Talk:Didier Lupi second

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Du Chemin, 1559

Is the 1559 edition of the Guéroult chansons different from the 1548 Beringen book, or is it just a reprint edition put out by Du Chemin, like the 1568 edition? I have always assumed it is a reprint as implied by the title, but I don't have easy access to the contents lists to compare them. - GeoffG (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The 1559 edition seems to be identical to the 1568 in content. (NB. There seems to be a Second Livre also printed in 1568!) I have no idea how the 1559 and 1568 prints are in relation to the 1548 as I can't find any lists of contents for that one. Mentions in encyclopedias either states the 1559 and 1568 as reprints with minor differences to the 1548 or reprints with some more fundamental corrections. - Stenand(talk)07:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC+3)
The contents of the 1559 print (both the original tavola and pieces numbered.)
Asseurés vous. Fueillet fol 44
A toy Seigneur fol 47
Chantés a Dieu fol 3
Comment par aduersité fol 15
C'Est à toy seul fol 26
C'est moy sans plus fol 36
Contentement de chose corporelle fol 42
Dames qui au plaisant son fol 22
Douce memoire heuresse, & aggrea.fol 39
L'altitonnant duquel en fol 33
Làs í ay peché deuant ta face fol 53
Or sus mon ame en ce bas ter fol 5
O l'homme heureux fol 11
O seigneur Dieu nous qui sommes fol 19
O langoureux Esprits fol 28
O Seigneur Dieu, puis que fol 49
Puis qu'en toy gist perfection fol 51
Qu'Israël die, & confesse fol 13
Sus, sus, qu'on se dispose fol 8
Susanne un iour d'Amour solicitée fol 24
Verbe eternel par lequel toute choses fol 31
No. 1 Chantés a Dieux chanson nouuelle PDF pag 4.
No. 2 Or sus mon ame en ce bas territoire pag 8.
No. 3 Sus, sus qu'on se dispose pag 14.
No. 4 O L'homme heureux, qi a de Dieux la crainte pag 20
No. 5 Qu'Israel die et confesse en effet pag 24.
No. 6 Comment par aduersité pag 28.
No. 7 O Seigneur nous qui sommes pag 36.
No. 8 Dames qui au plaisant son pag 42.
No. 9 Susane un iour d'amour solicitée pag 46.
No. 10 C'Est à toy seul à qui dois recourir pag. 50
No. 11 O Langoureux esprits, vivants et peine pag 54.
No. 12 Verbe eternel, par lequel toute chouse pag 60.
No. 13 L'Altitonant, duquel en ce bas estre pag 64.
No. 14 C'Est moy sans plus, qui des humains esprits pag 70
No. 15 Douce memoire heureuse et aggreable pag 76
No. 16 contentement de chose corporelle pag 82.
No. 17 Asseurés vous personnes bien heurées pag 86.
No. 18 A toy, Seigneur, mon triste cueur aspire pag 92
No. 19 A toy, Seigneur, dedie corps, et ame, pag 98
No. 20 Puis qu'en toy gist perfection pag 102.
No. 21 Las i'ay peché deuant ta face pag 106.
- Stenand(talk)13:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC+3)
Link to Catalogue page of The Second livre 1668 mentioned above: http://www.bvh.univ-tours.fr/Consult/index.asp?numfiche=1402
as to the one on Premier livre 1668: http://www.bvh.univ-tours.fr/Consult/index.asp?numfiche=1401
- Stenand(talk)13:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC+3)
According to Laurent Guillo, in Les Éditions Musicales de la Renaissance Lyonnaise
Paris 1991 (p.76-77), the 1548 and 1559 editions are identical apart from the text of one song:
The song that in the 1548 edition begins "Contentez vous" begins "Assurés vous" in the 1559 edition.
(It is not quite clear if Guillo's remarks concern both the music and the texts. At least the pieces
seems to be the same though there is a slight difference in the order. No. 20 in the 1559 edition seems to be No. 12 in the 1548 edition shifting the numbering of the subsequent pieces. (c.f. Guillo 1991, p.78))
- Stenand(talk)06:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC+3)
Thank you for all the excellent details you have provided! As there was a 'Tiers livre' published by Beringen in 1548, it seems likely that the 'Second livre' of 1568 is also a reprint of a 1548 publication.
Given M. Guillo's statement and the title of the 1559 edition of the 'Premier livre', I would be almost certain that Du Chemin's 1559 edition is not an original publication, and I would not list the 1548 and 1559 editions as separate publications on Lupi Second's composer page, implying equivalent originality. Perhaps the 1559 edition could be indented to show its status as a second edition. Furthermore, I would give the 1548 edition as the first publication on each work's page. Do you think that would be reckless? - GeoffG (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan!
- Stenand(talk)11:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC+3)
This seems to indicate that the publication list might be:
Or maybe I have got it wrong. — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that is correct, except I don't think we have any explicit evidence of livres two and three being reprinted in 1559 or of the third livre being reprinted in 1568. Might it be safest to list the first and third livres as being published in 1548 and the second livre in 1568, since that is the earliest edition of each that is extant? – GeoffG (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
That sounds good, but you should "leave tracks" showing uncertainty, like this, maybe?
Also, I noticed that the 1568 printing(s) were definitely posthumous, maybe 1559 also? (Or at least 1559 may have been outside Lupi's direct control) — Barry Johnston (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)