Talk:Royal 11 E. xi
See CMME.org research that the Sampson referred to in this manuscript may be Richard Sampson. How should we handle if ambiguous--two separate entries indicating that they might be the same person?
It's a tricky one - they could be one and the same! In any case, it needs to be cleared up to some degree, perhaps if only to emend the applicable dates... Ideas? Edward Tambling 13:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This is all very confusing! André Vierendeels (whom I advise you contact for these clarifications) produced the score of (a few movements from) Missa super Es solt ein Megdlein, attributing the work to ?Colyn Sampson, fl. 1539. However, Grove has nothing on this 'Sampson' (neither with this date nor with the possible first name), and a quick buzz through Google returns no results...
However, closer research reveals that the 'Sampson' in question (the composer of the Mass) was indeed published in various mid-C16th publications by the German publisher Georg Rhau. However, the Sampson of Royal 11 E. xi is (we think) an English composer, fl. c.1516, whose techniques show a thorough grasp of Franco-Flemish compositional techniques, beyond any other English composer of his day. A quick look through the Mass in question, and comparing it with the (apparently only surviving) works in Royal 11 E. xi, shows, to my mind, two different composers, one writing in a much earlier style (in Royal 11 E. xi), free from lengthy melisma and heavy on declamation, and the other in a much lighter mid-century style, as can be seen in the Mass. Besides, and although the two 'floruit' dates of c.1516 and 1539 are by no means improbable, the fact that one 'Sampson' survives in two (although perhaps three) motets in one English manuscript source from the beginning of the century, and that the other 'Sampson' exists in a number of later printed sources from the continent, makes me think that they cannot be one and the same.
So, two separate pages for the two conjectural composers? With links to one from the other, at least. Any more thoughts? I'll finally get round to editing the complete contents of Royal 11 E. xi for CPDL, once I've hacked through a bit of MechAS s.s.! Royal 8 G.vii is next... Edward Tambling 09:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
'Tastic. I've edited the Benedictus de Opiciis piece from the manuscript already, and am nearly done with the Jacotin one. I'll deal wiht the Sampson ones shortly, so we'll have some stylistic authority to go on thereafter. Edward Tambling 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is a tricky one. Perhaps Sampson (i) and Sampson (ii) are in order? Throughout history there has been the need to differentiate between various nameless people e.g. Anonymous IV. Unless there's a better solution? Edward Tambling 13:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We usually stick to a composer name as it appears in the Grove Dictionary, but in the case of Benedictus de Opitiis I'm inclined to rename it back to Opiciis, as it appears in the manuscript. Does anyone disagree?
My other question is related to the name of this manuscript, "Royal 11 E. xi"; I know it's a minor detail, but in internet searches I have seen it always written without spaces between "E.xi". Does anyone know what do these cryptic codes mean? Thanks. —Carlos 00:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Opiciis is how he appears in the source in question (and also in the other source in which he is found), so I think we should stick with that. Just allow alternate spellings to reach the page in question.
The other question may seem trivial, but in abbreviations of the manuscript (e.g. GB-Lbl.Roy.E.xi) the space is naturally omitted. However, DIAMM, in the expansion of the name (Royal 11 E. xi) adds a space between each component. In short, this is the full name, and should be retained for the title of this article. Edward Tambling 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies, Edward. Still on this subject, and for the sake of consistency, I suppose we should then rename Royal 8 G.vii to Royal 8 G. vii, agree? —Carlos 17:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Why had I not noticed this?! Yes, go ahead! Edward Tambling 18:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)