The Use of Divided Accidental Keys in Italian Strung Keyboard Instruments Pre 1700 (Eleanor Smith)

A Discussion of the Use of Divided-Accidental keys in Italian
Strung-Keyboard Instruments pre. 1700.
Rectangular Enharmonic Virginal, Attributed to Francesco Poggio, Florence, c

1620. EUCHMI (4345).
Eleanor Smith s0347093

Thesis submitted for the degree of MMus, August 2008
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my supervisor, Dr Darryl Martin, for his support and advice
during the writing of this thesis. Special mention must also go to those in the field of
instrument research who have discussed their own research (in alphabetical order):
Christopher Nobbs, Grant O’Brien, and Ibo Ortgies.
ii
Conventions
Footnote numbering begins afresh at the beginning of each chapter.
Apart from dates, measurements, amounts of money, museum numbers,

instrument registrations, and quotations, all numbers are written out in longhand form.
Centuries are referred to with lower case letters, for example ‘nineteenth
century.’
The pitch notation used is a modified Helmholz system, where middle c is ‘c1’
(see also diagram below). All non specific pitches are in italics.
Diagram showing adapted Helmholz system of pitch notation (adapted by

present author from http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com).
Compass notation uses the same modified Helmholz system. Where instruments
are tuned with a short or broken octave the pitches are separated with a forward stroke,
‘GG/BB’. Where an accidental is omitted the pitches are separated with a comma,
‘FF,GG’ which implies the FF sharp is omitted.
Heraldic terminology is included in italics.
The reference system used is based on the Chicago style, those publications with
no date are referred to as Author (n.d.).
iii
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction. 1
1.1 Instrument literature. 2
1.2 Surviving instruments with fewer than nineteen 4
divisions to the octave.
1.3 Further evidence for instruments with fewer than 8
nineteen divisions to the octave.
1.4 Strung-Keyboard Instruments with Nineteen or 9
more divisions to the octave; (documentary

evidence and surviving examples.)
16
Chapter 2 Three instruments in the Edinburgh University
Collection of Historic Musical Instruments
(EUCHMI).
2.1 Rectangular virginal, attributed to Francesco Poggi, 17
Florence, circa 1620. EUCHMI (4345).
2.2 Single-manual harpsichord, Anonymous, 23
[Florence?], circa 1620. EUCHMI (4302).
2.3 Triple-manual harpsichord, Stephano Bolcioni, 30
Florence, 1627. EUCHMI (4304).
Chapter 3 Musical Evidence for the Use of Chromatically 38
Capable Keyboard instruments.
3.1 Keyboard Music in Naples. 43
3.2 Cremona and Milan. 46
3.3 Venice and Rome. 48
3.4 Frescobaldi and Froberger. 50
Conclusion 53
Bibliography 56
59
Appendix List of Surviving Strung-Keyboard Instruments
Originally Provided With Divided Accidental-Keys
iv
Chapter 1 – Introduction
The intention of this thesis is to examine the use of strung-keyboard1
instruments provided with divided accidental keys in Italy before 1700. As will be
discussed below the prevalence of such keyboards is higher in Italy in the period
between the late-fifteenth and early-sixteenth century than it is elsewhere in Europe. It
is not the intention to discuss the use of divided accidentals on organ keyboards except
as part of the historical context of enharmonic keyboards, and in comparison to their
use on plucked string instruments. A list of the surviving Italian plucked keyboard
instruments originally provided with divided accidental keys for the purpose of
achieving enharmonic notes is included as an appendix to this thesis.
The surviving instruments will be discussed in relation to each other and how
representative they are as part of their makers’ oeuvre; with a particular focus on the
evidence that can be determined from three instruments in the Edinburgh University
Collection of Historic Musical Instruments.2 The evidence for the musical use of
instruments with enharmonic accidentals will also be discussed, both that of theorists
and also that which can be determined from the music itself (including a study of the
music of Frescobaldi).
1 The surviving instruments are harpsichords and virginals.

2 Herein referred to as EUCHMI.
1
1.1 - Instrument Literature
Denzil Wraight and Christopher Stembridge (1994) give a list of surviving Italian
strung keyboard instruments with divided accidentals, as well as discussing the
documentary evidence pertaining particularly to the use of instruments with fewer than
nineteen divisions to the octave. An updated list of twenty-three harpsichords and
virginals is available from Denzil Wraight’s website,3 which also includes documentary
evidence for a number of further instruments. There are two additional instruments that
are not included in this version of the list (a full discussion of the surviving instrument is
included below). Many of these instruments are also described in Wraight (1997:
Volume II), and those which are by known instrument builders are listen in Mould, Ed.
(?) Makers of the Harpsichord and Clavichord 1440-18404. Although both texts are excellent
reference works, it should be noted that Wraight (1997) (by its nature) is mostly
concerned with the stringing and string scaling of the instruments, and Boalch III does
not include the anonymous instruments.
Edward Kottick5 gives a brief overview of the use of divided accidentals in

Italian harpsichords and virginals, and also introduces some ideas of the repertoire
written for instruments with a full enharmonic compass (that is with nineteen divisions
to the octave). He suggests that the introduction of instruments with divided accidentals
was due to a change in the prevalent system of tuning from Pythagorean to mean tone
tunings with perfect thirds. However, this raises the question as to why the majority of
string instruments with this kind of compass were made in Italy, and indeed come (as
can be seen from the list of surviving instruments) from a small number of city states.
Both Wraight and Stembridge (1994) and Kottick (2003) identify that the
practice of supplying extra enharmonic notes on keyboards appears to have begun with
organ building, with the provision of keys for both a-flat and g-sharp, and often also e-flat
and d-sharp. Wraight and Stembridge state that:
3 Wraight (2005).
4 Herein referred to as Boalch III.
5 Kottick (2003: 88-89).
2
“The earliest reference (Cesena, 1468) does not appear to suggest that the
addition of such keys was a completely new idea; thus the invention of the device could
well be on an even earlier date.” 6
The authors suggest that this is due to the need for a-flats in the choral church
music of the 15th and 16th Centuries, which would also be a sensible reason for the
requirement of the enharmonic note on the harpsichord and virginals. As is noted by
Kottick (2003: 88), it is much easier to quickly re-tune a stringed keyboard instrument
quickly when the alternative enharmonic note is required, and he suggests this may be a
reason why the use of divided accidentals on organs far pre-dates their use on
harpsichords. This will be discussed in brief in reference to keyboard music in Chapter
3, as will the existing literature pertaining to the musical use of the instruments.
6 Wraight and Stembridge (1994: 169).
3
1.2 - Surviving instruments with fewer than nineteen
divisions to the octave
Although there are twenty-two extant instruments provided with enharmonic
accidentals (although fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave): the surviving signed
instruments only appear to have been made in two centres of building, Florence and
Rome (this of course does not take into account the organs that were built with divided
accidental keys).
The practice also appears to have begun far earlier with the organ than theorists
describing harpsichords or clavichord would suggest; Wraight and Stembridge cite
examples dating from 1468 to 1665. Wraight and Stembridge suggest that this may be
linked to requirements of vocal music. It should also be noted that the large portion of
organs that were known to have a keyboard with divided accidentals rarely had nineteen
or more division, instead were more usually provided with only one or two divisions.
There are occasional reports of archiorgana, including one in the Colonna manuscript, but
these appear to have been far rarer than cembalo cromatico or archicemabo (presumably
linked to expense of such an instrument.)
The large proportion of named Florentine instruments are virginals; with the
exception of the 1627 Stephano Bolcioni harpsichord,7 and an instrument by Pasquino
Querci. Indeed there appear to have been two main instrument makers in Florence who
were building instruments with enharmonic keyboards and (if the surviving instruments
are at all representative of the output of their workshops) these builders appear to have
mostly made instruments with divided accidentals.
Stephano Bolcioni
Out of ten surviving instruments listed in Wraight’s catalogue8 by Stephano

Bolcioni, dating from 1626 to 1641, half have a number of divided accidentals. Indeed
the four virginals represent most of Bolcioni’s surviving instruments of this type, with
one other being considered to be an incorrect attribution. The 1641 virginal by Bolcioni,
now in Leipzig, is the latest dated Florentine instrument, and is provided with just two
7 This instrument, EUCHMI (4304), will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

8 Wraight (1997: Volume II, 65-78).
4
enharmonic accidentals at a-flat, and a-flat1.9 Boalch III does not list this instrument as
part of Bolcioni’s oeuvre; however, Wraight (1997: Part II, 77) considers the instrument
and the date to be genuine.
Francesco Poggi
Francesco Poggi is survived by up to twenty-one instruments,10 of which four of

the virginals have, or had divided accidentals. Although this is a lower number that is
seen with instruments by Bolcioni, it still represents a fifth of his remaining output.
Most of Poggi’s instruments are undated, including most of those with divided
accidentals. Dated instruments range from 1586 to 1620 (not including those
instruments with dates that Wraight considers to be spurious).It should be noted that
Poggi is also known to have worked for a period in Venice.11
The final instrument that survives from a named Florentine maker is a

harpsichord of c. 1625 attributed12 by a moulding comparison to Pasquino Querci, of
whose surviving instruments this is the only example with divided accidentals. This does
not take into account any anonymous instruments that are thought to have been made
in Florence.
Rome
The situation with surviving Roman instruments appears to be the opposite of

that in Florence, in that there is not one single surviving named virginal13 built in Rome
(again not taking into account any anonymous instruments which may have been built
in the city state). There are slightly fewer named instruments surviving from Rome with
six instruments (and a cembalo cromatico), compared to the ten from Florence, although
whether this is significant compared to the number of instruments built in the respective
cities is impossible to comment upon (as it returns to the unanswerable question of
whether the surviving instruments are representative of the instruments built).
9 Wraight (1997: Volume II, 77).

11 Kottick (2003: 142).
13 It should be noted that although Boalch III discusses a polygonal virginal with divided accidentals by
Boni, Wraight (1997: Part II, 75) attributes this instrument to Bolcioni on the basis of a moulding
comparison.
5
Of the Roman instruments, half are by a single builder, Giovanni Battista Boni.
Wraight (1997: Volume II, 70-80) discusses three instruments with divided accidental
keys, all of which appear to have been built in Rome c.1619. All three of the instruments
were originally registered with set of 8’ strings, and were provided with the same five
enharmonic notes in the tenor and treble; d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, a-flat1, and d-sharp2.
One of the instruments, now in the possession of private collector in Bristol, also
appears to have been provided with a number of divided natural keys in the bass to
permit a broken octave to GG.14
There is an instrument in the Collezione degli Strument Musicali, Rome that has
been attributed to a later Boni. However, Stembridge (1993: 37) says that the keyframe
(which shows evidence of having nineteen notes to the octave therefore being a cimabalo
cromatico) has been cut down and does not belong in this instrument.
A slightly later dated harpsichord, signed “GA 1630”, has been attributed by
Wriaght (1997: Volume II, 14) to Girolamo Acciari, a harpsichord maker active in Rome
at this period. This would appear to be the only surviving harpsichord by the maker,
although a virginal (with a conventional C/E-c3 compass) has also been attributed to
him. This instrument has the same 1x8’ disposition15 as the instruments by Boni, as well
as the same compass (C/E-c3) as two of the instruments, and being provided with the
same five enharmonic accidentals (although the GA instrument does not appear to have
a broken octave).
A further instrument, by Franciscus Marchionus, may in fact also have been a

cembalo cromatico. Boalch III16 states that all the accidentals were originally divided,
however Hubbard (1967: 36) describes the compass with a broken octave and four
additional divisions; d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, and a-flat1. Less is known about the sixth
instrument, attributed to Franciscus Faber17 (signed “FF” on the lowermost and
uppermost keys), although it is described by both Boalch III18 and by Wraight19 as

15 Mould, Ed. (1995:217).
16 Mould, Ed. (1995: 501).
17 Faber is thought to have worked in Senigallia on the opposite side of Italy to Rome, Ed. Mould (1995:
56). However, Wraight (1997: Part II, 153) states that one of the instruments attributed to this maker is
signed “FF in Roma” and therefore there this instrument may also have been made in Rome.
18 Mould, Ed. (1995: 310).
6
having eight divided accidentals. This is believed to entail a C/E-c3 compass + F-sharp,
G-sharp, d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, a-flat1, d-sharp2, and one further note suggested by
Wraight (2005: 3) to be a-sharp. Of the four surviving instruments signed or attributed
to Faber, this is one of two to have divided accidentals. The other instrument is a cembalo
cromatico and therefore will be discussed further below.
The remaining three instruments are all anonymous, and therefore determining
the location in which they were built requires consideration of other factors. One of
these instruments, EUCHMI (4302), will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, but
would appear to have also been built in Florence. Wraight (2005:1) discusses a further
instrument thought to have been once owned by Alfonso II, Duke of Ferrara, built
c.1559-97 presumably in Venice.
This instrument is now in the Schloß Köpenic, Berlin and had a C/E-c3
compass + F-sharp, G-sharp, d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, a-flat1, and d-sharp2. This appears
to be the oldest surviving plucked-keyboard instrument provided with enharmonic
accidentals. Another anonymous instrument in the Collezione degli Strument Musicali,
Rome20 has the most common compass found with the instruments discussed above;
that is C/E-c3 + F-sharp, G-sharp, d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, a-flat1, and d-sharp2. Little
else is known about this particular instrument, and therefore no attempt appears to have
yet been made to determine the centre of construction.
One final instrument remains to be discussed, a harpsichord of c.1550 in the

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (1986.518) presumed to be Neapolitan in origin.21 This
instrument originally had a forty-five note compass C/E-c3 with the typical sixteenth
century disposition of one 8’ and one 4’ register. This was later altered to a single 8’
register with extra strings provided for a broken octave, and apparently d-sharps and a-
flats throughout the compass (if the instruments current state is at all a faithful
restoration to its second state).
Although the extra strings and jacks were provided, it is unclear how exactly the
arrangement of the extra enharmonics would have worked. The keyboard shows no
evidence of having had divided accidentals; Koster (1994: 4) states that there must have
20 Wraight (1997: Part II, 382) suggests this may or may not in fact be two separate instruments, due to
confusion over cataloguing.
21 Koster (1994: 3-4).
7
been some system for engaging the extra jacks (the slots for which were let into the back
of the wrestplank). Although Koster (1994: 8-10) convincingly locates the instruments
construction to Naples, there is no discussion of where it was altered to its second state
Fe does however suggest that it was likely to have occurred in the mid-seventeenth
century given the single 8’ disposition.22 If this instrument was altered in Naples it would
possibly represent the only enharmonic instrument known from the city23 which may be
significant in terms of the musical use of enharmonic instruments.
22 Koster (1994: 9).

23 See also the discussion in chapter 1.4 of the instrument attributed to Onafrio Guarracino.
8
1.3 – Further evidence for instruments with fewer than
nineteen divisions to the octave.
Wraight (2005: 4, 6) offers evidence for an number of further instruments that
were provided with divided accidentals,24 largely from inventories taken of large
households. These include two Neapolitan instruments in the household of Cardinal
Aldobrando in 1603; these would some of the only Neapolitan instruments with such a
keyboard arrangement, although whether this was their original state or whether (like
the Neopolitan harpsichord in Boston) they were altered at some point in their history
cannot be conjectured. Stembridge (1993: 42) also discusses a number of further
instruments, including a reference to the commissioning of an instrument with divided
accidentals by the painter Domenichino.
There is also evidence that two spinette (presumably virginals or spinets) belonged
to the Medici court in Florence. Wraight (2005: 6) suggests that these are likely to
represent two further instruments with five divided accidentals probably made by
Bolcioni (this may make him the most prolific exponent of such keyboards on plucked
string instruments). Wraight and Stembridge (1994: 161) also mentions a pair of
claviorgans dated some time before 1598 with divided accidentals; Ortgies (2003: 47)
gives the location of these instruments as having been in the Castello Estensa, Ferrara.
This would represent a tenuous link between the use of such divided accidentals on the
organ and on plucked keyboard instruments; although Wraight (2005: 1) suggests that
the instrument now in the Schloß Köpenick, Berlin may also have been designed to be
capable of linkage with an organ.
24 This is largely a repetition of similar information in Wraight and Stembridge (1994: 160-161).
9
1.4 – Strung-Keyboard Instruments with Nineteen or more
divisions to the octave; documentary evidence and surviving
examples.
The evidence for the existence of instruments with nineteen or more divisions
to the octave presented by Stembrige (1993) can be divided into two main types of
sources; firstly theoretical treatises, evidence from musical publications (which will be
discussed further in Chapter 3), and lastly evidence from the inventories taken of the
instruments in private estates (discussed above in Chapter 1.3). Although the focus of
this thesis is the instruments with fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave, it is
important to discuss the prevalence of those keyboards considered fully chromatic to
give the full historical context.
There are three theorists who describe instruments with nineteen or more
divisions to the octave; Vicentino (1555), Zarlino (1558), and Praetorius (1618, 1619).
Vicentino’s L’antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica is a work of musical theory
discussing the three Greek genera of music (diatonic, chromatic, and enharmonic).25 The
thesis is thought to have been published in response to losing a debate in Rome in 1551
in which he challenged the Portuguese musician Vivente Lusitano on the application of
these Greek genera.26 The final volume (book five of the Prattica) describes the
Archicembalo as well as a description of the tuning of the instrument, practical studies for
the musician, and plates showing the construction of parts of the instrument.27
Bink (1966) discusses Vicentino’s instrument in detail, as well as how the

notation used applies to the instrument and the theory. Although Vicentino’s treatise
was published in Rome, it should be noted that he was also associated with the musical
circles of Venice and the ideas and teachings of Adrian Willaert whose work will be
discussed further in chapter 3.28 This association with Venice is likely to have influenced
his work, especially his interest in the theory of the Greek genera and their practical use.
Stembridge (1993:43-47) describes the instrument included in Zarlino’s Istitutioni

harmonische (Venice, 1558); this is the earliest representation of an instrument with
25 Bink (1966: 1).

26 Kaufmann and Kendrick (2008).
27 Bink (1966: 2).
28 Kaufmann and Kendrick (2008).
10
nineteen notes to the octave although the illustration itself would not appear to show
any practical instrument (more a representation of a theory). The keys are divided
vertically, as opposed to the horizontal division that is suggested by the surviving
instruments. There are also only two octaves to the compass (which would not make it a
practical playing instrument). Finally, as Stembridge points out, the number of strings
does not match the number of keys; so the illustration would not appear to be of an
instrument which ever existed, rather a diagram. Zarlino’s treatise was published in
Venice in 1558, which would make it contemporary to the Schloß Köpenick
harpsichord described above.
Zarlino is also known to have commissioned an instrument from Domenico de

Pesaro which was later described by Martino Pesenti in his introduction to a publication
of music specifically for the enharmonic instrument. Pesenti states in this introduction
that he has seen both the instrument made for Zarlino in 1546 by Domenico de Pesaro,
and an instrument made by Vido de Trasuntino29 (possibly representing the third
instrument by the latter to have nineteen or more divisions to the octave).
Praetorius (1619: 63-66) describes a Clavicymbalum Universale, seu perfectum in the

second book of Syntagma Musica (Wolfenbüttel, 1619). He describes how this instrument
is suited to accompanying lutes and gambas because of its ability to transpose.30 The
instrument described in detail by Praetorius belonged to Carl Luython who was organist
in Prague, and was also apparently unique in having some device to enable the keyboard
to transpose.31 Praetorius also mentions a clavichord that he had build that had the same
octave divisions as a cembalo cromatico; that is nineteen notes to the octave.32
Finally, a publication of music and theory by Fabio Colonna in Naples in 1618

describes a clavichord with thirty-one divisions to the octave. It would appear that his
colleague (and one time friend) Scipione Stella also built an instrument with more than
nineteen divisions to the octave, which was seen by the Frenchman Jean-Jacques
Bouchard in 1632.33 Bouchard noted in his diary that he had seen the instrument in the
possession of Stella’s nephew. He also came across Colonna and his instrument whilst
29 Pesenti (1645/6) in Stembridge (1993: 47-49).

30 Praetorius (1619: 63).
31 Stembridge (1993: 39).
32 Praetorius (1619: 60- 62).
33 Barbieri , ed. (1991: XXXVI).
11
in Naples by which time the inventor had fallen into poverty and a feud had grown up
between him and Stella over whether Colonna had stolen the design of his instrument
from his friend.34
Scipione Stella’s instrument appears to have as many as fifty-two divisions to the

octave arranged over eight rows of keys and was reportedly very difficult to tune (and
one can imagine also to play). Colonna’s seemingly unique invention was to use the
principal of a fretted clavichord with six rows of keys, but allowing the instrument to be
tuned as a diatonic instrument and therefore the tangents of the fretted notes would
automatically be in tune.35 Although this would render it the most easily tuned of the
keyboards with more than nineteen-divisions to the octave, it would only be practical as
a practice instrument (given the nature of the clavichord itself). Fretted clavichords can
also be difficult to play well as any slip in technique can result in ‘blocking’.
Surviving instruments
As well as discussing the documentary evidence, Stembridge (1993) also

discusses the surviving Italian keyboard instruments with more than nineteen notes to
the octave (including two instruments that can be shown to have originally had this kind
of keyboard). Wraight (2005) identifies another instrument in a private collection in
England,36 and O’Brien (2005) discusses a further instrument now in Milan, which may
represent the only Neapolitan cembalo cromatico.37 This equates to three surviving Italian
instruments from before 1700 which can be shown to have been cembali cromatico (with
nineteen note octaves), a keyboard in one further harpsichord that was altered from a
cembalo cromatico, and one surviving clavemusicum omnitonum with a 31-note octave.
Two of the above instruments are built by Vito de Trasuntinus,38 a harpsichord

maker working in Venice in the late-sixteenth century whose clavemusicum omnitonum
represents his latest surviving dated instrument. The other39 is in a private collection in
34 Barbiereii, ed. (1991: XXXVI).

35 Barbieri , ed. (1991: XLIV).
36 Information on this instrument has also been provided by Christopher Nobbs (PC: 6th May 2008).
37 The instrument in question is Neapolitan, the debate lies in whether the nineteen note compass is
original or a later addition, as were the divided accidentals in a Neapolitan harpsichord now in
Boston.(Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 1986.518). See also Chapter 1.2.
38 One is signed “Viti” but is assumed to be by the same maker. Nobbs (PC: 6th May 2008).
39 It should be noted that this instrument has passed through the hands of Leopold Francioli, and
therefore there must be a caveat as to the authenticity of the signature. However, Nobbs (PC) states that
the mouldings and keywell carvings would appear to match the work of Vito de Trasuntinus.
12
England, and has been extensively rebuilt, although evidence of its original compass
with nineteen divisions to the octave can be ascertained from evidence of plugged
wrest-pin holes in the wrestplank. The internal bracing of the instrument is also more
robust that one might expect to help withstand the extra strings. Nobbs (PC) suggests
that this instrument may be a logical precursor to the clavemusicum omnitonum.
Trasuntino’s clavemusicum omnitonum has thirty-one divisions to the octave divided

across two keyboards with six layers of keys. This instrument was built for Camillo
Gonzaga, the then Count of Novellara (as the signature on the nameboard attests), and
is thought to be the one surviving instrument built to the specification40 of Nicola
Vicentino’s theoretical Archicembalo (described by him in his treatise of 1555 entitled
L’antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica).41 The purpose of such an instrument is to
return to Greek musical theory providing microtonal tuning based on hexachords.
Whether this instrument was ever intended as a playing instrument, or more as the
application of Vicentino’s theories is unclear, although given how complicated the
instrument would have been to tune it would appear unlikely. Vicentino is believed to
have constructed an archiorgano42 for the same purpose.
The instrument of which only part of the keyframe exists has been discussed
above in chapter 1.2 in the context of the work a member of the Boni family. This
harpsichord will therefore not be discussed here; apart from to mention that very little
evidence remains of the original instrument from which it was taken (other than to
confirm that it originally from had a nineteen note octave).
Stembridge (1993: 36-37) discusses the Faber harpsichord now in the

Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremburg which is the second of two instruments
attributed to this builder which had some form of divided accidentals. As previously
discussed43 Faber may have been working in Senigallia, although some of his
instruments may have been made in Rome. The evidence from the balance rail of this
instrument suggests the compass was C/E-c3 with a conventional broken octave and the
40 Stembridge (1993:55) describes Vicentino’s keyboard as having 36 notes to the octave, whereas the
surviving instrument by Trasuntino has 31divisions.
41 Brink (1966:1).
42 Ripin (2008).
43 See footnote 16.
13
first of the additional enharmonic notes was for B-sharp (with the top three chromatic
keys of f-sharp2, g-sharp2, and b-flat2 not being divided).
The final instrument is in the collection of Fernanda Giulini, in the Villa Medici
Giulini in Milan. This instrument has been attributed to Onofrio Guarracino by Grant
O’Brien, and has a keyboard which has obviously been provided with a nineteen note
octave at some point in its history as the ivory keytops of the natural keys have been re-
used (revealing where the b-sharps and e-sharps have been joined to the rest of the
keytop).44 Although the ivory has been reused the divided accidental keytops have been
discarded and replaced.
Although the instrument has been given a date of c. 1670, the nameboard of the
instrument bears the signature “Annibale” which may refer to Annibale of Rome who
flourished circa 1655,45 although Prof. Francesco Nocerino suggests46 that it may be
Aniballo de Astasio (a harpsichord maker active in Naples from 1557-1576).Given that
this earlier date would mean this instrument is contemporary to the Schloß Köpenick
instrument described above, and puts it 100 years before the date given by O’Brien it
would appear to be unlikely. It is feasible that Annibale of Rome was still building
instruments in 1670 (the date suggested by O’Brien) and therefore would appear to be a
more likely candidate for the signature. This may suggest that the instrument was altered
in Rome quite soon after it was built (perhaps an alteration to remove or indeed add
divided accidentals).
O’Brien (2005: 15) considers the balance rail to be original, and states that there
is a second set of balance pin marks that also support that the instrument had a nineteen
note octave. He also discusses that the plugged pins in the wrestplank would appear to
indicate several intermediate states (although he had not investigated this further). He
also states that the balance rail shows further evidence of a number of intermediate
state; therefore the possibility that the instrument originally had a conventional
keyboard and that the nineteen divisions were a later addition that was then removed.
This is a question which cannot be answered without further detailed examination of
44 O’Brien (2005: 14-15).

45 Ed. Mould (1995: 5).
46 In O’Brien (2005: 1).
14
the instrument, and therefore the instrument must be considered to at least be a
possible example of a Neapolitan cembalo cromatico.
In summary; as with the instruments discussed in Chapter 1.2 there appear to

have been enharmonic instruments with nineteen or more divisions to the octave built
in Rome. However, the larger number of surviving instruments, and the greater number
of publications came out of Venice with another instrument potentially having been
made in Naples. Whether this relates to the music of the period will be discussed further
in Chapter 3.
15
Chapter 2 - Three instruments in the Edinburgh University
Collection of Historic Musical Instruments (EUCHMI).
As mentioned above, there are three instruments in the Edinburgh University
collection which were originally provided with a number of divided accidentals
(although fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave). These are the two harpsichords
EUCHMI (4302), and (4304) from the Raymond Russell collection, and the rectangular
virginal attributed to Poggi, EUCHMI (4345). Both of the harpsichords have had their
enharmonic compasses altered on more than one occasion; whereas the virginal would
appear to have retained its enharmonic compass (although the current keyboard and
keyframe is a modern replacement). One instrument in particular, the harpsichord by
Bolcioni EUCHMI (4304), has had a particularly tumultuous history which will be
discussed further below.
This chapter will discuss the history of these three instruments, and what
evidence remains for both their original states and any intermediate states they may have
passed through. This information will also be related and compared where possible to
the other surviving instruments discussed above in chapter 1.2.
16
2.1 - Rectangular virginal, attributed to Francesco Poggi,
Florence, circa 1620. EUCHMI (4345)
Illustration 1- Rectangular enharmonic virginal, attributed to Francesco Poggi, EUCHMI (4345).
This virginal is the only EUCHMI instrument to have retained its enharmonic
compass, possibly because a virginal would have been more complicated to rebuild than
a harpsichord. As well as being the only virginal of the three enharmonic instruments,
this is the only instrument of the three that was not part of the Raymond Russell
collection, instead being bought by the museum in 1984. The instrument is also believed
to have passed through the hands of Leopoldo Franciolini, which led a previous owner
to believe that it may be a fake.47
The non-original jackrail bears the signature “Agostinus Federigus Fecit in Pisis
anno Domini 1766”; however, Wraight (1997: Volume II, 158) has attributed the
instrument to Poggi on the strength of a moulding comparison. Given that two of the
instruments thought to bear the above signature are considered by Wraight to be the
same instrument, and that the third is known to have passed through the hands of
Franciolini, it is highly possible that Agostini Federigi is a completely fictitious name.
47 Mould (1995: 312).
17
Francesco Poggi seems to have worked out of Florence for the greater portion
of his life; however he signed some of his instruments ‘francesco poggio venetus’
suggesting he was also active for a period in Venice.48 Guild records from Florence
reveal that he worked in the via dei Servi (as did other instrument makers Querci and
Stephano Bolcioni)49 and that he died in 1634 without heirs. His dated instruments
range from 1586 to 1620.
The instrument is integral with its case in a style that became more popular from
the 1560s onwards;50 although this style became more popular in Italy throughout the
sixteenth- and seventeenth centuries, it never usurped the older inner-outer case design.
This is in fact the only one of the three instruments to be discussed that is built in this
fashion. There are decorative mouldings around the upper edge of the instrument to
give the impression that there is an inner case as well as decorative carvings at the
keywell ends to the same purpose. It is from the design of these mouldings and other
elements of the instrument that the virginal has been attributed to Poggi.
The decoration on the exterior of the case is not original; a report51 in the
instruments file discusses the various layers of decoration of the outer case (as well the
interior lid painting). Four layers of decoration have been identified, although the lid
painting would appear to be in part original. The coat of arms has been altered; the
current shield52 is Gules53 a lion rampant, on a chief Argent54 a cross ankred Gules55 (the shield
has a crest but it is indistinct). The paint has flaked slightly in the fess Argent and
underneath can be seen a layer of vermillion paint which does not appear to match the
shade of the ground, above the lions tail there is also the remnants of an inscription. The
report suggests that this is evidence for an earlier shield (perhaps of a previous or
original owner of the instrument.
The border pattern does appear to predate the current coat of arms given that
the lower edge is painted over the bottom of the border. The report suggests that the
48 Mould (1995: 148-9, 312).

50 Kottick (2003: 155).
51 Mactaggart (1977).
52 A list of heraldic terminology can be found at the College of Arms Foundation website
<http://www.coaf.us>
53 Red.
54 Silver.
55 This heraldic design is also described in Mould (1995: 312).
18
animal figures on the lid have also been repainted but presumably over original figures
which were roughly the same. The blue paint used for the main background of the lid
painting is identified as smalt of ‘a particularly fine colour’. Mactaggart (1977) suggests
that this internal decoration should therefore be considered a version of the original.
The instruments stand is modern.
Illustration 2 – Detail of Poggi virginal, showing the decoration on the interior of the lid.
Although the current keyboard is a modern replacement, what is presumably the

original keyframe survives with a later keyboard. The balance rail shows no evidence of
being repinned, confirming that the instrument has never had its compass altered. The
C/E- f3 compass is typical of Poggi’s other instruments, with only four surviving
examples by him with a C/E-c3 compass (Wraight gives this compass as the most
common for rectangular virginals).56
An instrument also attributed to Poggi in the Liverpool Museum is the only

virginal by Poggi (or indeed Florentine) to have been altered from its original compass
with divided accidentals to remove the enharmonic notes (the compass is now C-f3).57
To alter the instrument from its original fifty-six notes, to its current fifty-four, the top
two jackslots were plugged and a new keyboard made. The new keyboard must a
narrower octave span than the original to allow for the extra natural keys in the
compass, and the treble keylevers would have to veer further to the left to enable them
to operate the jacks (given that they are operating jacks two slots closer to the bass).
56 Wraight (1997: Volume I, 152).

57 Wess and Wraight in Rushton, Ed. (1994:2-5).
19
Illustration 3 - Detail of the Poggi virginal showing the modern keyboard with divided accidental
keys.
String scaling
Wraight (1997: Volume I, 187-188) states that the majority of sixteenth century
instruments were laid out from their f notes, that is that the string scaling is designed to
be as Pythagorean as is practical based on the length of (usually) f2. Given the date of
the instrument and that Poggi began his building career in the sixteenth century it would
not be unreasonable to suggest that this slightly later instrument would use a
construction based on f. This however does not appear to be the case with the Poggi
virginal, although the string scaling is close to Pythagorean when calculated using the f
notes.
The soundboard of the virginal bears positioning marks where the bridges have
been pinned out during construction. These marks correspond neatly to the c strings on
the right bridge, and also on the left bridge (although there are also some additional
marks). Using the principal of Occam’s razor there is not reason why a maker would
scale an instrument from f and pin it from c. It must therefore be taken that the scaling
is designed from c.58
To further test this, each of the short string-lengths was converted into its
equivalent c2 scaling by multiplying the string length to within an octave of c2, and then
multiplying or dividing the result by 1.059463094 once for each semi-tone from c2. For
58 Wraight (1997: Volume I, 209) does note that many seventeenth century instruments were laid out from
c.
20
example; an e-flat1 length of 546.5 mm is divided by 2 to give 273.25mm for e-flat2, then
multiplied by 1.059463094 three times (equivalent is 1.189207114) to get a c2 equivalent
of 325.0mm. For the e-flat length of 1021mm, the string length was first converted to
the e-flat2 length of 255.25mm and then multiplied by 1.189207114 to get a c2 equivalent
of 303.5mm.
The difference between the string length and the c2 equivalents was then
calculated in terms of cents using the formula;
log
' c 2 equivalent $
%% 2 "" ! 3986.3137
& c 337.5mm #
Accepting a deviation from Pythagorean of up to a semitone (100 cents); the

scaling of the c strings is Pythagorean from c2 down to b-flat, and also largely in the
treble. However, if one calculates the c2 equivalents of only the short strings, ignoring
the final enharmonic string for e-flat2/d-sharp2, (therefore considering the compass to
effectively reach to f-sharp3) then the treble scaling conforms more closely to
Pythagorean. (See table 1).
Wraight’s discussion59 suggests that the greater proportion of Italian virginals

were designed to be strung in brass wire; the string length of this instrument would
appear to concur with the instruments Wraight gives as examples of brass stringing (i.e.
that is there is nothing about the instrument that suggests it would be strung in iron).
An examination of the baseboard of the case of this instrument reveals that

there appears to have been some attempt to add pedal pulldowns to the keyboard.
Given the roughness of the spacing and the holes themselves (not all are drilled
completely through the baseboard) it is considered that this attempt was unsuccessful.
There is also evidence from both the baseboard and the original keyframe that the
keyboard has at some point been screwed into position.
59 Wraight (1997: Volume I, 197-214).
21
Note String c2 Cents c2 equivalent Cents
length equivalent difference (without d- difference
(mm) sharp2-)
f3 122.5 327 55 f-sharp3 346.5 46

e3 (l) 125 315.0 119 f3 (l)
e-flat3 135.5 322.3 80 e3 341.4 20
d3 (l) 138 309.8 148 e-flat3 (l)
c-sharp3 149.5 316.8 110 d3 335.6 10
c3 (l) 153.5 307 164 c-sharp3 (l)
b2 169 319.0 98 c3 338 3
b-flat2 (l) 172 324.7 67 2
b (l)
a2 192 322.9 77 b-flat2 342.1 23
a-flat2 (l) 195.5 310.3 145 a2 (l)
g2 218 326.6 57 a-flat2 326.6 57
f-sharp2 (l) 221.5 313.2 129 g2 (l)
f2 244 325.7 62 f-sharp2 345.1 39
2
e (l) 248 312.5 133 f2 (l)
e-flat2 272 323.5 73 e2 342.7 26
d-sharp2 (l) 276.5 328.8 45 e-flat2- (l)
d2 305 342.4 25 d2 342.4 25
c-sharp2 (l) 309 327.4 53 c-sharp2 (l)
c2 337.5 337.5 0 c2 337.5 0
b-flat1 374.5 333.6 20 b-flat1 333.6 20
a-flat1 414.5 329 44 a-flat1 329 44
g1 453.5 339.7 11 g1 339.7 11
f1 497.5 332.0 28 f1 332.0 28
e-flat1 546.5 325.0 65 e-flat1 325.0 65
d1 601.5 337.6 0.5 d1 337.6 0.5
c1 659 329.5 42 c1 329.5 42
b-flat 724.5 322.7 78 b-flat 322.7 78
a-flat 790.5 313.7 127 a-flat 313.7 127
G 863.5 288.2 273 g 288.2 273
F 940 313.7 127 f 313.7 127
e-flat 1021 303.5 184 e-flat 303.5 184
D 1094.5 307.1 163 d 307.1 163
C 1173 293.25 243 c 293.25 243
B-flat 1229.5 273.8 362 B-flat 273.8 362
A-flat 1255.5 124.6 1725 A-flat 124.6 1725
G 1333 111.2 1922 G 111.2 1922
D 1378 193.3 964 D 193.3 964
C 1423 177.9 1108 C 177.9 1108
Table 1- Showing the string scaling calculations for the virginal attributed to Poggi EUCHMI
(4345).
22
2.2 - Single-manual harpsichord, Anonymous, [Florence ?], circa
1620. EUCHMI (4302).
Illustration 4 - Single-manual harpsichord, Anonymous, EUCHMI (4302)
The first of the two harpsichords originally provided with an enharmonic

compass, this anonymous instrument currently has a fifty-one note C-c3 compass. The
instruments current state has been attributed in the EUCHMI catalogue to the
workshop of Bartolomeo Cristofori who worked in Florence from 1688 after his
appointment to the court of the Medici family.60 The instrument was part of the
Raymond Russell collection given the University in 1964.
The case and its outer case are made in the usual Italian style, built up from the
baseboard with the sides overlapping the outside edges of the baseboard. The
instrument is decorated and reinforced in the usual style with decorative mouldings;
60 O’Brien (2008)
23
although these often can be used to identify a builder, this does not yet appear to have
been attempted or successful in the case of this instrument.
Wraight (1997: Volume II, 327) found the closest match (best fit, not identical)
to the bridge profile to be that of Feroci (presumably Agostino), suggesting that he was
responsible for the alteration removing the divided accidentals. Further inspection of
the instrument suggests that the bridge is in fact original so this may negate the
attribution of the profile to Feroci who flourished in Florence c. 170561 (too late for the
style of the instrument). It may be possible that the instrument was by Agostino’s father
Michele, no examples of whose work survives, and that the tool for the bridge was
passed from father to son. However, this is too much of a leap to make, and therefore
the logical conclusion is that the similarity of the bridge to Feroci’s pattern is
coincidental.
The inner instrument is made of cypress, the most common material used in
Italian instruments, and the protective outer case of a thicker coniferous wood. The
dark green decoration on the exterior of the outer-case is described in the catalogue as
‘vinework’, and would appear to match the style of the stand (suggesting the latter is
original to the case). Barnes (1975: 1) believed the stand and the outer-case to be
original to the instrument, a situation which is relatively rare given that the stands of
Italian instruments are not usually attached to the case and therefore are easily lost.
There is a hinged flap in the side of the cheek revealing two small plugged holes in the
side of the case of the instrument through which some form of stop lever has at some
time been passed.
If these are from the original registers it would confirm that the decoration on
the outer-case is original as it is found on the hinges of the flap and there is no leakage
of paint around the sides of the flap. There are scribe marks on the underside of the
outer-case suggesting the stand has at some point been fixed to the bottom of the stand,
these would appear to mark the position of battens added at some later point in the
instruments history to fix the stand in position and have since been removed.
The key-levers and the jack-guides have been replaced to accommodate the
current compass, although the original key-covers were re-used. This can be deduced
61 Mould (1997: 59).
24
because the key-tops of the original split accidentals can be seen in the extreme bass and
treble where they have been glued together. Not all the divided accidental keytops have
survived the rebuilding; three of the current keytops62 have veneers about 1 ¾ mm thick
over black painted wood. This suggests that at least part of one of the keytops (perhaps
all) has been discarded during one of the rebuilds.
Illustration 5- Detail of EUCHMI (4302) showing the re-used accidental keytops in the treble of
the keyboard.
The balance rail of the original key-frame has also been altered to accommodate
a new set of balance pins; this was achieved by planning a section off the top of the
original rail and capping it with a new piece of oak. X-rays were taken of the balance rail
and wrestplank in 1975,63 which show that there was an intermediate state between the
compass with divided accidentals and the current compass. This is presumably why the
balance rail was capped, as it had already been re-pinned once. Whether any new
keylevers were made for the intermediate state, or whether they were simply redrilled
when the balance rail was repinned is unclear.
The x-ray tracings support Barnes’ hypothesis that the instrument had been
reduced from its 57 note compass of C/E-f3 (broken octave) + d-sharp/e-flat, g-
sharp/a-flat, d-sharp1/e-flat1, g-sharp1/a-flat1, and e-flat2/d-sharp2, to a 52 note C/E-f3
62C-sharp, D-sharp, and f-sharp1.

63 Although the original x-rays appear to have been lost, tracings of them have been kept in the
instruments file.
25
(broken octave) compass without the additional enharmonic accidentals. The current 51
note compass is C-d3, which necessitated the building of the new keyboard.
Barnes (1975: 2) suggests that ten jacks would have been discarded and five pairs
of strings left un-used during the intermediate state of the instrument (this would seem a
strange arrangement, given that it would be simpler to re-tune the two strings to the
same note and leave the instrument aesthetically unaltered).
However, when considering the evidence from the balance rail and wrestplank
x-rays this does not seem to be the most likely solution. There is evidence for both a
third set of balance pins set back 5-8mm from the original set; although the broken
octave does not seem to have been repined. The wrestplank has also been completely
re-pinned for the intermediate state; although the octave span from the original state has
been left largely unaltered (the c pins barely appear to have been moved), the notes
within the upper octaves have been spaced out to compensate for the reduction of
divisions to the octave.
Given the amount of work that has been done whilst removing the enharmonic
accidentals, it would seem unlikely that ten jacks would have been discarded. The
repinning of the wrestplank must have altered the string spacing of the instrument
(however slightly), which in turn would have required new registers and the repinning of
the strings.
The main portion of the bridge would seem to be original, as there are several
sets of plugged holes along its length. The bass portion of the bridge also has plugged
holes and has a similar moulding profile to the bridge; this would appear to have been
cut from the original nut (suggesting that this was in place during the second state of the
instrument). A string-band was taken of the positions of both the current bridge pins
and the plugged holes on the bridge using the inside of the spine as the reference point.
The measurements from this were then transferred into an AutoCAD drawing64
and compared with the plugged-hole positions on the nut section. This comparison
reveals a likely hypothetical spacing of the original strings, and also a number of plugged
holes which are unaccounted for in the current and original states. This would suggest
64 The drawing used for these string-band calculations was done by the author. Other drawings of the
instrument were based on an AutoCAD drawing by Darryl Martin using his own measurements of the
instrument, and were added to by the author.
26
that the strings were at least partly repinned at the bridge for the intermediate state. The
bridge pin positions were also transferred onto a drawing of the instrument and its
bridge in an attempt to reveal a potential original string scaling and bridge position.
This was achieved by marking the positions of the c and f pins on a drawing of
the bridge of the harpsichord using the theoretical string spacing from the string band
discussed above. Using these pin positions as the central point a series of circles were
constructed for various possible lengths of f2, from 180mm to 220mm. These f2 strings
were then used to create their Pythagorean equivalent f and c strings. A potential nut
position was constructed by drawing a line between f3 and f, and extending this line to
the spine of the instrument. Using this method it was possible to reduce the number of
potential lengths for f2 to a number of options based on whether the nut that would
result would stay on the wrestplank of the instrument.
These were further narrowed by considering the position of the projected nut in
comparison to instruments of the period. The proposed scaling is based on an f2 of c.
205-215 mm. This would give a c2 length of approx. 274-287 mm. Barnes (1975: 1) gives
the scale as ‘about 280mm’ although how this was calculated is not discussed in the
report. This scale length would compare favourably with that devised using the method
above. Wraight (1997: Volume I, ) does not discuss seventeenth century scaling in great
detail, however this string scaling would appear to conform to the short brass scaling
discussed by Wraight in relation to eighteenth century instruments;65 this would appear
to concur with many of the late-sixteenth, and early-seventeeth instruments.66
Given that the wrestplank alterations discussed above would have presumably
left the c strings in very similar positions to that of the original state, it would not be
unreasonable to suggest that the second state was scaled from c2 (it has already been
noted that from the seventeenth century it was more common to scale instruments from
c). If the c strings were not moved very far from their original positions, and the original
nut was used as supposed above, it may be that the string scaling of the c strings was not
altered between the two first states and that only the strings in between were repinned.
65 Wraight (1997: Volume I, 225).

66 Wraight (1997: Volume I, 138-141).
27
The current stringing of the instrument has a c2 length of 265.5mm and an f2 of
201mm. If the instrument was indeed altered in Florence in the workshop of Cristofori
then this would date this final state to after 1688; this in turn might suggest that the
instruments scale design is now based on c. Wraight (1997: Volume I, 165) gives a
formula for working out the scale reduction in the bass of instruments using the length
of the f strings; this is used in preference even when the instrument is scaled from c. The
formula for working out the F/f2 ratio is (F/8)/f2; which gives in this case 0.878,
meaning the F string is approximately 87% of its ideal length.
Although the x-rays show that the wrestplank itself is original, both the
wrestplank veneer and the capping into which the wrestpins are fixed, date from the
third state or later. It has been established above that the original nut survived the first
re-building of the instrument (as it was later used as the new section of the bridge).
There is no sign of this nut on the current wrestplank veneer. Transferring the
information from the tracing of the x-ray onto the AutoCAD drawing of the instrument
shows that the wrestpins of the original state would be visible in front of the treble end
of the capping.
The middle state pins would be covered by the capping, but as the wrestplank
veneer passes under it, it can only be from the third state. Added to this the moulding
on the front of the capping is similar to, although of different proportions, to the front
side of the bridge moulding. This in itself does not prove they were added to the
instruments at the same time, however the evidence does seem to suggest that they
were.
28
Illustration 6 - Detail of EUCHMI (4302) showing the wrestplank veneer, capping, and the
position of the current nut.
The extra moulding around the inside of the bentside and tail at the soundboard
level was presumably added for the third state. This covers the original hitchpin marks
in the bass of the compass (and presumably those of the second state of the instrument)
as the original hitchpins were driven directly through the soundboard into the
soundboard liner in front of the moulding. The plugged holes that are visible can be
used in combination with the evidence from the marks on the bridge to reveal the
spacing of the strings from the bridge to the bentside in the original state. There are an
number of holes unaccounted for which may relate to the second pinning of the
instrument, however the evidence from these in inconclusive as the spacing is
inconsistent.
The new moulding is very high on the inside of the tail and has necessitated the
cutting of holes in the tail of the instrument through which the bass strings pass. These
lowest ten pairs of strings are fixed to the body of the instrument itself approximately 85
mm below top edge of the case (and approximately 20 mm below the soundboard
level). These moulding, although much taller than the original, do match the profile of
the surviving moulding inside the spine (this may in fact throw doubt on the originality
29
of this moulding). This may be answered by a comparison with other instruments
altered in the Cristofori workshop.
Illustration 7 - Detail of EUCHMI (4302) showing the bass strings passing through the tail of the
instrument.
30
2.3 - Triple-manual harpsichord, Stephano Bolcioni, Florence,
1627. EUCHMI (4304).
Illustration 8- Triple-manual-harpsichord, Stephano Bolcioni, EUCHMI (4304).
Of the three EUCHMI instruments, this harpsichord has had the most
chequered past having past through the hands of the notorious Florentine instrument
dealer Leopoldo Franciolini. Franciolini is well known for his fakery and forgeries,67
which have had long lasting effects on the study of Italian instruments (particularly
keyboard instruments).68 This particular instrument has (somewhat unusually) managed
to retain its original nameboard although even this has been altered as will be discussed
further below.
Stephano Bolcioni was a Florentine instrument builder, the middle of three

generations of Bolcionis recorded in the city from the early seventeenth- to the late-
67 A fake is taken to be an instrument that was built under another name; a forgery is an instrument that
was altered at a later date to be passed off as something it is not. This instrument is therefore a forgery as
the alterations were made in the nineteenth century.
68 Ripin (2008/2).
31
seventeenth century. A number of his instruments are signed ‘pratensis’ (including this
EUCHMI instrument) suggesting that he may have worked for a period or been born in
Prato, only a short distance from Florence. The guild records of 1634 record that he was
residing in the same street that Poggio had been working in till his death in the same
year.69 Surviving instruments date from 1626 to 1641.70
In this instruments current state it is provided with three manuals and a fifty-
seven note C/E-g3 compass. Barnes (1983) states that the keyboards were originally
thought to have come from either a three manual harpsichord (which he also says is
unlikely) or a three manual organ. However, after comparison with the keyboard of
another three-manual Bolcioni ex-Metropolitan Museum, New York, it was suggested
that the keyboards may have been made for Franciolini on the basis of the mixture of
materials (both bone and ivory) used for the keyboards. An examination of the
keyboards in the instrument reveal that not only is there a mixture of ivory and bone
used on the keyboards; but that they are also used in combination on single keys, which
would be highly unusual - this would support the theory that they were made for
Franciolini rather than being taken from another instrument.
Illustration 9 - Detail of EUCHMI (4304) showing natural keys topped with a combination of
bone and ivory.
As mentioned above the original nameboard for the instrument does appear to
have been retained, and a considerable effort made to ensure the signature was not
destroyed when the extra keyboards added to the instrument. This is unusual as
Franciolini tended to dispose of nameboards and replace them rather than go to the
69 Mould (1995: 20).

32
trouble of altering them. A moulding comparison with the 1631 Bolcioni harpsichord in
Yale suggests that they are by the same builder and therefore Wraight (1997: Part II, 69-
70) considers that the signature is likely to be a copy of the original which may itself be
underneath the cloth glued to the current reverse of the nameboard. O’Brien (2000:
169) suggests that the nameboard has been rotated leaving the signature upside-down,
and that a decorative moulding was added to what was originally the lower edge so that
the original upper edge could be cut down to allow the space for the extra keyboards.
llustration 10 - Detail of EUCHMI (4304) showing the alterations to the nameboard.
The disposition of the instrument is now 2x8’, 1x4’ which presumably dates
from the Franciolini alteration as the current 4’ bridge is an indelicate addition to the
instrument. O’Brien (2000: 180 footnote 15) states that the evidence of the soundboard
barring supports that there was no 4’ register originally, and the positioning of the rose
also support this being closer to the bentside that one might expect had the instrument
originally had a 4’ bridge.71 Given the date of the harpsichord, a registration with two
unison pairs of strings is far more likely.
71A comparison was made with the 1574 Trasuntino, EUCHMI (4471) which originally had a 4’ bridge
and has its rose positioned closer to the spine in a more visually pleasing position.
33
The current decoration and the stand post-date Franciolini’s alterations to the
instrument. The black and white photograph from Franciolini’s sale catalogues72 shows
a highly ornamented five-legged stand with carved feet and ornate legs. The painting of
the outer case is more in the Florentine style with a flowing leaf design (this type of
pattern is also seen on the outer cases of the anonymous 1620 harpsichord EUCHMI
(4302), and the Migliai EUCHMI (4472)).The painting on the inside of the lid at this
time showed a more busy scene of buildings and people (whereas the current painting is
of rolling hills and countryside). The current stand is almost identical to another non-
original stand under the 1628 Ruckers in the Palace of Versailles.73 The decoration and
stand were presumable added to the instrument before 1956, whilst it belonged to
M.&A. Salomon in Paris.74
O’Brien (2000) discusses the evidence for the original state of the instrument,
including its original compass. His study is aided by a number of scribed lines on the
baseboard of the instrument which indicate the original position of the wrestplank, the
nut, the register gap, and the lower belly rail behind the keyboard. The original registers
of the instrument also appear to have been reused and the two original registers divided
to form the current three.75 There are regular on the registers marks indicating the
positions of the c and f jacks and the direction of pluck;76 these positioning marks also
confirm that the instrument had a number of divided accidentals in its compass.
The evidence from the registers reveals that the instrument originally had an
unusual compass of fifty-three notes [G1],[Aa], C/E-c3, which O’Brien (2000: 184)
describes as unusual and states that it would have been out of date by the end of the
seventeenth century. As well as the short octave (the lowest two notes of which could
theoretically be tuned to whatever notes required), the instrument had the most
common arrangement of enharmonic notes (d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, and a-flat1).
According to the list in Wraight (1997: Part II, 65-77) this harpsichord had the lowest-
reaching keyboard of any surviving Bolcioni instrument, most of the instruments have a
C/E-c3 or C/E-f3 compass.
72 In Ripin (1974: 127).

73 Bettenhausen (PC: September 2007).
74 See the instruments entry in the EUCHMI catalogue available online at
<http://www.music.ed.ac.uk/euchmi/uck/uckd4304.html.
75 Barnes (1966: 3).
76 O’Brien (2003: 180).
34
O’Brien (2000: 185-195) reconstructs the string scaling of the Bolcioni
harpsichord by using the construction marks on the registers to layout position the c and
f notes on a string band (using the cheek of the instrument as the reference point as the
registers have been rotated through 180 degrees). This string band was then itself
rotated through 180 degrees so that the spine therefore became the reference point, and
this then gave the approximate positions of the c and f strings on the soundboard.
Using the string band as a reference point O’Brien identified prick-marks on the
soundboard corresponding to those on the registers and revealing the positions of the c
and f notes. There are some marks missing where they are obscured by the current
bridge, or where the soundboard has been cut away to fit the extra keyboards in. The
nut position is marked on the baseboard, and therefore the original string lengths can be
reconstructed giving a c2 length of 301 mm (short string) and a f2 length of 225 ½ mm.
O’Brien (2000: 193) suggests this is based on an 11 soldo c2 and a 8 ¼ soldo f2 (with the
soldo therefore measuring 27.36mm).77 Considering the table of scales given in Wraight
(1997: Part I, 275), this would concur with a number of Florentine instruments strung in
iron.
The intermediate state of the instrument is more difficult to establish given that
the registers belong to its first state, and the keyboards and keyframes have been made
for the instrument.78 However, there are a number of holes drilled through the
baseboard of the instrument that seem to be intended for a system of pedal pulldowns.
The pattern of these drilled holes suggests that the pedals were used for the notes F-c79
including the accidental keys. Given that the original keyboard had four naturals in the
extreme bass, the drilled holes would appear to belong to the middle state.
The holes for the pedal pulldowns have not been drilled through the baseboard
of the current outer case; this may be due to this outer case being replaced when the
instrument acquired its current stand, however there do appear to be the marks of the
77 A soldo of 27.34 mm is a known historical measurement used in Florence, being a tenth division of the
Bavelle of 273.41 mm. O’Brien (1999: 165).
78 There is very little clearance between the upper keyboard the lower edge of the wrestplank making the
keyboards very difficult to remove. Therefore it has been decided for the purpose of this thesis to use
O’Brien’s observations of the interior of the instrument.
79 It is possible that the keyboard itself extended to E (or C/E) as the first drilled hole is not under the
current lowest key.
35
ornate legs added by Franciolini on the underside of the current case. Barnes (1966: 5)
suggests that they were likely to be an amateur addition.
The pedal pulldowns would appear to match the current bass compass (if the
lowest current note had no pedal). A rubbing was made of the hole positions from the
underside of the case, including the sides of the outer case. Using this as a reference, the
holes for the natural pulldowns appear to be approximately 23-28mm behind the front
rail of the keyframe allowing enough clearance for the holes potentially to belong to the
current keyboard.80 However, laying the drawing over the current keyboard shows that
the pedal pulldowns cannot have been for the instruments current state. Indeed a
comparison of the spacing with a number of keyboards and keyframes reveal that the
spacing may be too irregular to have been successful as the accidental holes in the
baseboard would probably not have lined up with the keylevers.
Illustration 11 - Detail of EUCMI (4304) showing the underside of the baseboard and the holes
drilled for pedal pulldowns. The bass of the instrument is to the right side of the photograph.
80 This measurement is approximate due to the limitations of having to measure the position of the front-
rail without being able to remove the keyboard from the instrument. Measurements taken to the centre of
the drilled hole.
36
Summary
The three EUCHMI instruments cover a very short period in the time-line of
instruments built with enharmonically capable keyboards, even considering how short a
lifespan these instruments have had in the history of plucked keyboard instrument
building. The anonymous harpsichord, and the virginal can be shown to have had the
most common compass found on such instruments, that is fifty-seven notes C/E-f3 +
d-sharp, a-flat, d-sharp1, a-flat1, d-sharp2 (this is despite subsequent alterations to the
former).
Two of the instruments have been positively identified as Florentine, and the
third being attributed to the city by the current author (based on the evidence suggested
by other instrument historians). It should be noted that Grant O’Brien (n.d.) considers
the instrument to be Neapolitan on the basis of a study of the metrology of the
instrument; that is the unit of measurement that was used in its construction. The
current author has repeated these calculations using a more recent set of measurements
and has found the results to be inconclusive as to which city the instrument was built in.
Added to the fact that other construction features of this instrument do not match
O’Brien’s own list of features of Neapolitan instruments, this attributed seems (with
hindsight) unlikely.
The compass of this anonymous harpsichord is similar to those found in

Florentine instruments (as was discussed above, Naples is more associated with
instruments with more than nineteen divisions to the octave). Wraight (1997: Volume
II, 327) also suggests that as the instrument was altered in Florence then the most likely
that it was also built in the city. Whether the builder of this instrument will ever be
identified by a moulding comparison is uncertain.
37
Chapter 3 - Musical Evidence for the Use of Chromatically
Capable Keyboard instruments.
Christopher Stembridge (1992) discusses some of the surviving music for
chromatically capable keyboard instruments; both for instruments with additional
enharmonic keys, and for the cembalo chromatico. He surveys the printed music over a
period from the mid-sixteenth century through to the end of the seventeenth, with
reference to the type of instrument for which it was intended (organ, unspecified
keyboard, or harpsichord). A large proportion of the works included in the appendix to
this article are for organ or unspecified keyboard instrument; Stembridge also outlines
some of the links between vocal music and writing for the keyboard instrument of the
period (especially in reference to the new madrigal style). Further detail of Stembridge’s
findings will be discussed below in relation to music specifically written for
chromatically capable keyboards.
A volume of chromatic music recorded by Alan Curtis, and reviewed in Naomi

Barker (1995), includes music by composers mentioned by Stembridge (1992), as well as
a number of additional composers; Giovanni de Macque, and Luigi Rossi. Although
copies of the recording itself appear to be rare, the review at least gives some detail of
the pieces and composers who wrote chromatic music. Also included in the review is a
CD by Tom Koopman of the organ music of Girolamo Frescobaldi whose early
publications are described by Stembridge as being ‘conservative’.81
Koopman includes music from Frescobaldi’s Il Secondo libro di toccata, which is

usually heard on the harpsichord (although the printed music specifies that it is for both
instruments). This later publication of 1627 is more chromatically demanding although
it is his Flori Musicali of 1635 that Frescobaldi is thought to be at his most chromatically
adventurous.82 The music of Frescobaldi will be discussed as a case study below, as well
as that of one of his most famous students, Johann Froberger (although the later of
course spent much of his working life outside of Italy).
Carl Morey (1966) discusses the work of the Venetian composer Martino
Pesenti (who is also mentioned in less detail in Stembridge (1992:15-16)). The very title

82 Ibid.
38
of his book of dances ‘Correnti, Gagliarde e Belletti Diatonici, Trasportati Parte Cromatici, e
Parte Hanarmonici … Per Sonarsi nel Clavicembalo & eltri stromenti …’ is a reference the
Greek genera of music; the diatonic, chromatic and enharmonic. The dances are all
given in two versions; firstly diatonico and secondly in a version denoted either cromatico
or henarmonico.
Morey (1966: 185) affirms that the only difference between the ‘diatonic’ and the
‘cromatic’ or ‘enharmonic’ is the key signature (they are literal transcriptions). He
suggests that cromatico refers to dances transposed into flat keys and henarmonico refers to
those transposed into sharp keys. The sharp keys include b-sharp and e-sharp, which
would not be truly available on a keyboard with fewer than nineteen divisions in the
octave. Morey states that the chromaticism of the dances renders them unsuitable for a
standard keyboard unless tuned in equal temperament (although this strictly only applies
to the transposed versions).
In the preface to the book of dances, Pesenti relates that he had the opportunity
of working with both the theorist Gioseffo Zarlino, and the keyboard maker Vido
Trasuntino (whose surviving instruments are discussed in chapter 1). He discusses the
Archicembalo; both supporting a link between the two men, and suggesting that the
dances are intended to exploit the microtones available on an instrument with nineteen
or more divisions to the octave.83 At the end of the preface, he acknowledges the
limitations of keyboard instruments (and the rarity of fully chromatic instruments)
whilst also saying that the dances are also suitable for performance on stringed
instruments. This may of course be a cunning ploy to sell more copies of the
publication),
“I would have composed a Toccata passing smoothly from diatonic to

chromatic and to enharmonic, returning back to enharmonic, to chromatic and to
diatonic, which unified all three types so that they would be pleasant to hear. But I have
not composed it because it is difficult to find a clavicembalo with all three of these [this
would require nineteen divisions at the least if not more to allow for the potential use of
83 Morey (1966: 185).
39
double sharps or flats]. But it is well true that the correnti, gagliarde and balletti can be
played on lutes and viols, such instruments having the chromatic and enharmonic.’84
Edward Lowinsky (1961) discusses the move towards extremes of chromaticism

in Tonality and Atonality in the Sixteenth Century. The earliest pieces were naturally vocal
works, as unaccompanied vocal pieces are not restricted by the tuning issues found with
instruments. Lowinsky cites examples such as a five-part Lamentation based on a
tetrachord in Vicentino’s treatise of 1555, and an early work by Orlando di Lasso
Prophetiae Sibyllarum.85 This vocal work by Lasso is further discussed by Berger (1980)
who links the composer to Vicentino through a letter written by the French publisher
Adrian le Roy.86
A passing reference in Lowisky (1966) to a work of 1519 by the Flemish

composer Adrian Willaert (working in Venice) is discussed in further detail in an earlier
article;87 Lowinsky considers that this is the earliest known work to explore the entire
circle of fifths,88 and quotes Zarlino in describing Willaert as “a new Pythagoras”.89 He
states that the ideas of Greek musical theory (that later inspired theorists such as
Vicentino) would have been well known by the musicians of Venice who surrounded
Willaert.90 It is therefore unsurprising that the Archicembalo and cembalo cromatico appear to
have been invented in Venice (see also chapter 1.4).91
There is an ongoing debate over whether this chromatic music from Venice is
intended for an instrument tuned in mean-tone with additional enharmonic notes, or
whether it actually intended for equal temperament. Another Venetian musician,
Sylvestro di Ganassi dal Fontego, is oft cited as an exponent of equal temperament as
his two-volume viol tutor Regola rubertina gives instructions for fretting a viol in a system
with equally tempered semitones.92 Zarlino also includes instructions for fretting a lute
84 Pesenti (1645) in Morey (1966: 187).

85 Lowinsky (1961: 39-40).
86 Berger (1980: 492).
87 Lowinsky (1956).
88 Lowinsky (1961: 46).
89 Lowinsky (1956: 12).
90 Lowinsky (1956: 10).
91 It may be that Vicentino’s inspiration for the Archicembalo has Venetian origins despite his Prattica being
published in Rome, given the links between himself and Willaert’s circle in Venice.
92 Barbour (2004: 141-143).
40
in equal temperament in his Sopplimenti Musicali of 1588 (Venice).93 This may be the
reason for Pesenti’s statement that his music can be played on viols and lutes ‘which
have the enharmonics’ (the fretting restricts the player from the microtonal adjustments
that are easier on an unfretted instrument). Pensenti’s comment does also suggest that
although the lutes and viols may have used equal temperament, the keyboard
instruments did not.
Thurston Dart (1947) discusses the history of Simone Molinaro’s Intavolatura di

liuto primo (published Venice 1599), as a review of an edition produced by G. Gullino in
1940. Most of the works in this publication are diatonic in their composition; however,
Fantasia XII is a particularly interesting piece that works through the available keys, first
adding sharps then flattening the keys before returning for the final cadence. The
remoteness of the keys Molinaro explores suggests that the instrument he was writing
for was tuned in a tempered system, perhaps equal temperament.
Keyboard fantasies based on hexachords such as those found in the volumes of

the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book were not uncommon, although the use of the hexachord
itself does not necessitate the use of remote accidentals. Indeed of the four included in
the aforementioned publication, two94 would sit happily on an instrument tuned in
meantone (with the retuning of the g-sharps). Indeed a piece by William Tisdall entitled
Pavana Chromatica would also sit happily in a meantone temperament with d-sharps and g-
sharps, perhaps a similar use of chromatica to denote sharp keys as supposed by Morey
(1966: 185).
The other two hexachord pieces in the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book represent one
work each by John Bull and William Byrd and are simply entitled Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la.
Byrd’s piece, which appears second in the current edition, requires an a-flat as well as g-
sharp although only e-flats are used (no d-sharps). Given that there is only a single
occurrence of the a-flat (in the bar after ‘9’, p 397),95 and this note is part of a suspension
across a bar, it may be considered passing and therefore acceptable even though the
string may itself be tuned to a g-sharp.
93 Zarlino (1588) in Lindley (1982: 401).

94 Both examples from Book II of the modern Dover edition, firstly CXVIII by Sweelinck, and secondly
CCXV by Bull (both pieces are entitled Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la).
95 No bar numbers are given although there are what may be rehearsal numbers printed above the staves
in the modern edition.
41
The John Bull Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la is more harmonically adventurous, with the
rising hexachord theme being transposed, and passed between the voices. This in turn
almost forces the enharmonic modulation first seen in the eleventh bar. The
adventurous modulations require more than one c-flat;96 for example in the fifth bar after
the seventh entry of the theme (this is the final bar of page 184). This is also found in
the sharp-key modulations with the use of a-sharps.
Whether this adventurous harmony suggests that Bull knew of the work of the
Italian keyboard builders using divided accidentals (there were certainly Italian
instruments in England in the late-sixteenth, early-seventeenth centuries), or whether as
the editors suggest this is a suggestion of the use of equal temperament in England is a
question that cannot be answered sufficiently. However, given that the other works in
the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book are written to fit comfortably within a meantone
temperament, it cannot be ruled out that Bull was familiar with the concept of a ‘fully
chromatic’ keyboard.
Although the examples given above are largely for instruments other than
keyboards, and include compositions from outwith Italy, their importance lies in
establishing the reasons for requiring enharmonic naturals, the spread of such chromatic
music across Europe, and the arguments for tuning in equal temperament rather than
meantone to allow the performance of such music on a standard keyboard instrument
with a conventional octave. The music for chromatic keyboard will be discussed below
by city of origin/publication, as well as a study of the music of Frescobaldi and his
student Froberger.
96These appear to have been removed in the edition although the editors note they are included in the
original manuscript.
42
3.1 - Keyboard Music in Naples
Although the much of the music discussed above was published in Florence, the
earliest use of the term cembalo cromatico in a keyboard publication is found in a
Neapolitan publicaion of 1609: Ascanio Mayone’s Secondo Libro di Diversi Capricci per
Sonare.97 Stembridge also notes two other early publications that came out of Naples;
Giovanni Maria Trabaci Secondo Libro de Ricecare (1615), and Fabio Colonna’s La Sambuca
Lincea (1618). Of these, Fabio Colonna’s book is the most useful in relation to the
discussion of instruments because he describes the instrument for which his music is
intended.
There is some controversy over Colonna’s publication in that he was accused of

plagiarising the design of the instrument from another Neapolitan court musician,
Scipione Stella.98 Given that both had known Vicentino’s arcicembalo from their time at
the court of Ferrara this accusation of plagiarism is somewhat superfluous. The
documentation relating to the instruments made by these both Colonna and Stella is
discussed above in chapter 1.4.
The music in La Sambuca Lincea was originally intended to be composed by

Scipione Stella (Colonna himself was a scientist rather than a musician).99However, the
two appear to have fallen out by the time of publication and instead Colonna applied to
“signor Ascanio Maione” to write some musical examples.100 Barbieri (1991: LI) states
that Mayone would not have known the instrument, however the fact that his
publication predates Colonna’s by a number of years suggests that he would have been
familiar with the potential of enharmonic instruments. As there is no date given for the
completion of either Stella’s instrument, or Colonna’s, it may be possible that Mayone’s
earlier publication was intended for one or other of these instruments.
Barbieri (1992: LVII-LXVII) reproduces these musical examples in modern

notation, one of the most interesting being Esempio della cirvolatione on pp. 103-110 of the
original publication. This pieces works around the circle of fifths firstly by adding flats
and then enharmonically modulating in the twenty-fifth bar to a-double-sharp (the

98 Barbieri, ed. (1991: XXXIV).
99 Ibid.
100 Barbieri, ed. (1991: LI).
43
enharmonic equivalent of c-double-flat). The circle is then completed by moving
through the sharp keys, gradually reducing the number of sharps until the final c-major
cadence. This is the only piece of any length in the treatise, the other musical examples
are exactly that, examples of the musical and chromatic capabilities of the instrument
including its ability to play satisfactorily from chiavetti. None of these examples is longer
than thirteen bars, although their musicality in such restricted could only be achieved by
a composer who was familiar with the capabilities of an enharmonic instrument.
Ascanio Mayone’s own publication is discussed by Stembridge (1992: 10-13)

who notes that, although the music specifies cimbalo cromatico for two of the toccatas,
there is no mention of the type of instrument they are intended for in the introduction
to the publication. Stembridge also discusses the chromatic makeup of the two toccatas,
which both use notes not usually found in meantone tuning. However, he also suggests
that neither would be unplayable on an instrument that had two split keys per octave
with one or two notes (c-sharps or d-flats) retuned.101 This would make the two toccatas
accessible to a greater number players, although they would sound unsatisfactory on an
instrument tuned with a twelve-note meantone octave.
Stembridge (1992: 13-17) describes Giovanni Maria Trabaci’s 1615 publication

as the first for cembalo cromatico that makes no concessionary solutions for instruments
with fewer than nineteen divisions to the octave. However, he also notes that there are a
number of notes that would still be have to retuned if playing directly from the score on
an instrument with nineteen divisions (rather than an archicembalo with thirty-one or
more). Stembridge (1992: 14) suggests that if the whole toccata is transposed down by a
whole tone (and provides this transposition as an appendix to his article), then it is
perfectly playable without any retuning needed. Stembridge’s theory is that this is a ploy
of the part of Trabaci to make it seem like he is too familiar with the more difficult to
play instrument to accept even a nineteen-division octave.
Finally, the nobleman Don Carlo Gesualdo (Prince of Venoso) appears to be

survived by a single keyboard work for cembalo cromatico, although it is sometimes
considered to be a work for a vocalist that has been transcribed for keyboard.102 The
virtuosic cadenza sections of this piece often require both e-flats and d-sharps, but more
101 Stembridge (1992: 11).

102 Jackson (1967: 37, note 1).
44
notably there are a number of a-sharps in bars fifty-three and fifty four103 (suggesting the
work was perhaps conceived for an instrument with a nineteen-note octave). Gesualdo
is perhaps better known for his madrigals written in a chromatic style presumable learnt
on his wide travels across Italy.104
It is common with much early keyboard music to not specify which keyboard
instrument the above music is intended (that is whether for harpsichord or organ). In
the case of the examples cited above, the soubriquet ‘cembalo’ would suggest a
harpsichord, and the examples in Colonna’s treatise were intended for the instrument
described in the larger part of the manuscript. Many of the other examples of chromatic
works included in the appendix to Stembridge (1992) are for non-specific keyboard
instrument or for organ. This is the case across the Italian city-states suggesting that
organs with divided accidentals were far more common.
103 Gesualdo in Jackson (1967: 44).

104 Bianconi (2008).
45
3.2 - Cremona and Milan
Another composer mentioned in Stembridge (1992) is Tarquinio Merula, who
was for most of his life based in or around Cremona (barring a short period in
Poland).105 A modern edition of his ‘composizioni per organo e cembalo’ has been compiled
from various manuscript sources by Alan Curtis, and contains a number of pieces
entitled ‘cromatico’.106
Not all of these compositions denoted as ‘cromatico’ require both g-sharps and a-
flats, although the first Sonata cromatica does. Wraight and Stembridge (1994: 164) give
the compass of the organ at Cremona in 1544, which Merula would surely have played
as maestro di cappella. This had a similar compass to the original compass of the Bolcioni
harpsichord EUCHMI (4304), having an F1, G1, A1,-f3 compass + D-flat, A-flat, a-flat,
d-flat, d-flat1,a-flat1, d-flat2. It may therefore be that his compositions requiring
enharmonic notes were intended for the organ rather than a cembalo cromatico. This does
also suggest that the soubriquet ‘cromatico’ does not always denote a piece that requires
some form of enharmonic tuning, instead that it may also refer to a piece which has a
chromatically ascending or descending theme.
Although not strictly music for the cembalo cromatico or for an instrument with a
fourteen-note octave Giovanni Paolo de Cima’s transposition instructions in his Milan
publication of 1606 are important in that they highlight the issue of keyboard players
being unhappy with the tuning of their standard meantone tuning) especially when
accompanying groups of singers).107 These instructions appear at the end of the
publication and each transposed piece includes directions on how to retune the
instrument (he specifies a clavichord) to make the transposition satisfactory. This
further supports the argument that although some stringed instrument were tuned in
equal temperament it was still desirable for keyboard instruments to be tuned in some
form of meantone tuning despite the restrictions it put on modulation.
Cima’s comments also concur with the statements made by Praetorius in

relation to the Luython cembalo cromatico discussed above. Stembridge (1992: 10) suggests
that this would imply that the cembalo cromatico was initially envisaged more as an
105 Bonta (2008).

106 Merulo and Curtis, ed. (1961).
107 Cima (1606) in Rayner ed. (1969: 89).
46
accompanying instrument and its implications to solo music discovered and exploited as
a result. This would of course not apply to Colonna’s chromatic clavichord, being too
quiet an instrument to be used in an ensemble.
47
3.3 - Venice and Rome
Stembridge (1992: 21) only gives a few examples of keyboard works by Venetian
composers that requires any enharmonic notes: these entail a couple of pieces in
Giovanni Cavaccio’s Sudori Musicali of 1626. The first example, the Toccata Quarta à 4,
detta la Licina, requires a d-sharp in the fifty-eighth bar,108 and d-sharp1 in the fifty-ninth
bar. This has to be in tune to establish the chord of b-major at this point and to
successfully establish the rising chromatic bass line. Neither note is required as their
equivalent e-flat and therefore on a harpsichord could simply be retuned.
The second example is in the Ricecar Primo à 4 in which there is a passing d-flat1
in bar twenty-four,109 which given its transient nature would be acceptable (if not
perfect) left as a sounding e-flat1. The current author has also found a number of
examples of a-sharps in the pieces that were altered by the editor of the edition to b-flats
to fit in with the key signatures (there is also an incidence of a b-sharp)110, given that the
rest of the pieces fit well with a meantone temperament it is logical to assume that this
was some mistake or peculiarity on the part of Cavaccio.
It must also be considered that, as a number of the pieces in the book are
dedicated to the organist at Santa Maria Maggior in Bergamo, it may be feasible to
suggest that they were instead intended for an organ. This in turn might suggest an
organ with a fourteen-note octave.
Although Stembridge (1992) generally considers the Northern composers (by

which he mostly appears to mean Roman) to be quite old-fashioned in their style of
writing, there are a number of examples he gives to illustrate the use of enharmonic
notes suggesting a keyboard with split accidentals. The first is Frescobaldi (who will be
discussed further below) the second is Bernado Pasquini; a prolific Roman composer
who is survived by over a hundred works. Of his keyboard pieces very few require both
d-sharps and e-flats, although an example where there are requires is one of his many
toccatas111 which requires both notes for its chromatic theme.
108 Cavaccio (1626) in Kreider ed. (1984: 12).

111 Pasquini in Haynes ed. (1967: 40-44).
48
The work of another Roman composer, Michelangelo Rossi, should also be
noted; not because of its suitability for a chromatic keyboard, but because of its
suitability for a meantone temperament despite the innate chromaticism of its
composition. His virtuosic toccatas often slide between sharp and flat key centres,
without ever exceeding the capabilities of the standard keyboard; there are no d-sharps or
a-flats to be found in any of the compositions included in White (1966). This highlights
the ability of the seventeenth-century composer to be chromatically adventurous within
the somewhat restrictive temperament they appear to have preferred.
When considering the music published in Italy, one should also consider the
influence between the Italian composers and the Spanish, given that Naples was under
Spanish control for much of the period under discussion. The Spanish musician
Francesco de Salinas studied the Greek theorists for a period in Rome before eventually
returning to Spain.112 Stembridge (1992: 31) gives evidence for Salinas performing on
some type of chromatic harpsichord (he suggests a cembalo cromatico), but states that the
Spaniard never managed the same popularity or publicity as Luzzachi had inspired at the
court of Ferrara in the previous century.
112 Palisca (2008).
49
3.4 Frescobaldi and Froberger.
The music of Girolamo Frescobaldi deserves a special mention because like
Pasquini much of his music does not require a keyboard with anything other than
meantone tuning with the exception of the occasional re-tuned a-flat (for example the
Capriccio sopra la, sol, fa, re, mi in Die esrste Buch der Capricci … (1626) requires a passing a-
flat)113 or d-sharp (the Fantasia quinta sopra doi soggetti in Fantasien (1608) require an in-tune
d-sharp).114 In both the cases mentioned above the notes could be achieved by retuning
the note on the instrument, indeed the first example is a passing note and therefore
could be left as a g-sharp.
Frescobaldi was equally as talented as Rossi at exploiting the chromaticism that

was available within the meantone temperament without requiring any extra enharmonic
accidentals. The capriccio cromatico con ligature al contrario in Die erste buch der capricci115
although entitled ‘cromatico’ never strays beyond the notes available on a standard
keyboard, indeed the accidentals are largely sharps (perhaps further evidence for the use
of ‘cromatico’ to denote a sharp tonality).
There is a highly inventive passage in the capriccio sopra l’aria di ruggiero in the same
book116 using a subject based on a falling chromatic fourth (a passus duriusculus).
Frescobaldi avoids the unusable enhamonic tones in the temperament by avoiding
beginning the subject at a pitch that would require them. The subject also leaps
occasionally to avoid these enharmonics; for example in bars 15-16117 where it leaps
from e1 to c-sharp1 to avoid d-sharp1/e-flat1 (d-sharp1 would fit the harmony better, but
e-flat1 would be in the temperament).
The so-called Fiori Musicali of 1635 is the first example of Frescobaldi exploring
the tonalities available on instruments that had a number of divided accidentals; and
even here it is presumable for an organ with a thirteen-, or fourteen-note octave rather
than for an instrument with any more divisions as the only alternative notes required are
for g-sharp and a-flat. Indeed there is only one piece in the publication that would actually
113 Frescobaldi ed. Pidoux (1964: 22).

115 Frescobaldi ed. Pidoux (1964: 34-35).
50
require these tunings (using both), the Recercar Con obligo Del Basso come apare from the
Messa delli Apostoli.118 Given that this is a publication of masses, it should be assumed
that they were again intended for performance on an organ with divided accidentals
rather than another keyboard instrument.
The remaining books of Toccatas published in 1637 return to Frescobaldi’s

earlier style of invention within the meantone tonality (despite the style getting ever
more chromatic and florid). The occurrence of a-flats within the pieces increases,
however they are included in pieces with no g-sharps, and therefore on a harpsichord the
tones would have been easily retuned. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Frescobaldi
knew organs with more than twelve notes to the octave, as it would of course be more
difficult to retune single notes for those toccatas that do not simply use a-flats or d-sharps
as passing notes.
The music of Johann Jakob Froberger is worth noting given that he took four
years leave from his employment in Vienna to travel Europe and study with
Frescobaldi.119 The style of the pupil is very similar to that of the master, although
Froberger makes more frequent use of enharmonic notes (for example in tocatta v in d
minor there are both d-sharps and e-flats).120 The only work that was published in
Froberger’s own lifetime is Fantasia I the so-called hexachord fantasia (in the long-
standing tradition discussed above) stays within the confines of meantone tuning121 as
does the Capriccio sopra ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la by his master Frescobaldi.122 This may suggest
that both intended to keep within the confines of meantone tuning so that more copies
could be sold to the general playing public (who were unlikely to have enharmonic
instruments).
Summary
Although a small amount of music does appear to exist for chromatically-

capable instruments, very little would appear to have survived which cannot also be
played on an instrument with the standard meantone tuning. One explanation for this is
118 Frescobaldi ed. Stembridge (1997: 54-59).

119 Schott (2008).
120 Froberger (1994: 15).
121 Froberger (1994: 71-75).
51
that most of the music discussed above was published by the composer and would
therefore have reached greater audience if restricted to the standard tuning available to
most of their customers. Keyboard music that is truly chromatic appears to have been
restricted to the city-state of Naples and its associated composers, perhaps suggesting
that there was more of a trend for such instruments in the city than might be suggested
from the extant instruments.
The greater proportion of the chromatically adventurous music was instead

either for unaccompanied voice, or for the plucked/bowed string instruments that may
well have been tuned in equal temperament. Much of the keyboard music that was more
adventurous in its use of enharmonic notes would appear to have been intended not for
the harpsichord, but instead for the organ. It has already been demonstrated in chapter
1 that the practice of providing divided accidental keys was far more widespread in
organ building that it would appear to have been in the building of plucked or struck
keyboard instruments. This may again support the theory that such instruments with
divided keys were in fact primarily intended for accompanying other instruments rather
than solo work.
52
Conclusion
It has been shown in chapter 1 that there are two main types of plucked/struck
keyboard instruments with divided accidental keys to provide enharmonic alternative
tunings. These are; those instruments with nineteen or more divisions to the octave, and
secondly those instruments provided with one or more divided accidental key for the
same purpose (the most common provision is for two extra notes, a-flat and d-sharp).
Although the focus of this thesis has been those instruments with fewer than nineteen
notes to the octave, it can be shown that that larger proportion of surviving instruments
with nineteen or more divisions were built in Venice, and that there were a number of
instruments of this type also constructed in Naples. Indeed the only surviving music
that requires an instrument with nineteen or more notes was printed in Naples, this is
not to say that there was no music composed for the instrument in Venice, simply that
it does not appear to have survived.
The surviving instruments provided with one or more divided accidental keys
are almost all made in Florence or Rome with a few surviving anonymous instruments
(of these more may prove to have been built in either of these city-states). It appears
somewhat odd that no surviving music for an enharmonically able instrument has yet
been found that was printed in Florence; however, there are a number of possibilities
that may account for this.
The first (as would seem to be implied by Praetorius in Syntagma musica) is that
the instruments were actually intended to be used for accompany vocal music or indeed
other ensembles. This is supported by the comments quoted above from Pesenti’s
publication of dances that the keyboard instruments were insufficient for highly
chromatic music (in this case dances) in a way that the bowed and plucked string
instruments do not seem to have had problems (again supporting the theory that such
instruments were actually tuned in equal temperament). Kottick (2003: 88) also
mentions that perhaps the use of such divided accidentals on virginals suggested that the
purpose was more for accompaniment. This would particularly apply in Florence given
that all the surviving virginals appear to have been made by Florentine instrument
builders.
The second is more simple in that there may have been music that was intended
to have been performed on such a keyboard instrument which has been lost or was only
53
ever found in manuscript form (given that the number of surviving examples suggest
that these instruments were not particularly common). This may be a similar situation to
Venice.
There is of course some evidence for the requirement of divided accidentals

from Roman composers. However, in most cases stated above, although the use of the
enharmonic note may be desirable, it may not be essential. And indeed there is also a lot
of music that may be played on an instrument tuned in meantone with the relevant
notes retuned, again this renders the divided accidentals unnecessary although perhaps
preferable for ease of tuning.
What also should be noted in relation to the instruments themselves is that

many of the builders that were making such instruments, wherever they ultimately
settled, had connections via patrons or indeed their own travels to Venice where the
music would appear to have been more chromatically adventurous (certainly many of
the early theorists describing such instruments published either out of Venice or Rome).
The earliest surviving example described above is considered to be Venetian. This may
suggest that the practice began in Venice and spread out to other city states.
The three EUCHMI instruments (as discussed above in the summary to chapter
2) appear to be representative of the kind of chromatically capable instrument being
built in Florence during the first half of the seventeenth century, that is an instrument
provided with five divided accidental keys in the middle of the range, as well as a short
and broken octave. Two of the instruments are attributable to builders who are known
to have made other instruments with such compasses (although in the case of the
Bolcioni harpsichord his work does not usually include such a great bass range). The
practicable use of such enharmonic instruments was soon exhausted and the two
harpsichords rebuilt in a fashion that precluded the use of enharmonically split
accidental keys.
This may represent the acceptance in Italy of the use of equal temperament (or
other temperaments with fewer just intervals) on strung keyboards as it appears to have
been accepted on bowed and plucked stringed instruments. Perhaps also the
impracticalities of playing on a meantone tuned instrument when other instruments in
an ensemble were using more tempered tuning systems became too impractical for the
Italian keyboard musicians especially given that the music was becoming more
54
chromatically adventurous as modal systems gave way to the more familiar scallic
system.
The practice of providing instruments with such divided keyboards never

completely died out, later instrument builders such as Johannes Zumpe (a piano builder
based in London in the late eighteenth century) also experimented with keyboards with
nineteen divisions to the octave.123 These were generally academic or theoretical oddities
rather than intended as a new breed of playing instrument, as Wraight and Stembridge
(1994: 160) suggests was also the case with the cembalo cromatico and Archicembalo.
123 For a brief discussion of this instrument see Smith (2007: 72-74)
55
Bibliography
Barbieri, Patrizio, ed. (1991). Fabio Colonna: La Sambuca Lincea [facsimile with
introduction and commentary], Italy: Libreria Musicale Italiana.
Barbour, J. Murray (2004). Tuning and Temperament – A Historical Survey [reprint], New
York: Dover.
Barker, Naomi Joy (1995). ‘Tempered extravagance: 17th century keyboard collections
[review]’, Early Music, Vol. 23, No. 4, (Nov., 1995), pp. 713-714.
Barnes, John (1966). Three Manual Harpsichrd inscribed Stefanus Bolcionus Pratensis F A D M
D X XXVIII F. Notes in Museum file.
(1975). Notes on the Anonymous Italian Harpsichord c. 1600 Russell Collection No. 2.
Notes in Museum file.
(1982). Three-manual harpsichord, BOCIONI 1627 (?). Notes in museum file.
Berger, Karol (1980). ‘Tonality and Atonality in the Prologue to Orlando di Lasso’s
“Prophetiae Sibyllarum”: Some Methodological Problems in Analysis of
Sixteenth-Century Music’, The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 4, (Oct., 1980), pp.
484-504.
Bettenhausen, Fred (2007). Private communication regarding the stand under the Bolcioni
harpsichord EUCHMI (4304), September 2007.
Bianconi, Lorenzo (2008). ‘Gesualdo, Carlo, Prince of Venosa, Count of Conza’, Grove
Music Online, available at <http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com> [accessed 18th
August, 2008].
Bink, Paul (1966). The Archicembalo of Nicola Vicentino, Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State
University.
Bonta, Stephen (2008). ‘Merula, Tarquino’, Grove Music Online, available at
<http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com> [accessed 18th August, 2008].
Cavaccio, Giovanni in Kreider, I. Evan ed. (1984). Corpus of Early Music 43: Giovanni
Cavaccio - Sudori Musicali, US: American Institute of Musicology.
Dart, Thurston (1947). ‘Simone Molinaro’s Lute book of 1599’, Music and Letters, Vol.
28, No. 3., (Jul., 1947), pp. 258-261.
Frescobaldi, ed. Pidoux (1949). Die erste Buch der Capricci, Ricercari und Canzoni 1626, Basel:
Bärenreiter Kassel.
(1966). Fantasié und Canzoni all Francese, Basel: Bärenreiter Kassel.
Frescobaldi, ed. Stembridge (1997). Fiori Musicali di Girolamo Frescobaldi, Italy: Armelin
Musica.
Froberger, Johann Jacob (1994). Organ Works, New York: Dover.
Fuller Maitland, J.A., and Barclay Squire, W., Eds. (1963). The Fiztwilliam Virginal Book -
Volume I, New York: Dover.
(1963/2). The Fiztwilliam Virginal Book - Volume II, New York: Dover.
Jackson, Roland (1967). Corpus of Early Keyboard Music 24: Neapolitan Keyboard Composers
circa 1600, USA: American Institute of Musicology.
56
Kaufmann, Henry and Kendrick, Robert (2008). ‘Vicentino, Nicola’, Grove Music Online,
available at <http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com> [accessed 8th August, 2008].
Koster, John (1994). Keyboard instruments in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Boston:
Museum of Fine Arts.
Kottick, Edward (2003). A History of the Harpsichord, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Lindley, Mark (1982). ‘Chromatic Systems (Or Non-Systems) from Vicentino to
Monteverdi [review]’, Early Music History, Vol. 2, (1982), pp. 377-404.
Lowinsky, Edward (1956). ‘Adrian Willaert’s Chromatic “Duo” Re-examined’, Tijdschrift
der Vereeniging voor Noord-Nederlands Muziekgesheiedenis, D. 18de, 1ste Stuk (1956),
pp. 1-36.
(1961). Tonality and Atonality in Sixteenth-Century Music, Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Mactaggart, Ann (1977). Report on the decoration of virginal belonging to Dr Richard Lucket (in
museum file).
Merula, Tarquinio in Curtis, Alan ed. (1961). Tarquinio Merula - Composizioni per organo e
cembalo, Brescia: L’organo
Morey, Carl (1966). ‘The Diatonic, Chromatic, and Enharmonic Dances by Martino
Pesenti’, Acta Musicologica, Vol. 38, Fasc. 2/4, (Apr. – Dec. 1966), pp. 185-189.
Mould, Charles, Ed.(1995). Makers of the Harpsichord and Clavichord 1440-1840. 3rd Edition.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nobbs, Christopher. Private communication regarding instrument signed ‘Viti de Trasuntino’, 6th
May, 2008.
O’Brien, Grant (1999). ‘The Use of Simple Geometry and the Local Unit of
Measurement in the Design of Italian Stringed Keyboard Instruments: An Aid
to Attribution and to Organological Analyis’, Galpin Society Journal, Vol. 52, (Apr.
1999), pp. 108-171.
(2000). ‘Towards Establishing the Original State of the Three-Manual
Harpsichord by Stephano Bolcioni, Florence, 1627, in the Russell Collection of
Early Keyboard Instruments, Edinburgh’, Galpin Society Journal, Vol. 53, (Apr.
2000), pp. 168-200.
(2005). ‘Initial Report: Italian Single-Manual Harpsichord Attirbuted here to
Onofrio Guarracino, Naples, c.1760 Collection of Fernanda Giulini, Milan’,
[Instrument report for private client provided by O’Brien].
(n.d.). “The single-manual harpsichord, undated and formerly though to be
Florentine in origin”, Grant O’Brien: Early Keyboard Insturments, available at
<http://
O’Brien, Michael (2008). ‘Cristoforim Bartolomeo’, Grove Music Online, available at
Ortgies, Ibo (2003). ‘Subsemitones in organs built between 1468 and 1721. Introduction
and commentary with an annotated catalog [sic]’, GOArt Research Reports, Vol. 3.,
Göteborg Organ Art Center, 11-74.
57
Palisca, Claude V. (2008). ‘Salinas, Francisco [Franciscus] de’, Grove Music Online,
available at <http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com> [accessed 19th August,
2008].
Pasquini, Bernardo in Haynes, Maurice Brooks (1967). Corpus of Early Keyboard Music Vol.
5 Part V, USA: American Institute of Musicology.
Praetorius, Michael (1619) Syntagma Musicum Vol. II [facsimile edition, 2001], Basel:
Bärenreiter Kassel.
Rayner, Claire (1969). Corpus of Early Keyboard Music vol. 20: Giovanni Paolo Cima Partito de
Ricercari & Conzoni alla Francese, US: American Institute of Musicology.
Ripin, Edwin (1974). The Insturment Catalogs [sic] of Leopoldo Franciolini, New Jersey: Joseph
Boonin, Inc.
(2008). ‘Arcicembalo [Archicembalo]’, Grove Music Online, available at
(2008/2). ‘Franciolini, Leopoldo’, Grove Music Online, available at
Rushton, Pauline (1994). European Musical Instruments in the Liverpool Museum, Liverpool:
National Museums and Galleries Merseyside.
Schott, Howard (2008). ‘Froberger, Johann Jacob, Grove Music Online, available at
Smith, Eleanor (2007). The History and Current Location of the Boddington-Pyne Collection of
Instruments, BMus. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Stembridge, Christopher (1992). ‘Music for the Cimbalo Cromatico and Other Split-keyed
Instruments in Seventeenth-Century Italy’, Performance Practice Review, Volume 5,
pp. 5-43.
(1993). ‘The Cimbalo cromatico and Other Italian Keyboard Instruments with
Nineteen of More Divisions to the Octave (Surviving Specimins and
Documentary Evidence)’, Performance Practice Review, Volume 6, pp. 33-59.
Van der Meer, John Henry (2006). Alla riceca dei suoni perduti: In search of lost sounds, Milan:
Villa Medici Giulini.
White, John R. (1966). Corpus of Early Keyboard Music 15: Michelangelo Rossi Works for
Keybaord, USA: American Institute of Musicology.
Wraight, Denzil and Stembridge, Christopher (1994). ‘Italian Split-Keyed Instruments
with Fewer than Nineteen Divisions to the Octave’, Performance Practice Review,
Vol. 7, No. 2., Fall 1994.
Wraight, Denzil (1997). Stringing of Italian Keyboard Instruments c. 1500- c1650, Ph.D. thesis,
The Queen’s University, Belfast.
(2005). ‘Complete list of surviving Italian string keyboard instruments originally
provided with more than 12 notes per octave’, Denzil Wraight – Italian Keyboard
instruments (Downloads), <http://www.denzilwraight.com/download.htm>
[accessed 25th July, 2005].
58

The Use of Divided Accidental Keys in Italian Strung Keyboard Instruments Pre 1700 (Eleanor Smith)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Use of Divided Accidental Keys in Italian Strung Keyboard Instruments Pre 1700 (Eleanor Smith)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Discussion of the Use of Divided-Accidental keys in Italian

Strung-Keyboard Instruments pre. 1700.

Rectangular Enharmonic Virginal, Attributed to Francesco Poggio, Florence, c

Eleanor Smith s0347093

Apart from dates, measurements, amounts of money, museum numbers,

Diagram showing adapted Helmholz system of pitch notation (adapted by

Heraldic terminology is included in italics.

more divisions to the octave; (documentary

1 The surviving instruments are harpsichords and virginals.

Edward Kottick5 gives a brief overview of the use of divided accidentals in

6 Wraight and Stembridge (1994: 169).

Out of ten surviving instruments listed in Wraight’s catalogue8 by Stephano

7 This instrument, EUCHMI (4304), will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

Francesco Poggi is survived by up to twenty-one instruments,10 of which four of

The final instrument that survives from a named Florentine maker is a

The situation with surviving Roman instruments appears to be the opposite of

9 Wraight (1997: Volume II, 77).

A further instrument, by Franciscus Marchionus, may in fact also have been a

14 Wraight (1997: Volume II, 83).

One final instrument remains to be discussed, a harpsichord of c.1550 in the

22 Koster (1994: 9).

Bink (1966) discusses Vicentino’s instrument in detail, as well as how the

Stembridge (1993:43-47) describes the instrument included in Zarlino’s Istitutioni

25 Bink (1966: 1).

Zarlino is also known to have commissioned an instrument from Domenico de

Praetorius (1619: 63-66) describes a Clavicymbalum Universale, seu perfectum in the

Finally, a publication of music and theory by Fabio Colonna in Naples in 1618

29 Pesenti (1645/6) in Stembridge (1993: 47-49).

Scipione Stella’s instrument appears to have as many as fifty-two divisions to the

As well as discussing the documentary evidence, Stembridge (1993) also

Two of the above instruments are built by Vito de Trasuntinus,38 a harpsichord

34 Barbiereii, ed. (1991: XXXVI).

Trasuntino’s clavemusicum omnitonum has thirty-one divisions to the octave divided

Stembridge (1993: 36-37) discusses the Faber harpsichord now in the

44 O’Brien (2005: 14-15).

In summary; as with the instruments discussed in Chapter 1.2 there appear to

Illustration 1- Rectangular enharmonic virginal, attributed to Francesco Poggi, EUCHMI (4345).

47 Mould (1995: 312).

48 Mould (1995: 148-9, 312).

Although the current keyboard is a modern replacement, what is presumably the

An instrument also attributed to Poggi in the Liverpool Museum is the only

56 Wraight (1997: Volume I, 152).

Accepting a deviation from Pythagorean of up to a semitone (100 cents); the

Wraight’s discussion59 suggests that the greater proportion of Italian virginals

An examination of the baseboard of the case of this instrument reveals that

59 Wraight (1997: Volume I, 197-214).

f3 122.5 327 55 f-sharp3 346.5 46

Illustration 4 - Single-manual harpsichord, Anonymous, EUCHMI (4302)

The first of the two harpsichords originally provided with an enharmonic

61 Mould (1997: 59).

62C-sharp, D-sharp, and f-sharp1.

65 Wraight (1997: Volume I, 225).

Illustration 8- Triple-manual-harpsichord, Stephano Bolcioni, EUCHMI (4304).

Stephano Bolcioni was a Florentine instrument builder, the middle of three

69 Mould (1995: 20).

llustration 10 - Detail of EUCHMI (4304) showing the alterations to the nameboard.

72 In Ripin (1974: 127).

current lowest key.

The compass of this anonymous harpsichord is similar to those found in

A volume of chromatic music recorded by Alan Curtis, and reviewed in Naomi

Koopman includes music from Frescobaldi’s Il Secondo libro di toccata, which is

81 Stembridge (1992: 22).

“I would have composed a Toccata passing smoothly from diatonic to