Quantz and AgricolaAuthor(s): Beverly Jerold

Source: Acta Musicologica , [Vol.] 88, [Fasc.] 2 (2016), pp. 127-142

Published by: International Musicological Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26350030

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

International Musicological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Acta Musicologica

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 �antz and Agricola:
A Literary Collaboration

Beverly Jerold
Princeton

P
erhaps no eighteenth-century music book has been quoted
more often in the modern era than Johann Joachim Quantz’s Versuch einer An-
weisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen (1752).1 Far more than a tutor for �ute in-
struction, this large volume deals with musical performance in all its dimensions.
Quantz’s fame rested on his �ute performance and compositional ability. Like many
celebrities today, his writing skill was somewhat wanting, as the �autist and author
Johann George Tromlitz observed in 1800 when noting that errors in the book could
not have come from Quantz:
Since Quantz was not an educated man, he could not himself have written his book entitled
Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen, but rather had to entrust it to a man
of learning with a great deal of musical knowledge. Although this work contains much that
is valuable and useful concerning music, it nevertheless seems imperfect with respect to the
instrument’s treatment, because he himself [the writer] needs a teacher who understands it.
But that is a di�cult challenge. . . . Also, his technical language for the �ute is not always
feasible. To pass a more candid judgment in this regard does not seem proper to me, and also
does not belong here [in this article about another subject].2

In his own �ute method (1791), Tromlitz speci�ed some of the inaccuracies re-
garding the �ute in Quantz’s book. When Tromlitz wrote that Quantz was “kein
Gelehrter,” he was referring to the fact that most German professional instrumen-
talists lacked access to an adequate general education because of the class system.

1 Johann Joachim Quantz, Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen (Berlin: J. F. Voss,
1752; repr. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2000). Another writer’s participation in Quantz’s book is ac-
cepted by Hans-Joachim Schulze in “Agricola, Johann Friedrich,” and presumed in Gudula Schütz,
“Quantz, Johann Joachim,” both in Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Personenteil (Kassel: Bären-
reiter, 1999 and 2005), 1:219 and 13:1112.
2 “Da Quanz [sic] kein Gelehrter war, so konnte er auch sein Buch: Versuch einer Anweisung, die Flöte
zu spielen [sic], nicht selbst schreiben, sondern er musste es einem Gelehrten, der viele musikali-
sche Kenntnisse hatte, übertragen. Dieses Werk, ob es gleich viel Gutes und Brauchbares, die Musik
betre�end, enthält, scheint doch in Absicht auf die Behandlung des Instruments unvollkommen
zu seyn, weil er selbst einen Lehrer, der es versteht, dazu verlangt. Allein das ist eine schwere
Forderung. . . . Auch ist seine Flötensprache nicht immer anwendbar. Ein freyeres Urtheil hierüber
zu fällen, ziemt mir nicht, gehöret auch nicht hierher” (Johann George Tromlitz, “Abhandlung
über den schönen Ton auf der Flöte,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 2, no. 18 [1800]: 320). Unless
indicated otherwise, translations are my own.

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 128 Beverly Jerold

The eighteenth century was a period of deep divisions: the upper class educated
its sons with private tutors and the middle class sent them to Latin schools, but the
working class, to which many instrumentalists belonged, generally had minimal ed-
ucation. The upper classes generally avoided playing or singing on a professional
basis because of its low social status, but did participate in the higher calling of
composing or writing about music. Since professional musicians often lacked the
education that produced writing skills, it probably was not uncommon for them to
seek help from a university-educated individual when preparing a work for publica-
tion. The clergyman and musician Johann August Eberhard con�rmed this in 1800
when responding to Karl Spazier’s inquiry about his possible participation in writ-
ing Johann Philipp Kirnberger’s books. Acknowledging that Kirnberger had asked
his assistance in 1765, Eberhard stated that Kirnberger had decided not to use it af-
ter all. In eighteenth-century Berlin, he added, utilizing outside assistance was not
unusual:
It is reliably known that for the �nal copy of his Anweisung die Flöte zu spielen Quantz used the
pen of the late Agricola, and no one thought any the less of his musical merit. And certainly
many a work about the theory of music would have gained if the author had wanted to entrust
its wording to a more skilled writer.3

Eberhard implies here that many were aware of Agricola’s participation in Quantz’s
book. Quantz and Agricola could not have had more dissimilar backgrounds, but
each had qualities the other lacked.

�antz and Agricola Compared

Until the age of nine Quantz was being trained to follow as a blacksmith in the
footsteps of his father, who died when the younger Quantz was about nine years of
age. Left an orphan in 1706, he decided to become a town musician (Stadtpfeifer),
which involved apprenticeship for at least �ve years. Quantz’s extensive autobiog-
raphy is silent about any schooling, thus corroborating Tromlitz’s statement about
his education, and it would have been unusual to have had access to any but the
rudimentary learning available to members of his class.4 According to Christoph-
Hellmut Mahling (1983): “In keeping with his social class origins, the orchestral

3 “Man wollte es mit Zuverlässigkeit wissen, dass Quanz [sic] bey der Ausarbeitung seiner An-
weisung die Flöte zu spielen sich der Feder des sel. Agricola bedient habe, und dachte deswegen
nicht geringer von seinen musikalischen Verdiensten. Und gewiss würde manches Werk über
die theoretische Musik dabey gewonnen haben, wenn sein Verfasser die Einkleidung desselben
einer geübtern Feder hätte anvertrauen wollen” (Johann August Eberhard, “Erklärung,” Allge-
meine musikalische Zeitung 2, no. 51 [1800]: 871–72. Spazier’s query appeared in the Allgemeine
musikalische Zeitung 2, no. 34 [1800]: 593).
4 Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, Historisch-kritische Beyträge zur Aufnahme der Musik (Berlin: Joh.
Jacob Schützens sel. Wittwe, 1754/55), 1:197–250.

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 �antz and Agricola: A Literary Collaboration 129

musician was not usually educated beyond elementary school.”5 Many instrumen-
talists lacked even this level of education. In his �ctional but true-to-life Musicus
vexatus (1690), the composer Johann Kuhnau writes that barely one in a hundred
Stadtpfeifer journeymen would be able to “put ten ordinary words on paper with-
out error.”6 Whatever reading and writing ability Quantz managed to acquire on his
own would not have been su�cient to produce the well organized, �uent prose in
his large book.
As described in his autobiography, Quantz received very little musical instruc-
tion from his master, but rather was left to his own devices. Typical training for the
Stadtpfeifer comprised learning the �ngering for many instruments, such that “one
remains a bungler on each.”7 Quantz’s exceptional gifts and ambition propelled
him to seek out every opportunity for further learning; at the journeyman level,
he did have the bene�t of other experiences that greatly broadened his horizons.
After gaining much from over twenty years at the Dresden court, he assumed his
position at the Berlin court in 1741, where he remained until his death in 1773. In
Berlin he enjoyed privileges setting him apart from nearly every musician of the
period:

A stipend of two thousand thalers a year for life, in addition to a special payment for my
compositions, a hundred ducats for each �ute that I would supply, and the privilege of playing
only in the Royal Chamber Ensemble, not in the orchestra, and of taking orders from none but
the King.8

In contrast, Agricola was born into an upper-class family and destined for the law,
which he studied at the University of Leipzig. At the same time, he studied music
for three and one-half years with Johann Sebastian Bach between 1738 and 1741.
His decision to make music his life’s work was remarkable and even radical for
someone of his class, for it was not considered a worthy profession for a gentleman.
His independent means, however, enabled him to forego the usual apprenticeship
of lowly jobs in remote outposts. Instead, he traveled, became acquainted with the
period’s leading musicians, and studied with Quantz. In 1751, he was appointed a

5 Christoph-Hellmut Mahling, “The Origin and Social Status of the Court Orchestral Musician in
the 18th and Early 19th Century in Germany,” in The Social Status of the Professional Musician, ed.
Walter Salmen, trans. Herbert Kaufman and Barbara Reisner (New York: Pendragon, 1983), 236.
6 Quoted by Arnold Schering, “Die Leipziger Ratsmusik von 1650 bis 1775,” Archiv für Musikwis-
senschaft 3, no. 1 (1921): 37. “Unter hundert Stpf.-gesellen, schreibt Kuhnau . . . würde kaum einer
gefunden, ‘der 10 förmliche Wort ohne Fehler zu Papier bringen kann.’”
7 Marpurg, Historisch-kritische Beyträge zur Aufnahme der Musik, 1:200.
8 “Zweytausend Thaler jährliche Besoldung auf Lebenszeit; ausserdem eine besondere Bezahlung
meiner Composition; hundert Dukaten für jede Flöte die ich liefern würde; die Freyheit nicht
im Orchester, sondern nur in der Königlichen Kammermusik zu spielen, und von Niemands als
des Königs Befehl abzuhangen, verdienten wohl einen Dienst aufzugeben, wo ich solche Vortheile
niemahls zu ho�en hatte.” Quoted from ibid., 248, by Edward R. Reilly in his translation of Quantz’s
treatise, On Playing the Flute (New York: The Free Press, 1966), xxii.

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 130 Beverly Jerold

composer at the Berlin court. He married a singer there, Benedetta Emilia Molteni,
from whom he undoubtedly gained insights into Italian vocal practices.9
Agricola was a man with a mission. Best known today for his translation (1757)
of Pier Francesco Tosi’s vocal treatise, he undertook this project expressly to raise
German vocal standards. His detailed annotations, which greatly increased the size
of Tosi’s book, provide valuable information about the period.10 For Agricola the
fact that vocal tutors taught musical literacy, but nothing about how to sing, was
a great liability. In announcing his forthcoming translation of Tosi’s work, he thus
observed:
Is it surprising that the art of singing with good taste is still at the moment so little known in
Germany? . . . What is heard on a daily basis in most places has been criticized so frequently by
distinguished men that it has spared me the trouble of further laments about the great lack of
re�ned singing. I believe it will be a useful service to my countrymen if I place at their disposal
a means by which they can eventually free themselves from foreigners’ criticism of their poor
style of singing.11

In a letter to Georg Philipp Telemann of 20 October 1755, Agricola expresses similar

views about German singing.12
Most of Agricola’s writing was unsigned or published under pseudonyms. He
wrote two essays under the name of Olibrio, for example, one in 1749 for Friedrich
Wilhelm Marpurg’s Critische Musicus an der Spree and the other published sepa-
rately two years later. He served as the principal music writer for Friedrich Nico-
lai’s Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek from its inception in 1766 until his death in 1774,
and both edited and annotated the posthumous publication of Jakob Adlung’s Mu-
sica mechanica organoedi (1768). According to Ernst Ludwig Gerber (1792), Agricola
contributed articles to the Kritische Briefe über die Tonkunst and also prepared some
of the music articles in Johann Georg Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Kün-
ste (1771/74).13 In his German translation (1773) of Charles Burney’s travels, Johann

9 Charles Burney describes her voice in An Eighteenth-Century Musical Tour in Central Europe and
the Netherlands, ed. Percy A. Scholes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), 161.
10 Johann Friedrich Agricola, Anleitung zur Singkunst, trans. of Pier Francesco Tosi’s Opinioni de’
cantori (Berlin: Georg Ludwig Winter, 1757; repr. Celle: H. Moeck, 1966).
11 “Ist es also wohl zu verwundern, wenn die Kunst mit gutem Geschmacke zu singen, noch zur Zeit,
in Deutschland, so wenig allgemein worden ist? . . . Das was man an den meisten Orten täglich
höret, und diejenigen berühmten Männer, welche in ihren Schriften schon häu�ge Beschwerden
darüber geführet haben, überheben mich dieser Mühe. Ich glaube vielmehr meinen Landsleuten
einen angenehmen Dienst zu erweisen, wenn ich ihnen Gelegenheit an die Hand gebe, sich, von
dem Vorwurfe einer schlechten Singart, den ihnen die Ausländer machen, nach und nach zu be-
freyen” (Marpurg, Historisch-kritische Beyträge zur Aufnahme der Musik, 1:327 and 329).
12 Published in an appendix to the reprint of Agricola, Anleitung zur Singkunst, 19.
13 Ernst Ludwig Gerber, “Agricola (Joh. Friedrich),” in Historisch-biographisches Lexicon der Tonkünst-
ler (Leipzig: J. G. I. Breitkopf, 1790; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1966), 18.
While Gerber’s 1812–14 edition amended Agricola’s contribution to Sulzer’s dictionary, it also
noted (under “Agricola”) that some observers still attributed him authorship for part of Sulzer’s
work. I have recently published new documentation indicating that his initial statement about

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 �antz and Agricola: A Literary Collaboration 131

Joachim Christoph Bode observed: “Herr Professor Sulzer did not produce the music
articles in his lexicon by himself. In the �rst part, Agricola contributed much.” Bode
also cites Agricola as the author of Sulzer’s article, “Ausdruck.”14
According to the Legende einiger Musikheiligen (1786), which is attributed to
Marpurg, Agricola had been “accustomed to taking part in quarrels only secretly
and under an assumed name, as Moldenit and Kirnberger had to their sorrow expe-
rienced.”15 In 1758, Quantz responded to Moldenit’s criticism with an essay of nearly
forty pages, which must be what Marpurg attributed to Agricola.16 I have treated
the Kirnberger episode in a recent article.17 Elsewhere in the Legende, Marpurg dis-
cusses Johann Adolph Scheibe’s compositions, concluding that “his strength lay in
criticism, as did Agricola’s.”18
If Agricola served as Quantz’s amanuensis, he probably also wrote Quantz’s au-
tobiography, cited above. In 1997, Edward R. Reilly notes its unusual emphasis on
vocal music:
In that work he provides many more detailed descriptions of notable singers than he does of
instrumentalists. And in acknowledging the in�uence of the violinist Johann Georg Pisendel
(1687–1755) in the formation of his own style, Quantz notes that Pisendel had studied as a
young boy with the great Italian teacher of singing Francesco Antonio Pistocchi (1659–1726).
In addition to Pisendel’s in�uence, Quantz points out that he “owes not a little to the attention
that I have always paid to good singers, especially in matters of taste.” Speaking of the wealth
of his musical experiences in Dresden, he adds: “The beautiful church music, the excellent
operas, and the exceptional virtuosos in singing which I could hear in Dresden brought me
ever new pleasures and constantly set me on �re.”19

In his translation of Tosi, Agricola cites Quantz’s autobiography (p. 240) for its dis-
cussion of famous singers.20

Agricola’s contribution was correct. See Beverly Jerold, “Kirnberger and Authorship,” Notes 69,
no. 4 (2013): 688–705.
14 Charles Burney, Tagebuch einer musikalischen Reise, trans. Johann Joachim Christoph Bode (Ham-
burg: Bode, 1773; repr. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1959), 3:305; “. . . im ersten Theile hat Agricola viel
gearbeitet”; see also page 307.
15 Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg [?], Legende einiger Musikheiligen (Cologne: P. Hammern, 1786; repr.
Frankfurt am Main: Peters, 1977), 58; “Unter denen, die ihre Ursache hatten, das Amt eines Schieds-
richters in dieser Sache abzulehnen, befand sich auch der damalige Hofcomponist zu Berlin, Herr
Agricola, der nur unter der Hand und unter einem fremden Nahmen, so wie es die Herren von
Moldenit und Kirnberger zu ihrem Leidwesen erfahren haben, an Streitigkeiten Theil zu nehmen
p�egte.”
16 Moldenit’s critique appears in Marpurg, Historisch-kritische Beyträge zur Aufnahme der Musik
(1758), 3:544–57. Quantz’s response: Marpurg, Historisch-kritische Beyträge zur Aufnahme der
Musik (1759), 4:153–91.
17 Beverly Jerold, “Johann Philipp Kirnberger versus Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg: A Reappraisal,”
Dutch Journal of Music Theory 17, no. 2 (2012): 91–108.
18 Marpurg, Legende einiger Musikheiligen, 151.
19 Edward R. Reilly, “Quantz and the Transverse Flute,” Early Music 25, no. 3 (1997): 434. Marpurg,
Historisch-kritische Beyträge zur Aufnahme der Musik, 1:210–11 and 245.
20 Agricola, Anleitung zur Singkunst, 229.

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 132 Beverly Jerold

Was it sheer coincidence that both Quantz and Agricola initiated correspondence
with Giovanni Battista Martini in Bologna on 25 July 1761? Quantz’s brief letter
thanks him for the �rst volume of his Storia della Musica, while Agricola’s more ex-
pansive letter congratulates him, saying that he had read Quantz’s copy, and o�ers
to supply information about German music.21 With his everyday use of Italian ac-
quired through marriage to an Italian woman, Agricola is likely to have composed
both letters, with Quantz simply copying what Agricola had written.

The Broad Range of Subjects

The title of Quantz’s book does not convey its scope. Only about �fty of the 334
pages concern the �ute exclusively,22 while the remaining pages discuss such sub-
jects as:

Ornamentation
Execution of an allegro and an adagio
Performing in public
The duties of those who accompany a solo part
Orchestra leaders
Violinists
Violists
Violoncellists
Double bassists
Keyboard players
Duties for all in general
Judging a musician and a musical composition

No one had ever considered these topics in such depth, and the wealth of infor-
mation is a major reason this book is a staple for modern researchers. An interest-
ing feature of Quantz’s book is its unusually complete and detailed index, many of
whose entries concern subjects more suggestive of Agricola than Quantz, such as
the separate entries for composers Agricola knew well—Johann Sebastian Bach and
Georg Philipp Telemann. Also included are George Frideric Handel (who, according
to Charles Burney after visiting Berlin, was a near relative of Agricola’s mother23 );
Johann Mattheson, whose voluminous writings are addressed primarily to those
with a university-level education; Metastasio, the renowned poet of Italian opera;

21 Both letters are at the Museo internazionale e biblioteca della musica di Bologna, nos. I.8.90 and
L.117.3.
22 Reilly, On Playing the Flute, x.
23 Charles Burney, An Eighteenth-Century Musical Tour in Central Europe and the Netherlands, ed.
Percy A. Scholes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), 160. “Handel research has failed
to substantiate this claim” according to E. Eugene Helm and Darrell Berg, “Agricola, Johann
Friedrich,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd ed., ed. Stanley Sadie (London:
Macmillan, 2001), 1:230.

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 �antz and Agricola: A Literary Collaboration 133

Charlemagne, whom only a scholar would know; and organists such as Nikolaus
Bruhns and Dieterich Buxtehude. Who would have been better quali�ed than Agri-
cola to discuss Sebastian Bach’s keyboard �ngering? Whenever the indexed subject
concerns some aspect of opera, or of vocal, church, and keyboard music, as in the
following, Agricola may be a more probable source:

Accompaniment, of a principal part; on the Harpsichord in particular; of a recitative

Arias, how they are to be judged; with action; French arias; Italian
Bach, Johann Sebastian; his manner of placing the �ngers on the keyboard; has perfected the
art of organ playing
Bruhns, Nickolaus, an organ composer
Buxtehude, Dietrich, an organ composer
Charlemagne, loved the music of the Italians
Chest voice; human
Choirboys, German
Church music: its di�erent types and qualities; its execution; what should be observed with
regard to its tempo
Composers, opera; famous German; must not show partiality; faults of the present Italian
Composition, vocal: has improved; of the French; of the present-day Italians
Expression, is necessary in singing
Falsetto, its use
Froberger, Johann Jakob, a celebrated German keyboard composer
Harpsichord; its position in an ensemble; its diverse tone qualities
Keiser, Reinhard, a celebrated German opera composer
Mattheson, Johann; his services to music
Messa di voce: how it should be made; how it should be accompanied with the harpsichord
Metastasio, Pietro Antonio Domenico Bonaventura, a great opera poet
Mezzo forte: how it should be expressed on the harpsichord
Motets, what they are
Nasal voice
Opera: requires an experienced composer; its most important good qualities; German opera in
Leipzig and Hamburg; French opera described; its faults; in Germany; the faults of Italian
opera; reasons for them; is popular in other countries
Opera poetry, how it should be fashioned
Opera poets: their faults; their duties
Opera style, is abused
Oratorio
Organists: celebrated German; good ones are beginning to become rare; bad ones
Organ playing, art of: from whom the Germans acquired it; who perfected it
Pianoforte, an instrument
Pistocchi, Francesco Antonio Mamiliano, an excellent Italian singing master
Pronunciation, errors in it in singing
Psalms
Recitative: rules for it; theatrical, how it is to be accompanied; of the French
Reinken, Jan Adams, a celebrated organist
Schools, decline of music in German schools
Singer: his natural gifts; his most important qualities; must thoroughly understand the rules
of breathing; must know how to make little graces well; must strike a good shake; his
position in a chamber ensemble; how to make recitative easier for him; what the accom-
panists must observe in his cadenzas; compositions should be comfortable for him; how
he should be judged; must not be suppressed through partiality

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 134 Beverly Jerold

Singers: French, their faults; German, their faults; Italian, their excellences; their faults
Singing, art of: its growth; necessary for a beginning instrumentalist to study
Singing master, a celebrated
Singing, manner of: the old German; French is described; Italian; new singing manner becomes
more common in Germany
Solo cantatas
Theatrical music, types of
Vocal music, its categories; how it is to be judged; what should be observed with regard to
tempo in it; of the old Germans
Voice, human; how it forms its tone
Windpipe, human; how the tone is produced in it
Words, how to treat them in a vocal composition24

When these are added to the other index entries, the number of subjects discussed
is almost too broad for any one individual to treat them authoritatively.

The Reformer
Just as Agricola’s annotations to Tosi’s treatise were intended to raise vocal stan-
dards, so too does much of Quantz’s book focus on raising both vocal and instru-
mental standards. In his preface Quantz treats not only �ute instruction, but also
good taste in practical music by o�ering precepts for good execution, which are
useful for all who sing or play an instrument. We may suppose that many of these
ideas originated with Quantz, for example, the need for higher standards: “If at times
I seem to stray from the material that I treat. . . . I hope I will be pardoned because
of my determination to correct defects still in vogue in music, and because of my
desire to make use of this opportunity to communicate various remarks which will
be of service in improving good taste in practical music.”25
All in all, the �ute material in Quantz’s Versuch seems ancillary to this goal of
elevating standards of performance and composition. That many ripienists �lling
the ranks of the orchestra played at a low level is evident from Quantz’s discussion
of such elementary subjects as the value and division of notes; bowings for strings;
and tonguing, embouchure, and �ngering for wind instruments:

The many [ripienists] who have no proper understanding of one or another of these things
usually have only themselves to blame; it is astonishing that many musicians of mature years
should, with no lack of opportunity for improvement, still be de�cient in matters that they
might have learned in two or three years’ time. What I have just said must not be interpreted
as a disparagement of good ripienists.26

Much of this problem stems from the lack of good teachers:

24 English translation by Reilly, On Playing the Flute, 395–412.

25 Ibid., 8 (Versuch, Vorrede).
26 Ibid., 14 (Versuch, Einleitung, § 7).

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 �antz and Agricola: A Literary Collaboration 135

But how many are there upon whom the title of master may be justly conferred? Are not
the majority, when closely observed, still students in their science? How, then, can they teach
music, if they themselves remain in a state of ignorance? To be sure, there are some who play
the instrument well, or at least passably; many, however, lack the ability to impart to others
what they themselves know.27

Certain elements, however, suggest Agricola more than Quantz. It seems unusual
that Quantz, who had never enjoyed the bene�ts of a university and Latin school
education, should lament the lack of music instruction in universities and schools:
“Although music is a science that can never be studied and investigated too thor-
oughly, it does not have the good fortune of other sciences . . . of being taught
publicly. . . . People of means do not cultivate it, and the poor do not have the means
to retain good masters at the outset, or to travel to places where music of good taste
is in vogue.”28 It is a university-educated man speaking in Quantz’s introductory
chapter, who urges a broader education for musicians:

If someone who gives himself to academic studies has su�cient talent for music, and devotes
just as much industry to it as to the former, he not only has an advantage over other musicians,
but also can be of greater service to music in general than others, as can be demonstrated with
many examples. Whoever is aware of how much in�uence mathematics and the other related
sciences, such as philosophy, poetry, and oratory, have upon music, will have to own not
only that music has a greater compass than many imagine, but also that the evident lack of
knowledge about the above-mentioned sciences among the majority of professional musicians
is a great obstacle to their further advancement, and the reason why music has not yet been
brought to a more perfect state. This seems inevitable, since those who have a command of
theory are seldom strong in practice, and those who excel in practice can seldom pretend to
be masters of theory.29

The author, here, is envisaging an education level for musicians that would rarely
have been possible before the twentieth century. Few instrumentalists of Quantz’s
time (except composers and pupils from the Naples conservatories) had any training
in harmony, which is why he warns against studying an instrument with such a
person. The same was true in the early nineteenth century. Writing in 1807 about
the need for simplifying composers’ unplayable double bass parts, for example, Gott-
fried Weber calls it a di�cult task even for one with knowledge of harmony, “which,
after all, one cannot require from practicing instrumentalists.”30
The music history in Quantz’s last chapter is the mark of a scholar; professional
musicians knew little about it for more than a century to come (as Hector Berlioz

27 Ibid., 16 (Versuch, Einleitung, § 9).

28 Ibid., 15 (Versuch, Einleitung, § 8).
29 Ibid., 25 (Versuch, Einleitung, § 19).
30 Gottfried Weber, “Praktische Bemerkungen,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 9 (23 September
1807): 822; “Vor solchen Verlegenheiten ist der Spieler nie sicher, auch selbst dann, wenn er har-
monische Kenntnisse besitzen sollte, welche man von dem praktischen Instrumentisten doch nicht
fordern darf.”

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 136 Beverly Jerold

complained, music history was still not taught at the Paris Conservatoire well af-
ter the mid-nineteenth century). Conservatories in the modern sense of the word
were principally a nineteenth-century institution, and most in Germany were not
established until well into the century.
The vocal music treated in Quantz’s book may be what Agricola refers to above
when citing the criticisms of German singing from “distinguished men.” Quantz’s
lengthy footnote to § 80 of chapter 18, for example, contains a strong critique of
German singing. It reveals an intimate knowledge of German schools and the can-
tor’s role, topics foreign to Quantz’s experience. Part 11 of the same chapter de�nes
the characteristics of the good singer, while § 1 of chapter 4 compares the human
voice to tone production on the �ute. Quantz had no opera duties, yet he criticizes
opera composers in particular:

Although the operatic style has brought about an improvement in taste, it has produced a
decline in technical skill. Since it is believed that genius and invention are more essential in
this kind of music than knowledge of composition, . . . the young and untutored composers in
Italy have for the most part occupied themselves with it, both to acquire a reputation quickly,
and in the briefest possible time to pass for masters, or, as they say, maestri. But the premature
endeavour to obtain this title makes maestri of most before they have been students, for they
have learned no correct principles to begin with.31

Such a subject usually would be of greater interest to an opera composer (as Agricola
was) than to a �autist. By itself, the citation above is not particularly important, but
it does add to all the other vocal references throughout the book. No doubt, Quantz
shared these views, but would he have considered them su�ciently important to
include in a book about the �ute?
Accompaniment, the subject of Quantz’s chapter 17, comprises well over a quar-
ter of the book. Why would Quantz, who had no orchestral responsibilities and
never had to worry about the di�culties involved with larger ensembles, devote
such a large portion to these matters? As a court composer, Agricola had to deal
with vexatious accompaniment problems on a daily basis. To understand the low
level at which orchestras played, we need but observe the remedial string tech-
nique for professional ripienists presented in Johann Friedrich Reichardt’s Ueber die
P�ichten des Ripien-Violinisten (1776), written shortly after he became Kapellmeis-
ter at the Berlin court. Portions of Quantz’s book bear the mark of a reformer, one
who feels passionately that things should be better than they are—a description that
applies to Agricola’s record of critical writing.

31 Reilly, On Playing the Flute, 20 (Versuch, Einleitung, § 14).

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 �antz and Agricola: A Literary Collaboration 137

Tromlitz’s Observations about �antz’s Book

The careers of Johann Joachim Quantz (1697–1773) and Johann George Trom-
litz (1725–1805) overlapped, and Tromlitz owned one of the �utes constructed to
Quantz’s speci�cation. The upper range of these �utes was limited to d''' or at the
most, e'''.32 Tromlitz had often heard Quantz play, and his tone toward Quantz is
respectful, as in the opening sentences of his own �ute method (1791):
A book like this may well seem unnecessary to many people, especially since the Royal Prus-
sian Chamber-Musician Quantz, a worthy musician, and one of the foremost and greatest
�ute-players of his time, published an Essay on a Method of Playing the Flute several years ago.
But although a lot of good and useful things about the �ute, and about music in general, are
contained in this Essay, he himself admits that it is inadequate for private instruction on this
instrument without a teacher who has the requisite knowledge. But where are such teachers
to be found? I am �rmly convinced and know from long experience that they are rare; and
since the book itself is not supposed to be su�cient for private instruction, the written as well
as the oral method of instruction is bound to be de�cient, if not completely, at least in part.
This is the reason, then, that this instrument is almost always played so very improperly. . . .
It is true that one individual cannot discover everything; however, Quantz has certainly paved
the way and shown the thoughtful student a path down which he may travel.33

By 1800, Tromlitz, as we witness above, had concluded that Quantz’s book contained
certain inaccuracies about the �ute, and he blamed them on the individual who
assisted Quantz with the writing. These �aws likely include the technical matters
described in Tromlitz’s �ute method:
Anyone who thinks that the screw-cork and register are there so that the �ute can be made
higher or lower with one and the same middle joint falls into the error that Quantz blames
on this invention. To wit, he claims that shortening the foot makes only the D higher, but not
the other notes; but he is in error since the foot should not be made longer or shorter—and
never without moving the cork—except when changing middle joints; for if the register is used
to make the foot shorter, a shorter middle joint is also necessary, since the notes are already
higher by themselves anyhow; but if the length of the foot stays as it was before when a shorter
middle joint is inserted, then the D must necessarily become too low, as already remarked
above; now the foot must be shortened as much as necessary by sliding in the register in order
that the D should not remain too low with the shorter middle joint. So just as it is true that
the foot makes the D too low if it stays the same length when a shorter middle joint is used,
it must also be true that by shortening the foot the D can be raised and thus brought into
a correct relationship with the other notes. If the D is properly raised or lowered, the other
sections correctly tuned to it, and the cork in the right place, then the �ute will certainly be
correctly in tune.34

32 Tromlitz, “Abhandlung über den schönen Ton auf der Flöte,” 317–18. “Dass Quanz nur bis d''',
höchstens bis e''' gespielt haben wollte, hatte wohl seinen Grund nicht allein in oben Gesagtem,
als vielmehr darinnen, dass die Flöten, die er sich machen liess, (denn er selbst hat keine gemacht;)
nicht höher, als e''' angaben. Ich besitze selbst eine solche.”
33 Johann George Tromlitz, Ausführlicher und gründlicher Unterricht die Flöte zu spielen (Leipzig:
Adam Friedrich Böhme, 1791); Tromlitz, The Virtuoso Flute-Player, trans. Ardal Powell (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), 4.
34 Tromlitz, Ausführlicher und gründlicher Unterricht, 23–24; Virtuoso Flute-Player, 36–37; chap. I/24:
“Wer aber glaubt, die Pfropfschraube und Register sind deswegen daran, dass man bey einem und

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 138 Beverly Jerold

Tromlitz then continues to explain this fact of acoustics, with which Quantz, but not
his amanuensis, was certainly acquainted. Other instances cited by Tromlitz include:
Chap. III/3, 15, 16, 17: Quantz’s �ngering sometimes produces poor intonation and other de-
fects.
Chap. III/19: D''' can also be �ngered in two ways according to this system of �ngering; the
�rst is the right one, the second not—it is shrill and hard. . . . Those �gures in which Quantz
recommends it [�gure 1, G clef] do not belong on the �ute at all, and consequently this usage
is invalid. However, if such a case should indeed arise, as it could only if written by someone
who did not have enough knowledge of the instrument, then this �ngering, as also the other
given by Quantz: 2346, could be used.35

Fig. 1. Quantz, table II, �g. 1, e) and f) (Quantz, Versuch, chap. III, 6).

As Tromlitz observes, the awkward passages in �gure 1 could not have come from
Quantz, for they were very di�cult for �utes of the period (recall that Tromlitz
owned one of Quantz’s �utes). Elsewhere, moreover, Quantz notes that arpeggios
and broken passages are easy on the violin, but largely or completely impracticable
on the �ute.36 Tromlitz then discusses another technical matter in which Quantz’s
text is faulty:

eben demselben Mittelstücke die Flöte dadurch höher und tiefer machen kann, der verfällt in den
Fehler, den Quanz dieser Er�ndung zuschreibt. Er meynet nehmlich, dass durch die Verkürzung
des Fusses nur das d höher werde, die andern Töne aber nicht; da aber dieses kürzer oder länger
machen bey einerley Mittelstücke nicht, und ohne Pfropfschraube niemahls, sondern nur beym
Wechsel der Mittelstücke geschehen darf, so hat er Unrecht; denn wenn man den Fuss durch das
Register kürzer macht, so hat man ja auch ein kürzer Mittelstück, da die Töne ohnehin für sich
selbst schon höher sind; bliebe aber die Länge des Fusses beym Einsetzen des kürzern Mittel-
stückes, wie sie vorher war, so müsste auch nothwendig das d zu tief werden, wie schon oben
erinnert worden; damit nun das d bey dem kürzern Mittelstücke nicht zu tief bleibe, so muss man
den Fuss, so viel als nöthig ist, durch Hineinschieben des Registers verkürzen. So wahr es also ist,
dass der Fuss, wenn er bey dem Gebrauch eines kürzern Mittelstückes so bleibet, wie er ist, das d
zu tief machete; so wahr muss es auch seyn, dass das d, wenn man den Fuss verkürzet, dadurch
höher, und mit den übrige Tönen in ein richtiges Verhältniss gebracht werde. Ist das d nun gehörig
erhöhet oder erniedriget, die übrigen Stücken richtig dazu abgestimmt, und der Pfropf am rechten
Orte, so wird auch gewiss die Flöte rein und gut seyn.”
35 Tromlitz, Ausführlicher und gründlicher Unterricht, 42, 51–54; Virtuoso Flute-Player, 54, 62–64;
chap. III/19: “D''' wird nach dieser Fingerordnung auch auf zweyerley Art gegri�en; das erste ist
das rechte, das zweyte nicht, es ist schreyend und hart. . . . Diejenigen Figuren, wobey es Quanz
emp�ehlt [�gure 1, G clef], gehören eigentlich gar nicht für die Flöte, folglich fällt diese Anwen-
dung von selbst weg. Sollte aber ja einmahl eine solche Stelle vorkommen, die doch nur der, der
nicht Kenntniss genug vom Instrumente hat, setzen kann, so kann man diesen Gri�, wie auch den
andern von Quanz angezeigten 2, 3, 4, 6, gebrauchen.”
36 Quantz, Versuch, chap. XVIII/14.

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 �antz and Agricola: A Literary Collaboration 139

Chapter VI/39: After all the experience I have had with a well-focused and bright tone, I �nd
that more wind is needed in the low register than in the high. Quantz is of another opinion,
which however I cannot endorse after the most scrupulous examination. He says that high
and low registers are produced with equal wind; if when going from the low to the high one
simply advances the chin and lips, it will speak, and he gives the example of d'–d''; it is indeed
true that this applies to d'–d'', but if you try it with other notes it will certainly not work the
same; the reason that d'–d'' speaks so easily is that the �rst �nger is raised, after which the
�ute cannot produce any other note even if you want it to, and it will produce the d'' even if
the lips are not moved from their original position; still other notes are possible in the other
octaves as long as none of the �ngers are moved, otherwise when di�erent notes are [made]
possible by moving the �ngers, it will not work anymore at all. Even though the octave of
many notes could be made to speak merely by advancing the chin and lips, it would not be
in tune, since the note would be �at because the wind was propelled too weakly. Moreover,
advancing and retracting the chin and both lips certainly does not present a pleasant sight,
especially in fast pieces.37

Elsewhere, Quantz himself states the rule that low notes must be played strongly
and the upper ones weakly.38 Thus, Tromlitz is correct in �nding errors in his book.
In 1791, Tromlitz was cautious about suggesting another writer for Quantz, but did
want to present the book’s anomalies. By 1800, he �rmly declared that the errors
did not originate with Quantz.

A Sample of Similarities between the �antz and Agricola Books

In his annotations to Tosi’s book, Agricola discusses the cadenza in terms very simi-
lar to those in Quantz; yet his form is more concise, with a di�erent order and word-
ing of the various elements. Agricola o�ers the following eight rules for a cadenza;
in each case, the parallel passage(s) from Quantz’s chapter 15 is supplied beneath:39

37 Tromlitz, Ausführlicher und gründlicher Unterricht, 135; Virtuoso Flute-Player, 133; chap. VI/39:
“Nach allen Erfahrungen, die ich bey einem scharfen und hellen Tone gemacht, �nde ich, dass
man in der Tiefe mehr Wind als in der Höhe brauche. Quanz ist anderer Meynung, welcher ich
aber bey der genauesten Untersuchung nicht beyp�ichten kann. Er sagt: Höhe und Tiefe würde
mit gleichem Winde hervorgebracht, wenn man von der Tiefe nach der Höhe nur das Kinn und
die Lippen verschöbe, so gebe es an, und setzet zum Beyspiel d'–d''; dass dieses mit dem d'–d''
angehe, ist zwar wahr, aber man versuche es mit andern Tönen, es wird gewiss nicht so angehen;
die Ursache, warum d'–d'' so leichte angiebt, ist der aufgehobene erste Finger, die Flöte kann nun
keinen andern Ton angeben, wenn man auch haben wollte, und sie wird das d' angeben, wenn man
auch die Lippen nicht von der Stelle beweget; bey den andern Octaven sind immer noch andere
Töne möglich, weil keine Veränderung in der Fingern gemachet wird, oder wo bey Veränderung
der Finger doch auch noch andere Töne möglich sind, da gehet es nun gar nicht an. Wenn auch
durch das blose Vorschieben des Kinnes und der Lippen die Octave in manchen Tönen angäbe,
so würde sie doch nicht rein seyn, denn der Ton würde wegen zu schwach getriebenen Windes
zu tief werden. Ueber dieses würde das Vorschieben und Zurückeziehen des Kinnes und beyder
Lippen gewiss keinen angenehmen Anblick verursachen, besonders bey geschwinden Sachen.”
38 Quantz, Versuch, IV/14.
39 Agricola, Anleitung zur Singkunst, 203–4; the translation here is adapted from Julianne C. Baird,
Introduction to the Art of Singing by Johann Friedrich Agricola (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995), 211. The Quantz translation here is adapted from Reilly, On Playing the Flute, 180–86.

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 140 Beverly Jerold

(1) Cadenzas must not be too long nor too frequent.

Quantz, § 5: “. . . a single cadenza would be su�cient in a piece.”
§ 9: “Cadenzas . . . must be short and fresh.”

(2) They must always be related to the aria’s main A�ect [passion]. . . . [and] if possible, include
some of its most beautiful individual phrases.
Quantz, § 8: “Cadenzas must stem from the piece’s principal sentiment, and include a
short repetition or imitation of its most pleasing phrases.”

(3) Similar �gures should not be repeated or transposed too often.

Quantz, § 11: “Neither the �gures nor the simple intervals with which a cadenza is begun
and ended may be repeated more than twice in transpositions or they will become dis-
agreeable.” (See also § 12)

(4) Rhythmic movement is to be avoided.

Quantz, § 16: “Regular metre . . . should not be observed in cadenzas.”

(5) Though some notes beyond the key are very likely, one must not stray too far into distant
keys; foreign pitches, which would be dissonances in an ordinary melody if a bass were
provided, require proper resolution.
Quantz, § 14: “You must not roam into keys too remote.”
§ 13: “. . . the intervals must still be correctly resolved, particularly if modulating to
di�erent keys by way of dissonances.”

(6) The cadenza of a lively and �ery aria may consist of large leaps, trills, triplets, runs, etc.;
but that of a sad and pathetic aria prefers the supple [gezogene], slurred manner intermixed
with some dissonant intervals.
Quantz, § 15: “Just as a gay cadenza is formed from extended leaps and gay phrases
interspersed with triplets and shakes, &c, a melancholy one . . . consists almost entirely
of small intervals mingled with dissonances.”

(7) The more unexpected are [the] elements brought into a cadenza, the more beautiful it is.
Quantz, § 18: “Their greatest beauty lies in astonishing the listener in a fresh and striking
manner, as something unexpected.”

(8) One may not breathe in a cadenza, . . . and some breath must be left over for a precise trill.
Quantz, § 17: “Vocal cadenzas or cadenzas for a wind instrument must be constituted to
be performed in one breath.”

Both Quantz and Agricola then discuss in detail the double cadenza executed by two
performers. Parallels with portions of Tosi’s treatise have been found in Quantz’s
chapters dealing with execution (chapters 11–16 and part of the “Einleitung”).40

40 Reilly, On Playing the Flute, xxix, note 1; 23, note 2. In the �rst instance, Reilly cites parallels in
chapters 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of John Ernest Galliard’s English translation of Tosi (Observations on the
Florid Song, 2nd ed. [London: W. Reeves, 1743]). The parallel in Quantz’s “Einleitung” concerns
criticisms in § 14–16, which resemble those in ibid., 117–25.

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 �antz and Agricola: A Literary Collaboration 141

Agricola’s Anonymity
If Agricola collaborated in Quantz’s Versuch and perhaps contributed material of his
own, why did he not publish the latter under his own name? Various reasons come
to mind. For one, Agricola was only thirty-two years old in 1752 and relatively un-
known. His work would not have been considered particularly worthy of notice by
many of the people he was trying to reach. When published under the illustrious
name of Quantz, however, it could not fail to be widely read and discussed. Similarly,
Agricola’s book-length annotations to his translation of Tosi’s treatise �ve years
later had more impact when attached to Tosi’s name. Another reason was Agricola’s
position at the Prussian court, where he had to maintain friendly relations not only
with a mercurial monarch who considered himself an arbiter of musical matters,
but also with a large Kapelle of singers and instrumentalists. (This monarch, by the
way, disapproved of Agricola’s marriage. In such matters, too, Agricola was obliv-
ious to social mores, for in marrying a woman of the theater, he descended below
his station.) Quantz, in contrast, did not have to concern himself with the Kapelle
at all, and he enjoyed Frederick’s respect and admiration. Musicians would have ac-
cepted instruction and criticism from Quantz, called the “Pope” of Berlin’s music,
much more readily than if it had come from Agricola, who could then cite Quantz’s
work in his signed writing. In his translation of Tosi’s book, for example, Agricola
refers to the prescribed execution of strong and weak beats in Quantz’s book (pages
145–46).41 Further references to Quantz appear in Agricola’s chapters about divi-
sions, cadenzas, and variation.42 Parallels between Quantz’s work (chapters 11–16)
and articles about performance practice in Marpurg’s Critische Musicus now suggest
that Agricola wrote the latter as well.43
To say that Agricola collaborated in the book bearing Quantz’s name in no way
diminishes Quantz’s own achievements, which were highly remarkable for one of
his social class. We take for granted an education of twelve years of elementary and
secondary school, followed by university or conservatory for several more years, but
any schooling Quantz may have received would have been inconsequential by our
standards. His extraordinary gifts and initiative were what enabled him to accom-
plish so much with so few tools. The case for Agricola’s participation in Quantz’s
Versuch can be summarized as follows:
• Tromlitz’s declaration (January 1800) that the errors in the �ute portion of
Quantz’s book derived from another individual;
• Eberhard’s identi�cation of this individual as Agricola (September 1800), adding
that this was reliably known;
• Quantz’s lack of an education su�cient to write a book of this scope;

41 Agricola, Anleitung zur Singkunst, 146–47.

42 Ibid., 124, 206, 235.
43 Cited in Reilly, On Playing the Flute, xxix (208–10, 215–18, 223–26 in Marpurg’s Critische Musicus).

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i
 142 Beverly Jerold

• Marpurg’s citation of Agricola as the writer of Quantz’s rebuttal to Moldenit;

• Parallels between Quantz’s Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen
and Agricola’s commentary in his translation of Tosi’s Opinioni de’ cantori;
• Subject matter in Quantz’s book that is more indicative of Agricola;
• Agricola’s record as a reformer and critic; and
• Agricola’s history of writing anonymously.

It now becomes clear that Quantz left much of the responsibility for his book to
another hand. As Eberhard observed, it was not uncommon for musicians to seek
writing assistance.
Some readers may �nd it inconceivable that Quantz would not have been active
in deciding the exact wording of his book, but this overlooks the great di�erence
between their society and our own. Today, every person of talent has �uent read-
ing capability, but in the eighteenth century, only those with the means for private
tutoring or attending a Latin school and university had this ability. For Quantz, the
orphaned and penniless blacksmith’s son who had had limited access to the fun-
damentals of basic education, reading was likely an onerous chore. We could spec-
ulate that Agricola gave Quantz drafts to check, but Quantz, burdened with other
demands on his time, gave them a glance and trusted Agricola to present his views
accurately.
A major milestone of the German Enlightenment, Quantz’s book did in fact draw
wide attention and was a major catalyst in raising performance standards during the
second half of the eighteenth century. To what degree Agricola may have added his
own material—with Quantz’s approval, of course—is a question that invites further
discussion.

This content downloaded from

109.164.255.121 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:29:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i i