been familiar. In fact, these 32 different psalm settings used a total of only five tunes. The proper tune of Psalm 108 (discussed in the previous chapter) was one of these tunes. Schilders paired this tune with five psalms that had previously appeared with their own proper tunes in Scottish psalters.16 He did the same for Psalms 20, 120 and 127, which he paired with the customary Scottish tunes of Psalms 14 and 77, and the Lord’s Prayer, respectively. That leaves just two new proper tunes that Scots would have needed to learn in this 1602 edition. Schilders’s new edition also deviated from its Scottish predecessors in the number of tunes it included, but most of the psalm texts characteristic of the Scottish psalter were still present. Thus, in the same way that Schilders’s 1599 English version was

14 Temperley, ‘Middelburg Psalms’, pp. 166–77. 15 Temperley, ‘Middelburg Psalms’, pp. 166–77. 16 Schilders printed the tune from Psalm 108 for Psalms 10, 35, 95, 109, and 114. See Duguid, ‘British Metrical Psalters’. Anglo-Scottish Interactions in Print 171 still an English psalter influenced by the Scottish psalters, his 1602 Scottish version was a Scottish psalter influenced by the English psalters. Schilders’s 1599 and 1602 editions were relatively unsuccessful in their respective target countries, but they did exercise some influence on later editions. The Company of Stationers used Schilders’s 1602 English edition for their first edition of the ‘Middelburg psalms’ in 1605 STC[ 2518].17 Though the Middelburg-style psalters continued to be changed over the next 50 years, their unique format of parallel prose and metrical texts disappeared from English presses after 1649. In Scotland, on the other hand, this format replaced the metre-only format, as each printed edition – including Millar’s 1635 Psalmes of David – used it. While the Middelburg psalters contributed to the upheaval in Scottish psalters discussed in the previous chapter, they did not have a lasting impact on the tunes printed in the Scottish psalters beyond Andro Hart’s reprint Middelburg edition of 1611 [STC 16591]. Temperley notes, however, that there were a few significant differences. Three of the more popular tunes from East’s psalters and Schilders’s second editions would rank among the most popular psalm tunes in both England and Scotland.18

The Common Tunes

The second significant point of contact between the English and Scottish metrical psalters were the Common Tunes. While these tunes probably did not originate as ballads, they mimicked ballad tunes in many ways.19 As Temperley has noted, they usually employed a regular rhythmic pattern and frequently used two types of cadence: on the second or fifth scale degrees, and on the first scale degree.20 These melodies were also set in Common Metre, making them half the length of the Double Common Metre used in most of the proper psalm tunes, and consequently far easier to learn. Since the bulk of texts in both English and Scottish psalters were written in Common Metre, people could pair the Common Tunes with the majority of the psalm texts in their metrical psalters. These factors combined to

17 temperley discusses this volume and its contents. Temperley, ‘Middelburg Psalms’, p. 168. 18 these tunes would become known as ‘Low Dutch’, ‘Cambridge’, and ‘Oxford’ in England; and ‘English’, ‘London’, and ‘Old Common’ in Scotland. 19 Marsh notes that people only connected the popular ballad tune ‘Greensleeves’ with the psalms when trying to disparage and discredit someone. He also notes the similar controversy that surrounded Slayter’s Psalmes, or Songs of Sion. Christopher Marsh, Music and Society in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 420–21; for more examples, see MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 66. 20 MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 69. 172 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice make the Common Tunes immediately accessible and relevant in early modern British metrical psalm singing practice. They first began to have an impact on printed editions in England starting in the 1570s and 1580s.

English Common Tunes

Once the English Whole booke and the Scottish Forme of prayers were completed and printed, the general trend for psalm tunes was to move north from England to Scotland. However, the first psalm tune to cross between the two countries was the previously examined Scottish tune for Psalm 108. Its first English appearance was in Daman’s 1579 Psalmes of David, and later it was printed in Cosyn’s 1585 Musike of Six, and Five Partes and the 1588 Whole booke [STC 2475.2]. Although it appeared in only three editions printed before 1588, the tune must have become popular. Thomas East’s 1592 Whole booke printed it as the proper tune for 26 psalm and hymn texts,21 and his 1594 edition insisted that it was among four tunes that were sung to the psalms ‘in most churches of this Realme’.22 By the beginning of the seventeenth century, the tune was being used by music theorists and educators to train instrumentalists, singers, and composers.23 At the same time, it would be codified as one of the Common Tunes, and eventually be named ‘Oxford’ – despite its Scottish origins – in Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke.24 Temperley has noted that ‘Oxford’ gave birth to at least two other Common Tunes. Both first appeared in East’s 1592 Psalmes of David, and both originated as harmonies. The tune that would generally become known as ‘Glassenbury’ began as a harmony to ‘Oxford’, and ‘Kentish’ or ‘Rochester’ originated as a harmony to ‘Glassenbury’.25 The seventeenth- century minister, Charles Butler confirms these relationships:

As de partes of a Song ougt to bee Harmonious one to an oder; so shoolde dey bee Melodious each one in it self … Soch as are all de fowr Partes of dat

21 The Whole booke of psalmes [STC 2482] (London: Thomas East, 1592). 22 For enlarged discussion of East’s claim, see Chapter 7. The Whole booke of psalmes [STC 2488] (London: Thomas East, 1594), p. 1. 23 See Thomas Robinson, The Schoole of Musicke: wherein is taught, the perfect method, of true fingering of the lute, pandora, orpharion, and viol da gamba [STC 21128] (London: Thomas East, 1603); Thomas Robinson, New Citharen Lessons [STC 21127] (London: William Barley, 1609); Thomas Campion, A New Way of Making Fowre Parts in Counter-Point [STC 4542] (London: T[homas] S[nodham], [1610]); and Rev. Charles Butler, The Principles of Musik (London: John Haviland, 1636). 24 In 1636, however, the tune’s origins were properly attributed, as Charles Butler’s treatise, The Principles of Musik, named it ‘De Scottish Tune’. Butler, Principles, p. 44. 25 MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 73–4. Anglo-Scottish Interactions in Print 173

Oxford Tune: de Mean and Tenor were of, in de Psalms set out by Tho. East, ar (for deir Melodies) made two several Tunes, (under de names of Glassenburi and Kentish Tunes) wit oder Partes set unto dem.26

While Butler’s comments seem to suggest these tunes first began with East’s psalter, Temperley has argued that their origins may have predated East as improvised descants to the original tune. Harmonized psalm singing practices in England will be examined in the next chapter, but for present purposes it is enough to note that some of the Common Tunes may have originated in improvised singing practice, while others were part of an intentional process of musical composition. Thomas Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke gave names to 50 melodies, many of which would become known collectively as the Common Tunes. While some academics have since endeavoured to provide some meaningful connection between the tune names and their origins, only a handful display any such relationships. The various tunes named ‘Low Dutch’, ‘High Dutch’, and ‘French’ are associated with Continental singing traditions, such as those in the Netherlands, Geneva, and Germany. The remaining tunes, and particularly those named after cathedral towns and collegiate choirs in England, do not have any known connection between their origins and their names. As already shown in the case of ‘Oxford’, printed evidence places the tune’s origins firmly in Scotland. Despite the dubious relevance of the names Ravenscroft assigned to the Common Tunes, later editions adopted many of them. As mentioned in Chapter 4, East’s editions of the Psalmes of David gave rise to a new type of metrical psalter in England that can be best labelled ‘Common Tune Psalters’. These actually retained many of the traditional proper tunes, but their tune suggestions heavily relied on the Common Tunes.27 The Common Tune Psalters printed after 1621 attach Ravenscroft’s names to the tune suggestions used in the East editions, and this further engrained the names into English psalm-singing practice and culture.

Scottish Common Tunes

As indicated earlier, the Common Tunes were not collected together in Scottish editions until 1615. Hart’s 12 Common Tunes were separated from the rest of the psalter, and subsequent editions of the Scottish psalms continued to

26 Butler, Principles, p. 44. 27 Therefore, for the first three decades of the seventeenth century, there were at least five different series of metrical psalters printed in England: the full musical editions, the abridged musical editions, the sol-fa editions, the East-based Common Tune editions, and the Middelburg editions. 174 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice follow suit. Only Hart’s 1629 CL Psalmes did not include a Common Tunes section, indicating that Scots regularly used these tunes after 1615. Before then, measurable popularity can be attested only for ‘Old Common’. The origins of four Scottish Common Tunes can be traced to England. John Davidson’s Some helpes for young Schollers in Christianity, as they are in vse & taught [STC 6324.5] from 1602 was the first Scottish publication to include the tune that would become known in Scotland as ‘London’. Davidson and his printer Robert Waldegrave paired it with Thomas Norton’s versification of Psalm 117, also making its first printed appearance in Scotland. The tune originated in Daman’s 1579 The psalmes of David in English meter as the proper tune for Psalm 23, but it was modified and paired with Psalm 103 in two editions of the 1588 Whole booke [STCs 2475.2 and 2475.3]. While East’s and Schilders’s editions all continued to reprint the original version, it was the modified version from 1588 that Davidson included in his Some helpes.28 Neither East nor Schilders are known to have had any links with Davidson or Waldegrave, but both Scots had connections to England. Davidson had lived there from 1577 to 1579, so he may have encountered Daman’s original version of the tune during this brief stay.29 It is more likely, however, that it was Waldegrave who became familiar with it when he was first building his printing career in London before 1590. He probably would have been acquainted with the very latest psalters being printed, which would have included the modified version of the tune. Whatever the means whereby the tune made its way into the volume, it was probably not popular in Scotland before 1602, since Schilders used it in his English edition of that year, but not his Scottish one. The other two Scottish Common Tunes that can be traced to English roots are ‘English’ and ‘Dukes’. Like ‘London’, ‘English’ also appeared in Daman’s 1579 psalter, where it was paired with Norton’s versification of Psalm 116. It was changed in Cosyn’s 1585 Musike of six and fiue partes, and this version would gain popularity in England and later make its way to Scotland. ‘Dukes’, on the other hand, first appeared in East’s 1592 Whole booke. Temperley has suggested that it is a shortened form of the tune of Psalms 77 and 81 in the Day and Stationers’ editions of the Whole booke. East paired the modified tune with Psalm 84, and Hart’s 1615 editions were the first to include it in Scotland.

28 The Scottish music historian Kenneth Elliott postulated that the modified version of the tune may have been associated with the composer Andrew Blackhall, but its presence in the Whole booke editions starting in 1588 almost certainly indicates an English origin. Kenneth Elliott, ‘Some Helpes for Young Schollers: A New Source of Early Scottish Psalmody’, in The Renaissance in Scotland Studies in Literature, Religion, History and Culture Offered to John Durkan, ed. Alasdair A. MacDonald, Michael Lynch, and Ian B. Cowan (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 272. 29 James Kirk, ‘Davidson, John (c. 1549–1604), ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/7217. Anglo-Scottish Interactions in Print 175

The origins of many of the Scottish Common Tunes, however, remain unknown. Since the eight other Common Tunes in Hart’s 1615 CL Psalmes first appeared in that edition, they had probably been newly or recently composed or adapted for Hart. Similarly, the origins of an additional 19 Common Tunes that were printed among the total of 31 Common Tunes in Millar’s 1635 Psalmes of David are difficult to trace. One of these newer Common Tunes, ‘Montrose’, was the Scottish name for the English Common Tune ‘Kentish’, a relative of ‘Old Common’. As for the other 18 tunes, Millar’s 1635 introduction may provide a helpful clue:

I acknowledge sincerely the whole compositions of the parts to belong to the primest Musicians that ever this kingdome had, as Deane Iohn Angus, Blackhall; Smith, Peebles, Sharp, Black, Buchan; and others famous for their skill of this kind. I would bee most unwilling to wrong such Shyning lights of this Art, by obscuring their Names, and arrogating any thing to my selfe, which any wayes might derogate from them … The first copies have beene wronged and vitiat by unskilfull copiers thereof, as all things are inpared by tyme; And herein consisted a part of my paines, that collecting all the sets I could find on the Psalmes, after painfull tryall thereof, I selected the best for this work, according to my simple judgement.30

Although he collected these ‘sets’ of psalters with the goal of standardizing part-singing practice throughout Scotland, it is likely that these ‘sets’ included the Common Tunes in addition to the proper psalm tunes, and that Millar therefore gathered his 31 Common Tunes from existing psalm singing traditions within Scotland. One of the ‘sets’ of harmonized tunes that Edward Millar collected, the Wode Partbooks, or St Andrews Psalter, offers further insight into the state of the Scottish Common Tunes in the 1620s and 1630s. Tucked away at the back of the tenor book and the firstcantus book are 22 settings of the Common Tunes set in four and five parts. These are written in a different hand from Wode’s metrical psalms, indicating they were added after the books had passed from Wode to someone else, probably a number of years after Wode’s death in 1592.31 Only the cantus and tenor parts of the four-part settings remain along with the cantus and altus of the five- part settings. Twelve correspond to the Common Tunes from Hart’s 1615 psalter, and Hilda Hutcheson noted that 14 of the 15 four-part cantus parts

30 edward Millar, ‘To the Gentle Reader’ in The Psalmes of David in Prose and Meeter [STC 16599] (Edinburgh: Heirs of Andro Hart, 1635). 31 yet another hand separates Wode’s hand from that of the Common Tunes in both books. This intervening hand transcribed a number of ballads, so it is likely that the transcriber of the Common Tunes was at least the second owner of the books after Wode’s death. See GB-Eu La.III.483.1, pp. 188–97; GB-Eu La.III.483.2, pp. 176–93. 176 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice are identical to the Common Tunes found in the 1635 Psalmes of David printed by the heirs of Andro Hart. However, only two of the 22 five-part settings can be traced to a printed collection. She therefore suggests that they were the work of a musical amateur. Indeed, the fact that the same hand copied the four- and five-part settings in both books indicates that a music student or amateur may have been using Wode’s partbooks to study harmonization techniques.

Table 6.2 Common Tunes in Scottish Psalters

Name Wode, Hart, Raban, Raban, Raban, 1562– 1615 1625 1630 1633 Old Common 201a 201a 201a 201a 201a King’s 329 329 329 329 329 Duke’s 276b 276b 276b 276b 276b English 250b 250b 250b 250b 250b French 327a 327a 327a 327a 327a London 249d 249d 249d 249d 249d Stilt 331a 331a 331a 331a 331a Dunfermling 326a 326a 326a 326a 326 Dundie 271a 271a 271a 271a 271a Abbay 325 325 325 325 325 Glasgow 328 328 328 328 328 Martyrs 330a 330a 330a 330a 330a Montrose 400 275a 400 484 Elgin 275a 400 275a 400 Bon Accord 399 399 399 399 Murray 489 Forraine 496 Couper 487 Culrosse 485 Slains ? Aberdeen ? Mr. Black’s ?

Note: Tunes are listed by their designation in the HTI. A blank space indicates that the tune was not provided in that edition, and a question mark represents a tune that is not listed in the HTI. Anglo-Scottish Interactions in Print 177

The 15 four-part settings in the partbooks include Hart’s 12 Common Tunes along with tunes called ‘Bon Accord’, ‘Elgin’, and ‘Montrose’. According to Table 6.2, these would correspond to either Raban’s 1630 or 1633 edition. Hutcheson connected them to the 1633 edition, noting how the cantus parts from the Wode partbooks and Raban’s 1633 psalter were identical.32 Following Kenneth Elliott’s lead, Gordon Munro has shown that the original four-part settings in the 1625 edition were the work of the Aberdonian musician Patrick Davidson and that his fellow Aberdonian, Andro Melvill – who became master of the song school in Aberdeen – edited the versions found in the 1633 edition.33 A closer examination of Table 6.2 reveals a problem with Hutchison’s theory that the Wode compiler was using Raban’s 1633 Psalmes of David. Although she suggested that the scribe simply switched the names of the tunes ‘Elgin’ and ‘Montrose’, Table 6.2 reveals that was not the case. The 1633 edition named HTI tune 400 (traditionally known as ‘Montrose’) ‘Elgin’, dropped HTI 275a (traditionally known as ‘Elgin’), and named a completely new tune (designated HTI 484) ‘Montrose’. Instead, the Wode partbooks call HTI 275a ‘Elgin’ and HTI 400 ‘Montrose’, which corresponds to the 1630 edition. Since the cantus parts and the order of the tunes in Wode are identical with those in the 1630 edition, it is a near certainty that the Wode scribe was using Raban’s 1630 Psalmes of David, an edition that also uses Melville’s settings. If that was the only connection with Aberdeen, it could be dismissed as coincidence. However, the Wode partbooks also include four five-part Common Tunes that arguably had connections with Aberdeenshire. One tune, titled ‘Aberdeen’ needs no further explanation, and another is called ‘Bon Accord’, the motto on the burgh’s coat of arms. The tune ‘Slains’ refers either to one of the castles at Slains or to the town itself, all of which are located on the coast approximately 20 miles north of Aberdeen. A third tune, titled ‘Mr. Black’s Tune’ was perhaps named for the former priest Sir John Black, who was the master of the song school at St Nicholas in Aberdeen from 1576 to 1587. Most notable among his compositions was a series of polyphonic instrumental pieces, entitled ‘Lessons on the Psalms’, in which each one was built around a proper tune from the Forme of prayers. Apart from ‘Bon Accord’, none of these three Wode partbook

32 Hilda S.P. Hutchison, The St Andrews Psalter: Transcription and Critical Study of Thomas Wode’s Psalter’ (DMus diss., University of Edinburgh, 1957), p. 279. 33 The musician Andro Melvill (d. 1640) is not to be confused with the university principal and theologian Andrew Melville (1545–1622). Gordon Munro, ‘Scottish Church Music and Musicians, 1500–1700’ (PhD dissertation, University of Glasgow, 1999), Vol. 1, pp. 98–9, 307–8. 178 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice tunes reappear in any other printed psalter, and Hutcheson argues they all have a distinct ‘Aberdeenshire twang.34 The Common Tunes recorded in the Wode partbooks are thus fascinatingly indicative of a regional Common Tune tradition that included the basic set first printed by Hart in 1615, several local tunes, and some other popular tunes from other areas. The picture of a seventeenth-century Scottish psalm tradition subject to regional variations fits with what is known from printed psalters, and the Common Tunes added to the Wode partbooks may represent the north-eastern variety. Millar’s comments about compiling the best from each of his collected ‘sets’ surely reflects ade facto flexibility in the Common Tune repertories in Scotland. This flexibility is displayed in Wode and elsewhere in the Raban and Hart printed editions. It would have helped to endear the Common Tunes to Scottish worshippers and psalm singers insofar as it guaranteed local populations the opportunity to sing the tunes with which they were most familiar.

Printed Psalters and National Identity

As the two most significant bridges between the psalm traditions of England and Scotland, it is interesting that the Middelburg psalters and the Common Tunes emerged at a time when union – both political and ecclesiastical – were on the minds of many in both countries. The Middelburg editions pre-dated the Union of the Crowns in 1603, but when they appeared, it was already clear that Elizabeth I’s successor would be her cousin, James VI of Scotland. The Common Tunes largely appeared in English prints beginning in 1594, a few years before the Middelburg editions. Scottish psalters, on the other hand, did not begin to print them for another 21 years. Like the idea of closer union after 1603, responses to the Middelburg psalters ranged from lukewarm to hostile. But the Common Tunes found acceptance in both countries. At a time when the English and Scottish nations were struggling to maintain their respective identities while building a new British one, the Middelburg Psalters and Common Tunes represent two different approaches. The Middelburg psalms represent the attempt of one printer to bring English and Scottish psalm singing together. Labelled a subversive and broadly considered to be an outsider, Schilders had little chance of making a significant impact on the English and Scottish psalter markets. His Middelburg psalters were unlooked for in England, and in Scotland they were only used as a stopgap while new printers were being trained. Without any official ecclesiastical backing, the changes that Schilders tried

34 Hutchison, ‘St. Andrews psalter’, p. 285. Anglo-Scottish Interactions in Print 179 to impose in his psalters had little hope of gaining public acceptance in either England or Scotland, where the musical and textual content in the Middelburg editions and their pattern of text-tune pairings would have been unfamiliar and uncomfortable. The Common Tunes, on the other hand, presumably arose out of popular practice in England. Exasperated by a series of printed psalters that did not reproduce either tunes or suggestions consistently, the English often ignored the tunes in their printed psalters and chose to sing their psalms in much the same way as they sang their ballads, with a selection of tunes that could be paired with a number of texts. This practice, along with a few English tunes, slowly made its way north to Scotland, where the marked consistency of printed editions made them far less difficult to use. In addition to being shorter and more modern sounding, the Common Tunes were not initially a bloc with fixed parameters and could be modified to follow the traditions and preferences in each country and region. People in Aberdeen could sing a psalm to the same tune as people in Edinburgh or even London, but they also had the option of using a tune unique to their area. While both the Middelburg psalters and the Common Tunes allowed for some sort of British identity while maintaining national differences, it was the grassroots practice of using a set of commonly known psalm tunes that would ultimately prove most successful in expressing supranational Britishness in early modern British liturgical and devotional music. This page has been left blank intentionally Chapter 7 English Metrical Psalmody in Practice

The preceding discussions of the printed metrical psalms are important because of the people who used these texts. In England, churches, cathedrals and clergymen purchased metrical psalters for use in worship, and schoolmasters and students bought them for general educational purposes. This suggests a growing number of people used the printed psalters, and this also had a significant influence on how non-literate people learned to sing metrical psalms.1 With an increasing number who sang metrical psalms, what remains to be considered is how people sang them and whether printed editions reflected or effected developments and differences in performance practice. By considering evidence external to the printed psalters, it is possible to better understand the purpose of the printed psalters in England. More precisely, pairing historical accounts and other external evidence with the printed editions reveals much about the singers of metrical psalms, the tunes and texts they used, and their singing methods. The first area, the singers of metrical psalms, establishes which people sang metrical psalms. Not only does this area briefly consider the role of sung metrical psalms in everyday life, it focuses on the use of choirs and trained musicians in worship practice. The second area, the texts and tunes, focuses on the tunes and psalm texts most often used by psalm singers; literacy rates factor heavily into this discussion. It evaluates the claim that most in England learned only a handful of Common-Metre tunes that they paired with the Common-Metre psalm texts.2 In addition to providing insight into the psalm texts and tunes that were most popular, external evidence also proves helpful for understanding the methodologies for psalm singing, including the circumstances for using harmonized psalm settings, musical instruments, and a practice called lining out. From the

1 Christopher Marsh, Music and Society in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 391–2, 435–7; Hannibal Hamlin, Psalm Culture and Early Modern English Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 38–76. 2 Temperley argues for gradual simplification and minimization of the tune repertory. MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 63–4, 68. Green promotes the view that only a few – three to six – tunes were used in common practice. Ian Green, Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 518. 182 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice earliest days of the English Whole booke, John Day and other printers produced harmonized psalm settings, and musicians presumably employed musical instruments to varying degrees in performing these settings. People throughout England had differing views on the proper uses and contexts for musical instruments and harmonizations, and this chapter considers these distinctions. Finally, lining out was a call-and-response method of singing through the psalm that proceeded one line at a time; the precentor would read or intone the line and the congregation would sing it after him.

English Psalm Singers

Music permeated life in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and historian Andrew Pettegree argues that people sang ‘in their homes, at work, in the fields and workshops’.3 Historian Christopher Marsh has shown that metrical psalm singing, in particular, was an important part of life in sixteenth-century England.4 The reason that metrical psalmody became so popular, he argues, was that people loved to sing. However, historian John Craig added that people sang psalms together because they liked the sound that it produced.5 Combined with emotionally charged psalm texts, people – who normally sang on their own – understandably enjoyed singing with a group of several hundred others. The many editions of the metrical psalms printed from 1560 to 1640 filled the burgeoning demand for metrical psalms and probably fuelled metrical psalm singing. Day and his successors marketed metrical psalters to a wide cross-section of English society by printing editions of varying sizes and therefore prices.6 Admittedly churches, parish ministers, and clerks formed a significant portion of the English consumer pool for metrical psalters, but so did students and literate adults.7 Education

3 In the present age when recorded music is ubiquitous, it is important to remember that all music performed and experienced in the sixteenth century would have been ‘live’. Andrew Pettegree, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 41. 4 Marsh, Music and Society, pp. 435–53. 5 John Craig, ‘Psalms, groans and dogwhippers: the soundscape of worship in the English parish church, 1547–1642’, in Sacred Space in Early Europe, ed. Will Coster and Andrew Spicer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 108. 6 Size is not limited to page size. As previous noted in earlier chapters, there were a variety of collections printed concurrently, including ones with all of the proper psalm tunes and ones with abridged musical content. See also Ian Green, ‘All People that on Earth do dwell. Sing to the Lord with Cheerful Voice: Protestantism and Music in Early Modern England’, in Christianity and Community in the West, ed. Simon Ditchfield (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2001), pp. 154–5. 7 Green, Print and Protestantism, pp. 509–11. English Metrical Psalmody in Practice 183 theorists such as John Brinsley, Charles Hoole, and Edmund Coote argued that music, and the metrical psalms in particular, were an important part of general education.8 Therefore, many English grammar schools included instruction in metrical psalm singing in their curricula, which led to generations of people who could read music and sing the psalms.9 It would be wrong to think of the market for the printed psalter as being limited to the literate, however. Owning a Bible and metrical psalter became a status symbol, even among the non-literate, who purchased copies that they would ask literate visitors to read and sing from. Writing in 1595, Nicholas Bownd, a commentator and clergyman at the rectory of Norton near Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk, noted, ‘though they cannot reade themselues, nor any of theirs, yet will haue many Ballades set vp in their houses, that so they might learne them, as they shal haue occasion’.10 Modern society, conditioned by nearly omnipresent technology and the printed word, all too easily forgets the reality and importance of aural transmission in orate societies. Before universal literacy, let alone the invention of broadcasting and of recording in all their various forms, people learned by listening, and sang constantly both at work and home. Streets and marketplaces were teeming with performers and loud with vendor calls. ‘Silent reading’, too, was unknown. Considering that most forms of housing and accommodation in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England did not include insulation or other soundproofing materials – and that there were no sources of monotonous mechanical noises to drown out natural sounds – people in towns and cities would have heard the goings-on in their neighbour’s homes. If one family decided to sing some psalms to pass the evening hours, the whole neighbourhood might have heard it. Given these circumstances, many non-literate people probably became familiar with many of the psalm tunes – especially the ones paired with longer texts such as Psalms 78 and 119. Bownd’s observation that

8 Green, Print and Protestantism, p. 510. 9 Music education methodology in the sixteenth century remains a largely unexplored topic. However, some recent efforts have begun to correct this. For a general discussion, see Jessie Ann Owens, Composers at Work: The Craft of Muscal Composition 1450–1600 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). For evidence relating specifically to England, see Pamela E. Starr, ‘Music Education and the Conduct of Life in Early Modern England: A Review of the Sources’, in Music Education in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, ed. Russell E. Murray, Jr, Susan Forscher Weiss, and Cynthia J. Cyrus (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010), pp. 193–206; and Jonathan Willis, Church Music and Protestantism in Post-Reformation England (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2010), pp. 164–80. Evidence relating to music education in Calvin’s Geneva may be found in Loys Bourgeois, Le Droict Chemin de Musique (Geneva: 1550), trans. Robert M. Copeland, Musical Theorists in Translation, Vol. 19 (Ottawa: The Institute of Mediaeval Music, 2008). 10 nicholas Bownd, True Doctrine of the Sabbath [STC 3436] (London: Widdow Orwin, 1595), p. 241. 184 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice non-literate people learned ballads shows that the non-literate were no less capable than the literate when it came to learning new texts and tunes – including metrical psalms. Bownd’s other comments, however, indicate that people did not learn to sing the psalms, and some have concluded that metrical psalmody was not that common in domestic settings.11 Bownd was one of a number of ministers who expressed frustration at this lack of domestic psalm singing:

yet men content themselues with that [singing psalms in church], and are not mindfull to sing at home by themselues alone, or with the rest of their houshoulde: but contenting themselues that this is receiued in the Church, haue no care to bring it into their houses; but as though to sing Psalmes were proper vnto the Church, doe neglecte this duetie euery where else.12

Several pages later, he added:

And indeed I know not how it commeth to passe, (but as you may obserue it) that the singing of ballades is very lately renewed, and commeth on a fresh againe, so that in euery Faire and Market almost you shall haue one or two singing and selling of ballades, & they are brought vp a pace, which though it may seeme to bee a small thing at the first, yet I am greatly afrayd of it. For as when the light of the Gospell came first in, the singing of ballades (that was rife in Poperie) began to cease, and in time was cleane banished away in many places: so now the sudden renewing of them, and hastie receiuing of them euery where, maketh me to suspect, least they should driue away the singing of Psalmes againe, seeing they can so hardly stand together … 13

Reminiscing about the ‘good old days’, Bownd may be guilty of exaggeration here. However, he was probably a young man during the early years of Elizabeth’s reign, when John Jewel wrote the following often-quoted passage in a 1560 letter to Peter Vermigli:

11 Green notes that there are reports suggesting that some ministers had problems getting everyone to join in congregational singing (presumably of psalms). See Green, Print and Protestantism, 530; John Morgan, Godly Learning: Puritan Attitudes Towards Reason, Learning and Education 1560–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 154–5; and Keith Wrightson, English Society, 1580–1680 (London: Hutchinson, 1982), p. 213. 12 Bownd, True Doctrine, p. 235. Bownd’s comments are not unique, as others shared similar concerns. For further discussion on these concerns and accounts of disdain for psalm singing, see Alec Ryrie, ‘The Psalms and Confrontation in English and Scottish Protestantism’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 101 (2010), pp. 119–21. 13 Bownd, True Doctrine, p. 242. English Metrical Psalmody in Practice 185

Religion is somewhat more established now than it was. The people are everywhere exceedingly inclined to the better part. Church music for the people has very much conduced to this. For as soon as they had once commenced singing publicly in only one little church in London, immediately not only the churches in the neighbourhood, but even in distant towns, began to vie with one another in the same practice. You may now sometimes see at Paul’s Cross, after the service, six thousand persons, old and young, of both sexes, all singing together and praising God.14

While both Bownd and Jewel may have been given to embellishment, the latter was describing a period when it was an exciting novelty for men, women, and children to sing together from the Bible in the vernacular. According to Bownd, this excitement had faded by the end of the sixteenth century as metrical psalm singing lost its attractive novelty and perhaps become less of a feature of many people’s lives.15 Bownd’s complaint that there were people in England who had never sung a psalm is particularly striking, although not unexpected given the tenacity with which different religious groups held their various convictions.16 While metrical psalms were important to English society in general, Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, and smaller religious sects in England did not promote metrical psalmody.17 For instance, the Barrowists and Brownists opposed metrical psalm singing because they believed that only closely translated prose versions of the Bible were suitable.18 Whether or not Bownd’s comments referred to these groups, the decreasing effectual impact of psalmody on the lives of many English subjects concerned him. This does not mean that metrical psalmody had no influence on English domestic life towards the end of the sixteenth century. Bownd may simply

14 Jewel’s enthusiasm for the Reformation occasionally caused him to exaggerate his descriptions of events, but his account shows that metrical psalm singing rapidly spread from London to the surrounding areas. H. Robinson (ed.), Zürich Letters Comprising the Correspondence of Several English Bishops and Others, with some of the Helvetican Reformers, during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (2 vols, Cambridge: Parker Society, 1842), Vol. 1, p. 71. 15 patrick Collinson, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559– 1625 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), pp. 237–8. 16 Eamon Duffy provides a case study of the reluctance of the people in the town of Morebath to strictly adhere to Protestantism. Eamon Duffy, The Voices of Morebath: Reformation and Rebellion in an English Village (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). 17 For Roman Catholic responses to metrical psalms, see Ryrie, ‘Psalms and Confrontation’, pp. 126–7. 18 For discussion of the Barrowists, see Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), 1:327ff. Further information on the Brownists and their leader Robert Browne is available from Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1948), p. 168ff. 186 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice have been expressing regret that the novelty of the metrical psalms had worn off and some had begun to return to singing only ballads in their homes and workplaces. Perhaps his statement also reveals a disappointment that metrical psalm singing had not replaced the ballads, as Sternhold, Hopkins, and many other psalm versifiers had hoped.19 The importance of the metrical psalms to English society after Elizabeth became Queen is undeniable, despite Bownd’s comments to the contrary.20 Just as the first Sternhold and Hopkins versifications had achieved great popularity in Protestant circles during the reign of Edward VI, so too the metrical psalms permeated England’s ever more solidly Protestant culture and society after 1559.21 These texts and their accompanying tunes were on the lips, pens, and memories of people of all classes. John Day and the Stationers’ Company printed over 450 editions and approximately a million volumes of the metrical psalter between 1560 and 1640, suggesting they were more than simply coffee-table showpieces.22

English Psalm Texts and Tunes

Despite the resurgence of metrical psalm singing, the Church never officially sanctioned it as part of the liturgy. Although the psalms’ only official place in the Prayer Book was in reading and reciting them in prose, some churches began nonetheless to sing metrical psalms both before and after the sermon.23 Robert Horne, bishop of Winchester, ordered that his churches, ‘have in readiness books of psalms set forth in English metre to be provided at the costs of the church … ’24 Rather than ordering his parishioners to follow the Book of Common Prayer, Horne enjoins them to: ‘sing in the body of the church both afore the sermon and after the sermon one of the said psalms to be appointed at the discretion of the

19 In the seventeenth century, there was a transition in certain English religious circles between recreational psalmody and devotional psalmody. Men such as Lewis Bayly and Nicholas Byfield began to caution against singing the psalms for ordinary recreation. They argued that the psalms should only be sung when the mind is fully trained on the words. See Beth Quitslund, ‘Singing the Psalms for Fun and Profit’, in Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain, ed. Jessica Martin and Alec Ryrie (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2012), pp. 255–7. 20 Examples of psalm singing in private devotion are discussed in Quitslund, ‘Fun and Profit’, pp. 237–55. See also Green,Print and Protestantism, p. 509; Hamlin, Psalm Culture. 21 For a discussion of some of the ways in which this was evident, see Hamlin, Psalm Culture. 22 Green, Print and Protestantism, p. 509. 23 MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 47–8. 24 Frere and Kennedy, Visitation Articles, p. 138; Leaver, GPSS, p. 250. English Metrical Psalmody in Practice 187 said Chanter’.25 Considering Horne had been one of the supporters of the unaltered Prayer Book in Frankfurt, his decision to encourage worship employing the metrical psalms of the Anglo-Scottish Genevan tradition is surprising. Horne had been one of the members of the Zürich exile community who rejected an invitation to join the Frankfurt community because they had made changes to the English liturgy.26 Once Richard Cox assured the preservation and continued use of the Prayer Book in Frankfurt, Horne moved there and eventually became the minister for the English exiles. Horne’s decision to make these changes in Winchester just days before Archbishop Matthew Parker’s visit could have been an acknowledgement of Parker’s fondness for metrical psalm singing.27 Personal politics and preferences aside, however, this illustration shows the fluid and unsettled state of English liturgical practice in the early years of Elizabeth’s reign. Besides the efforts to legislate in favour of metrical psalmody, there was a general zeal for the metrical psalms that rapidly spread from London to the surrounding areas.28 While the most popular texts were those by Sternhold and Hopkins, there is little indication from historical accounts of which tunes people commonly used. Musicians and historians have frequently wondered how non-literate people could memorize the many texts and tunes printed in metrical psalters. They argue that most in England and Scotland learned only a handful of Common Tunes that they paired with the Common-Metre psalm texts, and all but the most devout Protestants ignored the texts that used other metres.29 However, this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of sixteenth-century culture and an underestimation of the ability of non-literate people to memorize texts and tunes.30 Bownd’s complaint indicates that non-literate people had no problems learning words and tunes.31 Today, many modern balladeers and

25 leaver, GPSS, p. 250. 26 ralph Houlbrooke, ‘Horne, Robert (1513x15–1579)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ ref:odnb/13792. 27 Parker’s inclination towards metrical psalm singing is most clearly evident in his Whole Psalter translated into English metre [STC 2729]. 28 MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 46. 29 Temperley argues for gradual simplification and minimization of the tune repertory. MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 63–4, 68. Green promotes the view that only a few – three to six – tunes were used in common practice, Ian Green, Print and Protestantism, p. 518. 30 For instance, much has been written about the folk music traditions of the Balkans, where singers are known to learn and memorize songs consisting of up to 9,000 lines. See, for example, Philip V. Bohlman and Nada Petković, eds, Balkan Epic: Song, History, Modernity (Plymouth: Scarecrow Press, 2012). 31 Andrew Pettegree and Hans-Christoph Rublanck have noted similar abilities among people in early modern Bavaria, as a seditious song became popular in Nördlingen within the 188 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice folksingers know hundreds of tunes,32 and some churches today commonly use more than 200 tunes, which most congregants would be comfortable singing without the aid of printed music or instrumental accompaniment.33 The printed psalters suggest that both the literate and non-literate sang many of the metrical psalm tunes printed in the Whole booke. The most common tune suggestions in the early editions of the Whole booke were the proper tunes from Psalms 3, 81, and 119, indicating that these three were probably the most popular tunes in the decades following 1562.34 Besides these, East printed a set of four different tunes about which he claimed, ‘The Psalmes are song to these 4 tunes in most churches of this Realme’.35 Historians have often overinterpreted the import of this statement: East also printed over 70 tunes for the psalms, hymns, and canticles in his Psalmes of David.36 In this volume, tunes closely mirror those printed in John Cosyn’s Musike of Six, and Fiue partes, in which Cosyn used similar wording to East’s, but to make a very different claim.37 He wrote in his dedicatory note to Sir Francis Walsingham in 1585, ‘And hauing in this care set Six & Fiue parts vpon the tunes ordinarily sung to the Psalmes of Dauid, I was encouraged by some to publish them for the priuate vse and comfort of the godlie … ’38 But Cosyn’s edition printed no fewer than 41 period of one month. See Pettegree, Culture of Persuasion, p. 53; Hans-Christoph Rublack, ‘The Song of Contz Anahans: Communication and Revolt in Nördlingen, 1525’, in The German People and the Reformation, ed. R. Pro-chia Hsia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988), pp. 111–13. 32 ross W. Duffin, ‘Ballads in Shakespeare’s World’, in Noyses, Sounds, and Sweet Aires: Music in Early Modern England, ed. Jessie Ann Owens (Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2006), pp. 36–7. 33 The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) printed a psalter in 1973 that includes more than 400 psalm tunes, of which my experience confirms that an estimated 200 melodies can be sung by most church members without the aid of printed music. The Book of Psalms for Singing (Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant, 1973). 34 see Appendix A. The tune from Psalm 77 (HTI, Tune: ‘175a’) was also very common, but it and Psalm 81 used the same pitches, just different rhythms. Despite Temperley’s insistence that the two had contrasting characters resulting from these rhythmic differences, they were often used interchangeably in tune suggestions throughout John Day’s metrical psalters. This indicates that sixteenth-century musicians did not perceive the differences in the same way as modern musicians. However, Temperley correctly asserts that the tune version for Psalm 81 eventually replaced that of Psalm 77, which supports his theory that this shift was due to the more lively character of Psalm 81. MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 58–9. 35 East’s comment refers to HTI tunes 201a, 249a, 250b, and 269c. STC 2488, p. 1. 36 While the number of tunes suggested by modern scholars varies, those who suggest a severely limited repertory of tunes include: Willis, Church Music, p. 196; Green, Print and Protestantism, pp. 518–19; and MEPC, Col. 1, pp. 65–71. 37 See Timothy Duguid, ‘Early Modern British Metrical Psalters’, Edinburgh Research Archive (2013), http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/6684. 38 STC 5828, fol. A2r. English Metrical Psalmody in Practice 189 different psalm tunes for which he claimed widespread popularity. Casting further doubt on East’s comments, Allison wrote that his 1599 psalter included, ‘tenne short Tunnes in the end, to which for the most part all the Psalmes may be vsually sung … ’39 Taking these three claims together, it is difficult to believe that English psalm singers drastically reduced their tune repertory from 41 tunes in 1585, when Cosyn printed his edition, to just four in 1594, when East printed his, only to increase it back to 10 in 1599, when Allison printed his edition. When introducing East’s 1594 Whole booke, Chapter 4 noted that East had a vested interest in creating a new psalter that would not cause problems with the psalm patent holders while stimulating public demand for future editions. This does not mean that he was completely untruthful, as later psalters would begin to include his tunes. However, many of the original tunes and tune suggestions from the John Day psalters also persisted in these later psalters, suggesting East’s comment was a calculated overstatement. Christopher Marsh has used an incident at Rotherham to argue convincingly that congregations must have used more than three or four tunes. Saddled with an organist who could play only three or four tunes, the congregation complained that he was hindrance to their worship.40 English practice probably paralleled Cosyn’s, East’s, and Allison’s psalters in that it was widely varied. All three editions most likely included commonly sung tunes and others that were not so common, and while the tune repertories in some locations may have been very limited, others were quite diverse.41 Yet it is clear that even the largest English tune repertories were smaller than those found in Scotland and on the Continent. This fundamental difference between the English tradition and the Scottish and Continental traditions is traceable to the return of the Marian exiles. John Day’s metrical psalters took as their basis the limited tune repertory found in the 1558 Forme of prayers. This returned English metrical psalmody to its ballad- like roots in the Edwardine editions of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalters, in which singers probably used a select few tunes to sing the bulk of the metrical psalms.42 Significant variations between the hundreds of psalter editions printed from 1560 to 1640 is evidence that in the absence of a strict standardizing authority overseeing psalter printing, the relationships between the texts and tunes in the English psalters remained flexible.

39 see the title page, STC 2497. 40 Marsh, Music and Society, 423–4. 41 This was the composition of East’s psalters. Thomas East, ‘The Preface’, in STC 2482. 42 As Leaver and Temperley have shown, this does not mean that psalm tunes originated as ballad tunes. GPSS, pp. 121–3; MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 33–4. Instead, this reference to balladry refers only to the practice of mixing and matching tunes and texts. 190 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

English Psalm Singing Practices

Organs and Other Musical Instruments

In addition to freely mixing and matching texts and tunes, many English parishes had no theological reservations about using musical instruments in worship to accompany metrical psalm singing. The most common instrument was the organ, which the followers of John Calvin regularly maligned as a remnant of Roman Catholicism. These negative sentiments resulted in a movement to eliminate organs from English parish churches, and the Canterbury Convocation in 1562 was the site of the most significant debate between those who wished to prohibit organs and those who wanted to permit them. Leading up to the Convocation, Archbishop Matthew Parker had asked the delegates to prepare articles and proposals on how to reform the English national church, and several members drew up the following article:

That the Psalms appointed at common prayer be sung distinctly by the whole congregation, or said with the other prayers by the minister alone, in such convenient place of the church, as all may well hear and be edified; and that all curious singing and playing of organs may be removed.43

Since many still supported the use of hymns and organs, the assembled clergy quickly defeated this first article. Undeterred in their desire to rid the English church of organs, the Calvinists drew up a less restrictive article reading, ‘That the use of organs be removed’.44 The Convocation also eventually rejected this article, allowing the organ to remain a part of worship services throughout England. Many parish churches nevertheless destroyed, sold, or ceased to use their organs during Elizabeth’s reign.45 Though some of this may have been the direct result of Calvinistic convictions, specific examples of these convictions leading to a change in organ use are surprisingly rare. Rather, the movement away from organ playing seems to have been due more to unfortunate circumstances than theological beliefs. John Northbrooke argued: ‘that rich and large stipends be not so appointed for Musitians, that eyther very little, or in a maner nothing is prouided for the ministers which labour in the worde

43 John Strype, Annals of the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1824), p. 500. For more discussion, see David J. Crankshaw, ‘Preparations of the Canterbury Provincial Convocation of 1562–63: A Question of Attribution’, in Belief and Practice in Reformation England, ed. Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998), pp. 60–93. 44 Strype, Reformation, p. 503. 45 MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 44; Willis, Church Music, pp. 90–103. English Metrical Psalmody in Practice 191 of God’.46 Since many English parish churches had problems paying their ministers, organists’ salaries and organ maintenance may have been the first things they cut.47 However, Jonathan Willis’s survey of English churchwardens’ records indicates that this may be a simplification of a much more complex issue. The most significant factor behind the destruction of many London organs may have been the death of the city’s only organ builder, John How, in 1571. Without any locals to build and maintain organs, London’s organs went into disrepair and many were torn down. Willis does admit, however, that the financial situations of some parishes forced them to make decisions about which musical assets they would choose to maintain. Some chose to keep their organs and choirs while others decided to maintain their bells.48 Despite this decline in the use of the organ at the parish level,49 Willis’s study also shows that several churches were able to maintain their organs beyond How’s death and throughout Elizabeth’s reign.50 In addition, there is plenty of evidence outside the churchwardens’ accounts to suggest that churches throughout the country used organs to accompany their singing and to provide some background music during worship.51 For example, in York:

they had then a Custom in that Church, (which I hear not of in any other Cathedral, which was) that always before the Sermon, the whole Congregation sang a psalm, together with the Quire and the Organ … 52

Worcester also employed Thomas Tomkins as the organist from 1596 to 1646, and he arranged several psalm tunes for organ, posthumously printed in the 1668 Musica deo sacra.53

46 John Northbrooke, A Treatise wherein Dicing, Dauncing, Vaine Playes or Enterluds with other idle pastimes &c. commonly vsed on the Sabboth day, are reproued by the Authoritie of the word of God and auntient writers [STC 18670] (London: Henry Bynneman, 1577), p. 84. Also quoted in MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 41. 47 Temperley argues that finances, not theology, caused many parish churches to abandon their organs. MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 45–6. 48 see Willis, Church Music, pp. 90–103. 49 MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 43–4, 51–2; Green, ‘Protestantism and Music’, p. 152; Beat Kümin, ‘Masses, Morris, and Metrical Psalms: Music in the English Parish c. 1400–1600’, in Music and Musicians in Renaissance Cities and Towns, ed. Fiona Kisby (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 79. 50 Willis, Church Music, pp. 90–102. 51 MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 40. Willis describes how two churches in Salisbury competed to produce the most extravagant music. Willis, Church Music, pp. 100–101. 52 thomas Mace, Musick’s Monument, or a Remembrance of the Best Practical Musick (London: T. Ratcliffe and N. Thompson, 1676), p. 19. 53 MEPC, Vol. 1, p. 51; Ivor Atkins, The Early Occupants of the office of Organist and Master of the Choristers of the Cathedral Church of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary, Worcester (London: Mitchell Hughes and Clarke, 1918), p. 57. 192 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Since the English allowed organs in worship, it is no surprise that they also encouraged the use of other musical instruments. Richard Allison’s 1599 Psalmes of Dauid in Meter prints parts for the lute, orpharion, cittern, and bass viol in addition to the melody.54 While Allison’s psalter is unique, other harmonized psalters such as Daman’s three editions, Cosyn’s psalter, and East’s editions encouraged the use of musical instruments as well. Most of these editions, admittedly, were intended for domestic use. However, the fact that the last of these, East’s psalters, purported to describe liturgical performance would suggest that the domestic practice of accompanying psalm singing with a selection of musical instruments had bled into the psalm-singing practices of the Church. Few parishes would have had the resources – financial, personnel, or otherwise – to employ any instrumentalists beyond an organist, so more varied instrumental accompaniments were probably most common in the wealthier cathedral and collegiate churches.55

Part-singing of Psalms

The evidence also suggests that harmonized psalm singing was popular in England. Since the earliest days of English-language metrical psalms, four- part psalm settings had been common. Although Robert Crowley’s 1549 Psalter [STC 2725] only provided one tune for its 150 psalm settings, this tune was printed in four-part harmony. Both of the tunes in Francis Seager’s 1553 Psalter [STC 2728] also appeared with four-part harmonizations.56 Although these two editions were unrelated to the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms, evidence from the Lumley and Wanley partbooks indicates that even the Edwardine versions of Sternhold and Hopkins may have been sung to harmonized tunes as well.57 After Elizabeth’s accession the demand for simple four-part psalm settings returned, and at least three harmonized editions were printed in the 1560s. John Day’s harmonized psalter of 1563 [STC 2431] was the first Elizabethan edition of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms, setting all of the

54 see title page, STC 2497. 55 In addition to the more extravagant liturgical music sung in St Pauls, Westminster, and the Chapel Royal in London; Peter McCullough has shown that some churches may have employed instrumentalists beyond organists, if only for special occasions. Peter McCullough, ‘Music Reconciled to Preaching: A Jacobean Moment?’, in Worship and the Parish Church in Early Modern Britain, ed. Natalie Mears and Alec Ryrie (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2013), pp. 109–29. 56 Although it did not include metrical psalms, Christopher Tye’s The Actes of the Apostles, translated into Englyshe metre, and dedicated to the kynges moste excellent maiestye [STC 2985] ([London, 1553]) also printed four-part musical settings for its versifications. 57 leaver, GPSS, pp. 121–5. English Metrical Psalmody in Practice 193 tunes in the 1562 Whole booke in four parts. Day’s 1565 Certaine notes set forth in foure and three parts [STC 2418] focused primarily on the four-part hymn and canticle settings, but it reveals a continuing demand for harmonized settings of the simple tunes often sung with the psalms, hymns, and canticles in English liturgical practice.58 Also estimated to have been printed in the 1560s, Archbishop Matthew Parker’s metrical psalter [STC 2729] provided four-part harmonizations of its nine metrical psalm tunes.59 Despite the humble origins and stated purpose for Parker’s volume, it is interesting that he went to the trouble of acquiring harmonized tunes for his psalms.60 The next harmonized psalters to appear in print were William Daman’s 1579 and two 1591 editions as well as Cosyn’s 1585 Musike of Six, and Fiue parts. As mentioned earlier, none of these volumes were intended for liturgical use. The same was true of Richard Allison’s 1599 psalter, The Psalmes of Dauid in Meter [STC 2497]. In his dedication to Anne, Countess of Warwick, Allison wrotes a touchingly lyrical description of the virtues of the psalms:

And that our meditations in the Psalmes may not want their delight, we haue that excellent gift of God, the Art of Musick to accompany them: that our eyes beholding the words of Dauid, our fingers handling the Instruments of Musicke, our eares delighting in the swetenesse of the melody, and the heart obseruing the harmony of them: all these do joyne in an heauenly Consort, and God may bee glorified and our selues refreshed therewith.61

Rather than overtly tying his efforts to collective public worship and devotion, Allison focused on the benefits of the psalms to the individual. The statement that God delights in people singing his words accompanied by their fingers on musical instruments, suggests the importance of personal experience and private devotion.

58 This work was begun in 1560, but Day set it aside until other more important items (i.e. the Whole booke and Foxe’s Actes and Monuments) were finished. See Peter le Huray, Music and the Reformation in England 1549–1600 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 182. 59 These settings by Tallis may have been composed during Edward’s reign, but their appearance in Parker’s Psalter illustrates the continued market for four-part psalm settings. 60 n.C. Bjorklund, ‘Matthew Parker and the reform of the English church during the reigns of Henry VII and Edward VI’, (PhD diss., University of California Irvine, 1987), p. 198. Most probably these were best suited for parishes that maintained choirs. Willis, Church Music, pp. 114–18; MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 43–4, 51. Only Parker’s tune from Psalm 67 would find its way into later psalters. Most notably, Ravenscroft’s 1621 Psalter printed the tune as the ‘Exhortation’. 61 richard Allison, ‘To the right Honorable and most vertuous Lady, the Lady Anne Countesse of Warwicke’, in STC 2497. 194 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

This focus on personal devotion was largely absent from Thomas East’s psalter editions and William Barley’s 1599 psalter. Both men instead tried to align their psalters with current church practice in England. East named his psalters The Whole booke of Psalmes with their wonted Tunes, as they are song in Churches, composed into foure partes. And, he wrote in his 1592 edition, ‘In this booke the Church Tunes are carefully corrected, & other short Tunes added, which are song in London and other places in this Realme.’62 Invoking the Day psalters, Barley also points to liturgical practice, calling his psalter The Whole booke of Psalmes, With their woonted Tunes, as they are sung in Churches, composed into foure parts. It is important to note, however, that neither East nor Barley claimed that the psalms were sung in four parts in church services. According to East:

And I haue not onely set downe in this booke all the Tunes vsually printed heretofore, with as much truth as I could possibly gather among diuers of our ordinary Psalme bookes, but also haue added those, which are commonly song now adayes, and not printed in our common Psalme books with the rest. And all this haue I so orderly cast, that the 4 parts lye alwayes together in open sight. The which my trauayle as it hath bene to the furtherance of Musicke, in all godly sort … 63

His emphasis was on the tunes people most commonly sang in England, not on whether the tunes were commonly sung in harmony. While clearly tied to traditional private practice, East added his harmonizations for the purpose of encouraging the ‘furtherance of Musicke’. Had four-part singing been more of a common practice in England at the time, East would not have considered his harmonizations an attempt to further the cultivation of music as such, but simply a means to enhance public devotion. As Temperley has noted, descant was quite possibly the most common form of harmonization used with metrical psalm tunes. Descended from faburden, descant was an improvised harmonization that usually moved note-for-note against the melody at an interval higher than the melody. Temperley presents a convincing case for the prevalence of descant singing, arguing that several of the Common Tunes such as ‘London’ and ‘Glassenburie’ originated as descants for ‘Oxford’.64 It is possible that four-part singing became more common after 1621 in some locations. That year the Company of Stationers printed Ravenscroft’s

62 Thomas East, ‘To the Right Honorable Sir John Pvckering Knight Lord keeper of the great Seale of England’, in STC 2482. 63 East, ‘The Preface’, in STC 2482, fol. Bir. 64 MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 73–4. English Metrical Psalmody in Practice 195

The Whole booke of Psalmes. Ravenscroft’s psalter had a significant lasting impact on the melodies in the psalters that followed. As discussed in Chapter 4, Ravenscroft’s harmonizations forced him to add accidentals to several of the melodies that had appeared in metrical psalters since 1562, or earlier. Unlike many of the minor variations introduced in the hundreds of psalter editions up to 1621, the changes printed in Ravenscroft’s psalter continued to appear in the monophonic psalters after that. This, as well as the 1633 reprint of his psalter, suggests people used Ravenscroft’s psalm harmonizations at least for the brief period of time leading up to the English Civil Wars.

Lining out Psalms

Besides the new developments in Ravenscroft’s Psalter, the seventeenth century saw the introduction of another major innovation that would change metrical psalmody in Britain for centuries to come. In 1636, Matthew Wren, Bishop of Norwich, wrote:

If any Psalmes be vsed to be sung in your Church, before or after the morning and euening prayer, or before or after the Sermons (vpon which occasions only, they are allowed to bee sung in Churches) is it done according to that graue maner (which first was in vse) that such doe sing as can reade the Psalmes, or haue learned them by heart, and not after that vncough [sic] and vndecent custome of late taken vp, to have euery line first read, and then sung by the people?65

This is the earliest confirmed account of psalm singers lining out their psalms. Whether or not the precentor read or sang each line before the congregation repeated it is unclear from Bishop Wren’s comments, but he indicated that this repetitive procedure was a new innovation in 1636. Norwich admittedly did not have the musical influence of a city like London, so lining out probably came to Norwich from somewhere else. Since news and innovations spread quickly through travellers and merchants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, however, it is difficult to argue that people lined out their psalms before 1630. Some have asserted in the past that The Accounts of the Churchwardens of the Parish of Saint Michael, Cornhill of 1592 contain a reference to lining out. In that year, the wardens decided to ‘provide a skylfull man to begyne the syngynge salmes and to agre wt hyme for a resonable stypent

65 Matthew Wren, Articles to be Inqvired of within the Dioces of Norwich [STC 10298] (London: Richard Badger, 1636), fol. B3r; quoted in Craig, ‘Soundscape of worship’, p. 107. 196 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice and to pay hyme thereffore’.66 The question revolves around what it meant to ‘begyne the syngynge salmes’.67 Because lining out involved a precentor singing, reading, or intoning and the congregation repeating each line of the psalm; a precentor who lined out the psalms also ‘began’ them. However, the same was true of the precentor who did not line out the psalm. In the modern Free Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), and Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, for example, the precentor begins each stanza, and the congregation joins him after the first few notes.68 The Reformed Presbyterian Churches of Ireland and North America (RPCI and RPCNA) stress that the congregation should begin each psalm together, so precentors will normally give the starting pitch (or tonic triad) before conducting the congregation to start together.69 While sixteenth- and seventeenth-century precentors may not have gone as far as this latter example, they could have sung a couple of notes before the congregation joined in. Considering the earlier comments by Bishop Wren, it is doubtful that the account from Cornhill refers to lining out. Most likely, it refers to a precentor who simply began the metrical psalms. Bishop Wren’s comments do raise another important question, however: how the non-literate could sing metrical psalms. As he writes, the previous practice in Norwich meant ‘that such doe sing as can reade the Psalmes, or haue learned them by heart’ participated in psalm singing in the city. However, the descriptions of the participants in metrical psalm singing included people of various ages, vocations, and training. As Pettegree has argued, however, this was not a significant problem in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. If the non-literate had a literate person at hand to read the psalms and their tunes, they could quickly learn a text and tune.70 Pettegree cites the example discussed by Hans-Christoph Rublack of a seditious song that was circulated around Nördlingen, Bavaria. The song in question was first sung in an inn, and later a person asked to have the song sung in his house. People sang the song again at another inn, and within

66 William Henry Overall, ed., The Accounts of the Churchwardens of the Parish of Saint Michael, Cornhill (London: Alfred James Waterlow, 1868), p. 249; quoted from Willis, Church Music, p. 124. 67 Willis is one person who suggests it refers to lining out. Willis, Church Music, p. 124. 68 this practice probably dates back to early modern use of gathering notes at the beginning of each line or stanza. 69 As a precentor in the RPCNA and RPCS, these statements reflect my personal experience. I have also spent some time in Free Church and Free Church (Continuing) congregations, which also informs these statements. 70 Orate societies depend on finely honed memorization skills that literate societies tend not to develop. Pettegree, Culture of Persuasion, p. 53. English Metrical Psalmody in Practice 197 a month it was well known throughout the city.71 Once again, Pettegree’s comments describe German practice, but there is no reason to believe that England or Scotland were any different. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the non-literate did not have problems learning the psalms if they wanted to learn them. The introduction of lining out in psalm singing practice arguably had an effect on the tempo of psalm singing. Some have noted that psalm tunes were often called ‘Genevan jigs’ in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.72 However, this probably does not refer to the tempi of metrical psalm tunes. Calvin argued, ‘the song be neither light nor frivolous, but that it have weight and majesty’, so most psalm singers probably did not sing their tunes quickly.73 Thus, even in England, they never really resembled what modern musicians would classify as a ‘jig’.74 Rather, ‘Genevan jig’ was a derogatory term that relied on a twist of sarcasm rather than an accurate description of the speed and style of performance practice. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, an English jig was a burlesque that combined drama, music and dance. It joined improvised popular songs from the past with traditional ritual dances.75 Therefore, while a jig was generally associated with stage entertainment, the descriptions of Genevan psalm tunes as ‘Genevan jigs’ refer to their appeal to the peasantry and their use of popular tune styles. Since psalm tunes were to be sung with ‘weight and majesty’, the term was probably also a sarcastic jab at the slower speeds of metrical psalm singing. While the psalms may not have been sung at the speed of fast dance tunes, they were not like slow dirges, either. With time, however, there developed a general trend in English (and Scottish) psalm singing to slow the tempi of psalm tunes. Temperley has argued the same based on the fact that Ravenscroft’s 1621 Whole booke replaced the  time signatures with  time signatures without modifying the notelengths.76 However, recent research has indicated that there was not a strict relationship

71 Pettegree, Culture of Persuasion, p. 53; Hans-Christoph Rublack, ‘Contz Anahans’, pp. 111–13. 72 ryrie, ‘Psalms and Confrontation’, pp. 118–27; Green, Print and Protestantism, p. 518; MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 63–4. 73 Quoted from Charles Garside Jr, ‘Calvin’s Preface to the Psalter: A Re-appraisal’, Musical Quarterly 37, no. 4 (October 1951), p. 569. 74 Marsh, Music and Society, p. 431. Quitslund notes that even domestic psalm singing did not resemble popular ballades but instead was slow and deliberate. See Quitslund, ‘Fun and Profit’, pp. 252–3. 75 Thurston Dart and Michael Tilmouth, ‘Jigg’, Grove Music Online, http://www. oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/14308. 76 MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 63–4. See also Nicholas Temperley, ‘The Old Way of Singing: Its Origins and Development’, JAMS 34, no. 3 (Autumn 1981), pp. 521–3. 198 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice between notation and tempi in the early modern period. Composers such as Guarini, Gabrieli, and Fresobaldi each took different approaches to the use of time signatures and note lengths that could change depending on the piece.77 Furthermore, many of the Stationers’ psalters after 1621 continued to print the original  signature.78 The best evidence that psalm singing slowed down comes from first- hand accounts. Noting several examples from the early eighteenth century, Temperley argues that metrical psalm singing in England had slowed significantly by the end of the seventeenth century so that each minim occupied about two or three seconds.79 Temperley also notes that John Cherham’s 1718 A Book of Psalmody may have been an attempt to set singing practice into musical notation. While he cautions that Cherham’s notation should not be taken too literally, Temperley equates the running quavers and semiquavers that ornament the simple melodies with the practices of today’s Gaelic psalm singers in the Scottish Hebrides.80 Although some may have disliked these slow tempi, Christopher Marsh quoted from Bishop William Beveridge in 1710, noting that parishioners never complained about the slow tempi but instead ‘admired’ them as opportunities for ‘edification’.81 English psalm singing in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries varied across the country, but this diversity did not detract from its unifying nature. Men, women, and children of all social classes sang the psalms together. They used a set of around 40–50 tunes that fitted each of the 150 psalms, and they were at liberty to vary their text–tune pairings. Some preferred to accompany their singing with musical instruments, and others did not. There were also those who preferred to sing their psalms using descants or multi-part harmonizations, while other people chose the monodic style of Geneva. English psalm singing therefore was organic, not static, and constantly changed from 1560 to 1640 to adapt to the needs of its singers. Some major innovations included the introduction of the Common Tunes in the 1570s and 1580s and the practice of lining out around 1630. Flexibility and innovations notwithstanding, English metrical psalmody remained consistently simple and accessible. Its melodies eschewed the complexities of art music so everyone could learn to sing the psalms and do so throughout their daily lives. While there were

77 Ido Abravaya, On Bach’s Rhythm and Tempo (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2006), pp. 7–31. 78 For examples, see STCs 2614 (printed in 1629), 2625 (1631), 2649 (1634), and 2499.6 (1639). 79 Temperley, ‘Old Way’, pp. 522–5. 80 Nicholas Temperley, ‘The Old Way of Singing’ The Musical Times 120, no. 1641 (November 1979), pp. 943–7. 81 Marsh, Music and Society, p. 431. English Metrical Psalmody in Practice 199 some who rejected metrical psalm singing, the continued success of the Sternhold and Hopkins texts into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries shows how profoundly successful a part these metrical psalms played in English worship and devotion. This page has been left blank intentionally Chapter 8 Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice

Previous chapters have shown how English and Scottish psalters maintained two separate yet related traditions. The differences enshrined in the printed editions point to a singing practice in Scotland that was distinct from that of its southern neighbour in some significant ways, which is evidenced in the historical accounts of both private and public psalm singing. Building on the foundation laid in the previous chapters, the following considers how Scots related to and sang from their metrical psalter. As in the discussion of English psalm singing Scottish practice is investigated in terms of its singers, texts and tunes, and performance techniques. It is in this context that the nature and scale of the difference between Scottish and English approaches to the metrical psalms becomes most apparent. The previous chapter has shown how English metrical psalm singing, never officially sanctioned by the English Church – i.e. the monarch, nor by the Book of Common Prayer – developed in ways that often closely approximated to popular music-making. For sixteenth-century Scots, the situation was quite different. As Jamie Reid-Baxter has noted, ‘Scotland’s metrical psalter enjoyed de facto sacred status, since the psalms were an integral part of the monolithic national Kirk’s sacred liturgy. Its songs were essential to the holy worship of the Creator who upholds the ordered, meaningful cosmos made for His glory – a cosmos whereof the faithful gathered to sing His praise in kirk were a living icon.’ This meant that within a few years of the Reformation, Scots could not have conceived of treating the psalms with anything but reverence, and it explains why the Scottish metrical psalters were so consistent and unchanging. Right into the nineteenth century, kirk choirs rehearsed the psalms using ‘practice verses’ because the psalmist’s (versified) words were too sacred to be sung outside the act of worship. Reid-Baxter continues:

When James Melville tells his flock in 1598 to sing psalms at work and at home, as part of their daily lives, he is not encouraging them simply to whistle psalm tunes or hum psalms to entertain themselves, rather than secular songs or tunes; he is urging them to turn their whole lives into an act of conscious worship’.1

1 James Reid-Baxter, ‘James Melville and the Metrical Psalter’, unpublished essay. The reference is to Melville’s words ‘understanding your custome to be, to ease the langour of 202 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Scottish Psalm Singers

Psalm singing had gained acceptance in evangelical circles in Scotland long before the Reformation of 1559–60. Chapter 3 noted that parts of the Gude and Godlie Ballatis were probably known as early as the 1540s, and that Sternhold and Hopkins may have also been known in the 1550s. Descriptions of the iconoclastic riots in 1558 and 1559 provide added evidence for the presence of the metrical psalms in the lives of Scots before 1560.2 One such riot famously took place in Edinburgh in 1558 on the feast day of St Giles, the city’s patron saint. Traditionally, the festivities included a procession through the streets of the city, led by clergy carrying a statue of the saint. When the Regent, Mary of Guise, the leader of the procession, stopped for dinner with many of her entourage, she left the statue outside. A group of people saw this as an opportunity to express their disapproval of what they considered an idolatrous display, so they seized the statue, ripped it off its carrying base and beheaded it. The historian David Calderwood reported that after this high-profile case of iconoclasm, ‘Searche was made for the doers, but none could be deprehended; for the brethrein assembled themselves in suche sort, in companeis, singing psalmes, and praising God, that the proudest of enemies were astonished’.3 Thus, six years before the publication of Lekpreuik’s 1564 psalter, it is clear that the Protestants involved in the incident knew the psalms and regularly sang them. Once John Knox and his colleagues established the Scottish Kirk in 1560, the General Assembly committed the Kirk to the Anglo-Scottish order of worship and its practice of metrical psalm singing. But the Assembly could not and did not direct all churches to immediately sing the metrical psalms, since the fledgling reformed Kirk was in no position to supply every parish with an Anglo-Scottish Genevan psalter. In any case, in the immediate aftermath of the Reformation, most rural parishes were unlikely to have been able to call on the services of musicians capable of teaching the new psalm texts and tunes.4 For the earliest years of the time, and irksomnes of your labours with singing … I cease not to commend to vnto you maist instantly these poësies of Scritpure: namely the Psalmes of DAVID … whilk ye haue in your handes, set out of old in meeter’ (A Spirituall Propine, pp.2 and 4). For ‘practice verses’, see David Johnson, Music and Society in Lowland Scotland in the Eighteenth Century (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 182–3. 2 Alec Ryrie, The Origins of the Scottish Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006), pp. 122–3. 3 John Knox, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing (6 vols, Edinburgh: George Stevenson, 1846), Vol. 1, p. 261; David Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh: The Wodrow Society, 1843), Vol. 1, pp. 346–7. 4 James Cameron (ed.), The First Book of Discipline (Edinburgh: St Andrew Press, 1972), p. 180. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 203 newly reformed Kirk, all that can be stated with certainty is that those parishes that followed the Anglo-Scottish order of service sang Psalm 103 after the Lord’s Supper.5 They also sang a psalm both before and after the sermon, but which psalms were used for these times of praise remains a mystery. The 1560 First Book of Discipline did, however, provide some clearer instruction regarding the psalms that should be sung in other various liturgical contexts. It directed parishes to sing unspecified psalms when appointing new ministers and after reinstating an excommunicated member.6 Following occasions such as excommunications, marriages, and elections of superintendents, it recommended that congregations sing Psalms 101, 128, and 23, respectively.7 Later publications added to this list of specifics the singing of Psalm 51 during fasts.8 The metrical psalms therefore probably became more ingrained in Scottish society between 1560 and 1564 so that the General Assembly’s mandate for churches to purchase – and presumably use – Lekpreuik’s newly completed metrical psalter in 1564 was not too large an imposition on many Scottish parishes. Between 1560 and 1564, churchgoing Scots and those entrusted with their spiritual welfare must have become considerably more familiar with metrical psalm singing. It was probably not a surprise, therefore, when the 1564 General Assembly, comprised of ministers and church leaders, ordered that all clergy – ministers, exhorters and Readers – should have a copy of Lekpreuik’s newly completed psalter. Indeed, it probably affirmed what was becoming a growing trend in the country and laid to rest any lingering doubts as to what was acceptable liturgical practice in the newly reformed Kirk.9 On solemn public occasions, Scots also sang the psalms outside the kirk. After Mary, Queen of Scots, arrived in Scotland on 22 August 1561, she spent her first night listening to 400–500 people singing unidentified psalms below her palace window.10 When Mary made her formal entry into Edinburgh a few days later, she was presented with a psalter and Bible, and performers sang unnamed psalms at the tableaux at both the

5 The forme of prayers and ministration of the Sacraments, &c. vsed in the Englishe Congregation at Geneua [STC 16561] (Geneva: John Crespin, 1556), p. 79. 6 Calderwood, History, Vol. 2, pp. 53, 93. 7 Calderwood, History, Vol. 2, pp. 62, 90, 120. 8 Knox, Works, Vol. 6, p. 420. In addition, the Scottish order began to recommend the use of Psalm 23 after the translation of bishops and archbishops. The Forme and Maner of Ordaining Ministers. And Consecrating of Arch-bishops and Bishops, used in the Church of Scotland [STC 16605] (Edinburgh: Thomas Finlason, 1620), pp. 12, 23. 9 APGA, Vol. 1, pp. 74–5; Calderwood, History, Vol. 2, p. 284. 10 Knox, Works, Vol. 2, pp. 269–70; Pierre de Bourdeille Brantôme, Œuvres complétes de Pierre de Bourdeille seigneur de Brantôme (Paris: Mme Ve Jules Renouard, 1823), Vol. 7, p. 419. 204 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Netherbow Port and Holyrood Palace.11 Some twenty years later, when psalm singing had become a much more familiar and established part of Scottish life, the ‘royal’ Psalm 20, with its references to a king blessed by God, featured in James VI’s royal Entry into Edinburgh in 1579, both during the procession down the High Street and during the service in the High Kirk of St Giles.12 Psalms 40 and 48 were sung at the coronation of Queen Anna on 17 May 1590 in the Abbey Kirk at Holyroodhouse,13 and Psalms 19, 23, and 120 featured two days later during her official Entry into Edinburgh.14 The record of the baptism of Prince Henry in 1594 also named two psalms:

Therafter, the bishop stood up, and treatted upon the sacrament of Baptisme, first in our vulgar tongue, nixt in the Latine. Thereafter, the musicians sung the 21st Psalme … The bankett ended, thankes being givin to God, there was sung the 128th Psalme, with diverse voices and toones, and musicall instruments playing.15

35 years later, on 4 June 1630, the Aberdeen council would order the burgh’s young people to march through the town with the magistrates while singing psalms and playing musical instruments to celebrate the birth of the future Charles II.16 In addition to specifically dynastic occasions, Scots often sang psalms during public celebrations, thanksgivings, and even political protests. The triumphant Psalm 124, with its French tune, was clearly one of the most popular psalms for such events. On 4 September 1582, the banished Edinburgh minister John Durie returned in triumph, perhaps deliberately parodying a royal Entry by moving up the High Street to St Giles and thus reversing the traditional processional route:17

11 John Guy, My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots (London: Fourth Estate, 2004), pp. 137–9. See also Alasdair MacDonald ‘Mary Stewart’s Entry to Edinburgh: an Ambiguous Triumph’, Innes Review XLII, no.2 (1991), pp. 101–10, 107. 12 Calderwood, History, Vol. 3, pp. 458–9. 13 David Stevenson, Scotland’s Last Royal Wedding: The Marriage of James VI and Anne of Denmark (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1997), pp. 104–5. 14 Psalm 120 was sung at the Tollbooth, Psalm 19 was sung during the procession, and Psalm 23 followed the subsequent sermon at St Giles. Stevenson, Scotland’s Last, p. 114. 15 Calderwood, History, Vol. 5, pp. 344–5. 16 John Stuart (ed.), Extracts from the Council Register of the Burgh of Aberdeen, 1625–1642 (Edinburgh: Scottish Burgh Records Society, 1871), p. 29. 17 See Michael Lynch, ‘The Reassertion of Princely Power in Scotland: the Reigns of Mary, Queen of Scots and King James VI’, in M.Gosman et al., eds. Princes and Princely Culture, 1450–1650 (Leiden: Brill, 2003–2005), pp. 199–238, at 204, fn. 20. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 205

Upon Tuesday the 4th of September, as he is coming to Edinburgh, there met him at the Gallowgreen 200, but ere he came to the Netherbow their number increased to 400; but they were no sooner entered but they encreased to 600 or 700, and within short space the whole street was replenished even to Saint Geilis Kirk: the number was esteemed to 2000. At the Netherbow they took up the 124 Psalm, ‘Now Israel may say’, etc., and sung in such a pleasant tune in four parts, known to the most part of the people, that coming up the street all bareheaded till they entered the Kirk, with such a great sound and majestie, that it moved both themselves and all the huge multitude of the beholders, looking out at the shots and over stairs, with admiration and astonishment: the Duke [of Lennox, the hitherto all-powerful royal favourite] himself beheld, and reave his beard for anger: he was more affrayed of this sight than anie thing that ever he had sene before in Scotland. When they came to the kirk, Mr James Lowsone made a short exhortation in the Reader’s place, to move the multitude to thankfulnes. Thereafter a psalm being sung, they departed with great joy.18

On 28 December 1591 the congregation in Saint Giles would sing Psalm 124 in thanksgiving for the failed attack on James VI the previous day in his palace of Holyroodhouse, and it would be sung again in August 1600 – this time at the Mercat Cross – after a failed attempt to assassinate the king.19 Just 12 years earlier, the Mercat Cross had been the site of yet another psalm-singing occasion, when the minister Robert Bruce assembled people to celebrate the destruction of the Spanish Armada by singing Psalm 76, packed with references to God’s destruction of the armoured hosts of Israel’s foes.20 The psalms were equally important to Scots on a more personal and private level. In a book of 1598, the music-loving poet-pastor Alexander Hume furiously denounced all secular poetry and song, but in a poem where he celebrated the psalms, he also wrote of singing the praise of God ‘upone my iolie lute by night’. For him and others, the psalms were the model of all true poetry.21 Hume writes much about his serious illnesses, during which he doubtless sang psalms and had them sung to him, as

18 Calderwood, History, Vol. 8, p. 226. 19 Calderwood, History, Vol. 5, p. 142, Vol. 6, p. 56. 20 Thomas Young, The Metrical Psalms and Paraphrases (London: A&C Black, 1909), p. 37. 21 See The Poems of Alexander Hume, ed. Alexander Lawson, (Scottish Text Society: Edinburgh and London, 1902) pp. 6–8, 15–16 (lines 121–4, 141–4); see Jamie Reid-Baxter, ‘Elizabeth Melville, Calvinism and the Lyric Voice’, in D.J. Parkinson (ed.) Tides of Change: Scottish Literature under James VI and I (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), pp. 151–71, at 161–5 and Reid-Baxter, liner notes to The Songs of Alexander Montgomerie, ASV GAU 249, CD (2002), on which a number of metrical psalms are sung as lute-songs. 206 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice did others, even on their deathbeds.22 For instance, when the St Andrews minister Robert Blair had a dangerously high fever in 1619, he recounts, ‘I extolled my Lord and Saviour, yea, I sang to him, especially the 16th Psalm, for I felt within me that which is written in the end of that psalm’.23 Just as the dying Elizabeth Adamsoun asked her family and friends to sing Psalm 103 in 1555, other Scots had psalms sung at their deathbeds. In 1584, the minister James Lawson asked his attendants to sing the 103rd Psalm shortly before he died,24 and in 1611 the troubled minister John Chalmers also asked his family and friends to sing Psalm 103 along with Psalm 124 as he lay dying.25 Not only clergymen and the particularly pious, but Scots in general found that metrical psalm singing was expected to play an important part in their lives. In 1579, parliament joined the Kirk in encouraging the spread of metrical psalm singing in Scotland. They ordered:

that all gentilmen houshaldaris and utheris worth thrie hundreth merkis of yeirlie rent or abone and all substantious yemen or burgessis likewise houshaldaris, estemit worth fyve hundreth pundis in landis or guidis, be haldin to have a bible and psalme buke in vulgare language in thair housis for the better instructioun of thame selffis and thair fameliis in the knawlege of God …26

To enforce the law in Edinburgh, the provost, baillies, and council ordered people to bring their psalm books to their baillies to confirm their compliance.27 In addition, in 1604 the elders of Aberdeen ordered those who could read to learn to sing as well. This latter order ensured congregants could use their Bibles and psalm-books, which they had to bring with them to church.28 These collaborative efforts by Kirk, parliament, and town councils were successful in spreading knowledge and appreciation of the metrical psalms amongst people of all classes, as evidenced from Calderwood’s account of 2,000 people – a quarter of

22 Poems of Alexander Hume, pp. 41–6, 94–5. 23 Young, Metrical Psalms, p. 33. 24 Calderwood, History, Vol. 4, p. 201. 25 Calderwood, History, Vol. 7, pp. 161–2. 26 K.M. Brown et al. (eds), The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, University of St Andrews (2013), http://www.rps.ac.uk/mss/1579/10/25; Miscellany of the Maitland Club (4 vols, Edinburgh: Maitland Club, 1833–47), Vol. 2, pp. 18–19. 27 James D. Marwick (ed.), Extracts from the Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, AD 1573–1589 (4 vols, Edinburgh: Scottish Burgh Records Society, 1882), Vol. 4, p. 187. 28 Margo Todd, The Culture of Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland (London: Yale University Press, 2002), p. 72. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 207

Edinburgh’s population – singing Psalm 124.29 With such vast numbers taking part, all levels of society must have been represented.30 Perhaps the most striking aspect of Durie’s triumphal return is the near-certainty that non-literate individuals joined in singing the psalm. The ability of non-literate Scots to learn the metrical psalms has been addressed by the historian Margo Todd. She noted that most parishes engaged in a rigorous programme of religious instruction that included psalm singing. While the literate could of course have recourse to written materials during the learning process, the non-literate had to rely entirely on their memories. However, as Todd notes:

this programme of indoctrination by sermon, Bible-reading, psalm-singing, public catechetical performance, home visitation and rigorous examination was aimed at mostly illiterate people, the preponderance of whom did pass the examinations and receive admission to communion, sing the psalms from memory, make their marks on the confession of faith and swear the Covenant.31

It would seem that these efforts were effective in teaching the metrical psalms to the literate and unlettered alike. On several occasions, the Kirk considered revising the metrical psalms, but until the Westminster Assembly set about the task in the 1640s, any such suggestions were always quashed by those who pointed out that:

Both pastors and people be long custome, ar so acquanted with the psalmes and tunes therof; that as the pastors ar able to direct a psalme to be sung agrieable to the doctrine to be delyvered, so he that taketh vp the psalme is able to sing anie tune, and the people for the most pairt follow him.32

Even when the poet-king James VI personally asked the 1601 General Assembly to revise the official metrical psalter after having demonstrated its shortcomings, the ministers demurred, insisting that:

29 According to the Presbytery census of 1592, Edinburgh had 8,000 inhabitants. Michael Lynch, Helen M. Dingwall, Charles McKean, ‘Edinburgh’, The Oxford Companion to Scottish History, http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199234820.001.0001/ acref-9780199234820-e-101. 30 Less than 30 per cent of the city’s adult males were merchants or craftsmen burgesses, suggesting that this group of 2,000 people included men, women, and children of all ages and social classes. Lynch et al., ‘Edinburgh’. 31 Todd, Protestantism, p. 83. 32 The attribution of this quote and its date are unclear, as neither Calderwood nor David Laing provide these details. See Sir Walter Scott and David Laing (eds), The Bannatyne Miscellany: containing original papers and tracts, chiefly relating to the history and literature of Scotland (3 vols, Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1836), Vol. 1, p. 234. 208 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

the people ar acquainted with the old metaphrase more than any book in scripture, yea, some can sing all, or the most pairt, without buik, and some that can not read, can sing some psalmes.33

The mere ability of many Scots to sing the psalms does not necessarily mean that they took every opportunity to do so, or did so with due reverence. In the same vein as Nicholas Bownd in England, the notorious Jeremiad of the General Assembly of 24–25 March 1596 reported that many in Scotland displayed ‘An universall coldnes, want of zeall, ignorance, contempt of the word, ministrie, and sacraments … ’ This, it was argued, resulted from ‘the want of familie exercises, prayer, and the word, and singing of psalms; and if they be, they are profaned and abused … ’34 Like England and other officially Protestant nations, Scotland had its Roman Catholic minority, not to mention its rather more numerous lukewarm or stone-cold nominal Protestants, so it is no surprise that there were those who did not follow the Kirk’s stated wish that there should be regular domestic psalm singing in all households. Neither is it surprising that the devotional practices of some arose out of a legalistic observation of the letter of church law rather than a spiritually-motivated, genuine desire to spend time in family worship. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that most Scots did sing psalms in church and at home.35

Texts and Tunes Commonly Sung in Scotland

Robert Lekpreuik’s first edition of the Scottish metrical psalms printed 105 unique tunes. To expect the faithful to memorize so many tunes might seem idealistic and extreme, and it remains unclear precisely how many tunes Scots commonly used with their metrical psalms. The minister, academic, poet, and diarist James Melville recalled that in his childhood:

The minister [in Montrose] was able to teatche na ofter but annes in the ouk [i.e., once in the week]; but haid a godlie honest man reidar [Jhone Beatie], wha read the Scripture distinctlie, and with a religius and devot feilling; wherby I fand my selff movit to giff guid eare, and lern the Stories of Scripture, also to tak plesure in the Psalmes, quhilk he haid almost all by hart, in prose. The Lard of Done, mentioned befor, dwelt oft in the town, and of his charitie interteined a blind man, wha haid a singular guid voice; him he causit the doctor of our scholl teatche the wholl Psalmes in miter, with the tones thairof, and sing them

33 Scott and Laing, Bannatyne Miscellany, p. 238. 34 John Row, The History of the Kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1842), p. 172. 35 Todd, Protestantism, pp. 41–2, 72–3, 312. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 209

in the kirk; be heiring of whome I was sa delyted, that I lernit manie of the Psalmes and toones thairof in miter, quhilk I haiff thought ever sen syne [i.e., since that time] a grait blessing and comfort.36

Admittedly the blind man had no choice but to memorize the texts, and he had a gift for singing. But Melville’s blind man may have been more typical than previously thought, for an examination of recorded instances of psalm singing reveals that Scottish churches used a similarly large repertory of tunes.37 Unfortunately, the majority of extant sources that mention psalm singing do not specify the psalm texts and tunes concerned, but some sources do provide these details. Appendix B lists these references that either state or directly imply that people sang a particular psalm. A significant majority of the texts printed in Scottish metrical psalters were in Common Metre, so there is nothing surprising about the predominance of references to the singing of Common-Metre psalms in the historical accounts. Nonetheless, Common Metre was not as popular it is today. As back in Chapter 3, turning to the Scottish psalter’s contemporary, the Gude and Godlie Ballatis, reveals that Long Metre (8.8.8.8.) and more complicated metres were the most common at the time.38 Of the ballads included in the reprint edition by A.F. Mitchell, only eight used Common Metre or a related metre (i.e. 8.6.8.6.8.6.).39 Common-Metre melodies from outside the Scottish metrical psalter were therefore hard to find. The prevalence of Long-Metre texts in popular balladry, on the other hand, may have provided a number of popular tunes that could have fitted the Long-Metre psalm versifications, but there is no evidence to suggest that Scots used popular melodies for their metrical psalms.40 Christopher Marsh has convincingly shown, with reference to English practice, that popular tunes probably

36 James Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr James Melvill, ed. Robert Pitcairn (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Printing Company, 1842), p. 22; for information on the Laird of Dun, see Henry Summerson, ‘Erskine, John, seventeenth or first earl of Mar d.( 1572)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/8866. 37 See Appendix B. 38 These include metres such as 10.10.10.10. for ‘Till trew in hart’, 8.8.8.4.8.4. for ‘Richt soirly musing’, and 8.8.8.8.9 for ‘Gif ye haue rissin from deid againe’. 39 These include ‘We suld beleue in God abufe’, ‘My Lufe murnis for me’, ‘With huntis vp’, ‘Of the fals fyre of Purgatorie’, ‘Wo is the Hirdis of Israell’, ‘God send euerie Priest and wife’, ‘The wind blawis cauld furious and bauld’, and ‘Hay trix, tryme to trix’. A.F. Mitchell, ed., A Compendious Book of Godly and Spiritual Songs (Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, 1897). 40 With 33 texts using it or the related 8.8.8.8.8.8. metre, Long Metre was by far the most common poetic metre used in the Ballatis. Mitchell, Godly and Spiritual Songs. Interestingly, both Alexander Montgomerie and James Melville made psalm paraphrases of their own that were designed to be sung to specific secular tunes. See James Reid-Baxter, ‘Montgomerie’s Solsequium and The Mindes Melodie’ in J. Hadley Williams and J. Derrick 210 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice never acted as suitable replacements for psalm tunes.41 This would surely have been even truer in Scotland, where the metrical psalms were held in such reverence. Since extant historical accounts mention people singing psalm texts that employed more than nineteen different metres, it is not far-fetched to conclude that most Scots really did sing the psalms as written in their unchanging psalters.42 Many of these accounts admittedly refer to locations where the presence of a song school and trained musicians ensured a wide repertory of tunes. It is always possible that more remote parishes – with fewer musicians at hand – had more limited psalm tune repertories. However, this does not necessarily mean that people in such parishes never had the opportunity to learn, and therefore sing, a majority of the tunes in the Scottish psalter. In orate societies, people listen very carefully and memorise with great ease. If peddlers travelling around the countryside were capable of teaching the latest popular tunes to those they encountered, they were also capable of passing on metrical psalms and their tunes, especially in a society in which religion was of burning concern to most people.43 In addition to these travellers, the presence of a Reader in local parishes had an impact on parishioners’ ability to sing the tunes printed in the Scottish metrical psalters. As John McCallum noted, ‘the normative experience of regular public worship was the Reader’s service’.44 Unfortunately, the records of many parishes in Scotland have not survived, but the extent to which smaller parishes had access to Readers or precentors has received much attention over the past 20 years. Gordon Munro examined various extant town and church records from this time, confirming that most locations employed precentors or Readers to take up the psalms.45 Michael Lynch’s survey from the Register of Ministers and Readers confirmed that while over 90 per cent of Lowland parishes had either a minister or a Reader by 1574, 75 per cent of these were readers.46 Similar research by John McCallum has also shown that most parishes in Fife had a Reader by 1570, and Margaret Sanderson’s study of

McClure, ed. Fresche Fontanis: Studies in the Culture of Medieval and Early Modern Scotland (Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 2013). 41 Christopher Marsh, Music and Society in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 420–22. 42 See Appendix B. 43 Melville, Autobiography, pp. 22–3. 44 John McCallum, Reforming the Scottish Parish: the Reformation in Fife, 1560–1640 (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2010), p. 85. 45 Gordon Munro, ‘Scottish Church Music and Musicians, 1500–1700’ (2 vols, PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 1999), passim. 46 Michael Lynch, ‘Preaching to the Converted? Perspectives on the Scottish Reformation’, in The Renaissance in Scotland: Studies in Literature, Religion, History and Culture, ed. Alasdair A. MacDonald, Michael Lynch, and Ian B. Cowan (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 308. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 211

Ayrshire revealed that most of its parishes had one by 1575.47 This implies that most churches employed a person who could either sing or read the psalms by 1575.48 Since Readers were absolutely forbidden to preach, it also means that the metrical psalms played a truly central role in the rigorous program of religious instruction described by Margo Todd, which in time successfully turned Scotland into a country so identified with its tradition of Genevan-style worship that in 1638, it would rebel against King Charles I to defend that style of worship. The question is whether the bulk of these Readers followed the dictates of the Forme of prayers. Since it was common for parishes to employ their former Roman Catholic clerics and priests as Readers, it would be tempting to argue that some must have been resistant to the Protestant liturgy in the Forme of prayers, especially in light of the historiographical tendency to assert that most people in Scotland embraced Protestantism only gradually.49 According to John McCallum, however, the psalms and Scriptures used in the regular Reader’s service actually provided a sense of continuity between the Old Kirk and the New.50 While some Readers may have resisted the liturgical innovations, most would have been comfortable to read the Scriptures and psalms as directed by the Forme of prayers. Perhaps a better question is whether these Readers possessed the required musical skills to read, sing, and lead the metrical psalms in the Forme of prayers. With the constant movement of merchants, travellers, and ministers around the Scottish Lowlands, however, the likelihood is that most parishes were able to sing their psalms, even if only to a limited repertory of tunes. Even the most limited of tune repertories may have covered a broad selection of poetic metres. Starting in 1575, Scottish printers began to include doxologies that were intended to be sung after the psalms. The first of these was printed with the peculiar 6.6.6.6. 4.4.4.4. metre of Psalm 148,51 and Henry Charteris added significantly to the corpus of doxologies in 1596. His CL Psalmes of that year included a conclusion or doxology for each metre, which he printed or suggested at the end of each psalm text.

47 McCallum, Scottish Parish, pp. 34–5; Margaret Sanderson, Ayrshire and the Reformation: People and Change, 1490–1600 (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1997), pp. 159–76. 48 See James Porter, ‘“Blessed spirits, sing with me!” Psalm-singing in context and practice’, in Defining Strains, ed. James Porter (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2007), pp. 299–322. 49 For an example, see Jamie Reid-Baxter, Michael Lynch, and E. Patricia Dennison, Jhone Angus: Monk of Dunfermline and Scottish Reformation Music (Dunfermline: DoubleBridge Press, 2011), pp. 11–12. 50 McCallum, Scottish Parish, pp. 86–9. 51 It is printed separately from the psalm in Bassandyne’s 1575 edition, but with the psalm in Vautrollier’s 1587 volume. See The CL Psalmes of David in English metre [STC 16580] (Edinburgh: Thomas Bassandyne, 1575), p. [512]; The CL Psalmes of David in English meter. For the vse of the Kirk of Scotland [STC 16582] (London: Thomas Vautrollier, 1587), p. 748. 212 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

If Scots did not commonly sing tunes using many of these metres, it is difficult to understand why Charteris would have gone to such lengths to include a doxology to match each one. Moreover, his decision to obtain and print Scots translations of the short prayers (‘collects’) written for each psalm by the Genevan pastor Augustin Malorat would further indicate that Scots sang many of the psalm texts in their metrical psalter.52 It is perhaps debatable whether these doxologies and prayers were initially intended for use in worship, but it is clear that they had at one point been commonplace, since the Westminster Assembly chose to ‘let desuetude abolish’ them.53 Their association with ‘anglicising’ practices in worship under Charles I would have guaranteed that they would begin to fall from favour as soon as the Glasgow Assembly of 1638 abolished the episcopate.54 Although these doxologies and the persistence of most of the proper psalm tunes in Scottish psalters strongly indicates that they continued to be sung in popular practice, Scots also began to use the Common Tunes. In fact, by the end of the seventeenth century, 12 of the Common Tunes had become so completely predominant that they have become known as the ‘Canon of the Twelve’.55 Chapter 5 mentioned that two of Hart’s 1615 editions of the CL Psalmes were the first in Scotland to print a set of Common Tunes, and that by 1635 the corpus had expanded from 12 to 31.56 This supports James Porter’s argument that people increasingly used Common Tunes in the seventeenth century.57 These tunes were the lasting legacy of the confusion in Scottish psalters printed around the turn of

52 Malorat’s Prières sur des pseaumes were printed in French metrical psalters from 1561 to 1674; see Reid-Baxter, ‘Montgomerie’s Solsequium,’ pp. 361–75, at 370 and note. 53 George Gillespie, ‘Notes and Debates’, in The Works of Mr. George Gillespie, ed. William Maxwell Hetherington (Edinburgh: R. Ogle and Oliver and Boyd, 1846), p. 120. For a discussion of the introduction and use of the doxologies and conclusions, see David Hay Fleming, ‘Hymnology of the Reformation’, in Shorter Writings of David Hay Fleming, ed. Chris Coldwell (Vol. 1, Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2007), pp. 34–49. 54 See William MacMillan, Worship of the Scottish Reformed Church (London: James Clarke, 1931), pp. 90–91, quoting comments from 1640–43 made by Gordon of Rothiemay and by Robert Baillie that record the demise of the use of doxologies. 55 Millar Patrick notes that in addition to ‘Common Tune’, ‘King’s Tune’, ‘Duke’s Tune’, ‘English Tune’, ‘French’, ‘London (London New)’, ‘Stilt (York)’, ‘Dunfermline’, ‘Dundee’, ‘Abbey’, ‘Martyrs’, and ‘Elgin’ that Scots often also used ‘Bon Accord’, which often appeared in reports. Millar Patrick, Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 111. 56 Compare The CL Psalmes of David in prose and meeter: With their whole vsuall Tunes, newly corrected and amended [STC 16592] (Edinburgh: Andro Hart, 1615) with The Psalmes of David in Prose and Meeter. With their whole Tunes in foure or mo parts, and some Psalmes in Reports [STC 16599] (Edinburgh: Heires of Andro Hart, 1635). 57 James Porter, ’Blessed spirits’, p. 306. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 213 the century, and therefore probably started to find their way into Scottish singing practice only after 1600. Two references in the records have been used by some to claim that the Common Tunes were introduced before 1600, however. The Edinburgh kirk session minutes of 6 January 1574 provide one particularly confusing example: ‘The said day, the kirk ordanis Edward Hendersoun and his soune, to sing the salmis on the preching dayis in sic touns as ar maist colmoun for the kirk’.58 Gordon Munro suggests that ‘touns’ here means ‘tones/tunes’, and argues that Hendersoun and his son were being ordered to stop singing new or lesser-known tunes in worship services.59 Taking it as axiomatic that most congregations could not learn all 105 tunes printed in the Scottish psalters, Munro concludes that the injunction indicates a diminishing repertory of tunes and a preference for the Common Tunes as early as 1574. Neither conclusion is necessarily correct. Since the Common Tunes would not emerge as any kind of identifiable category until 1615, ‘maist colmoun’ here can mean nothing more specific than ‘most commonly sung’ or ‘most popular’. There is no means of knowing just how many tunes in whatever metre – Common Metre or otherwise – might have been most popular among Edinburgh-area congregations in 1574. The session may simply have been enjoining the Hendersouns to stop introducing either entirely new tunes, or tunes that were less familiar to the congregation they were serving. A second potentially confusing reference to the use of Common Tunes is found in a book that issued from Waldegrave’s press in 1598, James Melville’s A Spiritvall propine of a Pastour to his People [STC 17816]. Addressing his parishioners at Kilrennie in Fife, Melville wrote:

I carefully recommend vnto you, this your Catechisme, & instruction in the right way of the true seruice of God, and atteyning to saluation be Iesus Christ, included in this little Poeme, and framed to the common toones, wherewith ye are best acquainted …60

It is tempting to read this with hindsight, and claim Melville wanted his parishioners to use the Common Tunes for singing the poems in his volume. But as with the 1574 Edinburgh injunction, that is to read too much into Melville’s ‘common toones’. While some Scottish psalm singers were experimenting with their text–tune pairings in the later 1590s, as evidenced in the printed psalters. Melville is simply asking his readers to sing his texts

58 Maitland Miscellany, Vol. 1, p. 113. 59 Emphasis added. Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, pp. 160–61. 60 James Melville, ‘Dedicatorie Epistle’, in A Spiritvall Propine of a Pastour to his People [STC 17816] (Edinburgh: Robert Waldegrave, [1598]), fol. 3r. 214 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice using tunes ‘wherewith ye are best acquainted’. The proof is in the Propine’s poetic texts themselves. Several sections of the substantial catechetical poem ‘A Morning Vision’ do not fit the metre of the Common Tunes, and neither do the poems entitled ‘The feeling of sinne and force of Faith for saluation’ and ‘The way and end of Voluptie and Vertue’.61 Admittedly, the majority of the singing texts included in his Propine are written in Common Metre, but that merely means they would have matched the majority of the proper tunes in the Scottish Forme of prayers or CL Psalmes. Melville may not even have intended his readers to use only psalm tunes. He specifically suggests that the ‘Precepts of repentance’ in A Morning vision should ‘bee song with the tone of Ah my love leave me not’,62 and he actually prints an appropriate secular tune for his roundel ‘The Seamans shovte’. In his earlier book Ane fruitful and comfortable exhortatioun anent Death (1597), Melville had included his own 14-stanza version of George Buchanan’s Latin paraphrase of Psalm 36, ‘translated … to the tune of the CX. Psalme’, a 10.10.10.10 tune that had originated in the French psalters. He also appended two virtuosic psalm-paraphrases of his own ‘to the tune of Solsequium’. Any parishioner capable of singing the complex latter melody would have had no problem with any proper tune in the Kirk’s psalter.63 Forty years later, the proper tune of Psalm 110 would be appointed for the ‘Spiritual Song’ printed at the very end of Millar’s 1635 Psalmes of David and several later Scottish psalters.64 While neither the 1574 injunction nor Melville’s Propine can be taken as referring to the Common Tunes as later generations would understand the term, there is a strong suggestion that certain psalm tunes were more popular than others. It is clear that over an unknown period of time this doubtlessly ever-evolving repertory of more common psalm tunes slowly coalesced into something that began to resemble the collection of Common Tunes that would first appear in Hart’s 1615 edition, which confirmed and extended a practice that had been developing since 1600. A succession of metrical psalters issued without music by various Scottish printers (Table 8.1) seems to confirm that Common Tunes only began to be used after 1600 and did not become popular until after 1615. Following similar text-only editions printed by John Windet in England in 1599 and 1600, the Scottish printer Robert Charteris produced the first

61 ‘The Paterne of true Faith and Repentance’ and ‘Conclusion’ from A Morning vision are not in Common Metre. 62 Melville, Spiritvall Propine, p. 96. 63 reid-Baxter discusses the secular lovesong and the brood of contrafacta sacra it fathered. He also considers Melville’s versions of Psalms 23 and 121. Reid-Baxter ‘Montgomerie’s Solsequium’, pp. 365–6. 64 See Jamie Reid-Baxter, Poems of Elizabeth Melville, Lady Culross (Edinburgh: Solsequium, 2010), p. 99. Once again, this indicates the long-lived popularity of a non Common-Metre proper tune. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 215

Table 8.1 Editions of the Scottish metrical psalms printed without tunes

Year STC Printer Size *1578? 16580.7 John Ros? 8º *1599–1602 16586 Robert Smyth 8º 1603 2703 Robert Charteris 12º 1616 2708.5 Andro Hart 32º 1625 2710 Heirs of Hart 4º 1625 2711 E. Raban 24º 1626 2713 E. Raban 12º 1629 2714 E. Raban 12º 1629 16595 E. Raban 4º 1630 2715 Heirs of Hart 8º 1630 2715.5 Heirs of Hart 12º 1632 2717 Heirs of Hart 4º 1632 2718 Heirs of Hart 24º 1633 2721 Heirs of Hart 8º 1635 2722 Robert Young 24º 1635 16600 Iohn Wreittoun 12º 1639 2722.5 Robert Bryson 24º 1640 2723 James Bryson 4º 1640 2724 James Bryson 12º

* Indicates edition printed in Scots orthography.

English-language version of the Scottish metrical psalter without tunes in 1603 and at least 16 more would follow from various Scottish presses through 1640.65 Since Scottish psalters were more static than their English

65 Windet’s editions were The Whole booke of psalmes. Collected into English meeter [STC 2498] (London: John Windet, 1599); and The whole booke of Psalmes. Collected into English meeter [STC 2501] (London: John Windet, 1600) respectively. Very little is known about the two Scots-orthography editions (STCs 16580.5 and 16586) that preceded Charteris’s volume. Even the publisher and date of these remain unknown. See Jamie Reid-Baxter, ‘Metrical Psalmody and the Bannatyne Manuscript: Robert Pont’s Psalm 83,’ Renaissance and Reformation 30, no. 4 (Fall 2006). Perhaps they were produced as an inexpensive alternative to the full versions of the Scottish metrical psalms for those who could not read music and were required to purchase a copy of the psalms and bring it to church with them by the 1579 acts of Parliament and the Edinburgh city council. As with the 216 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice counterparts, this was a significant development in Scottish metrical psalm printing. However, the fact that no Scottish printer would follow this initial edition with another for 13 years, until Hart’s 1616 version, and that he himself never printed a follow-up edition indicates that there was little initial demand for psalters without tunes in Scotland.66 Only in the mid-1620s did these psalters start to sell in large quantities, as both Hart’s ‘Heires’ and the Aberdeen printer Edward Raban began to regularly print text-only versions starting in 1625.67 That there was a genuine market for these psalters only after 1625 suggests that the traditional proper psalm tunes had continued to predominate well into the seventeenth century, and the exploding demand for text-only editions thereafter may well reflect the growing popularity of the Common Tunes. Once the Common Tunes had gained acceptance in Scottish practice, musicians began to add their own tunes, as a letter dated 2 January 1624 from Thomas Nicolson in Edinburgh to George Nicolsone, Provost of Aberdeen, shows:

If my friend Patrick Davidson will give you the old tunes contained in the old psalm book I mean the special thereof the ninth and twelfth and such others under the four parts, I will request you to send them and give him £20 for his pains I seek none of the 12 tunes which are called the new tunes.68

By referring to the 12 Common Tunes as the ‘new’ tunes and the proper tunes as the ‘old’ tunes, Nicolson clearly indicates that these were a new development, and that composers such as Patrick Davidson were producing four-part harmonizations of these ‘new’ tunes. The 1625 psalter printed by Raban became the first edition to print four-part harmonizations of the Common Tunes and to add to their number, appending ‘Bon accord’ and ‘Elgin’. These added tunes along with a third, confusingly called ‘Montrose’ although unrelated to other tunes published elsewhere under that name, would become unique to his psalters, as the Hart editions – now printed by his heirs – maintained the original 12 until 1634. Although some other poetry in Melville’s Propine, printers of these editions probably expected that people would sing the psalms to the tunes with which they were most familiar. 66 The next edition to issue from the Hart presses came in 1625, four years after Hart had died and his heirs had taken over the business. Alastair J. Mann, ‘Hart, Andro (b. in or before 1566, d. 1621)’, ODNB, 2008, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12470. 67 It is important to note that these were not only marketed to poorer Scots; the various sizes in which they appeared suggests a wide market. Larger volumes – 4º sizes – often were more expensive than the smaller ones – 24º and 3º sizes – suggesting that people of all classes purchased them. 68 Louise B. Taylor, ed. Aberdeen Council Letters (6 vols, London: Oxford, 1942), Vol. 1, p. 223. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 217 tunes were added in 1634, the Aberdeen tunes would not appear in Hart’s psalter until the 1635 Psalmes of David, which, as discussed earlier, was a monumental, conscious effort to unify Scottish psalm singing practice. Despite a blossoming set of Common Tunes, the evidence indicates that the old proper tunes remained popular. Dominating the extant references of early modern Scottish psalm singing listed in Appendix B stands the diary of the famous future Covenanting leader Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston, which mainly dates from the 1630s and refers to psalms sung in the daily services in Edinburgh. Although his comments suggest that Edinburgh churches did not systematically sing through the entire psalter, they do show that churches regularly sang from a substantial portion of it. Even more importantly for the present discussion, the psalms mentioned in Johnston’s accounts included psalm versifications that employed nine different metres. This shows that in Edinburgh, churches continued to use many of the proper tunes, as printed in the Scottish psalters. Similarly, the presence of several non-Common-Metre psalms in the Fifeshire minister William Morray’s Nyne songs (c. 1634), the Glaswegian William Stirling’s partbook (c. 1639), and the Dundonian Robert Edwards’ Commonplace book (c. 1630–56) strongly suggests that Scots over large swathes of the country continued to sing the proper tunes.69

Scottish Psalm Singing Practices

One further area of Scottish psalmody requires comment: the actual practices found in performance. As in England, these varied depending on finances, personnel, and politics. When considering how Scots sang their psalms, a passage in James Melville’s autobiography is particularly helpful:

Mairower, in these yeirs [1574] I lerned my music, wherin I tuk graitter delyt, of an Alexander Smithe, servant to the Primarius of our Collage, wha haid been treaned upe amangis the mounks in the Abbay. I lerned of him the gam, plean- song, and monie of the treables of the Psalmes, wherof sum I could weill sing in the kirk; bot my naturalitie and easie lerning by the ear maid me the mair unsolide and unreadie to use the forme of the art. I lovit singing and playing on instruments passing weill, and wald gladlie spend tyme whar the exerceise thairof was within the Collage; for twa or thrie of our condisciples played fellon weill on the virginals, and another on the lut and githorn.70

69 See William Morray, Nyne songs collected out of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, drawne foorth of the pue fountains of Hebreuu and Greeke [STC 18166] (Edinburgh: [J. Wreittoun], [1634]); William Stirling, Cantus Partbook, [1639], GB-En Adv. MS 5.2.14; and Robert Edwards, Commonplace book, [1630–56], GB-En MS 9450. 70 Melville, Autobiography, p. 29. 218 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

This passage states that Melville sang the psalms in church and did well at learning music by ear, but he found his ‘good ear’ hindered his ability to perform written music. His comment that he learned ‘plean-song, and monie of the treables of the Psalmes’ is tantalizingly vague. Melville’s ‘plean- song’ could refer to plainly sung or unharmonized metrical psalm tunes,71 despite the fact the term usually referred to chant or an unornamented melody that employed free rhythms mimicking normal speech rhythms.72 If the latter was Melville’s meaning, this perfervid young Calvinist was learning medieval Roman Catholic chants and psalm tones. His subsequent reference to the ‘treables of the Psalmes’ is equally intriguing. It could mean that he learned the descants to the medieval chants or psalm tones, but it is far more likely it refers to the treble parts to the metrical psalm tunes, since Melville would have sung only metrical psalms in kirk in the 1570s.73 In any case, it is clear that his music education included part- singing and playing musical instruments.74 Melville’s experience calls for closer consideration, not least with regard to the extent to which Scots used musical instruments and part-singing in metrical psalm singing in sacred and secular settings.

71 See Robert Crowley, The Psalter of Dauid newely translated into Englysh metre in such sort that maye the more decently, and wyth more delyte of the mynde, be reade and songe of al men [STC 2725] (London: [R. Grafton and S. Mierdman], [1549]), fols [++iiv]–iiir; Thomas Ravenscroft, ed., Whole booke of psalmes: with the hymnes Evangelicall, And Songs Spiritvall [STCs 2575 and 2575.3] (London: Company of Stationers, 1621), passim; Thomas Ravenscroft, ‘To all that have Skill, or Will vnto Sacred Musicke’, in The whole booke of Palmes: with the hymnes euangelicall, and songs spirituall [STC 2648] (London: Thomas Harper, 1633). Christopher Barker also said of John Day in December 1582, ‘In the priuiledge, or private license graunted to Master Daye, are among other thinges the Psalmes in meeter, with notes to sing them in the Churches aswell in foure partes, as in playne songe … ’ Edward Arber, ed., A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640 A.D. (5 vols, London, 1875–94), Vol. 1, p. 115. 72 ‘Plainsong’, OMO, ed. Michael Kennedy, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/ subscriber/article/opr/t237/e7977. that this was indeed Melville’s meaning is argued for in a recent important essay: Gordon Munro, ‘“Sang Schwylls” and “Music Schools”: Music Education in Scotland, 1560–1650’, in Music Education in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, ed. Russell E. Murray, Jr, Susan Forscher Weiss, and Cynthia J. Cyrus (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010), p. 71. 73 As noted earlier, Scots probably learned many of the proper psalm tunes printed in the Lekpreuik psalters. The only extant harmonized psalm settings now known to have been available at the time were those included in Thomas Wode’s part-books. Since Wode was working in St Andrews, where Melville was studying, it is most probable that he learned these psalm settings at some point. 74 Munro provides helpful insights into music instruction in Scotland during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, along with some of the methodology used for teaching music in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Scotland. Munro, ‘Sang Schwylls’, pp. 65–83. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 219

Scottish Use of Musical Instruments

The role of musical instruments in post-Reformation Scotland has received some recent attention from musicians and historians, not least in connection with records from Stirling and Elgin. Taking it for granted that Calvinists opposed all instrumental music, many historians have hastily concluded that Calvinist Scotland therefore also hated instrumental music. However, the evidence calls for a more nuanced view. The fact that the minister Alexander Hume accompanied his psalms on the lute has already been mentioned. He wrote for one such paraphrase, ‘Euen on my iolie Lute, by night, | And trimling trible string, | I sall with all my minde and might, | Thy glorie gladly sing.’ Even more strikingly instrumental is the music in Hume’s evocation of sacred praise in the glory of the summer sunset: ‘O: then it were a seemely thing, | While all is still and calme | The praise of God to play and sing, | With cornet and with shalme.’75 However, there is no question that the Kirk strongly discouraged the use of organs and other instruments in worship. Exceptionally, the Chapel Royal of the Catholic Queen Mary was allowed to continue to use instruments in the early years of the Reformation.76 The well-known organist and former master of the Edinburgh song school, John Fethy, was the Cantor of the Chapel Royal until at least 1566.77 Under his direction, the Chapel employed a number of musicians to maintain Roman Catholic services between her return in 1561 and her fall in 1567, and therefore the organ almost certainly remained in use throughout this period.78 On the queen’s overthrow in 1567, the Earl of Mar took control of Stirling Castle and removed the organ.79 Reformed Scots sang their psalms a capella in worship services, but the evidence suggests that they often used musical instruments to accompany psalm singing in secular settings. James Melville’s musical education included the playing of musical instruments, but unfortunately, he does not state what music he played on instruments, and specifically whether he played to accompany public psalm singing. Considerably earlier, however, and long before the Kirk issued its metrical psalter, there occurred a celebrated and controversial instance of Scots using musical instruments to accompany psalm singing outwith the worship service. As previously

75 Poems of Hume, p.16, lines 141–4 and p.32, lines 213–16. 76 D. James Ross, Musick Fyne: Robert Carver and the Art of Music in Sixteenth Century Scotland (Edinburgh: Mercat Press, 1993), pp. 100–101. 77 Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, pp. 26, 31. 78 Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, pp. 31–4. 79 Ross, Musick Fyne, pp. 100–101. 220 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice mentioned, on 19 August, 1561 Queen Mary returned to Scotland and took up residence in the palace of Holyroodhouse. Knox recorded:

Fyres of joy war sett furth all nyght, and a cumpany of the most honest, with instrumentis of musick and with musitians, geve thair salutationis at hir chalmer wyndo. The melody, (as sche alledged,) lyked hir weill; and sche willed the same to be contineued some nightis after.80

This particular version of the story is generous and sufficiently vague for Knox’s readers in order for him and the other ‘serenaders’ to retain deniability, if necessary. His wording creates a very different impression from the account written by the French courtier Pierre de Bourdeille Brantôme. Instead of the pleasant sound of psalm singing round daybreak as the queen went to bed, Brantôme insists there were 400–500 ‘scoundrels from the town’ bawling discordant psalms and accompanying themselves with out- of-tune violins and rebecs.81 However, two pieces of evidence suggest Knox’s account may be more accurate than Brantôme’s in terms of the actual sound of the psalms being performed. If the queen’s serenaders had wanted to annoy her with sheer noise, surely other instruments such as bagpipes, sackbuts, and shawms in combination with such a large group of people would have produced the desired ruckus. The choice of violins and rebecs indicates that the group wanted to produce something that could not be identified as inherently displeasing to the queen’s ears. This interpretation is confirmed by Karen Woodworth, who notes that a group of four violars were indeed paid 10 schillings by the burgh the next day.82 But it is indisputable that however beautifully the psalms were performed, that the gesture of singing Protestant psalms to a newly arrived Catholic queen – particularly if some of the tunes were French and therefore instantly identifiable by French courtiers like Brantôme – was a piece of calculated defiance, much like her Entry that followed on 2 September.83 Given that Knox’s group of singers

80 Knox, Works, Vol. 2, p. 270. 81 Brantôme wrote, ‘qui pis est, le soir, ainsi qu’elle se vouloit coucher, estant logée enbas in l’Abbaye de l’Islebourg, qui est certes un beau bastiment, & ne tient rien du Pays, vindrent sous la fenestre cinq ou six cents marauts de la ville, luy doner aubade de meschants violons & petit rebecs, dont il n’y en a faute en ce Pays là; & se mirent à chanter Pseaumes, tant mal chantez & si mal accordez, que rien plus. He! quelle musique, & quel repos pour sa nuit!’. Brantôme, Œuvres complétes, Vol. 7, p. 419. 82 Woodworth also notes that a second violar named ‘Feldy’ (Alexander or John Feldie) was hired presumably to play for the queen on the following nights, further corroborating Knox’s version of the story. Karen May Woodworth, ‘Music and the Court of Mary Stewart, 1561–1567’ (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2011), pp. 64–7. See also Robert Adam (ed.), Edinburgh Records: The Burgh Accounts (Edinburgh, 1899), Vol. 1, p. 343. 83 A.A.MacDonald, ‘Mary Stewart’s Entry’. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 221 had no problem employing instrumentalists, it is clear that, at least at this early date, they did not have any problems with using musical instruments to accompany their psalm singing outside of church.84 Two equally important events involving the royal family further suggest that Scots could use musical instruments to accompany extra-liturgical psalm singing. The first is James VI’s entry into Edinburgh in 1579:

The king made his entrie in Edinburgh at the West Port, upon Fryday the 17th of October. He was receaved by the magistrats of the toun, under a pompous pale of purple velvet … The musicians song the xx. psalme, and others played upon the viols … After the sermon was sung the xx. Psalme.85

Psalm 20 was a fitting choice for the king’s entry into the city, as it asks the Lord to hear the king’s prayer and accept his sacrifice.86 Though the metrical version used that day from the Scottish psalter minimizes its references to the king, Scots equated the ‘anointed one’ with their king. The second of these major state events in which musical instruments are recorded as accompanying psalm singing occurred after the baptism of Prince Henry in 1594:

Therafter, the bishop stood up, and treatted upon the sacrament of Baptisme, first in our vulgar tongue, nixt in the Latine. Thereafter, the musicians sung the 21st Psalme … The bankett ended, thankes being givin to God, there was sung the 128th Psalme, with diverse voices and toones, and musicall instruments playing.87

There are no known negative reactions to these instances of instrumentally accompanied, non-liturgical psalm singing. But it should be noted that both accounts carefully distinguish between ceremonial and liturgical music, with the implication that instrumentally accompanied psalms were unacceptable in worship but otherwise permissible.88

84 While the Queen did not appreciate the gesture, there was no reaction from the Kirk. 85 Calderwood, History, Vol. 3, pp. 458–9. 86 The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments &c. vsed in the English Church at Geneua, approued and receiued by the churche of Scotland [STC 16577a] (Edinburgh: Robert Lekpreuik, 1565), p. 48. 87 Calderwood, History, Vol. 5, pp. 344–5. 88 This followed Calvin’s practice in Geneva. Regarding the use of musical instruments, he wrote, ‘for although we are not forbidden to intermix musical instruments privately, yet are they banished out of churches by manifest decree of the Holy Ghost, when Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 13, permits us not to praise God or to pray but in a known tongue’. John Calvin, A Commentary on the Psalms of David by John Calvin, trans. A. Golding (Oxford: D.A. Talboys, 1840), Vol. 2, p. 253. 222 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Although the prohibition against musical instruments generally applied only to worship services, there are two specific accounts that indicate that some locales may have extended the prohibition a bit further. On 24 December 1583, the Stirling Presbytery banned pipers and fiddlers from wedding processions.89 Such a prohibition could suggest that the Kirk authorities and pious Scots did not like musical instruments, but it is important to remember that sixteenth-century weddings occurred on Sundays as part of the worship service, usually just before the sermon.90 Therefore, the Stirling presbytery’s injunction was more a question of what was proper practice for Sundays rather than any dislike of instrumental music as such. The presbytery also sought to limit the dancing and other celebratory activities that often accompanied such musical marriage processions. Later in the minutes, the presbytery insists that couples should ‘cum to the kirk reverentlie as becumis thame without ony playing … ’91 A similar prohibition cited by Gordon Munro in Elgin would seemingly have forbidden the use of bagpipes at any time. He writes, ‘Another edict of the session (20 December 1599) forbade, amongst other “prophane pastimes”, “singing of carrellis or uther prophane sangis, guysing, pyping, violing and dancing”’.92 However the context of the edict sheds a little more light on the restriction:

Anent the Chanonrie kirk – All prophane pastyme inhibited to be usitt be any persones ather within the burgh or college and speciallie futballing through the toun, snaw balling, singing of carrellis or other prophane sangis, guysing [masquerading], pyping, violing, and dancing and speciallie all thir aboue specifeit foriddin in the Chanonrie kirk or kirk yard thairoff (except futball). All women and lassis forbiddin to haunt or resoirt thair under the paynis of publict repentans, at the leist during this tyme quhilk is superstitiouslie keipitt fra the xxv day of December to the last of Januar nixt thaireftir, quhilk ordinance the minister sall intimat furth out of the pulpit.93

The Elgin Kirk Session was in fact trying to place restraints on the public celebrations that surrounded Christmas, rather than trying to forbid people from playing bagpipes (and even dancing) at all times.

89 James Kirk, ed., Stirling Presbytery Records, 1581–1587 (Edinburgh: Publications of the Scottish History Society, 1981), p. 192; Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, p. 158. 90 STC 16577a, p. 93. 91 Kirk, Stirling Records, p. 158. 92 Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, p. 86. 93 Stephen Ree, ed., The Records of Elgin, 1234–1800, compiled by William Cramond (2 vols, Aberdeen: New Spalding Club, 1908), Vol. 2, p. 76. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 223

On the other hand, there is an interesting instance of instrumental music recorded in 1575 by the General Assembly. On 7 August, Peter Watson, minister of Dumfries complained that ‘on Yule day last … [the town of Dumfries] brought a Reader of their own with a tabor and whistle, and caused him to read the prayers; which exercise they used all the days of Yule’.94 As in Elgin, the people (not the authorities) of Dumfries apparently encouraged Christmas celebrations, and for Christmas 1574 they had hired their own Reader when neither Watson nor their Reader would oblige them with special services around a holiday that the Kirk had abolished. Since this centred on the proper practice around Christmas, a holiday that was not generally celebrated in post-Reformation Lowland Scotland, it is probably an aberration rather than an indicator of common practice throughout the rest of the Lowlands. However, there remains the slight possibility that some recalcitrant locations allowed some musical instruments during the Reader’s service, despite the objections of the Assembly.

Part-singing of Scottish Psalms

If musical instruments were normally only used outside of public worship in Scottish society after the Reformation, the singing of harmonized versions of the metrical psalms was much less restricted. According to the previously quoted passage from Melville’s autobiography, he learned the melodies for the psalm tunes while in Montrose and the ‘treables of the Psalmes’ in St Andrews, some of which he ‘could weill sing in the kirk’.95 A youth as pious as Melville would not have sung the harmonies to the psalm tunes in church if the Kirk did not permit this. Gordon Munro adds that song-school students routinely assisted the congregational singing by singing the psalms in harmony.96 In Ayr, for instance, the song-school master was appointed in 1583:

to teiche the youthe in the art of musik sufficientlie, and to learne yame to sing, als to play upon the pynnatis (spinet) and uther instrumentis according to his knawledge, and to learne the barnis that singis to read and write Inglis, and sall sing in ye Kirk ye for (four) partis of music, beginning ilk Sunday at ye second bell.97

94 APGA, Vol. 1, p. 398. 95 Melville, Autobiography, pp. 22, 29. 96 Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, pp. 132, 203, 213, 240. See also Neil Livingston, ed. The Scottish Metrical Psalter of A.D. 1635 (Glasgow: Maclure and MacDonald, 1864), pp. 21–2. 97 John H. Pagan, Annals of Ayr: In the Olden Time, 1560–1692 (Ayr: Alex Fergusson, 1897), p. 75. While the reference to the ‘second bell’ suggests the students sang during the Reader’s Service, there seems to be sufficient evidence from other kirks to suggest that they 224 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Indeed, records from Aberdeen,98 St Andrews,99 and Glasgow100 also suggest that students from most song schools helped the song-school master to lead the singing in the local kirk. Since song schools helped with congregational singing, the mystery of how 2,000 Scots could sing the 124th Psalm in four parts when Durie returned to Edinburgh in 1582 is much less puzzling, especially considering that the Edinburgh song school was one of those that had remained open in the immediate aftermath of the Reformation. Local churches probably employed their song-school students to assist in the singing, both before and after James VI’s 1579 Act of Tymous Remeid ordered that song schools be re-established in the major towns and burghs throughout Scotland.101 Perhaps the 1574 injunction for Hendersoun and his sons to sing the psalms may have begun this practice in areas such as Ayr, Aberdeen, St Andrews, and Glasgow.102 Edinburgh probably had ready access to psalm harmonizations because there were a number of men working to harmonize the psalms in close contact with or proximity to the city, including David Peebles, Andro Kemp and Thomas Wode in St Andrews; Andrew Blackhall in Musselburgh; and John Buchan in Haddington. These cumulative situations suggest that people in Edinburgh may have become familiar with harmonized psalm tunes well before Durie’s entry. The procession accompanying the minister probably included not only trained musicians but also ordinary kirk-goers singing Psalm 124 in four-part harmony. It is perhaps with this phenomenon in mind that Edward Raban decided to print four-part settings of the Common Tunes in his 1625 CL Psalmes. With other more challenging options available to Aberdeen’s also assisted in the singing during the proper worship service. For more on the Reader’s Service, see McCallum, Scottish Parish, pp. 85–93; Todd, Protestantism, pp. 68–73. 98 James Cooper, ed., Cartularium Ecclesiae Sancti Nicholai Aberdonensis (2 vols, Aberdeen: New Spalding Club, 1892), Vol. 2, p. 393; Stuart, Extracts, p. 157. 99 David Hay Fleming (ed.), Register of the Minister, Elders and Deacons of the Christian Congregation of St Andrews (2 vols, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1890), Vol. 2, p. 908. 100 Robert Wodrow, ‘Mr. David Weems’, in Collections Upon the Lives of the Reformers and Most Eminent Ministers of the Church of Scotland (2 vols in 4 parts, Glasgow: Edward Krull, 1845), Vol. 2, Part 2, pp. 22–3. 101 The so-called Act of Tymous Remeid was passed by Parliament in 1579, ordering major towns and burghs ‘To erect and sett vp ane sang scuill with ane maister sufficient and able for instructioun of the yowth in the said science of music’. T. Thomson et al (eds), Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland (12 vols, Edinburgh: HM General Register House, 1814–75), Vol. iii, p. 174. 102 The Edinburgh Kirk session’s injunction is currently the earliest known record of a song-school master and his pupils helping with the singing in the local churches after the Reformation. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 225 trained choirs, it is hard to imagine that Raban intended them solely for trained musicians and those who were being trained at the city’s two song schools. It is therefore difficult to understand why Raban would have gone to the trouble of collecting and printing harmonizations if he did not think his clientele could learn and sing them. These were the simple tunes of the people set in basic harmonies that he must have intended for the general populace to sing for domestic devotions and for corporate worship. There is, however, a record from the Perth Session suggesting that some churches discouraged singing in parts, even when performed by a song- school master and his pupils. In their 29 July 1583 meeting, the Perth session ordered, ‘John Swinton (precentor), first, to keep only the tenor in the Psalm … ’103 While this could be viewed as a comment on harmonized psalm singing, Munro argues it could also be a comment on the musical abilities of Swinton, his song school, and their particular kirk.104 Regardless of the motive behind the restriction, the Perth record indicates that there were variations in part-singing practice between burghs – even between those that had a local song school.105 In most of the churches with access to a local song school, members of the congregation besides the song-school students may have been able to learn the parts by rote and to join in singing in four parts. This affected psalm singing outside the church as well, where the evidence suggests that more polyphonic psalm settings were more common.106 In areas without a local song school, it is difficult to know whether churches used harmonized psalm tunes. However, Edward Millar noted in his introduction to the 1635 Forme of prayers that ‘an abuse observed in all Churches, where sundrie Tribles, Basses and Counters set by diverse Authors, being sung upon one, and the same Tenor, do discordingly rub each upon another … ’.107 Millar’s psalter sought to minimize this undesirable characteristic of

103 John Parker Lawson, The Book of Perth: An Illustration of the Moral and Ecclesiastical State of Scotland Before and After the Reformation (Edinburgh: Thomas G. Stevenson, 1847), p. 152. 104 Munro, ‘Scottish Music’, Vol. 1, pp. 123–4. 105 A St Andrews Kirk Session ruling against Thomas Wode could be another example in which a Kirk limited part-singing, but the circumstances surrounding the order along with the ruling itself are unclear. For the actual order, see Fleming, Register of St Andrews, p. 529. It seems St Andrews may have had a precentor who was in charge of music in the church, indicating Wode’s additions may have been purely verbal rather than musical. See Fleming, Register of St Andrews, pp. 488, 604; Melville, Autobiography, p. 127. 106 There are accounts of polyphonic psalm settings for weddings, baptisms, coronations, and other events. For examples, see Stevenson, Scotland’s Last, pp. 104–5, 114; Charles Rogers, History of the Chapel Royal of Scotland (Edinburgh: Grampian Club, 1882), pp. lxxxiii, lxxxv. 107 Edward Millar, ‘To the Gentle Reader’ in The Psalmes of David in Prose and Meeter [STC 16599] (Edinburgh: Heirs of Andro Hart, 1635). 226 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Scottish psalm singing, but there was resistance to the volume.108 This would suggest not only that many Scots sang in parts, but that they also really liked the way they did so. While Millar had probably not himself carried out a large-scale survey of parish churches to witness singing practice, he was probably aware of accounts of singing even in the more remote areas of Scotland. Versions of psalm-tune harmonies could have travelled with the melodies to these more remote areas, but it is more likely that these areas used simple descants instead, just as in England.109 Since most Scots lived outside the major burghs, it would be difficult to argue that harmonized psalm singing must have been a standard characteristic of Scottish worship. However, harmonized psalms were common enough for most Scots to have been aware of the practice.

Lining Out in Scottish Practice

While the song school often provided churches with precentors, more remote areas relied on a Reader to lead the singing.110 As they began to collect payment for their services towards the end of the sixteenth century, those charged to ‘take up the psalm’ began to appear in burgh and Kirk records.111 The question of the Reader’s or precentor’s precise role in pre- 1650 Scottish worship services remains an area of widespread confusion. Margo Todd recently wrote:

one did not need to have the music before one to learn them. From the first generation of the Reformation, with cantors lining out the psalms (singing one line at a time) for repetition by the congregation, this particular section of the scriptures could easily be learned by heart without the need for literacy.112

Though her point concerns how the non-literate learned the metrical psalms, rather than practice in actual worship, the evidence indicates that precentors in Scotland did not commonly line out the psalms until after the Westminster Assembly concluded in 1649 and after the Scottish Kirk officially sanctioned this practice.113 One reference from Old Aberdeen

108 See earlier discussion in Chapter 5. 109 temperley argues that descant was probably the most popularly used method of psalm harmonization in England. See MEPC, Vol. 1, pp. 73–5. 110 Todd, Protestantism, pp. 71–2. 111 Todd, Protestantism, pp. 69–70. 112 Todd, Protestantism, p. 71. 113 John Lightfoot. The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, D.D., ed. John Rogers Pitman (Vol. 1, London: J.F. Dove, 1824), p. 344. For a discussion of Scottish singing practice after 1650, see David Johnson, Music and Society in Lowland Scotland in the Eighteenth Century (London: Oxford University Press), pp. 171–5. Scottish Metrical Psalmody in Practice 227 indicates the precentor did little more than start the psalms. On 16 July 1607 the city records note:

The said day compeiret Wa[lter] Lindsay maister of the sangschoil and comptat and rakint with Sir James Balfour fier of Petcullo Maister Dauid Rait principall of the Kingis college of Auld Abd. and Maister Thomas Gairdyne of Blairtoun anent his steipand promeist be thame to him for serwing and teiching the sang scoill and begining of the salme in the kirk thir thre yeiris last bypast … 114

This was not an isolated example, as one Scot’s defence of the Forme of prayers and CL psalmes against James VI and I’s new metrical versifications in 1631 suggests he was accustomed to this practice. He argued, ‘so he that taketh vp the psalme is able to sing anie tune, and the people for the most pairt follow him’.115 The statement that congregants followed their precentor ‘for the most pairt’, suggests that there were times when they did not follow him. Understandably, a congregation might have trouble following when the precentor simply started the tune, but a congregation would have fewer problems following one who lined out the psalm tune. Precentors in Scotland, therefore, probably did not line out the metrical psalms before 1650. By including 105 unique tunes, the Scottish psalm book attempted to embody John Calvin’s belief that each psalm was unique and deserved unique musical expression. This approach may initially have made the Scottish metrical psalms more difficult to sing, as there were more tunes for the largely non-literate population to learn. However, the large repertory undoubtedly helped people to individualize the psalms when learning and memorizing them. Allowing for some diversity in practice, especially as the Common Tunes were introduced after 1600, Scots generally followed their printed psalters by regularly singing many of the tunes they contained. The conclusion must be that the printed Scottish metrical psalters from 1564 to 1640 were not only prescriptive, but also descriptive of what occurred in worship, public and private. This repertory of tunes was so sufficient that the Common Tunes did not gain widespread acceptance until around 1625, despite having been introduced around the turn of the century. It is clear from the records and the printed evidence that the metrical psalms formed an integral part of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century

114 Alexander Macdonald Munro, ed., Records of Old Aberdeen MCLVII-MDCCCXCI (Aberdeen: New Spalding Club, 1899), p. 42. 115 Munro, Records, p. 234. The author of this defence against King James’ metrical versifications is contained in a set of manuscripts that were compiled by David Calderwood. David Laing notes that they were originally written in a hand other than Calderwood’s, so these probably were the views of someone else. See Scott and Laing, Bannatyne Miscellany, Vol. 1, p. 231n. 228 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Scottish life. As McCallum argues, the psalms provided a sense of continuity between pre- and post-Reformation Scottish worship.116 Scots continued to rely on the metrical versifications printed in the Scottish metrical psalters, which they sang at solemn moments of festival and celebration, of public fasting, prayer and protest, and as personal expressions of devotion at home, both in sickness and in health, and at the hour of death. They truly became the songs of early modern Scotland.

116 McCallum, Scottish Parish, pp. 87–8. Summary and Extension

This book has shown how England and Scotland’s respective traditions of metrical psalm singing grew, between 1552 and 1640, from the original collection of 44 versifications by Thomas Sternhold and John Hopkins. Taken to mainland Europe by the Marian exiles, this initial nucleus was revised and added to by the Anglo-Scottish community in Geneva right up to 1561.1 More than any other factor, it was probably timing that lay behind the initial differences between the complete metrical psalters printed in England and Scotland. Following the Elizabethan Settlement, John Day in London worked with John Hopkins and Thomas Norton as a matter of urgency to produce a complete set of versifications of all 150 psalm texts, on the basis of the 1558 edition of the Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers.2 In Scotland, however, the course of history meant that it was not until 1562 that resources could be devoted to the provision of a metrical psalter for the brand-new reformed Kirk, which meant that the 1560–61 Anglo-Scottish editions of the Forme of prayers had become available as the foundation of the Scottish psalm book. Scotland also retained the ethos of the Genevan ideal of a tune proper to each psalm, and, having no historical tradition of allegiance to Cranmer’s Prayer Book, initially rejected the idea – embraced by Day – of expanding the textual repertory with ‘canticles and hymns’. The result was that the completed psalters issued by Day in 1562 and by Lekpreuik in 1564 launched two closely- linked but distinct national psalm traditions that became entrenched and loved in their respective countries. In England, metrical psalmody was from the start more flexible in practice than its Anglo-Scottish Genevan predecessor, not least because the metrical psalms never achieved official status within the English liturgy, although they were a significant part of worship in many places. Their tunes

1 Beginning in 1546, the Genevan council recommended that churches sing through the entire printed metrical psalter every 17 days, which they expanded to 28 days when the 1551 psalter expanded the metrical psalms from 35 to 83. See Robert Homer Leslie, Jr., ‘The Polyphonic Psalter of Pascal de l’Estocart’, PhD diss. (McGill University, 1968), 114; P.H., II, 32, 62, 135. 2 As Beth Quitslund has shown, Day’s 1562 Whole booke drew from a variety of Continental sources due to the influence of the English exiles who were living in various cities during the reign of Mary I. However, the foundation for Day’s psalm versifications came solely from the 1558 Forme of prayers. RR, pp. 193–238. 230 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice were not subject to official ecclesiastical regulation and constraints: this was a popular psalmody closely tied to the ballad tradition, in that its text- tune relationships were much looser than they had been in Anglo-Scottish Genevan practice. By 1600, these looser text-tune relationships had given rise to the all-purpose Common Tunes, which were slowly incorporated into the Day psalters alongside the remaining proper tunes and tune suggestions. Psalters printed in and for Scotland, however, were much more static than their English counterparts, retaining and building upon the text-tune relationships of their Anglo-Scottish predecessors. Of crucial importance to the ‘melodic stability’ of the Scottish psalter was the fact that the metrical psalms were a central part of the official Scottish liturgy. This conferred sacred status on these texts and their music as first printed. It also meant that for some forty years, the actual contents of successive editions of the psalter were effectively the property of the Kirk and not Scottish printers; the latter were not able to experiment with the psalter as they pleased. Whether the Kirk was governed by the General Assembly or, intermittently, by royally-appointed bishops, its liturgy remained monolithic and unchanging, and the Scottish psalter’s repertory of proper tunes therefore remained almost entirely fixed. However, in the mid- 1590s, for reasons as yet unclear, the Assembly did nothing to prevent a new generation of printers in the mid-1590s from ushering in a period of instability. Effectively ended by Andro Hart’s editions of 1614 and 1615, the years of instability left behind one very important legacy, in the shape of the Common Tunes interchangeably singable for all the very numerous psalms written in Common Metre. As these tunes became better known, Scottish printers began to issue psalter editions without music, such as had been regularly printed in England since 1566. Thus, apart from the longstanding differences involving some forty psalm-texts, (and the absence from Scottish printed psalters of greater or lesser numbers of the English Whole booke hymns and canticles), by 1640 the Scots were in the process of transforming the music of their liturgical psalmody into something more akin to the mix-and-match metrical psalmody of England. The impact of King Charles’s 1631 and 1636 editions of ‘The Psalms of King James’ is as yet uninvestigated, but the mere fact that all of those paraphrases were in Common Metre was a foreshadowing of the future: when the Westminster Assembly undertook its very serious attempt to produce a single psalter for Scotland and England that used Common-Metre paraphrases sung to Common Tunes. When the Scottish General Assembly adopted the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter, it was printed without any tunes at all, which in conjunction with its well-nigh exclusive use of Common Metre was a practical endorsement of, and mandate to use the Common Tunes exclusively. Summary and extension 231

The two national psalters and their corresponding performance traditions also had different spheres of influence both outside their respective countries and beyond. In England, however, the Sternhold and Hopkins metrical psalms continued to be printed and used long after they were displaced at the end of the seventeenth century by Tate and Brady’s ‘New Version’. Nor should it be forgotten that the Sternhold and Hopkins metrical psalms were popular at a time when English mariners, adventurers and merchants began to extend the nation’s influence around the world. The psalms were on the lips of sailors during services on-board and to mark the setting of the watch. In fact, the East India Company bought 50 psalters for each of its ships, which it intended its sailors to use on their perilous journeys and to sing to the natives they encountered.3 More than any other edition printed in England or Scotland, however, it was Ravenscroft’s 1621 psalter that influenced metrical psalmody outside Britain and especially in America. The 1640 Whole booke of Psalmes or Bay Psalm Book printed by Stephen Daye in Cambridge, Massachusetts directly recognized the prominence of Ravenscroft’s tunes. Before 1640, the Ainsworth and Sternhold and Hopkins editions dominated metrical psalmody in the Massachusetts Bay Colony because of the influence of the Puritan colonists.4 However, they were unhappy with the music in both psalters. The preface to the Bay Psalm Book notes, ‘As for the obiections taken from the difficulty of Ainsworth’s tunes, and the corruptions in our common psalme books, wee hope they are answered in theis new edition of psalms …’5 Clearly, people had problems singing the tunes in the Ainsworth editions, and the Sternhold and Hopkins editions (or ‘common psalme books’) had many problems as well.6 Since the rest of the preface acts as a defence of the new translations in the Bay Psalm Book, these ‘corruptions’ probably refer to the translational problems in the Sternhold and Hopkins texts. To replace these difficult tunes, theBay Psalm Book suggests:

The verses of these psalmes may be reduced to six kindes, the first wherof may be sung in very neere fourty common tunes; as they are collected, out of our chief musicians, by Tho. Ravenscroft. The second kinde may be sung in three tunes as Ps. 25, 50, & 67, in our english psalm books. The third may be sung indifferently as Ps. the 51, 100, & ten commandements, in our english psalme

3 Christopher Marsh, Music and Society in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 435. 4 Irving Lowens, ‘The Bay Psalm Book in 17th-Century New England’, JAMS 8, no. 1 (Spring, 1955), p. 23; Wilberforce Eames, ‘Introduction’, in The Bay Psalm Book (Cambridge, MA.: Stephen Daye, 1640; reprint, New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1903), fol. p. v. 5 Eames, The Bay Psalm Book, fol. **2r–v. 6 See Chapters 2 and 4 for details of these problems. 232 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

books. Which three tunes aforesaid, comprehend almost all this whole book of psalmes, as being tunes most familiar to us. The fourth as Ps. 148 of which there are but about five. The fift as Ps. 112 or the ‘Pater noster’, of which there are but two, viz. 85 & 138. The sixt as Ps. 113, of which but one, vix 115.7

Ravenscroft’s psalter provided the musical content for all the Common- Metre texts (namely, the Common Tunes), and the Sternhold and Hopkins editions provided the tunes for the rest of the texts set in other metres.8 The Bay Psalm Book was almost immediately adopted by nearly every congregation in the colony.9 Because of this influence in the Americas and the continuing influence of Ravenscroft in England, the latter’s edition would become the most influential English-language metrical psalter printed in the Sternhold and Hopkins line. Very different indeed was the fate of the Scottish Sternhold and Hopkins line, so long true to the original ideals of Anglo-Scots psalmody as developed in Geneva. It came to a magnificently rich and diverse climax in Edward Millar’s great 1635 Psalter. But far from securing the long- term future of the old Scottish tradition, the 1635 Psalter and its music were doomed to almost immediate eclipse. The Anglo-Scots Genevan tradition fell victim to the way Scottish history evolved after James VI’s departure for London in 1603. The king’s subsequent restoration of the Scottish episcopate alienated but did not eliminate a core of Presbyterian supporters. Their resistance to episcopal government (and hence royal policy) was reinforced by James’s ill-conceived imposition of the Five Articles of Perth on the Kirk in 1618, above all the article concerning kneeling to receive Communion.10 Opposition to the official liturgical practice of the Kirk remained limited to relatively small numbers of militant presbyterians, until Charles I began seriously to interfere with worship and attempt to replace its traditional Genevan-style, psalm-based austerity with a full blown English-style Prayer Book liturgy. It is not known how much confusion and damage was done at parish level by the attempt to enforce use of the metrical ‘Psalms of King James’, which, if they were actually sung in Scottish kirks, would in all likelihood have been sung to existing ‘Common Tunes’.

7 ‘An Admonition to the Reader’, in Eames, The Bay Psalm Book. 8 These metres were Short Metre, Long Metre, 6.6.6.6.4.4.4.4., 8.8.8.8.8.8., and 8.6.8.6.8.6., respectively. 9 Salem and Ipswich waited until 1667 to formally accept the Bay Psalm Book, and Plymouth Colony adopted it in 1692. Lowens, ‘Bay Psalm Book’, p. 24; Eames, ‘Introduction’, p. viii. 10 See Jenny Wormald, ‘The Headaches of Monarchy: Kingship and the Kirk in the Early Seventeenth Century’, in Julian Goodare and Alasdair A. MacDonald, eds., Sixteenth Century Scotland: Essays in Honour of Michael Lynch (Brill: Leiden and Boston, 2008), pp. 365–93. Summary and extension 233

What is known is that the rumours and then the arrival of the English- style liturgy of King Charles’s Scottish Prayer Book sounded the death- knell both of Charles’s rule, and of the old Scottish psalter. In the heady debates of the Westminster Assembly, under the banner of the Solemn League and Covenant, the Scottish delegates dreamt of a new dawn and a fresh start, in the shape of all-presbyterian Britain, and wholeheartedly embraced the idea of creating a completely new, revised metrical psalter to be made compulsory for worship throughout both countries. England rejected the resulting volume; the Scottish General Assembly pondered and revised it, but never thought of reverting to the old psalter with all its metrical and melodic variety. In 1650, the final, revised version of the new metrical psalter was adopted by the Kirk and, despite its thoroughly ‘British’ genesis, became a purely Scottish psalm-book with a repertory of twelve tunes. In 1949, Millar Patrick had no qualms whatsoever about covering the entire period from the origins of metrical psalmody to the demise of the 1564 psalter in the first sixty pages of his Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody, and then devoting 225 pages to the psalter of 1650. In both Scotland and England, the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms were a by- word for bad verse for centuries. In recent years, however, there has been a resurgence of serious scholarly interest in English and Scottish liturgical and musical practice after 1560. Historians and musicians have begun to consider the wealth of information buried in churchwardens’ accounts, kirk session minutes, and city registers. These studies are particularly helpful in understanding the diversity in practice that each country experienced at the time, but they also tend to neglect the central component of English and Scottish metrical psalmody as a living phenomenon in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: its music. The present volume has sought to start a dialogue on the music: firstly, with regard to its interaction with the metrical texts, and secondly, in terms of the different ways English and Scottish people sang their psalms. One neglected area, on which the present discussion barely touches, is the study of the harmonized metrical psalters, both in print and manuscript. Developments such as the Wode Psalter project at the University of Edinburgh, however, have begun to make these resources available to scholars around the world. The psalm harmonizations produced within the British Isles now need to be compared, both amongst themselves, and with those produced in mainland Europe. In addition to this task of musical analysis, much work also remains to be done on the metrical psalm versifications and their sources, both in England and, to a far greater extent, in Scotland. Using the ancient poetry of praise and prayer contained in the Book of Psalms, mid-sixteenth-century reformers successfully used new metres and tunes to bring the Word of God to the literate and non-literate alike, in a 234 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice language and format they could understand, learn, memorize, and sing. For huge swathes of English and Scottish society at all levels, metrical psalmody was one of the salient features and indeed one of the cornerstones of spiritual and musical life, and as such, it deserves the sustained attention of historians and musicians.11 It has been all too easy, in the modern West, for scholars to take a dismissive attitude to the metrical psalm texts and tunes because of their simplicity and apparent artlessness, and to lose sight of the fact that it was this very quality that endeared them to the hearts and minds of believers throughout the British Isles after 1560. The metrical psalms and their melodies were shared by all conditions of men and women. Young and old, rich and poor, noble and commoner, learned and unlearned, all joined their voices together in these words and tunes that allowed them to give shared expression to their religious faith in psalms that voiced their pains, struggles, hopes, and beliefs and thus brought them closer to their God.

11 Marsh, Music and Society, pp. 435–7, 452–3. Appendix A Tunes Printed and Suggested in the English and Scottish Psalters, 1560–1640

The following is a list of every tune printed or suggested for each psalm text in the Sternhold and Hopkins line of psalters printed in England and Scotland until 1640. It is a consolidated form of the more extended catalogue and tables available online through the Edinburgh Research Archive, and readers are encouraged to consult the online versions as well.1 To ease use, this printed version has been divided into two sections. The first lists the tunes used in the English Whole booke editions, and the second lists those found in the Scottish Forme of prayers and CL Psalmes. Editions of the two countries have been further subdivided into two sections that correspond to the right two columns in the table. The middle column includes each edition printed until the end of 1603 and the third column includes each edition printed from 1604 to 1640. In both English and Scottish psalters, 1604 is a significant year. This was the year that the Company of Stationers took over the psalm printing patent in England, and Andro Hart began to take over the psalm printing market in Scotland (printing his first edition in 1607). The rows on the table correspond to a particular psalm text, and each of these is divided by a dotted line, above which are tunes found in over 10 per cent of editions; those below the line in less than 10 per cent. Tunes have been listed by their alphanumeric designation in the HTI, and are given in order of frequency. Square brackets have been placed around ‘tune suggestions’ in order to distinguish them from the ‘proper’ tunes. Some tunes therefore appear more than once alongside a particular psalm. For example, the English editions of Psalm 2 (both before and after 1 January 1604) suggested that readers use tune ‘158a’, but some editions printed the actual tune instead. Therefore, the table lists both ‘[158a]’ and ‘158a’ separately. Other important features of the table are listed in the key below:

1 Timothy Duguid, ‘Early Modern British Metrical Psalters’, Edinburgh Research Archive, 2013, http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/6684. 236 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Key none Denotes instances where no tune or tune suggestion was printed. * Denotes a tune not found in the HTI. ? Denotes a tune that for whatever reason is unidentifiable (i.e. significant printer errors, poor print quality, mutilated copies, etc.). [ ] Tunes enclosed in square brackets denote a tune suggestion. [none] Denotes instances where a tune suggestion refers to a psalm that does not appear with a tune or tune suggestion. [*] Denotes a tune suggestion that refers to a tune not found in the HTI. [?] Denotes a tune suggestion that is either unidentifiable, or refers to a psalm that either does not appear in that particular edition or whose tune is otherwise unclear.

Tunes in the English Whole booke

Pre-1604 1604 and after

158a 158a Ps. 1 60, 158b 120a [158a] [158a] Ps. 2 none, [60], 128a, 158a, 61, [?], 249a, [62a], 128a, 158a, [286a], [62a], 201a 201a, [128a] 62a 62a Ps. 3 285a [158a] [158a], [62a] Ps. 4 [62a], 250b, none, [145a], [60] 201a, [120a], [145a], 250b [62a] [62a] Ps. 5 none, [158a], [175a], [109a], [249a], none, [158a], [145a], [145a], 249a, 62a 111a, 249a, 375a 65, [158a] [158a], 65, [62a] Ps. 6 [109a], none, 250b, [62a], 265 none, 250b, [113b], [285a], 66, 265 appendix a 237

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[62a] [62a] Ps. 7 66a, [158a], [65], 201a, 62a, [?], [158a], [201a], 201a, 372, 62a, [32a], 250b, none 107b, [170a], 250b, [113b] [62a] [62a] Ps. 8 [158a], [170a], 250b, [66a], 101a, 331a, 250b, 101a, 376, [158a], none, 67, [159a] [170a], 123a, [26a] [62a] [62a] Ps. 9 249a, 68, [143a], none 249a, 276a, 371a, [158a], [287a], none [62a] [62a] Ps. 10 62b, 61, 201a, 268, 77a, [114], none, 201a, [250b], 77a, 368a, [158a], [171], none [107b], 250b, [171], [175a] [62a] [62a] Ps. 11 [175a], [61], [65], [77a], [84b], 274c, [77a], [201a], [120a], 369, 250b, [249a], none 250b, [62a] [62a] [62a] Ps. 12 [66a], 249a, [201a], [?], none [201a], [250b], [116a], [158a], 249a, 250b [62a] [62a] Ps. 13 [159a], [65], 201a, [158a], [84b], [249a], [158a], [65], 153b, 201a, none 382a, [?], [84b] 113b, [62a] 113b, [62a] Ps. 14 113a 330a, [107b], 249e [62a] [62a] Ps. 15 [158a], [113b], 250b, 74, [88], 250b, [201a], [113b], 367a, [88], [113a], [51a], [91a] [158a], 271a, [84b] [113b], [62a] [62a], [113b] Ps. 16 [84b], 75, 249a, ?, [113a], [114], 249a, [276a], 168a, 359, [160a], 168a, none [84b], [107b], 276a, [250b], [88] [62a], [113b] [62a], [113b], [84b] Ps. 17 [75], 201a, [113a], [168a], [84b], [168a], [274c], 380a, [160a], none [123a], [289a], [162a], 201a, [?], [114], [123a], [158a], [249e] 159a 159a Ps. 18 250b 250b, 286a 238 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[113b], [62a] [62a], [113b], [159a] Ps. 19 [91a], [113a], 250b, [160a], [250b], 250b, [158a], 159a, [84b], 159a, 77a [160a], 274a, 274c, [166a], 120a], [249e], [?], [170b], [65] [113b], [62a] [113b], [62a] none, [74], 113b, 75, 78, [113a], [159a], [249a], 75, 366, 113b, Ps. 20 201a [146a], [158a], [175a], [249e], 201a, [149a], [170a], [84b], [91a], none 160a, [159a] 160a, [159a] Ps. 21 79, [62a] [62a], 269c [160a], [62a] [160a], [159a], [62a] Ps. 22 [159a], 75, 160a, [113b], [79], 275a, [113b], 75, 166a, 363, [none], none 160a, [?], [158a], [170a], [75] [160a], [159a] [160a], [159a] Ps. 23 249a, [162a], [62a], 80, [114], [62a], 249a, [276a], none, 276a, [?], [249d], [none] [123a], [130a], [285a], [84b] none, [160a] none, [160a], [159a] Ps. 23 (2) [159a], [62a], 249a, [?] [276a], [62a], 249a, 276a, [?], [195a], [249a] [160a], [159a] [160a], [159a] Ps. 24 [62a], [113b], none, [170a], [79], [62a], 271a, [170a], 175a, 250b, [88], [none], 159a, 250b 275a, none, [114] 114 114, [?], [170a] Ps. 25 none, [62a], [159a], 269b 360a, 361a, 269a, 360b, 360c, [62a], [159a], 287a, 269e, 269f, ?, [84b], 361b, none [113b], [159a], [84b] [113b], [62a], [159a] Ps. 26 [62a], [160a], 113b, 201a, [?], [201a], 113b, [160a], [111a], [158a], none [143a], [158a], [170a], [249e], 201a, 381a, [114], [293], [32a] [159a] [159a], [62a], [113b] Ps. 27 [160a], [170a], [84b], [62a], [160a], none, [250b], [65], none, [113b], [158a], 135a, 159a, [249a], 159a, 249a, 331a, [?], 249a [170a], [none] appendix a 239

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[160a], [159a] [159a], [160a] Ps. 28 [84b], [62a], 201a, [?], [113a], [170a], [62a], 201a, none, 160a, 160a, 82, [none] 365a, [275a], [184a], [?], [84b], [158a], [360a] [84b], [160a], [159a] [159a], [84b], [62a], [160a] Ps. 29 86, 250b, [?], [162a], [62a], 250b, [158a], 128a, 362a, [113b], [170a], [none], 128a [330a], [331a], [175a], [114], [170a], [275a] 84b 84b Ps. 30 250b [114], 250b, [159a], [330a], 275a [159a] [159a], [84b] Ps. 31 [62a], [158a], 249a, [160a], [158a], [62a], [274c], none, [170a], [184a], [60], [84b] [289a], 249a, 273a, [?], [160a], [195a] [84b] [84b] Ps. 32 [159a], [?], [109a], [83], 201a, [114], none, [249a], [159a], 184a, [250b], none 329, [250b], [275a], 201a [84b] [84b] Ps. 33 [159a], [91a], 89, 250b, [62a], 250b, [114], 84b, 276c, [?], [88], none, [?], 250a, 84b [276a], [62a], [159a], [160a], 288a, [275a] [84b] [84b], [62a] Ps. 34 [62a], 249a, [113b], [74], none, [114], 249a, 170a, 325, none, 168a, 170a, 96a [331a], 130a, [159a], [?], [275a], [84a] [170a], 170b [170a] [184a], [113b], [160a], [155], [113b], [84b], 201a, 326b, [114], Ps. 35 201a, [?], [159a], 249a 249a, 326b, [114], 249a, 326a, [250b], 170b, 289a, [65], none, [?], [201a], [62a] [170a], [84b], [170b] [170a] [160a], [113b], [162a], none, [?], [113b], [84b], [201a], [181], Ps. 36 250b, [109a], [159a], [201a], [326b], [114], [271a], [159a], [62a], 136a [162a], [170b], [160a], [none], 250b, 327a, [?], [250b], [62a], none 240 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[170a], [84b], [171], [170b] [170a] [113b], [?], 249a, 115, [159a], [84b], [113b], [171], [201a], [160a], [175a], [249a] [114], [159a], [326b], 249a, Ps. 37 [249a], none, [158a], [93a], [160a], [326a], [62a], [170b], [88], 290a, 328, [none], [?], [162a] [170a], [84b], [170b] [170a], [84b] [113b], [159a], 201a, [62a], none, [113b], [62a], 201a, 75, [250b], Ps. 38 266, [?], [250b], [74], [93a], [367a], [114], [286a], [159a], [none], 170a [170b], [171], 266, [?], [160a], [201a], [275a], [326b], [84a], [88] [170a], [170b] [170a] [155], [113b], [184a], [160a], [113b], [84b], [250b], [326b], Ps. 39 [143a], [62a], [?], [250b], 250b, [62a], [201a], none, [160a], [114], [159a], [74], none [275a], [373a], [170b], [367a], [88], 128a, [none], 250b, 330a, [114], [158a], [159a], [173] [170a], [170b] [170a], [62a] [160a], [155], [184a], [113b], [84b], [113b], [201a], [326b], Ps. 40 [159a], [84b], [?], [249a], [201a], [249a], [274c], [160a], [170b], 168a, 170b, 249a [184a], [326a], 370, [159a], 249e, [171], [360a], [88], [91a], [none] 88, [170a] 88, [84b], [170a] Ps. 41 [none], [155], 250b, [?] [171], 250b, [175a], 330a, [?], [330a], [128a], 249a, 250c, none, [none] [170a], [170b] [170a] [84b], [155], [113b], [?], [184a], [62a], [84b], [113b], [276a], Ps. 42 [62a], [89], 249a, [159a], [160a], [114], [201a], [249a], [326b], [249a], [250b] [88], [250b], [326a], [170b], 162a, 358, [?], [none], 249a, none, [107a], [360b] [170a], [170b], [84b] [84b], [170a] [155], [184a], [113b], [?], none, [113b], [62a], [249a], [160a], Ps. 43 250b, [159a], [160a], [249a], [114], none, [162a], [326a], [88], [91a] [170b], [158a], [159a], 250b, 379a, [?], [116a], [128a], [none] 91a 91a Ps. 44 91b [331a] appendix a 241

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[114] [114], [?], [170a], [62a] [none], [113b], [170a], [?], 373a, [113b], [269a], [360a], Ps. 45 [160a], [62a], [170b], [84b], [360c], [360b], 291, [159a], [88], [159a], 114, 251, [158a], [179a], [160a], [201a], 269c, [269e], [91a], 269c [326b], [361b], [none], none 171, [170a] 171, [170a], 158a Ps. 46 250b, [?], [91a] [84b], [250b], [62a], 250b, [91a], 201a, [159a] [171], [170a] [171], [91a], [170a] [114], [91a], [113b], [none], [?], [158a], [114], [330a], [113b], Ps. 47 [170b], 201a, 171, [160a], 137, 201a, 171, [62a], 382a, [?], [84b] [201a], [326b], [288a], [84b], none, [360b], [160a], [175a], [88], [none] [171], [170a] [171], [170a], [158a], [159a] Ps. 48 none, [?], 250b, [114], [170b], [84b], [160a], [62a], [91a], [91a] [271a], 250b, [?], 368a, [113b], [175a], [184a], [65] [114], [171] [84b], [171], [91a] [170a], [none], [113b], [62a], [158a], [114], [170a], [113b], [84b], [91a], [170b], 249a, [?], [275a], 249a, [?], [250b], [360b], Ps. 49 [159a], [160a], [113], [183a], [360c], none, [159a], [297a], [250b], [88] [294a], [62a], 369, [269f], [116a], [160a], [171a], [175a], [275a], [276a], [361b], [88], [none] 116a 116a Ps. 50 172 172, none none, [?], [170a] Ps. 50 [62a], [159a], [251], [none], [114], [360a], 251, [361a], (2) [114], [143a], 269c, [?], [84b], [62a], [269a], [84b], 172, [360c], 116a, 269a [159a], [269e], [88], 269e, 269c, [143a], [160a], [361b], [none] 93a 93a Ps. 51 267 267 [184a], [155] [184a] Ps. 51 (2) none, [170a], 201a, [?], [251] none, [62a], 366, [249a], 201a, [170a] 242 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

161a, none 161a, [84b], [170a] Ps. 52 [88], [93a], [109a], [170a], [91a] none, [?], [274c], [91a], [93a], [120a], [286a], [290a], 275a, 330a, [159a], [290a], [62a] [171], [114] [171], [170a], [91a] Ps. 53 [170a], [62a], [none], [?], [160a], [158a], [62a], [84b], [331a], [?], [170b], [113b], [159a], 201a, [114], 149b, 363, [113b], [201a], [158a], none 201a, [161a], [175a], [none], none [171], 170a [91a], [171], [158a], [170a] Ps. 54 [114], [none], [113b], [170b], [114], [201a], [84b], [250b], [?], 250b, none, [?], [111a], [250b], 249a, [62a], 250b, 380a, [249a], [91a] [none] [170a], [171], [170b] [170a] [113b], [160a], [?], 249a, none, [113b], [84b], [201a], none, Ps. 55 [114], [159a], [201a], [249a], [158a], [250b], [326b], [114], [84b], 166b [171], [62a], [91a], [249a], [326a], 144b, [?], [170b], [181], [65], [none], 249a, 375a, [162a] [184a] [184a] Ps. 56 [155], [170a], [62a], 201a, none, [271a], [84b], [149b], 372, [?], [175a] [160a], 201a, [109a], [none], none [91a] [91a] [170a], [159a], [171], [84b], [275a], [84b], [170a], [160a], Ps. 57 [161a], 250b, none, [?], [62a], [88], [none], [292a], 376, [171], [88], [none] 250b, none, [?], [113b], [114], [158a], [164a], [62a] [171], [91a], [170a], [117a] [171], [170a], [62a] [88], [173], [174a], 249a, [114], [159a], [158a], [160a], [84b], Ps. 58 [184a], [none], [?], [113b], [155], [249a], [91a], 249a, [88], [117a], [170b], [84b], 138a, none [291], [?], 371a, [113b], [360c], none 173 173, 131a Ps. 59 [170a], [155], 155, [171] [274c], 182, 173a, 331a, 170a, [155], [170a] [173] [173], [131a] [175a], [62a], [159a], [171], [117a], [170a], [250b], [171], Ps. 60 [174a], [93a], 201a, [162a], [161a], [91a], [114], [65], [158a], [250b], [84b], [91a] [none], [?], [113b], [162a], [173a], 292a, [93a], 201a, 250b, [116a], [159a], [160a], [171a], [331a], [62a] appendix a 243

Pre-1604 1604 and after

174a, [173] [131a], [173], 174a [170a], [84b], [171], [155], [?], [276a], [161a], [170a], [249a], Ps. 61 [161a], [184a], [62a], 174b [62a], [91a], [290a], [159a], [155], [160a], [184a], [84b], [88], [93a], [none], none [174a], [173] [131a], [173], [174a] [159a], [171], [170a], 250b, 139, [160a], [91a], [271a], 250b, Ps. 62 [?], [117a], [162a], [84b], [91a], [182], [184a], [62a], [84b], 91a [159a], [88], [287a], [144b], [none], [173a], [331a], 271a, [?], [148a], [170a], [171], none [91a] [91a] Ps. 63 [171], [84b], 249a, [113b], [114], [170a], [201a], [62a], 249a, [88], [88], 91a, none [286a], [173], [84b], 274c, none, [117a], [158a], [162a] [159a] [159a], [131a] Ps. 64 [175a], none, [158a], 201a, [?], [84b], [173], [175a], none, [171], [160a], [170a], [171], [250b], [250b], [149b], [none], 359, [84b], [none] [331a], [65], 201a, [?], [275a] [84b] [84b] [184a], [?], [159a], 250b, [250b], [173], [159a], [275a], [114], Ps. 65 [88], 201a, none [170a], [131a], [292a], [160a], [62a], 250b, 367a, [?], [113b], [158a], [175a], [250b] [117a], [159a] [117a], [159a] Ps. 66 [?], [128a], [62a], 195a, [84b], [91a], [62a], 195a, [158a], 331a, 249a, none, [155], [160a], [173], [330a], 293, [128a], [171], 249a, [88], [none] [?], [162a], [84b], none [84b], [114] [84b], [?], [114] [?], [160a], 269c, 114, 132, [114], [62a], [170a], 269c, 114, Ps. 67 [164a], 269a, none [269a], [360a], [159a], [269e], [269f], [292a], [146a], [360b], [91a], [146a], [361b], 269a 117a 117a Ps. 68 120a, 330a, [117a], 162a 162a 272 Ps. 69 286a 244 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[163a], [114] [163a], [?], [170a], [114] [84b], [162a], none, [170a], [84b], [364a], [269a], [360c], [none], [159a], [161a], [62a], 251, [250b], [360a], [62a], none, Ps. 70 [91a], 269c, 140, [153a], [93a] [142a], [184a], [159a], [269e], [173], [88], 269c, [109a], [113b], [162a], [175a], [275a], [361b], [none] [162a] [162a], [159a] [114], [160a], [175a], 201a, [173], [62a], 201a, [364a], [171], [173], 201a, 118, none, [?], [113b], [131a], [84b], [158a], Ps. 71 [109a], [113b], [117a], [159a], [163a], [160a], [249a], [330a], [161a], 162a [170a], 163a, [144b], [287a], [171], [117a], [250b], [287a], [362a], [91a], none 163a 163a, 364a Ps. 72 182, 153a [276a], 364b, [286a], [291], 249a, 274a [91a] [91a] Ps. 73 [175a], [84b], [159a], 97, 250b, [175a], [84b], [62a], [201a], none, [?], [113b], [114], [130a], [159a], [331a], [170a], [116a], [170a] [88], 249a, 250b, [113b] [163a] [163a], [364a] [162a], [159a], [160a], [84b], [159a], [162a], [170a], [91a], Ps. 74 249a, [?], [114], [153a], [170a] [271a], [62a], [160a], [364b], [?], [164a], [84b], 107b, 201a, 249a, [107b], [158a], [171], [250b], [274a] [91a] [91a] Ps. 75 [159a], [184a], 201a, [?], [162a], 201a, [113b], [114], [330a], [171], [175a], [84b], none [331a], [84b], [62a], 142a, [175a], [364a], 330a, [88] [162a], [117a] [162a], [117a], [159a] [128a], [159a], [175a], 250b, [91a], [62a], 250b, [158a], Ps. 76 none, [114], [195a], [?], [160a], [195a], [84b], [170a], [274c], [163a], [170b], [none] [331a], [?], [120a], 365a, [131a], [164a], [175a], [250b], none 175a 175a Ps. 77 [175a] [175a], [330a], [113b], [162a], 289a, [149b], [123a] appendix a 245

Pre-1604 1604 and after

164a 164a Ps. 78 98a 294a, 273a, [175a] [175a], [84b] [175a] [114], [162a], [159a], 249a, 119, 249a, [160a], [275a], [170a], Ps. 79 [88], [?], [160a], [163a], [164a] [360c], [379a], 362a, [?], [114], [158a], [162a], [184a], [361a], [62a], [84b], [91a] [84b], [175a] [175a], [84b] [164a], [114], [?], [117a], [160a], [117a], [173a], [?], [91a], [184a], Ps. 80 [173], 201a, none, [162a], [184a], 201a, [360a], [174a], [114], [170a], [91a] [271a], [159a], [182], [294a], [144b], [160a], [173a], 273a 175a 175a Ps. 81 250b 398, [175a], 250b, 288a, [288a], 250c [175a] [175a] Ps. 82 [164a], 250b, none, [117a], [159a], [164a], 250b, [65], [159a], [?], [171], [91a] [250b], [130a], [84b], [91a], 275a, [330a], none [175a] [175a] Ps. 83 249a, [91a], [?], [114], [128a], 249a, [201a], [62a], [162a], [164a], [171], [84b], none [107b], [84b], [184a], [91a], 381a, [158a], [171] [84b], [175a] [175a], [84b] Ps. 84 [114], [?], 276a, [164a], [117a], [62a], [114], [91a], [?], 276a, [160a], [170a], [none], 201a [170a], [113b], [159a], [171], 146a, 201a, [184a], [none] [175a] [175a] [170a], [84b], none, 201a, [?], [84b], 161a, [158a], 201a, [170a], Ps. 85 141, [162a], [88], 161a, 175a [249a], [123a], [289a], 159a], 62a], 271a, [269f], [113b], 160a], [162a], [360b], [398] [175a] [175a] Ps. 86 [159a], [162a], 201a, [170a], [170a], 201a, [159a], 273a, [none], 175a, 91a [84b], [162a], 329, 285a, [160a], [285a], [62a] 246 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[175a] [175a] [91a], 250b, [160a], [170a], none, 250b, [114], [364a], [62a], [?], 75, [162a], [84b], 175a [331a], 75, [162a], [131a], 75, Ps. 87 [162a], [131a], [398], 250i, ?, [173], [84b], 276c, [163a], [170a], [250c], [326a], [none], 250h, none 176a, [175a] [175a], 325, 176a Ps. 88 [162a], 274a, [?], [114], [164a], 274b, 274a, [159a], [162a], 134a [274c], [153b], [398], [62a], [173], [250c], [274a] [84b], [175a] [175a], [84b] [91a], [162a], [117a], [114], [?], [114], [170a], [360a], [269c], [?], Ps. 89 [171], [183a], 249a, [164a] [330a], [113b], 131a, [88], [91a], 249a, 326a, [117a], [159a], [173], [269a], none [164a], [175a] [164a], [175a] Ps. 90 [163a], 250b, 65, [?], [101a], [163a], [275a], [160a], [107b], [117a], [162a], [84b], none [273a], [364a], 250b, 327a, [114], [158a], [62a], [84b], [91a] [162a], [175a], [128a] [175a], [128a] [160a], [177], [173], [?], [114], [84b], [162a], [173], [163a], Ps. 91 [84b], 249a, none, [117a], [159a], [201a], [159a], [131a], [271a], [164a], [201a], [201b], [62a], [177], [294a], 328, [114], [160a], [88], [91a], 142a [170a], [379a], 249a, [?], [117a], [184a], [205a], [367a], none [176a], [175a] [175a] [84b], [170a], [164a], [162a], [176a], [274b], [170a], [159a], 275a, none, [?], [113b], [163a], [364a], [325], [173], [62a], Ps. 92 [62a] [162a], [84b], [274a], [331a], [398], [163a], [164a], [289a], 275a, 330a, [117a], [123a], [289a], [128a], [250c], [88], [93a] [175a] [175a] Ps. 93 [164a], [163a], [84b], 250b, [?], [84b], [250b], [65], [163a], [91a], [none] [269c], [364a], 370, 250b, [159a], [164a], [170a] [164a], [175a] [164a], [175a], [117a] [117a], [184a], [?], [159a], [128a], [91a], [201a], [62a], Ps. 94 [162a], [91a], 249a, [160a], [144b], [294a], [162a], [170a], [168a], [62a], [88] 358, [158a], [249a], [?], [159a], [171], [173], [84b] appendix a 247

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[128a], 177, [162a], [175a] [162a], [128a] Ps. 95 201a, [170a], [249b], none, 201a, 379a, [175a], [62a], [276a], [109a], 201b 177, [291], [295a], [114], [126a], [131a], [161a], 205a [175a] [175a] [?], 250b, [130a], [161a], [162a], 250b, [159a], [170a], [117a], Ps. 96 [163a], [164a], [84b], 175a, 250c [162a], [113b], [330a], [93a], [128a], [158a], [291], 378, [164a], [62a], none, [?], [163a], [171], [84b], [91a] [175a], [128a], [177] [175a], [128a], [162a] [164a], [162a], [249b], [?], [201a], [379a], [62a], [331a], Ps. 97 [170a], 249a, [109a], [130a], [177], 295a, [101a], [91a], 249a, [184a], [201a], [201b], [84b], 283a, [114], [205a], [84b] none [128a], [175a], [164a], [177] [175a], [128a], [162a] Ps. 98 [162a], [84b], [?], 201a, [159a], [201a], [379a], none, [84b], [201a], [201b], [249b], [91a], [120a], 201a, 276a, [114], [163a], [none] [173], [177] [175a], [177], [128a] [175a], [128a] [162a], [163a], [249b], [84b], [162a], [163a], [201a], [379a], Ps. 99 [164a], [91a], 250b, none, [?], [62a], [84b], [274c], none, [173], [201a], [201b] [131a], [177], [164a], 250b, 330a, [205a] 143a 143a Ps. 100 none [117a], [84b], none [117a], [91a], [84b] Ps. 100 [113b], [181], [162a], [175a], [?], [114], none, [175a], [360a], (2) 249a, [?], [114], [171], [88] [62a], [360c], [163a], 249a, 331a, [131a], [158a], [159a], [162a], [170a], [249a], [361b] [175a] [175a] Ps. 101 [84b], 201a, [?], [114], [115], [159a], [62a], [276a], [170a], [163a], [164a], none [84b], [164a], [398], 201a, 382a, [113b], [250c] [84b], [117a] [84b], [175a] [159a], [175a], none, [?], [114], [128a], [114], none, [?], [269c], Ps. 102 [91a], 250b, [128a], [160a], [360c], [65], [250b], [184a], [161a], [173], [177], [184a], [117a], [269e], [91a], 250b, 375a, [267], [84a] [159a], [162a], [170a], [267], [360a], [361b], [62a] 248 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

101a 101a Ps. 103 249b, none none, [291], 276a, [163a] 144a 144a, 377a Ps. 104 [164a] 377b, 288a [101a], [128a], [173], [162a] [101a], [128a] [177], [184a], [175a], [109a], [173], [162a], [175a], [159a], Ps. 105 [170a], 249a, [?], [107a], [155], [84b], 249a, [114], [158a], [249a], [159a], [249b], [160a], [171], [274c], [142a], [143a], [?], [170a], [250b] [379a], [62a], 175a, [109a], [113b], [126a], [161a], [177], [250b] [128a], [101a], [177], [162a] [101a], [162a], [173] [173], [175a], none, [249b], [128a], [201a], [175a], [62a], Ps. 106 [107a], [170a], [62a], 201a, [?], [182], [331a], none, [131a], [109a], [117a], [149b], [201a], [173a], [177], [84b], 159a, 201a, [201b] 249a, [114], [159a], [161a], [170a], [184a] [175a], [120a] [175a], [162a] [84b], [162a], [177], [114], [?], [201a], [170a], [159a], [113b], Ps. 107 [143a], [249b], 250b, [201a], [330a], [93a], [184a], [128a], [201b], [none], none [158a], [286a], [101a], 250b, 364a, [?], [114], [131a], [161a], [162], [171], [177], [379a], [none] [175a], [128a], [177] [162a], [128a], [175a] [162a], [249b], 249a, none, [?], [131a], [201a], [84b], [62a], Ps. 108 [101a], [109a], [160a], [164a], [379a], [101a], [274c], [177], [170a], [250b], [84b] 126a, [?], [274a], 249a, 271a, [114], [116a], [126a], [159a], [161a], [173], [205a], [325] [175a], [128a] [162a], [175a], [128a] Ps. 109 [177], none, [162a], [164a], [84b], none, 201a, [201a], [62a], [84b], 201a, [?], [none] [159a], [379a], [101a], [131a], [158a], [173], [177] [117a], [84b], [175a], none [84b], [117a], [131a], [175a] [114], [162a], 250b, [?], [159a], none, [?], [114], [271a], [173], Ps. 110 [170a], [91a], [none] [120a], [159a], 363, [160a], [269e], 250b, [109a], [113b], [170a], [62a] 145a, none 145a, [377a], none Ps. 111 [175b], [117a], [175a], 145b, [175b], [171], [201a], [?], [114], [114], [130a], [143a], [144a] [144a], 296, [175a], [91a], [120a] appendix a 249

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[130a] [130a] Ps. 112 none, 130a, [184a], 252, [111a] none, 130a, [296], [175a] 146a 146a Ps. 113 none none, [146a], [292a], [107a] [175a], [117a] [164a], [175a], [91a] [164a], [177], [170a], [128a], [173], [379a], 201a, [128a], [65], Ps. 114 [84b], 201a, 102, none, [159a], [250b], [201a], [177], [288a], [163a], [173], [88], [91a] [113b], [272a], 250b, [114], [158a], [160a], [205a], [62a], [84b] [120a], [117a] [120a], [117a] [164a], 117a, none, 103, [175a], [175a], 117a, 250d, 324, 250b, Ps. 115 [91a], 250b, [174a], [62a], 250d, [360a], [84b], 331a, [379a], 91a [62a], [331a], [114], [159a], [none], [109a], [126a], [130a], [146a], [162a], [91a] [145a] , [177], [101a] [101a], [145a], 271a, [162a] [175a], [128a], [120a], [162a], [175a], [120a], [201a], [128a], Ps. 116 271a, none, [none], 145c, [?], [276a], [62a], [107a], [177], 117a, [130a], [170a], [201b] none, [107b], [84b], [142a], [164a], [205a], [128a], [175a], [177], [162a] [162a], [128a] [101a], [145a], [?], [164a], none, [175a], [159a], none, 249a, Ps. 117 [120a], [84b], 249a, [117a], [164a], [62a], [158a], [249a], [249b], [91a] [84b], [126a], [201a], [160a], [170a], [177], [275a], [?], [114], [163a], [171], [205a], [379a] [84b], [175a] [162a], [84b], [175a] [101a], [162a], [177], [145a], [62a], none, [113b], [158a], Ps. 118 [?], [160a], none, [114], [91a], [128a], [91a], [114], [379a], [117a], [249b], 201a, [175a], [159a], [330a], [171], [160a], [113b], [128a], [171], [179a] [170a], 201a, 330a, [?], [177], [184a], [274b], [325], 146a 120a 120a Ps. 119 505, 297a 175b, 121 175b, [377a], [none] Ps. 120 [none], [62a], none, [145a], [175a], [?], none, [109a], [145a], [144a], [178a], [?], [122a], [130a], [144a] [285a], [120a], [159a], [175a] 122a, none 122a, none Ps. 121 [120a], [377a] 250 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

147a 147a Ps. 122 none none, [126a] [120a], [160a] [120a], [91a] None, [159a], [91a], [109a], none, [109a], [62a], [276a], Ps. 123 [162a], [175a], [80], 250b, [62a] [159a], [170a], [163a], [175b], [271a], [364a], 250b, 271a, [?], [162a], [175a], [179a], [289a], [88] 123a 123a Ps. 124 none none, [123a] 148a, [130a] [130a], 148a Ps. 125 none, [175a], [114], [128a], 111a, none, [128a], [117a], 111a, 279a [126a], [162a], [120a] [111a] [111a] Ps. 125 (2) none, 111a, 148a, 133, 253, none, 148a, [184a], 203, [201a], [109a] 111a 149a 149 Ps. 126 none, [149a] none, [116a] [130a] [130a], none Ps. 127 none, 130a, 124a, [109a], [175a], 130a, [120a], [128a] [177] [109a] [109a] Ps. 128 none, [249b], 249a, [?], [102], [145a], none, 249a, [113b], [107a], [117a], [130a], [145a], [162a], [330a], [175a], [84b], [170a], [171], [175a] [126a], [101a], [130a], [62a] [109a] [109a] none, [249b], 249a, 125, [?], [130a], 249c, 249a, [173], [274c], Ps. 129 [107a], [184a], [173], [175a], [160a], [275a], [101a], [107a], 109b, 249c [180a], [289a], [62a], 273a, [109a], [149b], [123a], [158a], [273a], [84b], none 107a 107a Ps. 130 [153b], none [184a] [184a] Ps. 131 none, [155], 250b, [?], [109a], none, [162a], [65], [250b], [162a], [170a] [271a], [171], [287a] 178a 178a Ps. 132 [164a], none, [109a], [114] [164a], [171], [142a], [273a] appendix a 251

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[109a] [109a] Ps. 133 [155], [178a], 249a, 108, none, [178a], [184a], none, 249a, [?], [128a], [130a], [159a], [130a], [62a], 276a, [109], [170a], [175a], [184a] [120a], [179a], [360c], [84b] 150b, 150a [150b, [?], [170a], 251 [none], [114], 251, [62a], none, [179a], [128a], none, [175a], Ps. 134 150d, [159a], [?], [116a], [170a], [62a], [269a], [114], [360c], [120a], [128a], [175a], [179a], [159a], [269c], 150a, 150d, 269a, 150c [269e], [361b], [84b], [none] 179a 179a, 175a Ps. 135 none [175a], none, [126a], 275a 180a 180a, none Ps. 136 none, 126a, [179a] 126a, [175a], [170a], [91a], 146b [126a] [126a] Ps. 136 [183a], [?], [163a], [117a], none, [163a], [113b], [120a], 126a, [120a], [171], [184a], 180a, [109a], [181], 180a, [173], [?], [114], [109a], [159a], [181], [182], none [128a], [136a], [182], [62a], [84b] 109a 109a Ps. 137 none [none], [184a], [126a] [109a], [171] [109a], [377a] [113b], [114], [62a], [91a], [?], [171], [170a], [107a], 201a, [62a], [145a], [173], [174a], [183a], [113b], [91a], none, 178a, [331a], Ps. 138 [84b], 178a, 201a, none, 151, [114], [183a], [88], [142a], [175b], [113], [160a], [170a], [266], [144a], [162a], [201a], [326b], 126a, 201a, 201c, 62a [360b], 331a, [120a], [145a], [157b], [159a], [160a], [266], [84b] [109a] [109a] [183a], [249b], none, 250b, [364a], [none], 250b, [183a], Ps. 139 [163a], [181], 254, [101a], [182] [128a], [175a], [271a], [374a], [159a], [163a], [197a], [101a], [160a], 275a, [?], [126a], [164a], [184a], [84b], none [184a], [109a] [184a] Ps. 140 none, [155], [170a], 249a, [179a], [none], none, [271a], [159a], [182], [none] [160a], [286a], [296], 249a, 274c, [109a], [126a], [128a], [155], [296] 181, [120a] 181, [182] Ps. 141 [91a], 201a, [109a], [126a], 120a [120a], [91a], [109a], [128a], ?, [129a], [170a], [62a], 273a 252 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[181], [120a] [181], [182] [91a], [109a], [184a], [201a], [120a], [91a], [175a], [109a], Ps. 142 [62a], none, [?], [126a], 272, [160a], [130a], [275a], [289a], 372, [182], 201a, 152, [113b], [173] [170a], [62a], [201a], [?], [158a], [173a], [184a], [185], [273a], none [181], [120a] [182], [181] [182], [91a], 250b, [?], [109a], [120a], [91a], 250b, [128a], Ps. 143 [249b], none, [101a], [113b], [109a], [62a], [175a], [275c], [126a], [164a], [165], [201a], [107b], [?], 368a, [114], [158a], [84b], 120a, 250e [165a], [170a], [179a], [184a], [331a], [364a], [84b], [88], none [181], [182] [181], [182], [179a], [175a] [120a], [109a], [201a], [?], [91a], [120a], 250b, [109a], Ps. 144 [249b], 250b, none, 182, [117a], [158a], [249a], [62a], 369, [?], [144a], [179a], [183a], [88], [101a], [170a], [184a], [117a], [91a], 250f [130a], [285a], [none] 182 182 Ps. 145 none, [84b], [114] [84b], [none], [113b], [114], [175a], [330a], [91a], [109a], [292a], [126a], [158a] [109a] [109a] Ps. 146 none, [249b], [62a], [101a], 273a, 273a, [none], [?], [162a], [201a], [113b], [181], [183a] [62a], [113b], [295a], [175a], none, [109], [126a], [158a] 183a 183a, 374a, [109a] Ps. 147 [109a], 183b, none, [143a], 183c [62a, [331a], 374b, [291], 183b 126a 126a Ps. 148 none [126a], [288a], [none] [182], [109a] [182] [181], none, [84b], 250b, 127, [?], 250b, [181], [84b], [113b], [114], Ps. 149 [183a], 182, 255, [114], [249b], [175a], [330a], [91a], [130a], [?], 250f [109a], 330, none, [120a], [142], [158a], [181a] [183a], [109a] [183a], [374a], 109a] Ps. 150 [182], [249b], none, 249a, [?], 249a, [62a], [162a], [276a], [101a], [120a], [143a], 175a [374b], [175a], [113b], [128a], [295a], [101a], 276a, [114] appendix a 253

Tunes in the Scottish Forme of Prayers and CL Psalmes

Pre-1604 1604 and after

60 60 Ps. 1 158a 158a 61, [60] 61 Ps. 2 158 [60], 158a 62a 62a Ps. 3

[62a] [62a] Ps. 4

[62a] [62a] Ps. 5

65 65 Ps. 6

66a 66a Ps. 7 62a 62a, 66b 67 67 Ps. 8 250b 250b 68 68 Ps. 9 249a 249a 61, 69 [61], 61 Ps. 10 201a [60], 201a [61], [69] [61], none Ps. 11 [201a] [201a], [60] [66a] [66a] Ps. 12 [62a] 399, [62a], none [65] [65] Ps. 13

113b 113b Ps. 14

74 74 Ps. 15 250b 250b 254 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

75 75 Ps. 16 249a 249a [75] [75] Ps. 17 [62a] [62a] 159a 159a Ps. 18

77a 77a Ps. 19 250b 250b 78 78 Ps. 20 113b 113b 79 79 Ps. 21 160a 160b [79] [79] Ps. 22 [160a] [160b], [197] 80 80 Ps. 23 249a [62a], 249a [74] [74] Ps. 24 [114], [250b] [250b] 114 114 Ps. 25

71a 71a Ps. 26 71b 135a 135a Ps. 27

82 82 Ps. 28 [159a], 160a 83 83 Ps. 29 [159a], 250b 250b 84b 84b Ps. 30

[159a] [159a] Ps. 31

appendix a 255

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[83] [83], [78] Ps. 32 [159a], [84b] [250b] 89 89 Ps. 33 250b 250b 96a 96a Ps. 34 249a 96b 170b 170b Ps. 35 63, [96a], 201a 201a 136a 136a Ps. 36 136b 115, [170b] 115, [170b] Ps. 37 249a 249a [65] [65], [68] Ps. 38 [60] [83] [83] Ps. 39 [159a], [250b], [74] [250b], [74] [170b] [170b], [74] Ps. 40 [201a], [63], [96a] [201a] 88 88 Ps. 41

[89] [89] Ps. 42 [250b] [170b], [250b], [74] 90a, [170b] 90a, [170b] Ps. 43 none [201a] 91a 91a Ps. 44

[114] [114] Ps. 45

171 171 Ps. 46

137, none 137, none Ps. 47

256 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[171] [171] Ps. 48

93 92, [171] Ps. 49 [171], [91a], 249a [114], 249a 116a 116a Ps. 50

93a 93a Ps. 51

94a 94a Ps. 52 161a 94b [113b] [113b] Ps. 53 [114] [111a], 111a [135a], 111a Ps. 54 [111a] [170b] [170b] Ps. 55 [201a], [63], [96a] [201a] [140], [135a] [135a] Ps. 56 [111a], [none] [140], [170b] [167a] 161a, [159a] Ps. 57 [111a], [159a], [96a] [167a], 111a, 161b 138a, [171] 138a, [171] Ps. 58

184a 184a Ps. 59

[184a], [111a] [92] Ps. 60 [111a], [135], [184a], [91a], [93a], 111a 174a 174a Ps. 61 [159a], none none 139 139 Ps. 62 none none appendix a 257

Pre-1604 1604 and after

[91a] [91a] Ps. 63 [88] [159a], none [159a] Ps. 64 [137] [84b], [83] [84b], [83] Ps. 65 [74] [74] 195 195a Ps. 66 none 195b, none 132 132 Ps. 67 none none 117a 117a, [60] Ps. 68 [60], [65], none [62a] 162a 162a Ps. 69

140 140, [135a] Ps. 70 [135a], ]163a], none 118 118 Ps. 71

163a 163a Ps. 72

97, [91a] 97, [91a] Ps. 73 none [163a], [135a] [163a], [118] Ps. 74 [159a] [135a] [132] [132] Ps. 75 [none] [none] 20b, 277a, none 277a Ps. 76 277b none 175a 175a, none Ps. 77

98a 98a, 98b Ps. 78 164a 258 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

119 119, [175a] Ps. 79 [175a] [none] 196, none 196, none Ps. 80 [none] [none] 197, none 197 Ps. 81 none 100 100 Ps. 82 175a [175a] 198, none 198 Ps. 83 none [132] [132] Ps. 84 [none] [175a], [none] 141 141 Ps. 85 [175a] 76a 76a Ps. 86 [159a], none 76b, none 175a [175a], 175a Ps. 87 250b 250b 134a 134a Ps. 88

87 87 Ps. 89 249a 249a [101a], [91a] [87], [91a] Ps. 90 [87] [101a] 142a 142a Ps. 91

[87], none [87], none Ps. 92 [249a] [249a] [175a] [140], [175a], [135a] Ps. 93 [118], [135a], [163a] [?] [88] [88], [170b] Ps. 94

appendix a 259

Pre-1604 1604 and after

177 177 Ps. 95 201a 201a 86 86 Ps. 96 250b 250b [177] [177] Ps. 97 [201a] [201a] [177] [177] Ps. 98 [201a] [201a] [177] [177] Ps. 99 [201a] [201a], [86] 143a 143a Ps. 100

95a 278, 95a Ps. 101

199a 199a Ps. 102 199c 101a, none 101a Ps. 103 none 144a 144a Ps. 104

[144a] [144a] Ps. 105

[177] [177] Ps. 106 [201a] [201a] 200a, none 200a, none Ps. 107 [201a] [201a] 201a [161a], 201a Ps. 108 [84b] [134a], [161b], [200a], [84b] 64, none 64, none Ps. 109 201a 201a 202a, none 202a, none Ps. 110

260 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

145a, none 145a, none Ps. 111

130a, none 130a, none Ps. 112

146a, none 146a, none Ps. 113

102, [177] 102, [177] Ps. 114 201a, none 201a, none 103, none 103, none Ps. 115

203, none 203, none Ps. 116 [146a], [201a] [201a] 124a, none 124a, none Ps. 117 124b 204a, none 204a, none Ps. 118

120a 120a Ps. 119

121, none 121 Ps. 120 175b 175b, none 122a 122a Ps. 121 none none 147a, none 147a Ps. 122 none 105, none 105, none Ps. 123

123a, none 123a Ps. 124 none 148a, none 148a, none Ps. 125

149a, none 149a, none Ps. 126

appendix a 261

Pre-1604 1604 and after

124a, none 124a, none Ps. 127 130a [124a], [144a], 130a, none 106a, none 106a Ps. 128 249a 249a, none 125, none 125, none Ps. 129

107a, none 107a, none Ps. 130

[162a], none [177], [162a] Ps. 131 none 136a [136a], 136a Ps. 132 136b 108, none 108 Ps. 133 249a 249a, none 150a, none 150a, 150b, none Ps. 134

179a, none 179a Ps. 135 none 126a, [126a] 126a Ps. 136

109a, none 190a, none Ps. 137

151, none 151 Ps. 138 none [109a], none [109a], none Ps. 139 [none] 205 205 Ps. 140 none none 176a 176a Ps. 141

152, none 152, none Ps. 142

262 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Pre-1604 1604 and after

206, none 206 Ps. 143 none [179a], [none] [179a], [170b] Ps. 144 [?] none 207, none 207 Ps. 145 none 110a, none 110a, [65] Ps. 146 [65] 183a 183a Ps. 147 183b 126a [126a], 126a Ps. 148 none none 127 127 Ps. 149

208, none 208 Ps. 150 249a 249a, none Appendix B References to Scots Singing Specific Psalms, 1560–1640

This appendix lists historical references to the Scottish versifications commonly contained in the Forme of prayers and CL Psalmes. In an effort to determine which psalm texts Scots sang most regularly, it is only concerned with the references to specific psalm texts. It also lists manuscript music collections that include metrical psalm tunes, with one exception, namely the Wode partbooks. Whereas most psalms in manuscript collections were included at their compilers’ discretion, the psalm settings contained in the Wode partbooks were part of a commission to provide harmonies for all of the proper tunes from the 1564 Forme of prayers. Therefore, the Wode partbooks are not listed below, even though many of their psalm settings were sung in early modern Scotland.

Sources

The following are in order of appearance in the table.

Archibald Johnston, Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston, ed. David Hay Fleming, James D. Oglivie, and Sir George Morison Paul (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1911–40). The ordoure and doctrine of the generall fast, appointed be the Generall Assemblie of the kirkes of Scotland [STC 22043] (Edinburgh: Robert Lekpreuik, 1574). Bulstrode Whitelock, Memorials of the English Affairs from the Beginning of the Reign of Charles the First to the Happy Restoration of King Charles the Second (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1853). William Stirling, Cantus Partbook, [1639], GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14. Robert Edwards, Commonplace book. [1630–56], GB-En MS 9450. William King Tweedie, Select Biographies (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1845). Thomas Young, The Metrical Psalms and Paraphrases (London: A&C Black, 1909). David Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. Thomas Thomson (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1841–49). 264 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

David Stevenson, Scotland’s Last Royal Wedding: The Mariage of James VI and Anne of Denmark (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1997). The Forme and Maner of Ordaining Ministers. And Consecrating of Arch- bishops and Bishops, used in the Church of Scotland [STC 16605] (Edinburgh: Thomas Finlason, 1620). ‘A Christian Confession And prayer In time of Danger, and of Distresse’, second rear flyleaf, recto, column 1, inKing Iames his Encomium [STC 12726], by Francis Hamilton (Edinburgh: Iohn Wreittoun, 1626), US- SM RB 29595. James Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, ed. Robert Pitcairn (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Printing Company, 1842). Joseph Bain (ed.), ‘Sir Nicholas Throckmorton to Queen Elizabeth, 23 August 1567’, Calendar of State Papers, Scotland, in British History Online, http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=44173. William Morray, Nyne songs collected out of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, drawne foorth of the pue fountains of Hebreuu and Greeke [STC 18166] (Edinburgh [J. Wreittoun], [1634]). James Melville, Ane fruitful and comfortable exhortatioun anent death [STC 17815.5] (Edinburgh: Robert Waldegrave, 1597). Duncan Shaw (ed.), The Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1560 to 1618 (Edinburgh: Scottish Record Society, 2004).

Psalm Metre Source(s)

2 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 84 4 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 96, 164, 230, 245, 246 5 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 164, 245 6 DCM STC 22043; Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 164, 168, 175, 230, 244; GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14 7 DCM GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 9 DCM Nicolsone, Aberdeen Council Letters, Vol. 1, p. 223 11 CM Tweedie, Select Biographies, Vol. 1, p. 300 12 DCM Nicolsone, Aberdeen Council Letters, Vol. 1, p. 223 15 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 197 16 DCM Young, Metrical Psalms, p. 32 appendix b 265

Psalm Metre Source(s)

17 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 174, 237 18 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 198; STC 18166, p. 94; GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 19 DCM Stevenson, Royal Wedding, p. 114*; STC 18166, p. 86 20 DCM Young, Metrical Psalms, p. 33 21 DCM Calderwood, History, Vol. 5, pp. 344–5* 22 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 96, 121, 174, 231, 335 23 CM Calderwood, History, Vol. 2, p. 62; Vol. 6, p. 591; STC 16605, pp. 12, 23; Stevenson, Royal Wedding, p. 114*; Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 29, 102, 123, 173; GB-En Adv. MS 5.2.14 24 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 240 25 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 29, 164, 231, 238; STC 18166, pp. 13, 100; GB-En Adv. MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 27 DLM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 164; STC 12726 28 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 165 29 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 165 30 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 49, 165, 240, 245 31 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 165, 236, 245 32 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 244 34 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 70, 204, 206 36 8.8.8.8.8. GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 37 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 87–8, 170 38 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 180, 206, 244 39 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 180, 206 40 DCM Stevenson, Royal Wedding, pp. 104–5; Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 206 42 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 106 266 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Psalm Metre Source(s)

43 DCM ** 44 DCM GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14; Melville, Autobiography, pp. 27, 209 46 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 155 48 DCM Stevenson, Royal Wedding, pp. 104–5 50 4.6.4.6. 4.6.4.6. GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 4.7.4.7. 51 DLM STC 22043; Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 154, 244; GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14 52 DCM †† 55 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 156 56 DLM †† 59 DLM GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 61 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 239 62 4.7.4.7.4.6. GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14 4.7.4.7.4.6. 63 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 229, 241 65 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 229 68 DCM GB-En MS 9450 70 DLM GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 71 DSM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 163, 228 72 DCM Calendar of State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 2, pp. 371–91 74 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 331 76 8.8.8.8.8.8.8. Young, Metrical Psalms, p. 36; STC 18166, p. 60; GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14 77 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 204, 234 78 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 234, 235, 237; STC 18166, p. 39 79 DCM Melville, Autobiography, p. 27; Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 240 84 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 151, 168, 201, 240 85 5.5.5.5. 5.5.5.5. GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14 86 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 153, 229, 241 appendix b 267

Psalm Metre Source(s)

88 DLM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 245 89 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 131, 246 91 DLM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 144 100 DLM GB-En MS 9450 101 DCM Calderwood, History, Vol. 2, p. 90; Vol. 4, p. 201 102 DLM STC 18166, p. 79 103 DCM Calderwood, History, Vol. 7, pp. 161–2; Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 102, 123, 124, 164, 175, 234, 240; STC 18166, p. 71; GB- En Adv.MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 106 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 228 107 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 228, 229 108 CM *** 110 10.10.10.10. STC 17815.5, p. 34 116 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 125 117 8.8.8.8.8.8. STC 18166, p. 97 118 9.8.9.8. 8.8.8.8. Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 185 119 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 100, 160, 166, 185, 188, 192, 237, 245, 246; GB-En Adv. MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 120 6.6.6.6.6.6. Stevenson, Royal Wedding, p. 114* 124 4.6.4.6.4.6.4.6.4.6. APGA, Vol. 2, p. 1231; Calderwood, History, Vol. 7, pp. 161–2; Calderwood, History, Vol. 8, p. 226; GB-En MS 9450 126 4.8.4.8. 4.8.4.8. Melville, Autobiography, p. 227 4.6.4.6. 127 8.8.8.8.8.8. Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 236 128 DCM Calderwood, History, Vol. 2, p. 120; Calderwood, History, Vol. 5, pp. 344–5 132 8.8.8.8.8. GB-En MS 9450† 133 DCM APGA, Vol. 2, p. 1457; Calderwood, History, Vol. 6, p. 756; Vol. 7, p. 37; Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 404 136 6.6.6.6. 4.4.4.4. Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 125; GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 139 4.6.4.6. 4.6.4.7. Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 240 268 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Psalm Metre Source(s)

142 4.5.4.4.4.5.4.5.4.4.6. Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 230 143 6.6.6.6. 6.6.6.6. Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 194; GB-En Adv.MS 5.2.14; GB-En MS 9450 144 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, p. 194 145 DLM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 194, 195 146 DCM Johnston, Johnston of Warriston, pp. 194, 195

* These references to people singing suggest only trained musicians sang. ** Psalm 43 is commonly accepted to have been sung regularly in Scotland at this time. *** Psalm 108 undoubtedly became popular in Scotland because it was one of the original 12 Common Tunes printed by Hart in 1615. † Psalm 132 is listed as alternative text to the tune from Psalm 36 in GB-En MS 9450. †† The references for Psalms 52 and 56 come from a 1646 account: Whitelock, Memorials, Vol. 1, p. 94. Select Bibliography

Manuscript Sources

The British Library, London. [Altus] Partbook of the Wode or St Andrews Psalter (Set 1), 1562–, Add. 33933.

Denbighshire Records Office, Ruthin. Plas Power MSS, DD/PP/839.

Georgetown University Library, Washington, D.C. [Altus] Partbook of the Wode or St Andrews Psalter (Set 2), 1562–, MS 10.

Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, Cal. Hamilton, Francis, King Iames his Encomium [STC 12726] (Edinburgh, 1626), with manuscript addenda, RB 29595.

Inner Temple Library, London Petyt MSS, 538/47.

Lambeth Palace Manuscript 2523.

National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh. Duncan Burnett Music Book, c. 1610, MS 9447 (Panmure MS 10). Lady Anne Ker Music Book, c. 1625–35, MS 5448. Millar, Edward, ‘Common Tunes’, in The CL. Psalmes of David in Scottish meter [STC 2708] (Edinburgh, 1615), Acc 12805. Robert Edwards Commonplace Book, 1630–56, MS 9450. William Stirling Cantus Partbook, 1639, Adv.MS 5.2.14.

Trinity College Library, Dublin. [Quintus] Partbook of the Wode or St Andrews Psalter (Set 1), 1562–, MS 412. 270 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

University of Edinburgh Library, Edinburgh. [Bassus] Partbook of the Wode or St Andrews Psalter (Set 1), 1562–, La.III.483.3. [Bassus] Partbook of the Wode or St Andrews Psalter (Set 2), 1562-, DK.5.15. [Cantus] Partbook of the Wode or St Andrews Psalter (Set 2), 1562–, DK.5.14. ‘Tennowr’ Partbook of the Wode or St Andrews Psalter (Set 1), 1562–, La.III.483.2. ‘Tribbil’ Partbook of the Wode or St Andrews Psalter (Set 1), 1562–, La.III.483.1.

Printed Primary Sources

Metrical Psalters by STC Number

2407 Ainsworth, Henry, The book of Psalmes: Englished both in prose and metre with annotations, opening the words and sentences, by conference with other Scriptures (Amsterdam, 1612). 2411 —, Annotations upon the book of Psalmes ([Amsterdam], 1617). 2419 Sternhold, Thomas, Certayne psalmes chosen out of the Psalter of David, and drawen into Englishe metre (London, [1547–49]). 2420 Sternhold, Thomas and John Hopkins, Al such psalmes of Dauid as Thomas Sternehold late grome of [the] kings Maiesties Robes, didde in his life time draw into English Metre (London, 1549). 2426.8 Psalmes of Dauid in Metre [STC 2426.8] ([Wesel], [1556]). 2427 Psalmes of Dauid in Englishe metre (London, 1560). 2428 Foure score and seuen Psalmes of Dauid in English mitre ([London], 1561). 2429 Psalmes of Dauid in Englishe metre (London, [1560–61]). 2429.5 The residue of all Dauids psalmes in metre (London, 1562). 2430 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englysh metre (London, 1562). 2431 The Whole psalmes in foure partes, whiche may be song to al musicall instruments (London, 1563). 2433 The first parte of the Psalmes collected into Englishe meter(London, 1564). 2434 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into English meter (London, 1565). 2435 The Whole boke of Psalmes, collected into English metre (London, 1565). select bibliography 271

2438 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into English meter (London, 1567). 2439.7 The first parte of the booke of psalmes, collected into English Metre (London, [1569]). 2441 [The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into English metre] (London, 1570). 2447 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englishe metre (London, 1576). 2448 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englishe metre (London, 1577). 2448.5 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englishe metre (London, 1577). 2449 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englishe meter (London, 1577). 2449.5 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englishe metre (London, 1577). 2452 The Whole boke of Psalmes, collected into Englishe metre (London, 1579). 2453 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englishe meter (London, 1580). 2454 The Whole boke of psalmes, collected into Englishe metre (London, 1580). 2457 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englishe metre (London, 1581). 2463 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into English meter (London, 1583). 2466.5 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englishe metre (London, 1583). 2467 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into Englishe metre (London, 1584). 2475.2 The Whole booke of Psalmes: collected into English metre (London, 1588). 2475.3 The Whole booke of Psalmes: collected into English metre (London, 1588). 2476 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into English metre (London, 1589). 2479 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into English meetre (London, 1591). 2482 The Whole booke of psalmes: with their wonted Tunes, as they are song in Churches, composed into foure parts (London, 1592). 2488 The Whole booke of psalmes: with their wonted Tunes, as they are song in Churches, composed into foure parts (London, 1594). 272 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

2493 The Whole booke of Psalmes collected into Englishe meetre (London, 1598). 2497 Allison, Richard, The Psalmes of Dauid in meter, the plaine song beeing the common tunne to be sung and plaide vpon the lute, oprharyon, citterne or base viol, seuerally or altogether (London, 1599). 2498 The Whole booke of Psalmes. Collected into Englishe meeter (London, 1599). 2499.6 The Booke of Psalmes: collected into English meeter ([Amsterdam], [1639]). 2499.9 The Psalmes of Dauid in meter, with the prose. For the vse of the English Church in Middelburgh (Middelburg, 1599). 2500.5 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into English metre (London, 1600). 2501 The Whole booke of Psalmes. Collected into Englishe meeter (London, 1600). 2502 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into English meetre (London, 1601). 2505 The Whole booke of Psalmes, collected into English meetre (London, 1601). 2513 The Whole booke of Psalmes. Collected into English meetre (London, 1604). 2515 The Whole booke of psalmes: with their wonted Tunes, as they are song in Churches, composed into foure parts (London, 1604). 2518 The Psalmes of Dauid in meetre, with diuers notes and tunes augmented to them (London, 1605). 2536 [The Whole book of Psalmes collected into English meeter] ([London], [1610]). 2538 The Whole book of Psalmes. Collected into Englishe meeter (London, 1611). 2538.5 The Whole booke of psalmes: with their wonted Tunes, as they are song in Churches, composed into foure parts (London, 1611). 2542 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1612). 2545 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1613). 2552.3 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1615). 2556 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1616). 2558 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1617). select bibliography 273

2561 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1618). 2570.5 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1620). 2575 Ravenscroft, Thomas (ed.), Whole booke of psalmes: with the hymnes Evangelicall, And Songs Spiritvall (London, 1621). 2575.3 — (ed.), Whole booke of psalmes: with the hymnes Evangelicall, And Songs Spiritvall (London, 1621). 2576 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1622). 2592 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1625). 2614 The Whole booke of Psalmes. Collected into English meeter (London, 1629). 2621 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1630). 2625 The Whole booke of Psalmes. Collected into English meeter (London, 1631). 2642 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1633). 2648 The whole booke of Palmes: with the hymnes euangelicall, and songs spirituall (London, 1633). 2649 The Whole booke of Psalmes. Collected into English meeter (London, 1634). 2670 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1637). 2696 The Whole book of Psalmes: collected into English meeter (London, 1640). 2701 The Psalmes Of Dauid in metre, vsed in the Kirk of Scotland, with diuers notes and tunes Agmented to them (Middelburg, 1596). 2702 The Psalmes of Dauid in metre, with diuerse notes and tunes augmented to them (Dort, 1601). 2703 The Psalmes of David in meter (Edinburgii, 1603). 2704 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in Meter, with diuers Notes and Tunes augmented to them (Edinburgh, [1610]). 2705 The Psalmes of David in Scottish meter: After the forme that they are vsed to be song in the Kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1614). 2706 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid, in Scottish meter: after the forme that they are vsed to bee song in the Kirke of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1615). 2708 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid, in Prose and Meeter: With their whole vusall Tunes, newly corrected and amended (Edinburgh, 1615). 2708.5 The CL. Psalmes of Dauie in meeter, conferred with Hebrew text (Edinburgh, 1616). 274 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

2710 The CL. Psalmes of David, in Scottish meter: after the forme that they are used to bee sung in the Kirke of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1625). 2711 The Psalmes of David in Scottish metre (Aberdene, 1626). 2713 The Psalmes of David in metre, according as they are sung in the Church of Scotland (Aberdene, 1626). 2714 The Psalmes of David metre. According as they are sung in the Church of Scotland (Aberdene, 1629). 2715 The Psalmes of David in meeter. According as they are sung in the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1630). 2715.5 The Psalmes of David in meter. According as they are sung in the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1630). 2717 The CL. Psalmes of David, in Scots meter. After the forme that they are used to bee sung in the Kirke of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1632). 2718 The CL. Psalmes of David in meeter. As they are sung in the churches of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1632). 2721 The Psalmes of David in meeter. According as they are sung in the Church of Scotland ([Edinburgh], [1633]). 2722 The Psalmes of David in meeter. According as they are sung in the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1635). 2722.5 The Psalmes of David in meeter according as they are sung in the kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1639). 2723 The CL. Psalmes of David in meeter, according as they are sung in the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1640). 2724 The CL. Psalmes of David in meeter, according as they are sung in the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1640). 2725 Crowley, Robert, The Psalter of Dauid newely translated into Englysh metre in such sort that maye the more decently, and wyth more delyte of the mynde, be reade and songe of al men (London: [1549]). 2727 Hunnis, William, Certayne psalmes chosen out of the psalter of Dauid, and drawen furth into Englysh meter ([London], [1550]). 2728 Seager, Francis, Certayne Psalmes select out of the Psalter of Dauid, and drawen into Englyshe Metre, wyth Notes to euery Psalme in iiii. parts to Synge (London, 1553). 2729 Parker, Matthew, The Whole Psalter translated into English metre, which contayneth an hundredth and fifty Psalmes (London, [1567]). 2734.5 Ainsworth, Henry, The booke of Psalmes in English metre ([Amsterdam], 1632). 5828 Cosyn, John, Musike of six, and fiue partes: Made vpon the common tunes vsed in singing of the psalmes (London, 1585). 5892 Goostly psalmes and spirituall songes drawen out of the holy Scripture [STC 5892] ([London], [1535]). 6219 Daman, William, The psalmes of David in English meter, with notes of foure partes set vnto them (London, [1579]). select bibliography 275

6220 —, The former booke of the musicke of M. William Daman, late one of her maiesties musitions (London, 1591). 6221 —, The second booke of musicke of M. William Damon, late one of her maiesties musitions [STC 6221] ([London], 1591). 16561 The forme of prayers and ministration of the Sacrements, &c, vsed in the Englishe Congregation at Geneua (Geneva, 1556). 16561a The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments, &c. vsed in the Englishe Congregation at Geneua (Geneva, 1558). 16561a.5 [The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments, &c. vsed in the English Congregation at Geneua] ([Geneva], [1560]). 16563 The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments &c. vsed in the English church at Geneua (Geneva, 1561). 16577 The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments &c. vsed in the English Church at Geneua, approued and receiued by the churche of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1564). 16577a The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments &c. vsed in the English Church at Geneua, approued and receiued by the churche of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1565). 16578.5 The hail hundredth and fyftie Psalmes of Dauid, in Ingls meter, be Thomas Sternholde (Edinburgh, 1567). 16579 The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments &c. vsed in the English Church at Geneua, approued and receiued by the churche of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1571). 16579.5 The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments &c. vsed in the English Church at Geneua, approued and receiued by the churche of Scotland ([Edinburgh], [1575]). 16580 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in English metre (Edinburgh, 1575). 16580.7 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in English metre. With the forme of prayers and administration of the sacraments &c. ([Edinburgh], [1578]). 16582 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in English metre. For the vse of the Kirk of Scotland (London, 1587). 16583 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in English metre. For the vse of the Kirk of Scotland (London, 1587). 16584 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in English metre. For the vse of the Kirk of Scotland (Middelburgh, 1594). 16584.5 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in English metre efter the forme that they ar vsed to be sung in the Kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1594). 16585 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in English meter. With Prayers and Catechisme, according to the forme vsed in the Kirk of Scotland [and STC 16585.5] (Edinburgh, 1596). 16586 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in meitir: with the forme of prayeris and administration of the sacraments &c. vsit in the Kirk of Scotland. (Edinburgh, [1599–1602]). 276 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

16587 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in English metre. With the forme of prayers, and ministration of the sacraments &c. ([Middelburgh], [1599]). 16588 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in English metre. For the vse of the Kirk of Scotland (Dort, 1601). 16589 The CL. Psalmes of David in metre, with the prose (Middelburgh, 1602). 16589.5 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in Prose and Meter (Edinburgh, [1607]). 16590 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid in Prose and Meter (Edinburgh, 1611). 16591 The Psalmes of Dauid in meeter, with the prose (Edinburgh, 1611). 16592 The CL. Psalmes of Dauid, in prose and meeter: With their whole vsuall Tunes, newly corrected and amended (Edinburgh, 1615). 16594.5 The Psalmes of David, in prose and metre (Aberdene, 1625). 16595 The CL. Psalmes of the princelie prophet David, in English metre, according as they are sung in the Chvrch of Scotland (Aberdene, 1629). 16596 The Psalmes of David in prose and metre, according to the church of Scotland (Aberdene, [1630]). 16599 The Psalmes of David in Prose and Meeter. With their whole Tunes in foure or mo parts, and some Psalmes in Reports (Edinburgh, 1635). 16600 The Psalmes of David in meeter. With baptisme, the Lords Supper, and marriage; and certaine psalmes and prayers (Edinbvrgh, 1635).

Other Primary Sources

The Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1560 to 1618, ed. Duncan Shaw (Edinburgh: Scottish Record Society, 2004). The Bible and Holy Scriptures Conteyned in the Olde and Newe Testament [STC 2093] (Geneva, 1560). The Book of Psalms for Singing (Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant, 1973). Certaine notes set forth in foure and three parts to be song at the morning communion, and euening praier [STC 6418] (London, 1565). An ceud chaogad do Shalmaibh Dhaibhidh, ar a dtarring as an eabhra, a meadar dhana gaoidhilg, le seanadh earraghaoidheal (Glasgow, 1659). Ane compendeous buke, of Godly psalmes and spirituall sangis newly translait out of Latine into Inglis. [STC 2996.3] ([Edinburgh], 1565). The confessione of the fayht [sic] and doctrin beleued and professed by the protestantes of the realme of Scotland [STC 22018] (Edinburgh, 1561). A faithfull report of proceedings anent the assemblie of ministers at Abirdeen vpon Twesday 2. Iuly 1605 [STC 63] ([Middelburg], 1606). select bibliography 277

The Forme and Maner of Ordaining Ministers. And Consecrating of Arch- bishops and Bishops, used in the Church of Scotland [STC 16605] (Edinburgh, 1620). The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments &c. vsed in the English churche at Geneua [STC 16564] ([Edinburgh], [1562]). The ordoure and doctrine of the generall fast, appointed be the Generall Assemblie of the kirkes of Scotland [STC 22043] (Edinburgh, 1574). The pathway to musicke [STC 19464] (London, 1596). The Psalms for Singing: A 21st Century Edition (Cambridge: Nigel Lynn Publishing, 2004). Ratio et forma publice orandi Deum, atque administrandi sacramenta, et caet. [STC 16565] (Geneva, [1556]). Sing Psalms: New Metrical Versions of the Book of Psalms (Cambridge: Free Church of Scotland, 2003). Songes and sonettes, written by the right honorable Lorde Henry Haward late Earle of Surrey, and others [STC 13862] ([London], 1557). The Whole Book of Psalms: Collected into English Metre (Oxford, 1828). Ainsworth, Henry, The booke of Psalmes: Englished both in prose and metre. With annotations, opening the words and sentences, by conference with other Scriptures (Amsterdam, [1644]). Barley, William, A new booke of tablature containing sundrie easie and familiar instructions [STC 1433] (London, 1596). Barrow, Henry, A plaine refutation of M. Giffards booke, intituled, A short treatise gainst the Donatistes of England [STC 1524] ([Amsterdam], [1606]). Bownd, Nicholas, True Doctrine of the Sabbath [STC 3436] (London, 1595). Browne, Robert, A true and short declaration both of the gathering and ioyning together of certaine persons, and also of the lamentable breach and division which fell amongst them [STC 3910.5] ([Netherlands], [1583]). Bucer, Martin, The Psalter of Dauid in Englishe [STC 2370], trans. George Joye (Argentine [Antwerp]: [1530]). Butler, Charles, Rev, The Principles of Musik (London, 1636). Calvin, John, A Commentary on the Psalms of David by John Calvin, trans. A. Golding (Oxford: D.A. Talboys, 1840). Campensis, Johannes, A paraphrasis vpon all the Psalmes of Dauid [STC 2372.6] ([London]: 1539). Campion, Thomas, A New Way of Making Fowre Parts in Counter-Point [STC 4542] (London, [1610]). Coverdale, Miles, The Psalter or boke of Psalmes both in Latyn and Englyshe [STC 2368] (London, [1540]). 278 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Craig, John, A short sum of the vvhole catechisme wherin the question is propounded and answered in fewe words, for the greater ease of the common people and children [STC 5966.5] (London: [1608]). Davidson, John, Ane Dialogue or [mu]tuall ta[lking betu]ixt a [clerk] and [ane Cour]teour concerning [four Parische Kirks] till ane minister [STC 6323] ([Edinburgh], [1574]). — , Some helpes for young Schollers in Christianity, as they are in vse & taught [STC 6324.5] (Edinburgh, 1602). Erasmus, Desiderius, Exhortacyon to the study of the Gospell [STC 10494], trans. [William Roy] ([London], [1534]). Goodman, Christopher, How superior powers oght to be obeyd of their subiects: and Wherin they may lawfully by Gods Worde be disobeyed and resisted [STC 12020] (Geneva, 1558). Hawkes, Thomas, The first and second examination of Thomas Haukes, before Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London [STC 12955a.5] (London, [1562]). Knox, John, The first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regiment of women [STC 15070] ([Geneva], 1558). Latimer, Hugh, 27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant matir [sic] of Iesus Christe, Maister Hugh Latimer [STC 15276], ed. Augustine Bernher (London, [1562]). Mace, Thomas, Musick’s Monument, or a Remembrance of the Best Practical Musick (London, 1676). Melville, James, Ane fruitful and comfortable exhortatioun anent death [STC 17815.5] (Edinburgh, 1597). — , A Spiritvall propine of a Pastour to his People [STC 17816] (Edinburgh, [1598]). Morley, Thomas, A plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke, set downe in forme of a dialogue [STC 18133] (London, 1597). Morray, William, Nyne songs collected out of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, drawne foorth of the pue fountains of Hebreuu and Greeke [STC 18166] (Edinburgh, [1634]). Northbrooke, John, A Treatise wherein Dicing, Dauncing, Vaine Playes or Enterluds with other idle pastimes &c. commonly vsed on the Sabboth day, are reproued by the Authoritie of the word of God and auntient writers [STC 18670] (London, 1577). Norton, Thomas, Orations, of Arsanes against Philip the treacherous kyng of Macedone [STC 785] (London: [1560]). Norton, Thomas and Thomas Sackville, The tragedie of Gorboduc [STC 18684] (London, 1565). Norvell, Robert, The meroure of an Chrstiane [sic], composed, and drawn forhte of holy scriptures [STC 18688] (Edinburgh, 1561). select bibliography 279

Pont, Robert, Paruus catechismus quo examinari possunt iuniores qui ad sacram coenam admittuntur [STC 20105] (Andreapoli [St Andrews], 1573). — , De unione Britanniæ, seu De regnorum Angliæ et Scoti[a]e omniumque adiacentium insularum Britanicarum in unam monarchiam consolidatione [STC 20103] (Edinburgi, 1604). Robinson, Thomas, The Schoole of Musicke: wherein is taught, the perfect method, of true fingering of the lute, pandora, orpharion, and viol da gamba [STC 21128] (London, 1603). — , New Citharen Lessons [STC 21127] (London: William Barley, 1609). Tate, Nahum and Nicholas Brady, A New Uersion of the Psalms of David, Fitted to the Tunes Used in Churches (London, 1696). Tye, Christopher, The Actes of the Apostles, translated into Englyshe metre, and dedicated to the kynges moste excellent maiestye [STC 2985] ([London], 1553). Wither, George, The schollers purgatory [STC 25919] ([London], [1624]). Wren, Matthew, Articles to be Inqvired of within the Dioces of Norwich [STC 10298] (London, 1636). Zwingli, Ulrich, Dauids Psalter [STC 2372], trans. George Joye ([Antwerp], 1534).

Edited and Collected Sources

A Brieff discours off the troubles begonne at Franckford in Germany Anno Domini 1554 (1575) (Reprint, London, 1846). Miscellany of the Maitland Club (4 vols, Edinburgh, 1833–47). Adam, Robert (ed.), Edinburgh Records: The Burgh Accounts (Edinburgh, 1899). Arber, Edward (ed.), A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640 A.D. (5 vols, London, 1875–94). Bourgeois, Loys, Le Droict Chemin de Musique (Geneva: 1550), trans. Robert M. Copeland, Musical Theorists in Translation, Vol. 19 (Ottawa: The Institute of Mediaeval Music, 2008). Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeille, Œuvres complétes de Pierre de Bourdeille seigneur de Brantôme (8 vols, Paris, 1822–23). Calderwood, David, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. Thomas Thomson (8 vols, Edinburgh, 1842). Cameron, James (ed.), The First Book of Discipline (Edinburgh: St Andrew Press, 1972). Cooper, James (ed.), Cartularium Ecclesiae Sancti Nicholai Aberdonensis (2 vols, Aberdeen, 1892). Eames, Wilberforce (ed.), The Bay Psalm Book (Cambridge, MA, 1640; reprint, New York, 1903). 280 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Fleming, David Hay (ed.), Register of the Minister, Elders and Deacons of the Christian Congregation of St Andrews (2 vols, Edinburgh, 1890). Frere, W.H. and W.M. Kennedy (eds), Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Period of the Reformation (Vol. 3, London, 1910). Gillespie, George, ‘Notes and Debates’, in William Maxwell Hetherington (ed.), The Works of Mr. George Gillespie (Edinburgh: R. Ogle and Oliver and Boyd, 1846). Johnston, Archibald, Sir, Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston, ed. David Hay Fleming, James D. Oglivie, and Sir George Morison Paul (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1911–1940). Kirk, James (ed.), Stirling Presbytery Records, 1581–1587 (Edinburgh: Publications of the Scottish History Society, 1981). Knox, John, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing (6 vols, Edinburgh, 1846). Laing, David (ed.), The Miscellany of the Wodrow Society (Vol. 1, Edinburgh, 1844). Lawson, Alexander (ed.), The Poems of Alexander Hume (Scottish Text Society: Edinburgh and London, 1902). Lightfoot, John, The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, D.D., ed. John Rogers Pitman (Vol. 1, London, 1824). Livingstone, M. (ed.), Registers of the Privy Seal (Vol. 7, Edinburgh, 1908). Machyn, Henry, The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant- Taylor of London, from A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1563, ed. John Gough Nichols (London, 1848). Marwick, James D. (ed.), Extracts from the Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, AD 1573–1589 (4 vols, Edinburgh, 1869–82). Melville, James, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr James Melvill, ed. Robert Pitcairn (Edinburgh, 1842). Mitchell, A.F. (ed.), A Compendious Book of Godly and Spiritual Songs (Edinburgh, 1897). Munro, Alexander Macdonald (ed.), Records of Old Aberdeen MCLVII– MDCCCXCI (Aberdeen, 1899). Overall, William Henry (ed.), The Accounts of the Churchwardens of the Parish of Saint Michael, Cornhill (London, 1868). Pitcairn, Robert (ed.), Criminal Trials in Scotland (Vol. 1, Edinburgh, 1833). Ree, Stephen (ed.), The Records of Elgin, 1234–1800, comp. William Cramond (2 vols, Aberdeen, 1908). Reid-Baxter, Jamie (ed.), Poems of Elizabeth Melville, Lady Culross (Edinburgh: Solsequium, 2010). Robinson, Hastings (ed.), Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation (2 vols, Cambridge, 1846). select bibliography 281

— (ed.), Zürich Letters Comprising the Correspondence of Several English Bishops and Others, with some of the Helvetican Reformers, during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (4 vols, Cambridge, 1842–48). Scott, Walter, Sir, and David Laing (eds), Bannatyne Miscellany: containing original papers and tracts, chiefly relating to the history and literature of Scotland (3 vols, Edinburgh, 1836). Shaw, Duncan (ed.), The Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1560 to 1618 (Vols 26 and 27, Edinburgh: Scottish Record Society, 2004). Stuart, John (ed.), Extracts from the Council Register of the Burgh of Aberdeen, 1625–1642 (Edinburgh, 1844–48). Taylor, Louise B. (ed.), Aberdeen Council Letters (6 vols, London, 1942– 61). Thomson, T. et al. (eds), The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland (12 vols, Edinburgh: HM General Register House, 1814–75). Wodrow, Robert (ed.), Collections Upon the Lives of the Reformers and Most Eminent Ministers of the Church of Scotland (2 vols in 4 parts, Glasgow, 1834–45). Wrightson, James (ed.), The Wanley Manuscripts (3 vols, Madison: A-R Editions, 1995).

Published Secondary Sources

Abravaya, Ido, On Bach’s Rhythm and Tempo (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2006). Atkins, Ivor, The Early Occupants of the office of Organist and Master of the Choristers of the Cathedral Church of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary, Worcester (London, 1918). Blagden, Cyprian, ‘The English Stock of the Stationers’ Company: An Account of Its Origins’, The Library, 5th ser., 10 (1955): 163–85. Blezzard, Judith (ed.), The Tudor Church Music of the Lumley Books (Madison: A-R Editions, 1985). Bohlman, Philip V. and Nada Petković (eds), Balkan Epic: Song, History, Modernity (Plymouth: Scarecrow Press, 2012). Bonner, Elizabeth, ‘Scotland’s “Auld Alliance” with France, 1295–1560’, History 84, no. 273 (January 1999): 5–30. Cameron, Euan, ‘Frankfurt and Geneva: The European Context of John Knox’s Reformation’, in Roger A. Mason (ed.), John Knox and the British Reformations (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998): 51–73. Collinson, Patrick, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559–1625 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982). 282 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

—, ‘John Knox, the Church of England and the Women of England’, in Roger A. Mason (ed.), John Knox and the British Reformations (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998): 74–98. Cowan, William, ‘Bibliography of the Book of Common Order and psalm book of the Church of Scotland’, Papers of the Edinburgh Bibiographical Society 10 (1913): 53–100. Cowell, Henry J., ‘The Sixteenth-Century English-speaking Refugee Churches at Strasbourg, Basle, Zurich, Arau, Wesel and Emden’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London 15, no. 4 (1936): 612–55. Craig, John, ‘Psalms, groans and dogwhippers: The soundscape of worship in the English parish church, 1547–1642’, in Will Coster and Andrew Spicer (eds), Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005): 104–23. Crankshaw, David J., ‘Preparations of the Canterbury Provincial Convocation of 1562–63: A Question of Attribution’, in Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (eds), Belief and Practice in Reformation England (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998): 60–93. Danner, Dan G., Pilgrimage to Puritanism: History and Theology of the Marian Exiles at Geneva, 1555–1560 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999). Davies, Horton, The Worship of the English Puritans (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1948). — , Worship and Theology in England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970). Dawson, Jane E.A., ‘Apocalyptic Thinking of the Marian Exiles’, in Michael Wilks (ed.), Prophecy and Eschatology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994): 75–91. — , ‘Trumpeting the Resistance: Christopher Goodman and John Knox’, in Roger A. Mason (ed.), John Knox and the British Reformations (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998): 131–53. — , Scotland Re-formed, 1488–1587 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007). — , ‘Knox, Goodman and the “Example of Geneva”’, in Polly Ha and Patrick Collinson (eds), The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010): 107–35. Dickson, Robert and John Philip Edmund, Annals of Scottish Printing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890). Douen, Emmanuel Oretin, Clément Marot et le psautier Huguenot (2 vols, Paris: l’Imprimerie nationale, 1878–79; reprint, Amsterdam: P. Schippers, 1967). Doughtie, Edward, Lyrics from English Airs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971). select bibliography 283

Duffy, Eamon, The Voices of Morebath: Reformation and Rebellion in an English Village (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). — , The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c.1400–c.1580 (2nd edn, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005). Duffin, Ross W., ‘Ballads in Shakespeare’s World’, in Jessie Ann Owens (ed.), Noyses, Sounds, and Sweet Aires: Music in Early Modern England (Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2006): 32–47. Duguid, Timothy, ‘The Troubles at Frankfurt: A New Chronology’, Reformation and Renaissance Review 14, no. 3 (2012): 243–68. Durkan, John, ‘Contract between Clerk and Lekpreuik for Printing the Book of Common Order, 1564’, Bibliotheck 11, no. 6 (1983): 129–35. Elliott, Kenneth, ‘Scottish Music of the Early Reformed Church’, Transactions of the Scottish Ecclesiological Society 15 (1961): 18–32. — , ‘Some Helpes for Young Schollers: A New Source of Early Scottish Psalmody’, in Alasdair A. MacDonald, Michael Lynch, and Ian B. Cowan (eds), The Renaissance in Scotland Studies in Literature, Religion, History and Culture Offered to John Durkan (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994): 264–75. Evenden, Elizabeth, ‘The Michael Wood Mystery: William Cecil and the Lincolnshire Printing of John Day’, Sixteenth Century Journal 25, no. 2 (Summer 2004): 383–94. — , Patents, Pictures and Patronage: John Day and the Tudor Book Trade (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2008). Fleming, David Hay, ‘Hymnology of the Reformation’, in Chris Coldwell (ed.), Shorter Writings of David Hay Fleming (Vol. 1, Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2007). Frost, Maurice, English & Scottish Psalm & Hymn Tunes c. 1543–1677 (London: Oxford University Press, 1953). Fuller, Thomas, The Church-History of Britain (London, 1655). Garrett, Christina Howell, The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Protestantism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938). Garside, Charles, Jr, ‘Calvin’s Preface to the Psalter: A Reappraisal’, Musical Quarterly 37, no. 4 (October 1951): 566–77. — , ‘The Origins of Calvin’s Theology of Music: 1536–1543’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 60, no. 4 (August 1979): 5–35. Gilchrist, A.G., ‘Psalm-Versions and French Tunes in the Scottish Psalter of 1564’, Records of the Scottish Church History Society 5 (1935): 209–13. Graves, Michael A.R., Thomas Norton, the Parliament Man (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994). Green, Ian, Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 284 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

— , ‘All People that on Earth Do Dwell. Sing to the Lord with Cheerful Voice: Protestantism and Music in Early Modern England’, in Simon Ditchfield (ed.), Christianity and Community in the West (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2001): 148–64. Green, Mary Anne Everett (ed.), ‘Life of Mr. William Whittingham, Dean of Durham’, in Camden Miscellany (Vol. 6, Westminster: Camden Society, 1870–71). Guy, John, My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots (London: Fourth Estate, 2004). Hamlin, Hannibal, Psalm Culture and Early Modern English Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Harper, Sally, Music in Welsh Culture before 1650: A Study of the Principal Sources (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007). Hazlett, W. Ian P., ‘The Scots Confession of 1560: Context, Complexion and Critique’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 78 (1987): 287–320. Hendren, J.W., A Study of Ballad Rhythm (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1936). Hoppe, H.R., ‘John Wolfe, Printer and Publisher, 1579–1601’, The Library, 4th ser., 14 (1933): 241–88. Illing, Robert, ‘The English Metrical Psalter of the Reformation’, Musical Times 128 (Sept. 1987): 517–21. —, Ravenscroft’s Revision of Est’s Psalter (Adelaide: Robert Illing, 1985). Johnson, David, Music and Society in Lowland Scotland in the Eighteenth Century (London: Oxford University Press). Johnson, Timothy A., ‘Solmization in the English Treatises Around the Turn of the Seventeenth Century: A Break from Modal Theory’. Theoria 5 (1990): 43–60. Jones, Elisabeth R., ‘From Chamber to Church: The Remarkable Emergence of Thomas Sternhold as Psalmist for the Church of England’, Reformation & Renaissance Review 11, no. 1 (2009): 43–60. Judd, Cristle Collins, ‘Modal Types and Ut, Re, Mi Tonalities: Tonal Coherence in Sacred Vocal Polyphony from about 1500’, JAMS 45, no. 3 (Autumn 1992): 428–67. Judge, Cyril Bathurst, Elizabethan Book-Pirates (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934). Kellar, Clare, Scotland, England, and the Reformation 1534–1561 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003). King’oo, Clare Costley, Miserere Mei: The Penitential Psalms in Late Medieval and Early Modern England (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012). Krummel, D.W., English Music Printing 1553–1700 (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1975). select bibliography 285

Kümin, Beat, ‘Masses, Morris, and Metrical Psalms: Music in the English Parish c. 1400–1600’, in Fiona Kisby (ed.), Music and Musicians in Renaissance Cities and Towns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001): 70–81. Lawson, John Parker, The Book of Perth: An Illustration of the Moral and Ecclesiastical State of Scotland Before and After the Reformation (Edinburgh, 1847). le Huray, Peter, Music and the Reformation in England 1549–1600 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967). Leaver, Robin, The Liturgy of the Frankfurt Exiles 1555, no. 38, Grove Liturgical Studies (Nottingham: Grove Books, 1984). — , ‘Goostly psalmes and spirituall songes’ English and Dutch Metrical Psalms from Coverdale to Utenhove 1535–1566 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). — (ed.), ‘John Bale, Author and Revisor of Sixteenth-Century Metrical Psalms’, Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie 34 (1992–93): 98–106. Livingston, Neil (ed.), The Scottish Metrical Psalter of A.D. 1635 (Glasgow: Maclure & Macdonald,, 1864). Lowens, Irving, ‘The Bay Psalm Book in 17th-Century New England’, JAMS 8, no. 1 (Spring, 1955): 22–9. Lynch, Michael, ‘Preaching to the Converted? Perspectives on the Scottish Reformation’, in Alasdair A. MacDonald, Michael Lynch, and Ian B. Cowan (eds), The Renaissance in Scotland: Studies in Literature, Religion, History and Culture (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994): 301–43. — , ‘The Reassertion of Princely Power in Scotland: the Reigns of Mary, Queen of Scots and King James VI’, in M.Gosman et al., eds. Princes and Princely Culture, 1450–1650 (Leiden: Brill, 2003–2005): 199–238. MacDonald, Alasdair A., ‘Mary Stewart’s Entry to Edinburgh: an Ambiguous Triumph’, Innes Review XLII, no.2 (1991): 101–10. — , ‘Contrafacta and the Gude and Godlie Ballatis’, in Helen Wilcox, Richard Todd, and Alasdair Macdonald (eds), Sacred and Profane: Secular and Devotional Interplay in Early Modern British Literature (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1996): 33–44. — , ‘On First Looking into the Gude and Godlie Ballatis (1565)’, in Sally Mapstone (ed.), Older Scots Literature (Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers, 2005): 230–42. MacMillan, William, Worship of the Scottish Reformed Church (London: James Clarke, 1931). Mann, Alastair, The Scottish Book Trade 1500–1720 (East Lothian: Tuckwell Press, 2000). Marsh, Christopher, Music and Society in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 286 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Martin, Charles, Les Protestants Anglais réfugiés à Genève au temps de Calvin 1555–1560 (Geneva: Albert Kundig, 1915). Mason Roger (ed.), John Knox and the British Reformations (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998). Maxwell, William D., The Liturgical Portions of the Genevan Service Book (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1931). McCallum, John, Reforming the Scottish Parish: the Reformation in Fife, 1560–1640 (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2010). McCullough, Peter, ‘Music Reconciled to Preaching: A Jacobean Moment?’, in Natalie Mears and Alec Ryrie (eds), Worship and the Parish Church in Early Modern Britain (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2013): 109–29. McKinney, Timothy R., Adrian Willaert and the Theory of Interval Affect (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2010). Meier, Bernhard, The Modes of Classical Vocal Polyphony Described According to the Sources, trans. Ellen Beebe (New York: Broude Brothers, 1988). — , ‘Rhetorical Aspects of the Renaissance Modes’, JAMS 115, no. 2 (1990): 182–90. Morgan, John, Godly Learning: Puritan Attitudes Towards Reason, Learning and Education 1560–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). Munro, Gordon, ‘“Sang Schwylls” and “Music Schools”: Music Education in Scotland, 1560–1650’, in Russell E. Murray, Jr, Susan Forscher Weiss and Cynthia J. Cyrus (eds), Music Education in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010): 65–83. Owens, Jessie Ann, Composers at Work: The Craft of Muscal Composition 1450–1600 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). — , ‘Concepts of Pitch in English Music Theory, c. 1560–1640’, in Cristle Collins Judd (ed.), Tonal Structures in Early Music (London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998): 187–246. Pagan, John H., Annals of Ayr: In the Olden Time, 1560–1692 (Ayr: Alex Fergusson, 1897). Palisca, Claude V., ‘Mode Ethos in the Renaissance’, in Lewis Lockwood and Edward Roesner (eds), Essays in Musicology: A Tribute to Alvin Johnson (Philadelphia: American Musicological Society, 1990): 126– 39. Patrick, Millar, Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody (London: Oxford University Press, 1949). Pettegree, Andrew, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Phillips, John, A Satyr Against Hypocrites (London, 1655). select bibliography 287

Pidoux, Pierre, Le Psautier Huguenot du XVIe Siècle: Mélodies et Documents (Bâle : Baerenreiter, 1962). — , ‘Au XVIe siècle la Genève de Calvin et le chant des psaumes’, Revue Musicale de Suisse Romande 44, no. 1 (April 1991): 139–59. Porter, James, ‘“Blessed spirits, sing with me!” Psalm-singing in context and practice’, in James Porter (ed.), Defining Strains (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2007): 299–322. Powers, Harold S., ‘Tonal Types and Modal Categories in Renaissance Polyphony’, JAMS 34, no. 3 (Autumn 1981): 428–70. Pratt, Waldo Seldon, The Music of the French Psalter of 1562: A Historical Survey and Analysis (New York: AMS Press, 1966). Preece, Isobel Woods, Our awin Scottis use: Music in the Scottish Church up to 1603 (Glasgow and Aberdeen: University of Glasgow Press and University of Aberdeen Press, 2000). Quitslund, Beth, Reformation in Rhyme: Sternhold, Hopkins, and the English metrical psalter, 1547–1603 (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2008). — , ‘Singing the Psalms for Fun and Profit’, in Jessica Martin and Alec Ryrie (eds), Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2012): 237–58. Quitslund, Beth and Temperley, Nicholas (eds), The Whole Book of Psalms 1547–1577 (English Text Society, forthcoming). Reid-Baxter, Jamie, ‘Thomas Wode, Christopher Goodman and the Curious Death of Scottish Music’, Scotlands 4, no. 2 (1997): 1–20. — , liner notes to The Songs of Alexander Montgomerie, Paul Rendall and Rob MacKillop ASV GAU 249, CD (2002). — , ‘Judge and Revenge My Cause: The Regent Morton, Andro Blackhall, Robert Sempill and the fall of the House of Hamilton in 1579’, in Sally Mapstone (ed.) Older Scots Literature (Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2005): 467–92. — , ‘Metrical Psalmody and the Bannatyne Manuscript: Robert Pont’s Psalm 83’, Renaissance and Reformation 30, no. 4 (Fall 2006): 41–62. — , ‘Elizabeth Melville, Calvinism and the Lyric Voice’, in D. J. Parkinson (ed.) Tides of Change: Scottish Literature under James VI and I (Leuven: Peeters, 2013): 151–71. — , ‘Montgomerie’s Solsequium and The Mindes Melodie’ in J. Hadley Williams and J. Derrick McClure, ed. Fresche Fontanis: Studies in the Culture of Medieval and Early Modern Scotland (Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 2013): 361–75. Reid-Baxter, Jamie, Michael Lynch and E. Patricia Dennison, Jhone Angus: Monk of Dunfermline and Scottish Reformation Music (Dunfermline: DoubleBridge Press, 2011). 288 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Richmond, Hugh M., Puritans and Libertines: Anglo-French Literary Relations in the Reformation (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1981). Ridley, Jasper Godwin, John Knox (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Rogers, Charles, History of the Chapel Royal of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1882). Ross, D. James, Musick Fyne: Robert Carver and the Art of Music in Sixteenth Century Scotland (Edinburgh: Mercat Press, 1993). Row, John, The History of the Kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1842). Rublack, Hans-Christoph, ‘The Song of Contz Anahans: Communication and Revolt in Nördlingen, 1525’, in R. Pro-chia Hsia (ed.), The German People and the Reformation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988): 102–21. Ryrie, Alec, The Origins of the Scottish Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006). — , ‘The Psalms and Confrontation in English and Scottish Protestantism’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 101 (2010): 114–37. Sanderson, Margaret, Ayrshire and the Reformation: People and Change, 1490–1600 (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1997). Simpson, Martin A., ‘Of the Troubles Begun at Frankfürt. A.D. 1554’, in Duncan Shaw (ed.), Reformation and Revolution (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1967): 17–33. Smith, Jeremy, Thomas East and Music Publishing in Renaissance England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Springer, Michael S., Restoring Christ’s Church: John à Lasco and the Forma ac ratio (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007). Starr, Pamela E., ‘Music Education and the Conduct of Life in Early Modern England: A Review of the Sources’, in Russell E. Murray, Jr, Susan Forscher Weiss and Cynthia J. Cyrus (eds), Music Education in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010): 193–206. Steele, Robert, The Earliest English Music Printing (London: Chiswick Press, 1903). Stevenson, David, Scotland’s Last Royal Wedding: The Marriage of James VI and Anne of Denmark (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1997). Strype, John (ed.), Ecclesiastical Memorials; Relating Chiefly to Religion, and the Reformation Of It (Vol. 3, Part 1, London: 1721). — , Annals of the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1824). Temperley, Nicholas, ‘Middelburg Psalms’, Studies in Bibliography 30 (1977): 162–70. — , ‘The Old Way of Singing: Its Origins and Development’, JAMS 34, no. 3 (Autumn 1981): 511–44. select bibliography 289

— , Music of the English Parish Church (2 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). — , ‘The Old Way of Singing’, The Musical Times 120, no. 1641 (November 1979): 943–7. — , The Hymn Tune Index (4 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998); also available online at Nicholas Temperley, Hymn Tune Index, http:// hymntune.library.uiuc.edu/. — , ‘“If any of you be mery let hym synge psalmes”: The Culture of Psalms in Church and Home’, in Jessie Ann Owens (ed.), ‘Noyses, sounds, and sweet aires’: Music in Early Modern England (Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2006): 90–99. Todd, Margo. The Culture of Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland (London: Yale University Press, 2002). Tweedie, William King, Select Biographies (Edinburgh, 1845). Whitelock, Bulstrode, Memorials of the English Affairs from the Beginning of the Reign of Charles the First to the Happy Restoration of King Charles the Second (Oxford, 1853). Williamson, Arthur, ‘Number and National Consciousness: The Edinburgh Mathematicians and Scottish Political Culture at the Union of the Crowns’, in Roger Mason (ed.), Scots and Britons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006): 187–212. Willis, Jonathan, Church Music and Protestantism in Post-Reformation England (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2010). — , ‘Protestant Worship and the Discourse of Music in Reformation England’, in Natalie Mears and Alec Ryrie (eds), Worship and the Parish Church in Early Modern Britain (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2013): 131–50. Wood, Anthony, Athenae Oxoniensis: An Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops who have had their Education in the University of Oxford, ed. Philip Bliss (Vol. 1, London, 1813). Wormald, Jenny, ‘Confidence and Perplexity: The Seventeenth Century’, in Jenny Wormald (ed.), Scotland: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): 143–65. Wray, Alison, ‘English Pronunciation, c. 1500–1625’, in John Morehen (ed.), English Choral Practice, 1400–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995): 90–108. Wrightson, Keith, English Society, 1580–1680 (London: Hutchinson, 1982). Young, Thomas, The Metrical Psalms and Paraphrases (London: A&C Black, 1909). Zim, Rivkah, English Metrical Psalms: Poetry as Praise and Prayer, 1535– 1601 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 290 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Electronic Sources

Early English Books Online (Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC, 2014), http:// eebo.chadwyck.com/home. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), http://www.oxforddnb.com. Oxford Music Online (Oxford: Oxford University Press, n.d.), http:// www.oxfordmusiconline.com. ‘Singing the Reformation: The World of Reformation Britain as seen and heard in the Wode Psalter’ (2013), http://www.wode.div.ed.ac.uk/. Bain, Joseph (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Scotland, in British History Online (2013), http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk. Brown, K.M. et al. (eds), The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, University of St Andrews (2013), http://www.rps.ac.uk. Dawson, Jane E.A., ‘Letters from Exile: Documents from the Marian Exile’ (2013), http://www.marianexile.div.ed.ac.uk. Dawson, Jane, Timothy Duguid, and Noel O’Regan, ‘Singing the Reformation’ (Edinburgh: The Wode Project Team, 2011, published in conjunction with the exhibition ‘Singing the Reformation’ shown at the University of Edinburgh Main Library), http://www.wode.div. ed.ac.uk/resources.html. Duguid, Timothy, ‘Early Modern British Metrical Psalters’, Edinburgh Research Archive (2013), http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/ handle/1842/6684. Fleet, Christopher, ‘Robert Pont, Timothy Pont’s father (1524–1606)’, Pont Maps Website, National Library of Scotland (n.d.), http://maps. nls.uk/pont/bio/father.html. Lynch, Michael (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Scottish History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), http://www.oxfordreference. com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199234820.001.0001/acref-9780199 234820-e-64. Pollard, A.W., G.R. Redgrave and K.F. Pantzer (eds), A Short-title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640 (2nd edn, rev., London: Bibliographical Society, 1990), http://estc.bl.uk/.

Unpublished Papers and Dissertations

Bjorklund, N.C., ‘Matthew Parker and the reform of the English church during the reigns of Henry VII and Edward VI’ (PhD diss., University of California Irvine, 1987). select bibliography 291

Gellnick, Franklyn M., ‘The Disposition of the Tritone in Gregorian Chant’, (PhD diss., University of Kent at Canterbury, 1997). Hunter, Richard Edward, ‘William Whittingham: A Study of his Life and Writings with Especial Reference to the Geneva New Testament’ (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1953). Hutchison, Hilda S.P., ‘The St Andrews Psalter: Transcription and Critical Study of Thomas Wode’s Psalter’ (DMus diss., University of Edinburgh, 1957). Leslie, Robert Homer, Jr, ‘The Polyphonic Psalter of Pascal de l’Estocart’ (PhD diss., McGill University, 1968). Munro, Gordon, ‘Scottish Church Music and Musicians, 1500–1700’ (2 vols, PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 1999). Reid-Baxter, James. ‘James Melville and the Metrical Psalter’, unpublished essay (2014). Weir, Richard B., ‘Thomas Sternhold and the Beginnings of English Metrical Psalmody’ (PhD diss., New York University, 1974). Woodworth, Karen May, ‘Music and the Court of Mary Stewart, 1561– 1567’ (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2011). This page has been left blank intentionally Index to Biblical References

Exodus 21; 28–9, 37n, 56, 66, 69n, 74, 12; 46n 169, 204, 221 22; 63, 74, 118n, 156n I Samuel 23; 2n, 22, 23, 37n, 56, 63, 66, 74, 21:12; 103 110, 121, 169, 174, 203n, 204, 22:6–10; 39 214n 23; 40 24; 63, 74, 98, 100, 122n, 128 25; 56, 65, 66, 75, 109, 110, 125, II Samuel 127, 231 15:12; 39 26; 110, 122n 27; 47, 66, 110, 122n, 146 Psalms 28; 38, 74, 122n, 169 Penitential psalms (as a group); 65, 29, 37n, 38, 56, 66, 74, 169 117 30; 37n, 56, 66, 74, 75 76, 110, 1; 29n, 37n, 56, 66, 69n, 70, 72, 112–14, 125, 130, 147, 158, 81n, 117, 118n, 128, 146, 169 161, 169 2; 13, 25n, 37, 122n, 145–6, 154n, 31; 87, 121–2 156, 169 32; 21, 38, 74, 121–2 3; 37n, 38–9, 43–4, 56, 66, 74, 33; 37, 38, 56, 66, 74, 93, 121–2, 117, 152, 169, 188 169 4; 38–9, 146 34; 38, 42, 74, 121–2, 146n, 169 5; 38–9, 74, 122n 35; 66, 121–2, 145, 146, 148, 169, 6; 21, 25n, 37n, 56, 65, 66, 170 117–18, 137–8, 161, 169 36; 65n, 66, 100, 102, 121–2, 214 7; 30–31, 37n, 38, 40, 56, 66, 74, 37; 46, 56, 66, 121–2, 167–8 122n, 169 38; 118n, 121–2, 156n 8; 38, 40–41, 74, 118n, 121n, 169 39; 110–11, 121–2, 145, 147 9; 37n, 56, 66, 74, 121n, 126, 169 40; 204 10; 25n, 37, 38, 56, 66, 74, 93, 41; 37n, 46, 56, 66, 126n, 127, 169 121n, 146, 148, 154n, 156n, 42; 37, 38, 53 169, 170 43; 38, 142 11; 38, 74, 121n, 145 44; 37n, 38–40, 42, 56, 66, 118n, 12; 38, 74, 121n, 153, 154 169 13; 25n, 38, 74, 121n 45; 64n, 92n, 110, 122n, 126 14; 38, 56, 65, 66, 110–11, 169, 170 46; 66, 168, 169 15; 27–8, 37n, 38, 41, 53, 56, 66, 47; 47n, 66, 169 74, 100, 169 48; 152, 204 16; 37n, 38, 56, 66, 169, 206 49; 32, 38–40, 42–3, 110, 145 17; 38 50; 35n, 36, 50, 64n, 66, 69n, 126, 18; 63, 66, 110, 136n, 166, 169 128, 161, 169, 231 19; 38, 169, 204 51; 21, 37n, 47, 55, 56, 63, 65, 66, 20; 38, 110, 122n, 169, 170, 204, 79–80, 87, 157–8, 169, 203, 221 231 294 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

52; 38, 66, 126n, 127, 128, 169 92; 57n 53; 121n 93; 121n, 145, 147–8, 152, 154, 54; 46, 47, 121n, 156n 156n 55; 121n 94; 46, 61n, 121n 56; 100, 102–3, 121n, 145, 146, 95; 52, 66, 74, 75, 118, 121n, 148, 156n 169, 170 57; 91, 95–6, 121n, 154, 156 96; 121n, 168, 169 58; 66, 121n, 152 97; 74, 121n 59; 66, 91, 118n, 169 98; 74, 118, 121n 60; 145, 147, 156n 99; 74, 121n 61; 66, 169 100; 2n, 52, 66, 75, 118, 231 62; 66, 121n, 169 101; 46, 107, 203 63; 38, 121n 102; 75, 100–101, 161 64; 121n, 144, 145, 152n, 166 103; 37n, 38, 45, 56, 65, 66, 81, 65; 121n, 145, 147 118, 174, 203, 206 66; 121n, 168, 169, 170 104; 63, 65, 66, 100, 169 67; 35–6, 52n, 57, 64n, 66, 75, 105; 74, 98–9, 100, 121n 76, 100, 102, 120, 125–6, 137, 106; 74, 110, 121n 154, 169, 193n, 231 107; 46–7, 121n 68; 38, 56, 65, 66, 109, 152, 169 108; 75, 103, 121n, 154, 170, 172 69; 66, 118n, 132, 134–6, 161, 169 109; 57, 75, 110, 121n, 170 70; 47, 64n, 66, 75, 100, 102, 126, 110; 100, 121n, 214 146, 154 111; 64n, 65, 66, 118n, 126n, 127 71; 57, 66, 136n, 147, 169 112; 55n, 65, 66, 110, 232 72; 66–7, 68, 75, 169 113; 65, 66, 128, 159n, 232 73; 37n, 56, 66, 121n 114; 22, 23, 37n, 38, 56, 66, 170 74; 110, 121n 115; 22, 23, 37n, 57, 66, 169, 232 75; 100, 101, 110, 121n 116; 174 76; 91–2, 145, 152, 166, 205 117; 100, 117–18, 137–8, 154n, 174 77; 55n, 66, 75, 76, 107–9, 118n, 118; 98, 100 147–9, 152, 169, 170, 174, 188n 119; 34, 46–7, 56, 65, 66, 118n, 78; 37n, 56, 66, 69n, 70–71, 118n, 132–4, 169, 183, 188 169, 183 120; 56, 65, 66, 126n, 127, 170, 204 79; 56, 66 121; 35n, 36, 56, 65, 66, 126n, 80; 75, 91, 92–3, 94 127, 128, 169, 214n 81; 55n, 66, 91, 109, 122n, 169, 122; 65, 66, 127 174, 188 123; 38 82; 38, 107 124; 35–6, 56, 65, 66, 127, 166n, 83; 80n, 87, 91–2, 94, 161 204–5, 206–7, 224 84; 75, 122n, 154, 174 125; 52n, 65, 66, 123, 126n, 127, 85; 66, 169, 232 128 86; 169 126; 65, 66, 127, 132, 134–6 87; 152 127; 35n, 36, 56, 66, 100, 128, 88; 47, 66, 69n, 75, 100, 121, 126, 154n, 170 126n, 127 128; 38, 203, 204, 221 90; 45, 46, 110, 134, 145, 156n 129; 27–8, 35n, 36, 57, 66, 169 91; 25n, 47, 57n, 66 Index to Biblical References 295

130; 21, 22, 23, 36, 37n, 56, 65, 142; 57n, 121 66, 109, 127, 136n, 169 143; 57n, 169 131; 118n, 156n 144; 57n, 156n, 169 132; 66, 100, 101, 102, 169 145; 103, 118n, 126n, 127 133; 22, 37n, 57, 66, 129n 146; 38, 81, 129n 134; 65n, 66, 126, 127 147; 66, 169 135; 66, 68–9, 148–9 148; 56, 65, 66, 100, 127, 154n, 136; 64n, 66, 98, 100, 118n, 126n, 211, 232 127, 154n, 169 149; 57, 66, 169 137; 22, 29, 37n, 56, 65, 66, 117, 150; 57n 129, 131, 148 138; 25n, 66, 122n, 169, 232 Proverbs 139; 57n, 129n 22:6; 46 140; 57n 141; 66, 100, 126n, 127, 169 This page has been left blank intentionally General Index

‘12 Articles of the Christian Faith,’ see Bownd, Nicholas 183–6, 187, 208 canticles Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeille 203n, 220 Aberdeen 155–6, 159, 160, 177–9, Browne, Robert 5–6, 125, 185 204, 206, 216–17, 224, 226 Buchan, John 83, 160, 175, 224 ‘abridged psalters’ 116, 126, 173n, 182n Byrd, William 123–4 Acts and Monuments, see Foxe, John Adamsoun, Elizabeth 80–81, 206 Calvin, John 17, 18, 20, 25–6, 58, 87, Ainsworth, Henry 120n, 125, 231 97, 190, 197, 221n, 227 Allison, Richard 120n, 122, 123, 124, metrical psalters of, see Geneva 132, 189, 192, 193 Psalter Anglo-Genevan community, see Anglo- Calvinists 51, 76, 86, 190, 219 Scottish exile community Canin, Abraham 151–3 Anglo-Scottish exile community, 8, Canin, Isaac 151–3 10n, 17, 20, 22, 25, 29, 37, 41, canticles 10, 45, 52, 53–7, 65–6, 73, 45, 52, 54–5, 60, 77, 82, 86, 83n, 89, 95, 110n, 118, 121, 88, 96n, 146, 187, 229, 232, 132, 150, 154n, 168n, 169, see Frankfurt 170, 188, 193, 229, 230 Angus, John 83, 160, 175 ‘12 Articles of the Christian Faith’ 5n anthems 25, 159 Benedicite 66, 169 Arbuthnet, Alexander 143–4 Benedictus 52, 66, 118, 169 argument, or psalm introduction 22, ‘Creed’ 10, 65n, 66, 169 38–41, 47, 60, 62, 67n, 102–3, Da Pacem Domine 52, 66, 109, 169 117, 119, 147 ‘Humble Suit of a Sinner’ 66, 137, 169 Bale, John 19–20 ‘Lamentation’ 66, 93, 169 ballads 2, 4, 12, 25–6, 33, 73n, 92, ‘Lamentation of a Sinner’ 66, 169 120, 132, 171, 175n, 179, ‘Lord’s Prayer’ 10, 45, 52n, 55, 65, 183–4, 186, 188, 189, 197n, 66, 69n, 169, 170 209, 230 Magnificat 52, 66, 109, 169 Barley, William 120n, 123, 124, 132, Nunc Dimittis (Song of Simeon) 194 34, 45, 52n, 57, 66, 69n, 169 Barlow, William 23 ‘Preserve us’ 52n, 66, 169 Barrow, Henry 6, 185 Quicunque Vult 66 Bassandyne, Thomas 90, 142–4, Te Deum 10, 66, 169 148–9, 155n, 211 ‘Ten Commandments’ 18, 21, 34, Bay Psalm Book 231–2 37, 45–7, 52, 57, 65, 66, 93, Benedicite, see canticles 95–6, 145, 146–7, 169 Benedictus, see canticles Veni Creator 66, 169 Beza, Theodore 25n, 33, 58 catechism 17, 20, 23, 90, 98, 106n, Book of Common Prayer 15–17, 48, 112, 146, 213, ; see also Calvin, 53, 186–7, 201, 233 John; Craig, John; Pont, Robert Bourgeois, Loys 149n, 183n 298 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice cathedrals 11, 98, 132, 138, 173, 181, Crowley, Robert 4, 63, 192, 218n 191, 192 Catholicism 13, 16, 40, 49, 58, 77, Daman, William 119–20 78, 142 metrical psalters of 120–22, 124, Causton, Thomas 62, 106 132, 154, 155n, 172, 174, 192, Cecil, William 50–51, 63 193 Charteris, Henry 144, 145, 146–9, David as psalmist 21, 39, 40, 66–7, 151–3, 166, 211–12 68, 103, 117 Charteris, Robert 214, 215 Davidson, John [writer] 143, 174 chanting 17, 27, 31n, 73, 218 Davidson, Patrick [composer] 156n, Chapel Royal 177, 216 in London 62, 124, 192 Day, John 49–52, 58–60, 63, 83, 84, in Stirling 159, 162, 219 105, 106–7, 109, 116, 118, Charles I 9, 12, 162, 211–12, 230, 233 125, 149, 182, 186, 193n, Charles II 204 218n, 229 choirs, see psalm-singing, choral as editor of metrical psalms 45n, clergy 21 52–8, 60–62, 64, 65, 69–70, English 4, 20 74–6, 85, 86, 88, 107, 150, 158 Scottish 88, 91, 155n, 203, 204, Day, Richard 105, 111–12, 120, 124, 206, 221, 230 125, 144, 150, 170 collects, see arguments assigns of 112, 115, 116, 118, 125, Common Metre, see metre, Common 128, 137, 149 Metre Daye, Stephen 231 Common Tunes 11, 123, 132, 138, Decalogue, see canticles 154–6, 159–61, 163, 165, devotion, domestic 2, 5, 22, 29, 51, 171–9, 187, 194, 198, 212–17, 53, 60, 61, 87, 120, 186n, 193, 224, 227, 230–32, 233, 268 194, 199, 208, 225, 228 ‘Common Tune Psalters’ 123, 173 discipline, ecclesiastical 14, 17, 78, 86, Communion 21, 95, 203, 207, 232 97, 143, 149n, 150 Confessions of Faith 14, 15, 78n, 84, doxology 211–12 86–7, 89, 90, 207 Durant, Zachary 141n, 148n contour, melodic 35, 70–73 Durie, John 204, 207, 224 copyright 54, 124, see also patents, printing East, Thomas 116n, 120, 121–4, Cosyn, John 120 132–4, 136, 154, 170–74, metrical psalter of 132, 172, 174, 188–9, 192, 194 188, 189, 192, 193 Edinburgh 78, 80, 85, 90, 97–8, 142, covenant theology 46–7, 147 144, 146, 152n, 155, 159, 162, Coverdale, Miles 1, 3, 12, 23 179, 202–7, 213, 215n, 216, Goostly psalmes 1–2, 3, 65n, 81, 217, 219, 221, 224, 233 93, 166 education, music see psalms for teaching Cox, Richard 16–17, 45, 52n, 65, 169, Edward VI, king 3, 13, 20, 24, 25, 39, 187 49, 50, 73, 76, 79, 186 Craig, John 88, 90, 97–8 Elgin 219, 222–3 versifications by 98–104 Elizabeth I, queen 25, 44, 48, 49, 50, Cranmer, Thomas 16n, 62, 229 51, 53, 58n, 61, 77, 119n, 124, Creed, see canticles 125, 186, 187, 190, 192 General Index 299

Erasmus, Desiderius 1, 12 imitative psalms settings, see polyphony Eucharist, see Communion intervals, melodic 35, 67–8, 96, 101, 132, 134–5 Finlason, Thomas 151–2, 155 instruments, musical 68, 123, 181–2, Foxe, John 58–60, 106, 109 190, 192, 193, 198, 220–23 Frankfurt 14–17, 19–20, 21–3, 24, 37, organs 189, 190–92, 219 45, 61, 77, 95, 187 Fuller, Thomas, 6 James VI and I, king 91, 97, 125, 142, 162, 165, 178, 204, 205, 207, General Assembly 9, 12n, 78n, 79, 80, 221, 224, 227, 230, 232, 233 82–8, 90–91, 97–8, 141, 142–4, Jewel, John 184–5 149–50, 155n, 162, 169, 202–3, Johnston of Warriston, Archibald 217, 207–8, 223, 230, 232–3 264–8 Geneva 17, 18, 20, 22, 23–4, 25, 34, 45, 77, 81–4, 85, 95, 141n, Kemp, Andro 160n, 224 146, 148n, 149, 183, 198, 229n Kethe, William 19–20, 52, 55, 61, 63, Geneva Bible 17, 18, 40, 45, 146, 153 76, 88, 91 Geneva Psalter 21, 23, 25n, 33, 34, 35, Knox, John 2n, 7, 16, 17, 22, 61, 45, 56–8, 60, 61, 63, 65, 70, 77–82, 87, 95, 98, 202, 220 83, 88–9, 91, 93, 99–101, 104, 125, 134, 167, 197 ‘Lamentation,’ see canticles Geneva-style liturgy 82, 173, 211, ‘Lamentation of a Sinner,’ see canticles 221n, 229, 230, 233 à Lasco, John 17, 81 Glasgow 160, 212, 224 Lekpreuik, Robert 82, 84–5, 86–9, 95, Goodman, Christopher n8, 34, 41, 61, 98, 142–3, 146–9, 155, 157, 77–8, 82, 83n, 90, 95 161, 202–3, 208, 218n, 229 Goostly psalmes, see Coverdale, Miles lining out 181–2, 195–8, 226 Gude and Godlie Ballatis 2–3, 35n, literacy and singing 196–7, 207, 79–81, 86–7, 89, 91–2, 97, 226–7, 234 143n, 202, 209 Liturgia sacra 15, 17, 21 liturgy Hart, Andro 10, 96, 141–2, 151–60, Anglo-Scottish Forme of prayers 166, 171, 173–8, 212, 214–17, 20, 22, 37, 81, 95 230, 232, 235 Edwardine 13, 15, 21n Hendersoun, Edward 213, 224 Elizabethan 119, 150, 186, 187, Henry, Prince of Scotland 204, 221 229, 233 Henry VIII, king 2n, 3, 25, 49, 119n Frankfurt 15–18, 21 Hopkins, John 4–5, 52–4, 55, 58, 60, French Genevan 25–6, 77, 229n 62–4, 76, 87, 88, 119, 186, 229 other Marian exile churches 23, 81 versifications by 5–6, 8, 13, 19–20, Scottish Forme of prayers 78, 82, 23, 24–5, 29–30, 48, 50, 79, 81, 201, 211, 230, 88, 92n, 99, 142, 147, 187, 229 see also Book of Common Prayer Horne, Robert 186–7 London 50–52, 54, 60–62, 76, 85, Hume, Alexander 205–6, 219 144, 165–6, 168, 170, 174, 179, 185, 187, 191, 192n, 194, iconoclasm 77, 202 195, 229, 232 identity 13, 178–9 Long Metre, see metre, Long Metre 300 Metrical Psalmody in Print and Practice

Lord’s Prayer, see canticles versifications by 55, 58, 64n, 76, Lord’s Supper, see communion 79n, 87–8, 93, 95–6, 99, 118, Lumley partbook 73, 192 174, 229 Lutheranism 1, 3, 45, 79, 86–7 Nunc Dimittis, see canticles

Machyn, Henry 51 organs, see instruments, musical Magnificat, see canticles Malorat, Augustin 212 parish church 5n, 11, 13, 14n, 150, Marckant, John 54, 55, 88 163, 182, 186, 190–92, 193n, Marot, Clément 3n, 21 198, 202–3, 207, 210–11, martyrs, religious 16n, 22, 119 213–14, 226, 233 Mary I, queen 13, 40, 44, 49, 50, 51, 119 parishioners, see parish church Mary of Guise 77, 202, 219–20 Parker, Matthew 119, 187, 190, 193 Mary, Queen of Scots 67n, 77, 98, Parsons, William 68, 106 142, 203 patents, printing 51, 54, 85, 105, 112, Melville, James 80, 154n, 177, 201, 115, 118, 119n, 120, 123–5, 208–9, 213–14, 217–18, 219, 144, 150–52, 155, 166–7, 170, 223, 266, 267 189, 235 metre Peebles, David 83, 160, 175, 224 Common Metre 4, 11, 36, 63–4, Perth 225 74–6, 88–9, 91, 95, 98, 125, piracy, book 51, 106, 112, 119, 125, 127n, 137, 154, 171, 181, 187, 151–2 209, 213, 214, 230, 232 plainchant, see chanting Long Metre 36, 47, 64, 89, 91, 95, polyphony 121–2, 159, 177, 225 128, 146, 209, 232n Pont, Robert 80n, 87, 88, 90–91, 98, Short Metre 36, 64, 75, 125, 126, 150 127n, 137, 232n versifications by 91–7, 98–9, 104 imitations of French metres 34–5, Poullain, Valérand 15, 17, 21 91, 97, 100 Poulters’ Measure, see metre, Short Middelburg Psalters 11, 125, 152n, Metre 165–71, 173n, 178–9 precentor 182, 195–6, 210, 225, 226–7 Millar, Edward 159–63, 171, 175, prose psalms 6n, 11, 16–17, 53, 125, 178, 214, 225–6, 232 167, 171, 185, 186, 208 minister 15, 41, 81, 83n, 85, 90–91, psalm singing 98, 150, 172, 182, 184, 187, attacks on 5–6, 184 190–91, 203–8, 210, 211, 219, by workers 1–2, 85, 182, 183, 186, 222, 223–4, see also clergy 201, 231 modal ethos, see modes, medieval congregational 9n, 21, 23, 27, 37, church 43n, 79, 122, 160, 163, 182, modes, medieval church 26–9, 128n 184n, 189, 190, 191, 195–6, Montrose 80, 208, 223 203, 205, 213, 223–7, 232 Morley, Thomas 123, 124 choral 96, 121, 132, 160, 162–3, musica ficta 132–5, 161n 173, 181, 191, 193n, 201, 223–5 domestic 22, 160, 184, 185, 192, Norton, Thomas 50, 52, 53–5, 58, 60, 197n, 205, 208, 225, 228 62–4 Instrumental accompaniment, see instruments, musical General Index 301

lining-out, see lining out Sternhold, Thomas 3–4, 24, 73, 119, by merchants 195, 207n, 211, 231 186, 202 part-singing 138, 160–61, 172–3, psalm versifications by 4–5, 8–9, 175, 192–5, 198, 218, 223–6 10, 13, 14, 19–20, 21, 23, 25, public 53, 184–5, 193, 194, 201, 29–33, 52, 55, 62, 63, 74, 76, 203–5, 210, 219, 223, 227–8 79, 80–81, 85, 87–8, 189, 229 for teaching 25, 46–7, 137, 147, Stirling 219, 222 150, 162, 181, 207, 210, 218n, Strasbourg 14, 16, 17n, 20, 52 223–5 tempo 109, 197–8 Tallis, Thomas 119, 193n Pulleyne, John 19–20, 34, 37, 55, 76, 88 Te Deum, see canticles Ten Commandments, see canticles Quicunque vult, see canticles Tye, Christopher 62, 192n

Raban, Edward 155–6, 158, 159, 176, Vautrollier, Thomas 123–4, 144–5, 177–8, 215, 216, 224–5 148, 211n Ravenscroft, Thomas 132 Veni Creator, see canticles metrical psalter compiled by 105, 123, 132–9, 161–2, 172–3, Waldegrave, Robert 174, 213 193n, 194–5, 197, 231–2 Wanley partbook 73, 192 Readers, church position 85, 150, 203, Wesel 23–4, 45, 52 205, 210–11, 223, 224n, 226 Westminster Assembly 12n, 207, 212, Ros, John 143–6, 148, 215 226, 230, 233 Whitchurche, Edward 4–5, 9, 63n St Andrews 7, 82–3, 90, 97, 155n, 159n, Whittingham, William 14–15, 17, 160n, 206, 218, 223–4, 225n 19–21, 22, 24–5, 33–4, 37, 61, Schilders, Richard 125, 144, 145, 87, 91 148–9, 151, 152n, 155n, versifications by 21–4, 30–33, 34–6, 165–71, 174, 178 37, 42, 47–48, 52, 55, 60, 65, Scots, Middle 35, 79, 86, 92–3, 98–9, 69n, 76, 88, 95, 96n, 145 215 Windet, John 116, 126, 128, 214, 215n Seager, Francis 4n, 192 Wisdom, Robert 52, 55, 76n Seres, William 50–51, 53, 62 Wishart, George 2n, 22, 79, 90 Short Metre, see metre, Short Metre Wode Psalter 7, 83–4, 95, 160, 175–8, singing, see anthems, ballads, psalm- 218n, 233, 263 singing Wode, Thomas 83, 95, 218n, 224, 225n ‘sol-fa’ psalters 116, 136–7, 173n Wolfe, John 106, 112, 116, 120, 126n Stationers’ Company 10, 54, 76n, 105, Wren, Matthew 195–6 111–12, 122, 124, 125–39, 144, 150, 171, 174, 186, 194, 198, 235 St Andrews Studies in Reformation History

Editorial Board: Bruce Gordon, Yale Divinity School Andrew Pettegree, Bridget Heal, and Roger Mason, University of St Andrews Amy Nelson Burnett, University of Nebraska at Lincoln Euan Cameron, Union Theological Seminary, New York Kaspar von Greyerz, University of Basel Alec Ryrie, Durham University Felicity Heal, University of Oxford

Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-Century Europe (2 volumes) edited by Bruce Gordon

Antifraternalism and Anticlericalism in the German Reformation: Johann Eberlin von Günzburg and the Campaign against the Friars Geoffrey Dipple

Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French, 1511–1551 Francis M. Higman

The Reformation in Eastern and Central Europe Edited by Karin Maag

The Magnificent Ride: The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia Thomas A. Fudge

Kepler’s Tübingen: Stimulus to a Theological Mathematics Charlotte Methuen

The Reformation and the Book Jean-François Gilmont, edited and translated by Karin Maag

‘Practical Divinity’: The Works and Life of Revd Richard Greenham Kenneth L. Parker and Eric J. Carlson

Frontiers of the Reformation: Dissidence and Orthodoxy in Sixteenth-Century Europe Auke Jelsma

The Jacobean Kirk, 1567–1625: Sovereignty, Polity and Liturgy Alan R. MacDonald The Education of a Christian Society: Humanism and the Reformation in Britain and the Netherlands Edited by N. Scott Amos, Andrew Pettegree and Henk van Nierop

Tudor Histories of the English Reformations, 1530–83 Thomas Betteridge

Poor Relief and Protestantism: The Evolution of Social Welfare in Sixteenth-Century Emden Timothy G. Fehler

Radical Reformation Studies: Essays presented to James M. Stayer Edited by Werner O. Packull and Geoffrey L. Dipple

Clerical Marriage and the English Reformation: Precedent Policy and Practice Helen L. Parish

The Faith and Fortunes of France’s Huguenots, 1600–85 Philip Benedict

Penitence in the Age of Reformations Edited by Katharine Jackson Lualdi and Anne T. Thayer

The Sixteenth-Century French Religious Book Edited by Andrew Pettegree, Paul Nelles and Philip Conner

The Bible in the Renaissance: Essays on Biblical Commentary and Translation in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries Edited by Richard Griffiths

Music as Propaganda in the German Reformation Rebecca Wagner Oettinger

Christianity and Community in the West: Essays for John Bossy Edited by Simon Ditchfield

John Foxe and his World Edited by Christopher Highley and John N. King

Obedient Heretics: Mennonite Identities in Lutheran Hamburg and Altona during the Confessional Age Michael D. Driedger Reformation, Politics and Polemics: The Growth of Protestantism in East Anglian Market Towns, 1500–1610 John Craig

Usury, Interest and the Reformation Eric Kerridge

Confessional Identity in East-Central Europe Edited by Maria Crăciun, Ovidiu Ghitta and Graeme Murdock

The Correspondence of Reginald Pole: 1. A Calendar, 1518–1546: Beginnings to Legate of Viterbo Thomas F. Mayer

The British Union: A Critical Edition and Translation of David Hume of Godscroft’s De Unione Insulae Britannicae Edited by Paul J. McGinnis and Arthur H. Williamson

Self-Defence and Religious Strife in Early Modern Europe: England and Germany, 1530–1680 Robert von Friedeburg

Penitence, Preaching and the Coming of the Reformation Anne T. Thayer

Huguenot Heartland: Montauban and Southern French Calvinism during the French Wars of Religion Philip Conner

Reforming the Scottish Church: John Winram (c. 1492–1582) and the Example of Fife Linda J. Dunbar

Baptism and Spiritual Kinship in Early Modern England Will Coster

Charity and Lay Piety in Reformation London, 1500–1620 Claire S. Schen

Cultures of Communication from Reformation to Enlightenment: Constructing Publics in the Early Modern German Lands James Van Horn Melton The Construction of Martyrdom in the English Catholic Community, 1535–1603 Anne Dillon

Sebastian Castellio, 1515-1563: Humanist and Defender of Religious Toleration in a Confessional Age Hans R. Guggisberg, translated and edited by Bruce Gordon

The Front-Runner of the Catholic Reformation: The Life and Works of Johann von Staupitz Franz Posset

The Correspondence of Reginald Pole: Volume 2. A Calendar, 1547–1554: A Power in Rome Thomas F. Mayer

William of Orange and the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1572–1584 K.W. Swart, translated by J.C. Grayson

The Italian Reformers and the Zurich Church, c.1540–1620 Mark Taplin

William Cecil and Episcopacy, 1559–1577 Brett Usher

A Dialogue on the Law of Kingship among the Scots A Critical Edition and Translation of George Buchanan’s De Jure Regni Apud Scotos Dialogus Roger A. Mason and Martin S. Smith

Music and Religious Identity in Counter-Reformation Augsburg, 1580–1630 Alexander J. Fisher

The Correspondence of Reginald Pole Volume 3. A Calendar, 1555–1558: Restoring the English Church Thomas F. Mayer

Women, Sex and Marriage in Early Modern Venice Daniela Hacke

Infant Baptism in Reformation Geneva The Shaping of a Community, 1536–1564 Karen E. Spierling Moderate Voices in the European Reformation Edited by Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie

Piety and Family in Early Modern Europe Essays in Honour of Steven Ozment Edited by Marc R. Forster and Benjamin J. Kaplan

Religious Identities in Henry VIII’s England Peter Marshall

John Jewel and the English National Church The Dilemmas of an Erastian Reformer Gary W. Jenkins

Catholic Activism in South-West France, 1540–1570 Kevin Gould

Local Politics in the French Wars of Religion The Towns of Champagne, the Duc de Guise, and the Catholic League, 1560–95 Mark W. Konnert

Enforcing Reformation in Ireland and Scotland, 1550–1700 Edited by Elizabethanne Boran and Crawford Gribben

Philip Melanchthon and the English Reformation John Schofield

Reforming the Art of Dying The ars moriendi in the German Reformation (1519–1528) Austra Reinis

Restoring Christ’s Church John a Lasco and the Forma ac ratio Michael S. Springer

Catholic Belief and Survival in Late Sixteenth-Century Vienna The Case of Georg Eder (1523–87) Elaine Fulton

From Judaism to Calvinism The Life and Writings of Immanuel Tremellius (c.1510–1580) Kenneth Austin The Cosmographia of Sebastian Münster Describing the World in the Reformation Matthew McLean

Defending Royal Supremacy and Discerning God’s Will in Tudor England Daniel Eppley

The Monarchical Republic of Early Modern England Essays in Response to Patrick Collinson Edited by John F. McDiarmid

Adaptations of Calvinism in Reformation Europe Essays in Honour of Brian G. Armstrong Edited by Mack P. Holt

Johann Sleidan and the Protestant Vision of History Alexandra Kess

The Correspondence of Reginald Pole Volume 4 A Biographical Companion: The British Isles Thomas F. Mayer and Courtney B. Walters

Life Writing in Reformation Europe Lives of Reformers by Friends, Disciples and Foes Irena Backus

The Chancery of God Protestant Print, Polemic and Propaganda against the Empire, Magdeburg 1546–1551 Nathan Rein

The Impact of the European Reformation Princes, Clergy and People Edited by Bridget Heal and Ole Peter Grell

Patents, Pictures and Patronage John Day and the Tudor Book Trade Elizabeth Evenden

The Reformation in Rhyme Sternhold, Hopkins and the English Metrical Psalter, 1547–1603 Beth Quitslund

Defining Community in Early Modern Europe Edited by Michael J. Halvorson and Karen E. Spierling Humanism and the Reform of Sacred Music in Early Modern England John Merbecke the Orator and The Booke of Common Praier Noted (1550) Hyun-Ah Kim

The Idol in the Age of Art Objects, Devotions and the Early Modern World Edited by Michael W. Cole and Rebecca Zorach

Literature and the Scottish Reformation Edited by Crawford Gribben and David George Mullan

Protestantism, Poetry and Protest The Vernacular Writings of Antoine de Chandieu (c. 1534–1591) S.K. Barker

Humanism and Protestantism in Early Modern English Education Ian Green

Living with Religious Diversity in Early-Modern Europe Edited by C. Scott Dixon, Dagmar Freist and Mark Greengrass

The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era The Bible and the Justifications for Slavery David M. Whitford

Dealings with God From Blasphemers in Early Modern Zurich to a Cultural History of Religiousness Francisca Loetz

Magistrates, Madonnas and Miracles The Counter Reformation in the Upper Palatinate Trevor Johnson

Narratives of the Religious Self in Early-Modern Scotland David George Mullan

Church Music and Protestantism in Post-Reformation England Discourses, Sites and Identities Jonathan Willis

Reforming the Scottish Parish The Reformation in Fife, 1560–1640 John McCallum Commonwealth and the English Reformation Protestantism and the Politics of Religious Change in the Gloucester Vale, 1483–1560 Ben Lowe

Heinrich Heshusius and the Polemics of Early Lutheran Orthodoxy Confessional Conflict and Jewish-Christian Relations in North Germany, 1556–1597 Michael J. Halvorson

Humanism and Calvinism Andrew Melville and the Universities of Scotland, 1560–1625 Steven J. Reid

The Senses and the English Reformation Matthew Milner

Early French Reform The Theology and Spirituality of Guillaume Farel Jason Zuidema and Theodore Van Raalte

Catholic and Protestant Translations of the Imitatio Christi, 1425–1650 Maximilian von Habsburg

Getting Along? Religious Identities and Confessional Relations in Early Modern England­ – Essays in Honour of Professor W.J. Sheils Edited by Nadine Lewycky and Adam Morton

From Priest’s Whore to Pastor’s Wife Clerical Marriage and the Process of Reform in the Early German Reformation Marjorie Elizabeth Plummer

George Buchanan Political Thought in Early Modern Britain and Europe Edited by Caroline Erskine and Roger A. Mason

Censorship and Civic Order in Reformation Germany, 1517–1648 ‘Printed Poison & Evil Talk’ Allyson F. Creasman

Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain Edited by Jessica Martin and Alec Ryrie A King Translated The Writings of King James VI & I and their Interpretation in the Low Countries, 1593–1603 Astrid Stilma

A Linking of Heaven and Earth Studies in Religious and Cultural History in Honor of Carlos M.N. Eire Edited by Emily Michelson, Scott K. Taylor and Mary Noll Venables

Worship and the Parish Church in Early Modern Britain Edited by Natalie Mears and Alec Ryrie

Baal’s Priests The Loyalist Clergy and the English Revolution Fiona McCall

The Early Reformation in Germany Between Secular Impact and Radical Vision Tom Scott

Practical Predestinarians in England, c. 1590-1640 Leif Dixon

The Search for Authority in Reformation Europe Edited by Helen Parish, Elaine Fulton and Peter Webster

Following Zwingli Applying the Past in Reformation Zurich Edited by Luca Baschera, Bruce Gordon and Christian Moser