The Journal of Seventeenth-Century Music

Volume 26 (2020) No. 1

Schütz in Pre-War Dresden:
Performers and Their Performance Traditions, 1615–1630

Keith Polk*

Abstract

Heinrich Schütz was shaped by the court environment of his early years as a musician in Kassel and subsequently by conditions at the court of the Elector of Saxony. As a composer, he was remarkably sensitive to the performance resources available to him. An examination of performance forces in Dresden shows that Schütz instituted a small select group of paid choirboys; that skilled specialists, supplemented by apprentices, were paramount for the instrumental ensemble; and that traveling foreign musicians (as well as Schütz’s own travel to Venice) enriched his offerings, even as war reduced his resources.

1. Introduction

2. German Courtly Music in the Early Seventeenth Century

3. The Königsberg Model

4. An Alternative Model: Kassel

5. Dresden, 1615

6. Dresden: Boys’ Voices

7. Dresden: Apprentice Instrumentalists

8. July–August 1617: Pirna/Dresden

9. The Rosters: Pirna/Dresden

10. October 1617: A Centenary Celebration of the Reformation

11. Before the Storm: Dresden, Performing Forces ca. 1630

12. The Symphoniae sacrae of 1629

13. Conclusion: Foreign Influences and the Resilience of German Instrumental Traditions

Acknowledgments

Tables

References

1. Introduction

1.1 Heinrich Schütz arrived in Dresden in 1615 with impressive credentials. He had received sound early training as both a choirboy and organist in Kassel, a court of modest size but exceptional cultural distinction. There he became firmly grounded in the distinctive German traditions of courtly music. He capped his apprentice years with a four-year period of study of both organ and composition (sponsored in large part by his Kassel patron) under Giovanni Gabrieli in Venice (1609–12). During his years there, Schütz would have become intimately familiar with performance practices in St Mark’s Basilica, where Gabrieli was organist. There he would have heard outstanding instrumentalists, especially the players of cornett and violin. As Schütz took up his duties in Dresden, his first fifteen years were marked by gradual change as he transformed the court stable from one deeply rooted in German practices to one that could assimilate more modern concepts emerging from Italy. Those early years form the subject of what follows. First, I will explore the nature of instrumental performance traditions of German courts in the early seventeenth century. Second, I will examine the musical forces Schütz had in 1615, and the alterations he was able to engender up to the point in the early 1630s when effects of the war years choked off support for music at the Dresden court.

2. German Courtly Music in the Early Seventeenth Century

2.1 By the turn of the seventeenth century centralized governments headed by monarchies had long been firmly established through most of Europe, most clearly in France and England. The German-speaking regions were different. There the centuries-old tradition of the election of the German emperor thwarted centralizing ambitions. Members of both the higher and lower nobility were fiercely protective of their independent status. Particularly successful in maintaining their autonomy were the four secular electors, one of whom was Schütz’s Dresden patron, Johann Georg I, Elector of Saxony (r. 1611–56), and, in fact, the German region was a bewildering collage of numerous more or less independent units. The dilution of power was exacerbated in that the principle of primogeniture was widely ignored, and a noble, on his death, could divide his patrimony at will—and this was not unusual.

2.2 We shall focus here on the central and northern German regions, where the complexities had particularly deep implications for cultural patronage. The support of music at the courts of France and England provided a kind of international standard to which European nobility aspired. German political units, however, were simply too small—and therefore without the resources—to match that international standard. The contrasts were stark. In 1603 Queen Elizabeth’s English court musicians totaled some one hundred and twelve.^[1] When Schütz arrived in Dresden in 1615, he had far fewer, less than forty. The organization of the musical forces in Dresden will be considered in detail below, but it is important to note that the small number of ensemble instrumentalists, comprising only nine adult performers (supplemented by two court organists who played basso continuo), raise thorny performance issues, for these nine musicians would have been expected to play in consorts of violins or viols, wind bands of cornetts, trombones, shawms, flutes, and recorders, and one or two would probably have been called on to play the lute—demands that were met at Elizabeth’s court by dedicated performers on these instruments and specialist ensembles.

2.3 German court musicians were required to develop singular strategies to meet what was expected of them, and in the regions considered here, most of the courts were Lutheran. For the nobles that ruled these courts, support of sacred services was a foundational priority. Larger courts, like Dresden, provided for vocal forces of about twelve adult singers, while smaller courts would strain to provide half that number.^[2] One or two organists were also part of the religious musical contingent, and, if funds permitted, support for sacred choral music could be provided by cornetts and trombones, in various configurations.^[3] Apparently almost as urgent was the perceived need of the nobility to convey an image of stature and martial strength, as reflected by the universal presence of bands of trumpets. At another level of priority, music was expected at ceremonies and for recreation. Banquets, for example, could call on music performed by lutenists, by stringed ensembles, by wind bands, or by small combinations of voices and instruments. Dancing, still a primary social recreation among the aristocracy, would require either a wind band of shawms, cornetts, and trombones, or, increasingly, an ensemble of violins. To meet all these demands, German court instrumentalists focused on two primary strategies.

3. The Königsberg Model

3.1 Königsberg was the primary residence of the court of the Duke of Prussia, a duchy created in 1525 with the secularization of the Prussian territory of the Teutonic Order, under the leadership of Albrecht, Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, who resigned that position and assumed the title of duke. Duke Albrecht (r. 1525–68) made Lutheranism the state religion of the duchy, the first region to become officially Protestant. A series of factors thus converged; religious belief was a key element, but with the decision to accept Lutheranism, the duchy faced daunting hostility, meaning the duke had to maintain a formidable military capability. The priorities being subsequently clear, by 1548 the court nevertheless supported a modest sacred choir of eight (including the chapel master, Johann Walther, as well as Adrian Petit Coclico, listed as a bass singer), an organist, nine trumpets, and two players of kettledrums. There was no mention in the court payrolls of lutenists or bowed-stringed instrumentalists, both desirable for banquets, or trombonists and cornettists who could contribute substantially to sacred services. On first sight it would appear that the duke was emphasizing his basic needs: a choir with organ for sacred services, and trumpets to serve with his military units, full stop. But, in fact, behind this façade was an extreme demand of a different kind: the trumpeters were expected, among themselves, to provide all the instrumental colors that might be desired, whether by acquiring skill on cornetts and trombones to perform with the choir, playing lutes, recorders, and bowed strings when chamber music was in order, or switching to shawms and trombones for events that called for dancing. As Ruhnke put it:

At the Königsberg court, the “Hoftrompeter” had to develop skill not only on the trumpet, but also on cornett, trombone, crumhorn, and stringed instruments, which in other courts were covered by specialists on cornett, trombone, or reed instruments.… In Königsberg … the backbone of the court musical life was provided by the court trumpeters. The head of the trumpet band was the most visible representative of the music of the court.^[4]

3.2 I have emphasized Königsberg here because it did provide a model in at least one prominent instance. The Danish court not only followed the Prussian lead but recruited some of the players directly from Königsberg. A case in point was Georg (Jørge) Heyde, who brought both his skills and his repertory from the Prussian court, as he was the compiler of the Copenhagen MS (DK-Kk Gl.Kgl.Sml. 1872-4^o), which includes pieces by Hans and Paul Kugelmann, both trumpeters and former colleagues from Königsberg. This demand for general competence of trumpeters was not unusual. In fact, at the court in Heidelberg there were two kinds of trumpeters, one group that specialized on the trumpet, the other, at a higher rate of pay, who were termed “trumpeter/instrumentalists.”^[5] The latter were obviously doublers, following the manner of the trumpeters in Königsberg. The distinction between two sorts of trumpeters also existed at the imperial court in Vienna, where in pay records members of one group were termed “musical trumpeters” and those of the other “non-musical trumpeters.”^[6] Clearly, through much of the German-speaking world, as Ruhnke observed, some trumpeters were expected to have an extensive range of abilities.

4. An Alternative Model: Kassel

4.1 A different approach is that seen at the court in Kassel where a payroll from late 1613 listed the musical forces there as shown in Table 1.^[7] The singers available numbered six, with one additional position unfilled at the time the roster was prepared. Ott, Ostermayer, and Cornet would also have been on hand to fill in if further singers were needed. Choirboys were not given in this listing, but a list from 1610 notes the presence of eight “Kapellknaben”; therefore, about eight were probably also available to the chapel in 1613.^[8]

4.2 Among the instrumentalists, the twelve trumpeters plus a player of kettledrum and his apprentice were a clearly separate grouping. In contrast to the situation in Königsberg, the trumpeters in Kassel did not double on other instruments, and in fact would only rarely have performed with the other musicians. The lesser musical demands made on them is made clear in their salaries, which are much lower than those of the other instrumentalists, even those of the young instrumental apprentices. The distinctions between categories (“Sonata,” clarino, and ordinary [gemeinen] trumpeters) merit notice, but are not relevant to our discussion.

4.3 For the two organists, working with the choral singers of the court formed a major part of their regular duties. Two organists were needed for the instances when singers were divided into two choirs (obviously a common arrangement in the early seventeenth century), and each choir needed its own bass reinforcement.^[9] The French lutenist Victor de Montbuysson was a solo performer and lute teacher to both Princess Elisabeth of Hessen and the singer Georg Schimmelpfennig, and all three of them contributed to the copying of Elisabeth’s important lute book, compiled between 1605 and 1611 (D-Kub Ms. Mus. 108.1).^[10] It is worth noting that there were no Italians among the instrumentalists at this time. We must also bear in mind that while their most basic function was to support choral singers, the organists (and at times the lutenist) also provided that support to the instrumentalists, both when the players performed alone and when they worked in combination with singers.

4.4 Landgrave Moritz of Hesse-Kassel (r. 1592–1627) clearly wished to have especially skilled players on cornett, trombone, and “viol,” and thus provided the principal of each of those a higher salary than their supporting colleagues. And the three named instruments undoubtedly formed the core of the court’s instrumental groupings. Still, the language describing the six “instrumentalists” is deceptively specific. To begin, “violists” undoubtedly doubled on both violin and viol, and by 1613 the balance had firmly shifted to the violin; that is, most often “violists” were probably violinists. Then, the reality was that the players probably only rarely performed in the configuration suggested by the roster, i.e. as two each of cornetts, trombones, and viols.  Much more often other groupings would have been in order. Banquets for instance, could have demanded an ensemble of four or five bowed stringed instruments. Court dancing could have called for an ensemble of wind instruments, consisting possibly of a cornetto, two shawms, trombone, and dulcian. Performing with the choir might often have called for a grouping of one or two cornets and three trombones.

4.5 The six instrumentalists may have emphasized the cornett, trombone, and bowed strings, but, as was typically demanded of German court musicians (and note that all six were evidently German), they were expected to have command of a variety of instruments, several of which were not mentioned in the roster—shawm, flute, recorder, and dulcian, to name four of the more important. Significant assistance was also available from the two apprentices (the Instrumentenjungen), as these two were almost certainly older boys who had been in training for several years. They each already would have had command of several instruments, given that their salaries, at 30 fl., were well above those of even the primary trumpet players. In some German courts this apprentice category developed into a more or less permanent approach to meeting pressing demands at minimal cost. This was especially the case in Dresden, as we shall see shortly. In any case, conforming to the demands they faced required these instrumentalists to pick up instruments beyond those specified in the roster. The cornettists probably doubled on shawm, trombone, and flute, while doubling on string bass or dulcian might have fallen to the trombonists. However managed, we can be sure that these eight musicians could have provided a range of combinations far beyond that suggested by the three-part layout of the Kassel payroll. At the Kassel court, all the musical demands for doubling were met not by trumpeters but by those in the general instrumental staff. Trumpeters there formed a completely separate group.

4.6 In summary, Kassel musicians were organized into four groups. Three of these, the singers, the trumpets, and the ensemble instrumentalists, are distinctly set apart from one another; the fourth group, the organist and, if needed, the lutenist, formed the foundation for performances by both singers and instrumentalists, supplying the basso continuo, which could accompany singers alone, instrumentalists alone, or combinations of singers and instrumentalists.

5. Dresden, 1615

5.1 Gina Spagnoli has suggested that at “Schütz’s arrival in Dresden, the Hofkapelle had 27 members: four altos, four tenors, three basses, five discantists and eleven instrumentalists.”^[11] In fact, her numbers did not explicitly reflect 1615 but were derived ultimately from a roster from 1612, published by Moritz Fürstenau almost two centuries ago. More recently, Wolfram Steude noted that the roster was not a payroll listing as such but was a proposal for the possible structure of the musical forces in Dresden as Johann Georg I came into authority there.^[12] The outlines of the Dresden chapel as described by Matthias Hoë von Hoënegg at the Lutheran Centenary in 1617 (to be discussed further below) closely followed the numbers and distribution of the 1612 proposal. It would thus appear that that proposal was adopted, at least in terms of general structure. The issue of the 1612 roster highlights a fundamental handicap for any discussion of music in Dresden, namely the distressing scarcity of archival documentation. All records of regular salary payments for court performers have vanished. In fact, for the period considered here, not a single document recording salary payments to the Dresden chapel has yet appeared. Much of what follows in this study will depend on reading between the lines in those few documents that do survive;^[13] in short, some conclusions offered here will not rest on the firmest of documentary foundations.

5.2 In any case, Spagnoli’s listing is useful, but some commentary is in order. The Dresden court also supported a trumpet ensemble, a “brotherly band” (Kameradschaft) that was distinctly set apart from the other musicians and at this time usually numbered about twelve, raising the court total to almost forty. Dresden trumpeters were not doublers, and thus followed the same patronage pattern that Schütz was familiar with from Kassel, not that of Königsberg.^[14]

5.3 Moreover, her use of the term “discantists”—a designation that did not appear in Fürstenau’s listing of musicians—is unfortunate, as it obscured an essential feature of the musical staffing at the Dresden court, a feature that remained in place until at least the early 1630s. Spagnoli’s “discantists” apparently conflated two different entries in the 1612 listing: three young singers who were termed choirboys (Kapellknaben), all included in one payment of “140 fl.,” and two more termed simply boys (Knaben). The latter two were almost certainly apprentice instrumentalists, as they were assigned to the care of Thomas Tax, a court instrumentalist, and, more significantly, they were paid at a distinctly higher rate, “150 fl.” for the two together. The two categories represent different phenomena, as the Dresden court developed two distinct tracks for employment and development of young talent, one of singers, the other of instrumentalists, each meriting commentary.

6. Dresden: Boys’ Voices

6.1 German courts continued the centuries-old practice of excluding women from performing in sacred choirs and using boy singers for singing the soprano parts. To deal with the inevitable and constant personnel replacements required once the boys’ voices broke, larger German court chapels established small choir schools (comprising usually between eight and twelve boys) to provide musical training. Their primary goal was to prepare boys to perform the discant parts in choirs along with the adult singers covering the other parts. This had to be done rather quickly, as the training would start at about eight years old, and to be efficient, the boys had to be prepared by twelve or thirteen, as their voices could change between about fifteen and seventeen. The training also had to be thorough, as the standard performance format in Dresden, as elsewhere in Lutheran Germany at this time, was for a single voice on a part. A boy singing alone on the soprano part at, say, age fourteen, would be singing along with adult males on alto, tenor, and bass, who had had many years of experience. The pattern represented a kind of unending loop. For the first few years the boys would be in training and would not yet be ready for challenging solo roles. As they grew older, the more talented older youngsters would indeed be ready for more exacting situations—but only for a limited time span as their voices would soon change.

6.2 By the time Schütz arrived in Dresden, the court had developed what appears to have been a distinctive approach for dealing with young singers. As early as 1590, it was customary for a group of eight Kapellknaben (a standard term for choirboys at the time), along with their mentor (termed a “preceptor”), to be part of the musical forces. This group of Kapellknaben was also included in the roster of 1606; that year they numbered nine.^[15] These relatively large groups evidently included both younger and older boys. In the 1612 roster, however, there were only three, and these were to be allotted the modest salary of 47 florins each, which was around one-third the salary of most of the adult singers. The salaries—themselves being highly unusual for choirboys to receive—and the markedly smaller numbers suggest that this was perhaps an exclusive group ready to meet all court demands for discant performers, and that younger, inexperienced boys were not part of this structure. As we shall see, from the time Schütz took over leadership of the chapel, subsequent documentation indicates that such a move to a smaller, more exclusive group of boy performers was the strategy that he adopted in Dresden.

6.3 The significance of the distinctive structure of the Dresden choirboys has perhaps been obscured both by the variability of their numbers and the diverse terminology applied to them, as can be seen in the summary of references to choirboys in Dresden, organized chronologically, shown in Table 2.

6.4 With regard to terminology, these extracts suggest that Kapellknaben could apply to the select group of choirboys in the Dresden chapel—but it was also a general term that could include choirboys at all levels. Sängerknaben evidently had roughly the same meaning as Kapellknaben. The term discantist would appear to indicate more advanced and accomplished boys, though it too could have had a more general meaning. One way to reconcile all of this is to understand that while all discantists were Kapellknaben, not all Kapellknaben were discantists. The term Tafelknaben was less common, and was unusual in that it could evidently include both choirboys and instrumental apprentices; the term did imply a solid level of ability, as these boys, singers or instrumentalists, could be called upon at banquets that might include high-profile guests.

6.5 The items in the table also reveal that from his arrival in Dresden until the tragic effects of war in the mid-1630s, Schütz was, I would argue, directly and personally involved with assuring that an adequate number of reliable, highly competent choirboys be available. Documentation is scanty, but enough is available so that by connecting the extant sources, we can construct at least a rough idea of Schütz’s stratagems to ensure a reliable and competent cadre of choirboys.

6.6 As will be shown below, a description of the Dresden elector’s adult singers and instrumentalists present at the Lutheran centennial in 1617 suggests that the proposals of the 1612 roster were already in place. If that is that case, as Schütz took over leadership of the chapel in 1615, it was likely that he had only three Kapellknaben available, meaning that the large body of choirboys and the master of choirboys included in the rosters of 1590 and 1606 (see par. 6.2) had been eliminated, as they were not part of the proposal of 1612, and are absent in all subsequent documents relating to boy singers throughout the period considered here. If that were the case, Schütz would have faced the reality of the inexorable voice changes soon to arrive among the three Kapellknaben he had available, for obviously without the larger group of choirboys, which would have included younger boys who were being prepared to step in when needed, he had no ready supply of replacements. One possible scenario was that Schütz found the uncertainty of that situation fraught and he quickly took steps to remedy what he would have seen as a critical weakness in the Dresden chapel. That he did so is hinted at in that Hoë von Hoënegg’s description of the Dresden chapel indicated that by 1617 Schütz apparently had five discantists available, a move that would have provided the chapel with a greater margin of safety in replacements for maturing voices.

6.7 The approach becomes more explicit in 1625. The Verzeichnis of available boys that Schütz prepared in that year is telling documentation of both the exceptional approach to discantists in Dresden and Schütz’s quite active involvement in the issue. In that document, Schütz specified that six choirboys, here termed discantists, were available, with one boy in reserve. That this was a group of older lads, certainly of advanced abilities, is clear from the additional proposal that two younger boys (of ten years of age) be included as part of the structure of the unit, again to be a reserve against the immutable reality of voice change. It may be pointed out that the total numbers would then be roughly the same as those of the rosters of choirboys in 1590 and 1606, but with several distinctive changes. The older boys, the discantists, are all listed by name, and are provided with a small salary. Moreover, they are each assigned not to a master of the children but to one of the adult singers, just as the instrumental apprentices are each assigned to an adult instrumentalist. Each of those items in itself may appear relatively unimportant, but I argue that the accumulation of detail in Schütz’s 1625 Verzeichnis reveals that the Dresden court in 1612 had started down a path that led by 1625 to an extraordinary approach to the place of choirboys within a courtly chapel.

6.8 In any case, I would emphasize that designating a small select unit set apart from any larger group of choirboys was distinctive to Dresden, especially in that this unit was made an integral part of the structure of the court’s professional musical staff. This pattern was apparently highly unusual and was not implemented at such prominent courts as that of England or the imperial court in Vienna. At those courts, the chapel master of course had capable choirboys available. That is, at both courts about a dozen boys of varying ages were on their rosters of choirboys. When performance situations demanded, the chapel master would select the most capable of the boys for that occasion. But at those courts there was no designated advanced group within the general category of choirboys. Moreover, while funds might be set aside at these courts for upkeep (room and board), choirboys were not given any compensation for their services. What distinguished the procedure at the Dresden court was both designation of the more capable boys as a separate unit and, as stated above, that they became part of the salaried musical staff.

7. Dresden: Apprentice Instrumentalists

7.1 The second advanced track comprised the instrumental apprentices. Apparently all the Kapellknaben were given the opportunity to take instruction on instruments. And, similarly to the advancement of the more capable boy singers to the status of discantists, boys who showed particular aptitude for instruments might be elevated to the status of Instrumentenknaben, which was a small group of advanced and salaried instrumental apprentices, some of whom, such as Caspar Kittel and Johann Vierdank, went on to distinguished careers. The distinction between the discantists and the instrumental apprentices appears to be made clear in the 1612 roster by the significant difference in salary between them (see par. 5.3). A separate category of instrumental apprentices was not unusual in German courts, where they might be termed Instrumentenknaben or, as in Kassel, Instrumentenjungen. The essential point is that at the Dresden court, a small contingent of older boy singers (until their voices changed) as well as a group of instrumental apprentices became a part of the permanent structure of the musical staff.

7.2 The presence of instrumental apprentices as a regular component of Dresden court life raises the possibility that this was a feature of German court culture in general. The German nobility tended to center their activities within a limited geographical range, living for long periods of time in the same place. This was in contrast to the higher nobility of an earlier era, with Maximilian I of Habsburg and Philip the Good of Burgundy providing striking examples of courts that were peripatetic. Moving the court from place to place came at a heavy price, and while court performers could be included in the traveling entourage, potential apprentices, in general, were not—meaning that if one were an apprentice to a court musician, there would be long periods of time without instruction, hardly a successful pedagogical model. Apprentices are not a feature in the payrolls of Burgundian accounts or those of Maximilian or his son Philip the Fair, who, for example, was on the road for more than two years between late 1501 and early 1504. In contrast, the highly stable courts of the German higher nobility in the early seventeenth century offered an almost ideal environment for the training of young musicians. Dresden, for example, had an assembly of very fine adult performers on a variety of instruments who could provide young apprentices with regular, closely supervised instruction. This was specialized training, with little distraction, meaning the apprentices could practice for hours on end, and skills would develop quickly. These youngsters had an additional advantage in that they could be selected from the more gifted choirboys, meaning that they had already acquired a background of solid general musical skills. Heinrich Schütz, as an organist as well as a composer, was himself a product of this environment, and from the time he arrived in Dresden took special care with the nurturing of young talent, with impressive results. He also placed great confidence in the ability of his fledgling charges, for when performers were assembled on important occasions, such as the electoral assembly in Mühlhausen in 1627 or the assembly of German princes in Leipzig in 1631, Schütz apparently went to some lengths to be sure that his musical forces would include a select group of his apprentices.^[16]

7.3 Instrumental specialties were not indicated in the 1612 Dresden roster (other than two organists), but in line with what we have seen in Kassel, some of the players were likely specialists on cornetts, others on trombones and bowed strings, and almost certainly at least one lutenist was available. As we shall see presently, Schütz made extensive demands on his instrumentalists. Also, as in Kassel, all Dresden ensemble instrumentalists had to command a range of instruments.

8. July–August 1617: Pirna/Dresden

8.1 Two events occurred soon after Schütz’s arrival in Dresden that can provide some insight into how Schütz marshalled the musical resources of the court. The first was a visit made by Matthias, the Holy Roman Emperor, in July and August of 1617.^[17] As Matthias entered Dresden territory, his first stop was to be in the town of Pirna, probably for only an overnight stay. The imperial party would then travel on to Dresden, a short distance farther (about twenty-five miles, a relatively easy one-day journey). The musical contributions during the visit were of particular concern to the electoral court, and the Marshall of the Court, Christoph von Loss, prepared an elaborate two-part memorandum to Schütz concerning preparations. The first comprised a set of eight numbered instructions (plus a further unnumbered comment); the second specified, first, the performers who were to travel from Dresden to perform in Pirna, then in a second list, those who were to provide a special welcoming balcony at the arrival of the emperor.^[18]

8.2 Loss played a prominent role in bringing Schütz to Dresden and in the complicated negotiations leading to his release from Kassel service, but in reading through his memorandum, it appears that he didn’t yet have complete confidence in the young man now in charge of the court musicians. For example, the first of his instructions to Schütz (and note this is specifically directed to him) stated that “all instruments to be used during this time [shall be] in good repair and well tuned.” At one level this is a sensible pair of demands. Obviously, musicians cannot perform effectively on poorly maintained equipment, and nothing can mar a performance more than poor intonation. Yet Loss’s airy statement that the instruments should be “well tuned” was certainly gratuitous, as even the young apprentices would have known the importance of careful tuning. In fact, these instructions would seem more suitable if addressed to a new and inexperienced member of the chapel. They hardly seem fitting for someone who had been at the head of the music at court for two years and had already established himself as the leading German composer of his generation. One perspective on this item, and the memorandum in general, is that it vividly illustrates the reality that complying with instructions from those higher in the hierarchy was essential to success for one working within the system of court patronage—and Schütz consistently demonstrated skill in navigating the demands of that environment.

8.3 The second directive was that Schütz was to “convey to all … instrumental and vocal musicians [to] diligently attend at their duties … and be available at all times….”  Perhaps Loss may be excused for wanting Schütz to stress to the musicians the importance placed by the elector on the visit from the emperor. Still, this sort of directive is ineffective if the discipline in a group is slack, and unnecessary if the unit is well run. We have every indication that the chapel under Schütz was firmly in the latter category. We can be sure that Schütz would have selected musicians who would have been the most reliable for the demands of these particular performances. This instruction by Loss is likely to have had little influence on how Schütz proceeded in this regard.

8.4 The third was that “[for the banquet performances, Schütz] should be mindful of an appropriate, well-chosen selection of music; in addition to this to employ not too many of His Electoral Grace’s musicians, nonetheless the best and those who are secure of and have full command of their material; not to perform a great deal of grand material but rather pleasant music in different styles….” This one would have been doubly barbed. To begin with, the number of musicians available to Schütz included the regular salaried staff (likely around twenty-seven in Dresden, fewer, of course, in Pirna), plus, probably about eight supplemental musicians (as indicated by the names given later in the memorandum)—a total that had been approved by Loss (as the Marshall of the Court) as well as, ultimately, by the elector. That is, Schütz may well have requested extra musicians in addition to those he had available at court, but the decision on that request would have been made by his superiors in the court administrative structure. This indicates that Loss knew exactly how many musicians were available, but he wasn’t quite confident that Schütz could make appropriate use of them. This actually may also have been related to his further admonition that Schütz should not select too much “grand material.” Perhaps in limiting the number of performers, Loss was attempting to curb Schütz’s enthusiasm for the sumptuous textures he had absorbed during his years in Venice. To be fair, Loss’s reservation was apparently linked to the context of Tafelmusik; he may have been more accepting of the Venetian style in music associated with sacred services, as suggested in his final instructions discussed below. In any case, there is every indication that Schütz dealt with such concerns effectively, but the tone of this directive from Loss could hardly have been accepted without some resentment.

8.5 The next three instructions state that:

4. “… since in all likelihood a princely table shall be kept in addition to the imperial one, [Schütz] shall form a separate body from the remaining musicians … and … from the youths proficient in music.… [They] shall abstain from all excessive drinking and running back and forth.”

5. “Should it happen that the Royal Majesty or Archduke Maximilian … would eat separately in his chamber and … desire music, a suitable musical ensemble of a few persons shall be assigned to one or the other chamber.…”

6. “Would the Imperial Majesty however eat alone, and our Most Gracious Lord keep table with the Royal Majesty, Archduke Maximilian and other lords, the entire Musica serves in that case before His Electoral Grace. A number of them would be required then for the Imperial Majesty: and they … must be the best.”

Schütz’s musicians had to be prepared almost certainly for two separate dining locations that would require music, and also for the unlikely, but still possible, responsibility for providing music for three locations. The financial constraints in Dresden resulted in a musical staffing that was designed to meet the normal ceremonial demands of the court. Schütz would have had an adequate number of performers, then, to provide for the elector’s Tafelmusik, i.e., for music in one dining hall. But if the demand was for music in two dining halls during the imperial visit, the scoring in the Psalmen Davids of 1619, which calls for multiple instrumental choirs and vocal groupings, may give an idea of the staffing configurations that Schütz would have desired. Given the full availability of his resident staff (with nine ensemble instrumentalists, two organists, and two apprentices, plus the likely availability of a few others who were brought in for the balcony fanfares—more on this directly), with a few adjustments Tafelmusik in two halls could have been arranged for with relative ease. Given that four instrumentalists were likely desired in each location, though, three locations would have called for careful planning. One possible hitch would have been availability of instruments. A large variety of instruments were listed in a Dresden court inventory of 1593 (the only one available), but quite a few of these were listed as “old” (ten of thirteen trombones, for example), suggesting that the number of playable trombones might have been limited.^[19] Schütz would then have had to take this into account, and some quick moving of some instruments from one site to another may have been necessary. Still, it seems highly likely that on this occasion, the forces in Dresden were adequate to meet even the more exacting demands and probably without the “dashing about” that might have aroused Loss’s ire.

8.6 With the seventh item we do see a completely sensible instruction: “[Schütz] shall also enquire … of the Lord Marshall of the Court each time as to how one shall deal with the dining … so that [Schütz] can attend accordingly to the … arrangement of various music.” Communication between Loss and Schütz would indeed have been critical to the success of this particular venture.

8.7 The eighth on the other hand contains another indication of a bit of unease from Loss with his chapel master and the capabilities of the musicians: “And … as a dance might be held in the great hall, [Schütz] should … enjoin all the instrumentalists to serve diligently and to play suitable dances.” One of the basic demands on court musicians was providing music for dancing, and they had to be quite familiar with the dance repertory. To be successful in this role, they would need to know which repertory would be appropriate. Loss’s concern for “suitable dances” was perhaps understandable but likely unnecessary.

8.8 The last item in this section of the memorandum states: “Finally, [Schütz] shall … ensure there is no want of good concerto and fine music in the church on the customary sermon days.… He shall employ something occasionally for voices or instruments alone with organ … so that His Electoral Grace might derive honor and glory from his Music amongst the visitors.” We do sense here that perhaps the working relationship between Loss and Schütz was more positive than much of the memorandum seems to suggest. By asking for “no want of good concerto and fine music,” Loss seems to be offering Schütz fairly wide latitude in his choice of repertory. Here “grand material” seems to be allowed without any balance of “pleasant music.” The instruction concerning the addition of something for “voices or instruments alone with organ” is intriguing, both in the reminder that music for “voices … alone” nonetheless meant not singing a cappella as a modern reader might expect (i.e., completely alone) but with the support of the basso continuo, and in the specification of music for instruments—interesting because while Schütz wrote brilliantly for instruments, so far as we know, he produced no music at all for instruments alone.

9. The Rosters: Pirna/Dresden

9.1 The second segment of Loss’s directive gave a roster of the performance personnel who were to be available. The musicians were listed in two groups, with ten in each group. The first were those musicians to be employed “in Pirna as well as on the way down to Dresden.” The second consisted of “persons … positioned in the balcony above the outermost castle gate for the approach of the Imperial Majesty.” See Table 3.

9.2 Loss did not specify what the functions of the first group would be. However, as noted above, Pirna is located only about twenty-five miles from Dresden, so the imperial party would probably have stayed there for only one night—assuming they stayed there at all. This suggests that the primary assignment for the Pirna group was to provide Tafelmusik. (Matthias was Catholic, as were members of his party, so we can assume that there would have been no participation by Dresden musicians on the unlikely chance there would have been a sacred service in Pirna that might have called for more elaborate music.)

9.3 Ten musicians are listed. If Tafelmusik was needed in one dining area, only one group would be required and these ten could manage without difficulty. If two groups were needed (either for two dining halls, or, in one dining hall, if a piece should be desired that called for two choirs), that might be managed, though not so easily—but this possibility does offer an explanation for what might appear to be a rather odd assortment of musicians. If the call was for two sets of performers, one omission from the roster might have come into play. That is, though not included, it seems quite likely that Schütz would also have been present. If so, there would have been two complementary sets of continuo players, Schütz and Colander playing either regals or harpsichords, each with one of the theorbists. One of the two discantists could be assigned to each group. Similarly, one of the two singers, a tenor and a bass, could be assigned to each group, with the two wind players, as doublers, picking up whichever instrument would be needed to fill out the ensemble. The lutenist could be placed where he might be most needed.

9.4 The function of the second group was very clear: they were to provide appropriate festive fanfares at the arrival of the imperial party. The first eight players on the list clearly fit well into the scheme outlined by Loss; five of them were on the 1612 roster, and two of them, while not on that year’s list, had been associated with the court earlier. Only Hans Werner in this group had no previous link with Dresden. The last two, “Thomas Simson” and “Nicolaus,” however, don’t appear to fit into the intent outlined by Loss and clearly were ringers, brought in from the court of Schaumburg-Holstein. Simson was Thomas Simpson (1582–ca.1628), English and a highly regarded player of violin and viol as well as a composer. Nicolaus was almost certainly Nicolas Bleyer (1591–1658), who had been a student of William Brade, and was also both an outstanding violinist and a composer. Both were apparently exclusively players of stringed instruments—which would of course have been almost worthless for performing fanfares with wind instruments on a balcony. What appears to have happened is that Schütz may have gamed the system set up by Loss. Schütz needed as much flexibility as he could muster to provide adequate variety within his limited roster for the potential slate of banquet and church performances, and he obviously wished to have the services of two absolutely first-class violinists. He then perhaps made the calculation that his eight experienced wind players would provide an adequate level of ceremonial noise for the arrival of Matthias. He may have also reckoned on a body of performers not mentioned by Loss: the Dresden trumpet band. It is unthinkable that this group would not have been present as the emperor arrived in Dresden; providing ceremonial fanfares, after all, was for them a primary raison d’être. That group, however, was not under the authority of the Marshall of the Court. Trumpeters, in German court organizational schemes, were often under the control of the Stallmeister (the Master of the Stables—the écurie in French, familiar to some readers perhaps from ordinances of the French royal court). Trumpeters were not his to command; thus, there was no reason for Loss to mention them. In any case, with the added blare from the trumpet band, Schütz’s sleight of hand would not have been noticed as his eight wind players would have been perfectly sufficient.

9.5 During the emperor’s stay in Dresden, the court musicians had two primary missions—providing Tafelmusik and music for sacred services, especially on “sermon days”—and one secondary duty of providing music for dancing. No roster of the personnel available beyond the two groups mentioned above has survived, but we can assume it would have included the permanent staff similar in numbers to that of the centenary celebration later in the year, i.e. one of about twenty-seven with a rough division of eleven adult singers (four altos, four tenors, three basses), and at least three discantists (the select and more mature boys), along with about ten adult instrumentalists and two apprentices. The instrumental contingent may have been supplemented by at least five more (Colander as a keyboard player, two theorboists, and Simpson and Bleyer on violins). We cannot be sure exactly how Schütz marshalled his forces, but with this assembly of talent he certainly had adequate resources to meet the demands that he faced.

10. October 1617: A Centenary Celebration of the Reformation

10.1 In late October of 1617, Elector Johann Georg sponsored in Dresden an elaborate three-day celebration of the centenary of the Lutheran Reformation—from a modern perspective a bitter-sweet moment as this event marked a high tide of the Protestant movement in Germany before the disasters soon to be unleashed by the intolerance of the future Habsburg emperor Ferdinand II. The Dresden event was described in detail by the theologian Matthias Hoë von Hoënegg, who as Senior Court Chaplain (and Schütz’s immediate superior) was well-informed concerning the court musical resources. In describing the music following a sermon on the second day, Hoë von Hoënegg gave a particularly detailed listing of the elector’s performers:

11 instrumentalists, 11 singers, three organists, four lutenists, 1 Theorbo player, 3 organ apprentices, 5 discantists [choirboys], with a variety of assorted instruments [including] two large organs, 2 regals, 3 harpsichords, with 18 trumpets and 2 kettledrums … under the direction of Heinrich Schütz of Weissenfels.^[20]

10.2 The specificity of the numbers is striking, and in certain details appears remarkably close to the roster of 1612. That roster did indeed include exactly eleven adult singers and eleven instrumentalists. While no source is available to indicate the makeup of the Dresden chapel on Schütz’s arrival two years previous to the centenary, the identical numbers of adult singers and players in 1617 with the proposed roster of 1612 provide firm support of the notion that the staffing proposed was indeed adopted, and formed Schütz’s core units in 1615 and in the years following. Still, the chapel as described in 1617 for the celebration of the centennial did not agree in all details with the 1612 roster, certainly largely because it was a remarkable event for which supplemental forces would have been appropriate. We must also bear in mind that Hoë von Hoënegg provided here a prose description of a landmark event. This was not a document to be submitted to the court paymaster. Moreover, Hoë von Hoënegg unfortunately gave no description of how the added performers might have been used. We have no clear indication of the performance contexts that might have called for six organists or four lutes, for example, but there were ample occasions, both sacred and secular, over the days of the centenary celebrations that would have called for the contributions of musicians, both those in residence and those imported for the event.

10.3 The comments by Hoë von Hoënegg provide a further benefit in that three pieces he mentioned as being performed were quite likely by Schütz (SWV 41, 43, and 45) and possibly two others (SWV 35 and 47) as well.^[21] These were all included in his Psalmen Davids of 1619, in the final section of that volume that includes ten concerted pieces that specify individual instruments in addition to the vocal forces. This final group in the Psalmen is invaluable in providing a perspective on how Schütz might have exploited the resources available to him. These are sacred pieces, though only four are actually psalm settings (of the other six, three are labeled “Concert,” two “Motetto,” and one “Canzon”). Schütz had precise views on how the singers should be allotted in the performance of pieces in this volume. He divided his vocalists into two groups. The first, which he distinguished as the cori favoriti was central and called for the best singers available, performing, as was standard in Dresden at the time, one on a part. (Schütz, in his preface to the 1619 volume, used the plural for this group, but often, as in Ich hebe meine Augen auf, SWV 31, there was only one such choir.) The other group was the Capellen (“introduced for full sound and for splendor”).^[22] This group represented a reinforcement by another set of less select singers also singing one to a part (and in some cases the scoring of the Capellen called for supplemental  instruments). With this vocal scoring, at full force, the “full sound” would have been impressive, though nonetheless modest by modern choral standards.

10.4 Especially intriguing was Schütz’s approach to instrumental scoring. Cornetts and trombones, providing contrasting yet remarkably congenial colors, formed a kind of core instrumental unit. The violin was occasionally specified (as in Nun lob, mein Seel, den Herren, SWV 41), though in 1619 the use of the violin is still modest. This was soon to change. What is of particular interest are the pieces where specific timbres are drawn upon to striking effect. Ist nicht Ephraim (SWV 40) opens with a trio of trombones (below a tenor soloist) with a sequence of quiet but intense dissonances over shifting major and minor sonorities, with memorably somber effect. At the other end of the emotional gamut, raucous trumpets with drone-like ritornellos lead to a rousing conclusion in Danket dem Herren (SWV 45).  In this, his first German publication, Schütz established himself as a master of the use of instrumental colors.

10.5 At a more pragmatic level, we might also note that if performed with full instrumentation,  the various pieces in the collection could call for some four cornetts (two quite high, calling for especially skilled players), six trombones, four violins, a consort of five viols, two dulcians, two flutes, multiple lutes (Schütz, in Jauchzet dem Herren, alle Welt, SWV 47, called for liuti, probably two) with, in addition, a basso continuo group of two organs. Still, we should not be distracted by the striking variety of instruments called for in the 1619 print, for at another level Schütz had made what was certainly a careful calculation. If we look not at the number of instruments, but at the number of players called for in any single piece, a different picture emerges. While one piece, Nun lob mein Seel, den Herren, SWV 41, calls for ten instrumentalists, the vast majority of the pieces with instruments specified call for eight players or fewer. This is an important qualification, for while the Dresden court did in fact have ten players on the roster, most German Lutheran courts would not have had so many players available. Kassel, with a more modest chapel (as shown above, with eight instrumentalists: six adults and two apprentices) could still manage to meet the demands of almost all the pieces in the 1619 print. Schütz’s calculation in this regard was sensible in that he would have hoped for a wide distribution of the Psalmen Davids throughout Lutheran Germany. In any case, for successful performance of the pieces in the 1619 print, Schütz was ultimately dependent on the remarkable versatility not only of his Dresden players but also of those in north Germany in general.^[23]

11. Before the Storm: Dresden, Performing Forces ca. 1630

11.1 Until the early 1630s Elector Johann Georg had employed varied stratagems to avoid being fully engaged in the war that had such devastating effects throughout the German lands, but his good fortune began to run out after 1631. Up to that point, to many appearances, the court seemed, if not to prosper, at least to run reasonably smoothly. But the appearance was deceptive and, compounded by a simple error in a critical source, has led to a misreading of the status of Dresden court patronage in the late 1620s and early 1630s. Support of music at the court did not show a significant increase in this period, as has been suggested.^[24] That view was based on a roster furnished by Fürstenau in his generally invaluable study from almost two centuries ago. Fürstenau stated that the staff in 1632 totaled thirty-nine, which is problematic on two counts. First, the document that evidently served as the source for his information was, as explained by Joshua Rifkin, from 1634 not 1632.^[25] Second, Fürstenau listed the musicians in the chapel by name and these comprised fifteen instrumentalists, thirteen singers (six adult singers and seven Kapellknaben), and Schütz as chapel master, which add up to twenty-nine.^[26] The “thirty-nine” seems an obvious typographical error, and while twenty-nine reflected a small increase in the number of ten years earlier, this does not represent a significant expansion. What seems more significant is the change in relative numbers between singers and instrumentalists. In 1612 eleven adult singers were available; in 1634 that number was reduced to six, as opposed to the fifteen instrumentalists suggested by Fürstenau. When we consider that in 1606, sixteen adult singers were on staff in Dresden, the reduction of adult singers appears even more stark.

11.2 But here again, commentary is in order. While the Dresden court avoided direct involvement in the early stages of the war, the economy of the entire region, including Dresden, was shattered by the incessant conflict. By the mid-1620s the elector evidently began a strategy of withholding the salaries of court musicians, this undoubtedly due to drastically reduced court income. Evidently the elector kept the musicians on the court rosters, but he simply stopped paying them for long periods. In June of 1625, the musicians had not been paid for almost two years, a particularly cruel situation for them, as conditions throughout the region were grim and they had little alternative but to wait in the faint hope that their situation in Dresden might improve.^[27]  Still, there were erratic attempts to maintain the vigor of the chapel. The Italian violinist Carlo Farina was in Dresden from 1625 to 1628, and he was succeeded by Francesco Castelli, who served until his death in late 1630 or early 1631, but was evidently not replaced as no Italians appear in the 1634 roster as given by Fürstenau. In short, the economic climate was such that expansion of the musical forces would seem unlikely.

11.3 Then, if we look more closely at the actual listing of musicians in 1634, we see that Fürstenau omitted significant information. He did not include three singers and four instrumentalists who were given as deceased in the original source. Even more critical, he neglected to indicate that the source stated that six of the instrumentalists were “absent” from Dresden. Finally, the “seven Kapellknaben” given by Fürstenau were actually a mixed group. The exact makeup is a bit uncertain, but it was likely four instrumental apprentices and three boy singers. It would appear, then, that the number of six adult singers represented a serious reduction, but the ten ensemble instrumentalists (including players of theorbo and lute, but excluding the two organists), were only moderately better represented. Moreover, the listing of the deceased performers perhaps represented a statement that those positions (again, four instrumentalists and three adult singers) were being held open for a time when conditions might improve and these positions might again be filled.

11.4 In sum, the profile of the roster of 1634 almost certainly resulted from early effects of wartime conditions, and of itself was not an indication of changes of attitude by Schütz for what he wished in terms of numbers of performers. For Schütz, however, the fact was that by 1634 only a very small number of adult singers were available, and his instrumental forces were at roughly the same level they had been two decades earlier. At this point he probably could have assembled a satisfactory body of musicians for most occasions when their contributions would be necessary, but the reality was that the situation had already seriously eroded. In the early 1630s there was no expansion, and shortly after, support of musicians in Dresden collapsed almost completely and did not begin to recover until after mid-century.

12. The Symphoniae sacrae of 1629

12.1 The preface provided by Schütz for the 1629 volume provides insight into the composer’s thinking at this crucial point in his life, revealing the imprint of his experiences during his stay in Venice in 1628–29. He offers heartfelt praise of his teacher, Giovanni Gabrieli, acknowledging that by 1629 the “method of composition” had “changed considerably” and had “cast off the ancient modes.”^[28] What Schütz was acknowledging was that now the imperative was to move beyond the Gabrieli model, and “to charm the ears of today with new enchantment.” The opening of Paratum cor meum (SWV 257), the first piece of the Symphoniae sacrae, makes it indelibly clear that the contrasting massed sounds, so central to Gabrieli—and to the Schütz of the Psalmen Davids—had been left behind, and Schütz had moved on. Now the emphasis is on solo voices in a new, more “modern” manner. There is also a new core unit among the instruments, the paired violins, and while the cornett does appear in this set, the combination of cornett and trombone, so central in the Psalmen Davids, has almost no role at all. Here the Venetian influence appears unmistakable in the instrumental textures, where the consistent imitative counterpoint heard with the cornetts and trombones in the 1619 print is now replaced with the modern polarity of a pair of violins above a supporting basso continuo.

12.2 Still, for all that is changed, Schütz did not turn his back on German traditions, which seems especially clear in the variety of instrumental colors.^[29] As Basil Smallman observed, it was with “the choice and deployment of his obbligato instruments [in the Symphoniae sacrae] that Schütz moved most strikingly beyond the range of his Italian models.”^[30] And though that range is also beyond anything previously heard in German works by Schütz, there were clear precedents. The use of trombones in Fili mi Absalom (SWV 269) seems clearly linked to Ist nicht Ephraim, discussed above, though the poignancy of the earlier work is far exceeded by the desolate impact of the closing of Fili mi Absalom. Also striking is the use of four dulcians in In lectulo per noctes (SWV 262)—a voicing Schütz could call for in Dresden (which was likely in the back of his mind), knowing that his instrumentalists there would one way or another be able to provide that for him. One distinctively new feature was the use of the solo trumpet, which was called for in the last two pieces in the collection. These parts, indicated for a trumpet with a possible alternative of cornett, are of a markedly more advanced nature than that of Danket dem Herren (SWV 45) in the Psalmen Davids. The latter consist of only a few notes within the harmonic series, in a restricted range, easily possible for players in the Dresden trumpet band. The two new parts (one in each of the two pieces), on the other hand, are clearly for trumpet, but demand a player capable of all of the diatonic notes between c″ and c‴, some of those not on the natural trumpet and requiring “bending.” Significantly, there is no mention of kettledrums. Schütz had called for the color of a solo trumpeter, not the massed effect of the entire trumpet band with its kettledrums. It seems likely that this trumpeter was a specialist, and for performances in Dresden, perhaps drawn from the trumpet band, rather than from the ranks of the ensemble instrumentalists.

12.3 It seems, then, that the distinct changes that we see in the 1629 Symphoniae sacrae were due to several strands of influence. First, and certainly most important, was the new musical environment that had developed in Venice after the death of Gabrieli, which Schütz encountered when he arrived there in 1628—as is attested to in the preface to the Symphoniae sacrae. A second strand was likely the influences that had been present in Dresden before Schütz left the court for Venice. The violinist Carlo Farina had been in Dresden for an extended stay beginning in 1627. The new emphasis on the violin as seen in Paratum cor meum was not anything necessarily new to Schütz from his Venetian experience. A third strand was represented in the deep working relationship that Schütz had had with the German instrumental performance practice traditions from his early years in Kassel continuing after his move to Dresden, reflected clearly in the remarkable scoring seen throughout the 1629 print.

13. Conclusion: Foreign Influences and the Resilience of German Instrumental Traditions

13.1 The inclusion of the English virtuoso Thomas Simpson among the musicians performing during the ceremonies in Pirna and Dresden in 1617 underlines the presence of foreign musicians not just in Dresden but in northern Germany in general. The primary long-range influence was Italian. The cornettist and composer Antonio Scandello had not only performed in Dresden a half century earlier but was for a considerable time Kapellmeister there. At the turn of the century the peripatetic Alessandro Orologio, another cornettist (and again a composer), was also on the rolls in Dresden, and in other courts as well. Italian stimulus was enhanced to a considerable extent by such musicians as Hans Leo Hassler and Schütz studying in Venice, as German composers became themselves advocates and practitioners of Italian concepts and practices. But other nationalities contributed as well. For a few decades the impact of English visitors was particularly strong, as is described in the contribution by Arne Spohr elsewhere in this collection. French influence was more modest, but a factor nonetheless; the lutenist Montbuyson, for example, was a colleague of Schütz in Kassel. A few Polish musicians also had successful careers in German courts.

13.2 The early seventeenth century in pre-war Germany was a blissful time for music, especially for courts in the region. Talent was welcomed from all directions, resulting in a rich interaction. At the same time, we must recognize that the rosters of musicians, both of singers and instrumentalists, were overwhelmingly German. Foreigners enhanced German musical life. But the significant point is that, as in Dresden in 1615, foreign influences flowed in from all sides, but they interacted with a bedrock of German competence. Those foreign influences stimulated, but in no way overwhelmed, local talent. One of the tragedies of Germany in the years that followed, seen clearly in the experience of the Dresden court, was the damage war inflicted on this vibrant musical culture.

Acknowledgments

This article is an expanded and more sharply focused version of the paper originally given at the “Thirty Years of War” conference. I am particularly grateful to the anonymous reader who evaluated this article for JSCM and who spent a great deal of time at that task, offering numerous and valuable suggestions. I am also deeply indebted to the guidance unhesitatingly offered by Joshua Rifkin, whose observations significantly improved the quality of this article.

Tables

Table 1. Musical forces at the court of Kassel, late 1613

Table 2. References to choirboys at the Dresden court, 1612–46

Table 3. Pirna/Dresden roster, 1617