II

D’ANGLEBERT—LIFE AND
WORKS

D’Anglebert spent the last 29 years of his life serving the Sun King in various splendid settings. Although little is known of D’Anglebert’s private life, we have some documents concerning his marriage, the birth of some of his children, and his professional life, as well as a posthumous inventory. Conflicting information given by Auguste Jal in 1872 leads to a birth date of 1628 or 1635. Jal wrote that D’Anglebert was 63 at the time of his death in 1691, but “about” 24 when he married in 1659.¹ Under a separate category of “ÉPINETTE, JOUERS D’,” Jal reported that the reversion of Jacques Champion’s post was given to the child D’Anglebert in 1633; that is, D’Anglebert would assume the post after Champion’s death or voluntary resignation.² D’Anglebert’s tender age, however, would make that unlikely unless he were a blood relative. Jal may have confused this reversion with that of D’Anglebert’s son in 1672, but this too is implausible because none of the other elements fit. All efforts to verify Jal’s entry have proved fruitless, and a 1633 document lists Chambonnières (Champion’s son) as holding the reversion of his father’s post.³ Jal’s entry therefore seems incorrect, and the source for his statements remains a mystery. The year 1628 may be the correct birth date if Jal took D’Anglebert’s age at death from the burial document (now lost). F.-J. Fetis (1878) also gave D’Anglebert’s age at death as 63.⁴

The D’Anglebert family was from Bar-le-Duc, but Jean-Henry is first heard of in Paris, where he studied the harpsichord with Chambonnières. On 12 October 1659 at the church of Saint-Germain l’Auxerrois, across from the Louvre, D’Anglebert was married to Magdelaine Champagne, sister-in-law of the well-known composer François Roberday. According to the marriage contract, the groom was the son of Claude-Henry D’Anglebert, a surgeon from Bar-le-Duc. (D’Anglebert’s sister Anne married M^r de La Bruyère, Lord of Mauvière and Secretary of Finances for the king’s brother.)

Jean-Henry and Magdelaine had two daughters and eight sons. The first six children were baptized at St.-Germain l’Auxerrois (the first and fifth sons have similar names):⁵

Magdelaine Renée, baptized 19 September 1660—perhaps the child who died on 11 February 1693 at the age of 23.

Jean-Baptiste Henry, born 5 September 1661, baptized 26 March 1662 (a curiously long delay), and named for his godfather Lully. He was to succeed his father as Ordinaire de la musique de la chambre du roy pour le clavecin until his death c.1735.

d’Alexandre-Marie, born 14 September 1662 and baptized two days later, became a priest in Bar-le-Duc and spent the rest of his long life there (apparently he was still alive in 1747).

François-Henry, baptized 2 March 1664, died a bachelor in 1733.

Nicolas-Henry, baptized 8 April 1665. His godmother was D’Anglebert’s sister-in-law Charlotte Champagne, wife of François Roberday.

Jean-Henry, baptized 14 July 1666—probably the master of the clavecin who was buried at St.-Sauveur on 11 March 1747 at the age of 80.

A document of 8 May 1691, which names guardians for the minor children—the mother, Magdelaine Champagne; the eldest son, Jean-Baptiste Henry; and a first cousin, Henry-Henri d’Anglebert—also lists four other D’Anglebert children:⁶ Claude-Nicolas Henry, born c.1671 (died before 1724); Antoine-Henry, born c.1676 (died 13 April 1700); Louis-Henry, born c.1678 (died before 1724); and Catherine-Magdelaine Henry, born c.1683 (still alive in 1747 after the death of her brother Jean-Henry). Jean-Henry, who was 24 years old in 1691, is also described as a minor child, and his name heads this list. The existing baptism records name godparents from the upper classes.⁷

Quite possibly there were other children who did not survive infancy. Indeed, the fact that so many D’Anglebert children lived well past early childhood suggests that musicians, being of a lower social class than members of the court, were blessedly free of the ministrations of the doctors, whose blood-letting, purges, and potions seem to have killed more patients than they cured. His Majesty had a misplaced faith in his doctors. Madame, the king’s sister-in-law, relates that “the doctors have repeated the mistake they made with Mme la Dauphine, because when the little Dauphin [Louis, the third Dauphin and heir-apparent] was red from the measles and in a sweat they bled him and gave him an emetic, and during this operation the poor child died.” The future Louis XV was then hidden away by his ladies to prevent his being bled for the same illness. If the doctors had had their way, “He would have died too.”⁸

Early in his career, D’Anglebert held important posts as organist to the Jacobins, an order of Dominicans on rue Saint-Honoré (c.1660), and to the Due d’Orléans (the king’s brother) at the time of Jean-Baptiste Henry’s baptism in 1662. These positions and his study with Chambonnieres must have earned him a good deal of visibility in Paris.

A key event occurred on 23 October 1662 when Chambonnières sold D’Anglebert the reversion of his charge, Ordinaire de la musique de la chambre du roy pour le clavecin.⁹ The price was 2,000 livres, of which 500 were paid in cash. In the document Chambonnières reserved his rights to the annual wages and included protective clauses. Documents through 1689 show Chambonnières (or his estate, after 1672) and D’Anglebert each receiving the rather trifling annual sum of 6oo^lt while Chambonnières received additional payment from another account. This amount was customary for musiciens ordinaires, but each also received 900^lt as a maintenance (nourriture) allowance and 80 écus for transportation. For comparison, Mme de Sévigné, together with her daughter and son-in-law, paid 1,800 livres per year for their lease on the family mansion called the Hotel Carnavalet, and sublet apartments for 400 and 250 livres per year.¹⁰In his new position, D’Anglebert was “to perform the function and duties in the place of the said Mr. Chambonnières, all that he had performed and currently performs, and to commence carrying out the said exercise and function from this day forward.”¹¹

Chambonnières relinquished his post because he either could not or would not play from figured bass. The story is related by Jean Rousseau in a letter he wrote during his dispute with the violist Demachy in 1688.¹² It is likely that Lully was at the center of this episode. The “figured bass” may have been the official reason for removing Chambonnières, but one suspects that Lully did not want to deal with another star performer as proud and stubborn as himself. The fact that Chambonnières had been forced to sell his reversion was an event that the musical world was not likely to forget for decades to come. Indeed, in 1732 Titon du Tillet mentions that Chambonnières’s position at court had first been offered to Louis Couperin.¹³

A few years after assuming his post at court, D’Anglebert had to settle another matter with Chambonnières in connection with a position that was thought to have become obsolete. The charge of porteépinette involved an additional sum to be paid to the joueur d’épinette for expenses incurred in moving the instrument, but it became unnecessary when the clavecin supplanted the épinette. D’Anglebert, however, discovered that the post had not been discontinued, and that Sieur d’Aligré, treasurer of the Petty Funds of His Majesty, had simply “la tiroit à neant par faute de fond depuis l’année MVI soixante deux” (withdrawn the fee for lack of funds since 1662).¹⁴ According to a document of 25 October 1668, Chambonnières sold this post to D’Anglebert for 900 livres to keep D’Anglebert from bringing action against him. They agreed to share the sum due from 1662, on the condition that D’Anglebert continue to assume the costs of moving instruments where necessary in the service of the king. A receipt from Chambonnières, dated 19 July 1670, indicates that the certificate of the post of porte-épinette had been drawn up under the name of D’Anglebert.

The 1668 document names D’Anglebert as the “ordinaire de la musique de la Chambre du Roy et de Monsieur, frère unique de Sa Maiesté, pour le clavessin.” Thus he was still in the service of the king’s brother, for holding more than one post was common. Monsieur’s musical establishment in 1686 comprised Un Maître & Intendant de Musique (paid 1000^lt) and twelve Musiciens Ordinaires (600^lt each), including nine singers, two string players, and the claveciniste D’Anglebert.¹⁵ D’Anglebert also served the Dauphin’s wife, Marie-Anne de Baviere, after her marriage in 1680. Her accounts for 1686 list D’Anglebert and Le Sieur Lambert (Maître à Chanter) as the musicians on her staff, each with a salary of 400^lt.¹⁶

The position of Ordinaire de la musique de la chambre du roy pour le clavecin must have been demanding, so one can only guess why the king named but one incumbent (whereas the chapel had four organists, each of whom served a quarter year for a salary of 6oo^lt). The claveciniste took part in most secular musical events except those involving wind instruments outdoors. Benoit suggests that the chapel organists, who were also harpsichordists, may have assisted.¹⁷ During all of Louis XIV’s reign, only three men held the charge for the clavecin: Chambonnières, D’Anglebert, and D’Anglebert’s son Jean-Baptiste Henry. D’Anglebert was named to succeed Chambonnières in 1662 (with duties beginning immediately), and the reversion of this post was given to D’Anglebert’s son in 1674. Jean-Baptiste Henry took the title in 1691, on the death of his father, and retained it until his own death around 1735. Since Jean-Baptiste Henry suffered from failing eyesight, for many years most of his duties were probably performed by François Couperin. The reversion was given to Couperin in 1717, whose ill health caused him to relinquish it in 1730 to his daughter Antoinette Marguerite. Alas, the Couperin family never gained possession of the title Ordinaire pour le clavecin, but only held the reversion, for a royal decree in 1736 abolished the position after Jean-Baptiste Henry’s death (“et ne jugeant pas cette charge necessaire a notre service nous avons resolu de la suprimer . . .”).¹⁸ Antoinette Marguerite continued to play at court under the terms of a commission that apparently did not carry all the emoluments of a standard charge.

The reversion from 1674 designates that D’Anglebert be succeeded by his son, but the father’s rights are guaranteed until his death or his voluntary consent:

His Majesty granted him [Jean-Baptiste Henry] the said charges of ordinaire de la musique de sa chambre pour le clavessin and porte Espinette, to engage jointly and separately with his father, the said D’Anglebert, in enjoying and using the honors, exemptions, liberties, wages, fees, benefits, profits, income and emoluments inured, belonging and similar to those currently enjoyed by the said D’Anglebert, father. And so long as it pleases His Majesty, he enjoins the treasurer of petty cash and household affairs to continue to pay the said D’Anglebert, father, the same fees, and after his death or his consent during his lifetime, to the said D’Anglebert, son, in the customary terms. . . .¹⁹

What duties Jean-Baptiste Henry actually performed are not known; he probably acted as his father’s apprentice and assistant. On 4 January 1681, a Mémoire de pain, vin, verves et bouteilles listed “M. Danglebert père” and “M. Danglebert fils” among the group accompanying the récits on the clavecin, theorbo, gamba, flute, and basse de violon for Lully’s Le Triomphe de l’Amour. Each participant was given bread and wine on the occasion of this splendid event.

The similarity of names within the D’Anglebert family has led to considerable confusion; e.g., Auguste Jal’s brief biography erroneously refers to both father and son as Jean-Baptiste Henry.²⁰ Jal maintains that the father signed his name “J. H. d’Anglebert” while the son signed only “d’Anglebert.” The document with D’Anglebert’s posthumous inventory, however, shows that Jean-Baptiste Henry consistently signed his full name. Examples of the handwriting of D’Anglebert pere indicate that he always signed his name with a capital D, as did the other members of his family. The capital letter may have indicated a noble lineage; indeed, a document after his death describes the deceased as noblehomme.

D’Anglebert wrote music for keyboard only—organ in the first part of his career and harpsichord after his appointment at court. In 1689, two years after Lully’s death and just two years before his own death, D’Anglebert published his only edition, Pièces de clavecin. It contains 57 harpsichord pieces (including original pieces and transcriptions), six organ pieces, and five lessons on keyboard accompaniment:

Each key grouping has the general order of prelude, allemande, courante, sarabande, gigue, gaillarde, other dances, and transcriptions from Lully (but three dance transcriptions from Lully alternate with D’Anglebert’s own pieces in the G-minor set). Four short arrangements from anonymous sources are also included. The exercises in the Principes de l’accompagnement, a short self-instruction guide, are valuable for achieving facility in playing from figured or unfigured bass.

J.-H. D’Anglebert, Pièces de clavecin, title page.²¹ Reprinted by arrangement with Broude Brothers Limited.

D’Anglebert dedicated this edition to a student, Marie-Anne, the Princesse de Conty (1666–1739). She must have occupied a special place among his pupils because of her position as the king’s legitimated daughter by Louise de La Vallière, his first mistress. When Marie-Anne was a baby, the king offered her as a wife for William of Orange in order to gain cooperation with the Dutch, but William made a humiliating reply about marrying only legitimate daughters of royalty. Apparently that did not crush Marie-Anne, for she seems to have had a normal amount of youthful spunkiness. Nancy Mitford relates that the king once encountered a letter written by Marie-Anne in which she said “that she was obliged to drive out with Mme de Maintenon and an old freak called the Princesse d’Harcourt, day after day. ‘Judge what fun this must be for me.’ The king sent for Marie-Anne and blasted her with his terrifying tongue.”²² Mme de Maintenon, a rather severe woman who became Louis’s second wife, never forgave the princess this youthful indiscretion. Marie-Anne married Louis Armand de Bourbon (1661–1685), the Prince de Conty. He returned safely from fighting the Turks only to contract smallpox from his wife and die, leaving her a widow at the age of nineteen. Beautiful Marie-Anne refused all offers of marriage after her early widowhood. She inherited her father’s love of dancing, and was also known for her pleasant and agreeable nature. Jacques Bonnet (Histoire générate de la danse, 1723) says that Madame la Princesse de Conty was “one of the principal ornaments of the ball.” D’Anglebert’s dedication to the princess is couched in the customary humble tone:

I am presenting you with a collection of my pieces for harpsichord. There has never been a more justifiable homage. I have composed nearly all of them for your Most Serene Highness. And I can say that they owe their greatest beauty to you. The natural graces which accompany all you do have extended themselves to the manner in which you have played since your earliest childhood. And when I had the honor of showing you some of these pieces, you would mix some qualities into their execution that gave me new inspiration, and helped me create the most beautiful of what one will find here. All the teachers who have had the honor of contributing to your education have experienced the same thing, and have improved themselves through instructing you. The Heavens have let us see in you, Madame, a perfect combination of all that can be accomplished by persons of your class. As much elevated by the qualities of spirit and body as you are by your noble birth, you make one sense, from the moment one sees you, that you were born to be above others. It would be thus, Madame, that I would begin your praise, but such a purpose is too great and too far beyond my capability. I must only try to let you know how grateful I am for the kindnesses with which you have always honored me. It is also primarily to have an opportunity to make this known that I have decided to have my works appear. And if I am desirous of their being passed on to posterity, it is only to extend beyond the duration of my lifetime the most respectful gratitude with which I am

The fact that D’Anglebert composed most of his pieces for Marie-Anne, who would have been only 23 in 1689, indicates that he chose mainly his later works for his edition. The princess, an apt and talented pupil, continued her lessons with François Couperin after D’Anglebert’s death. With a lifelong interest in music, she regularly held salons at her home in which the finest musicians performed.

The dedication of D’Anglebert’s edition to a student calls attention to the fact that teaching was a principal resource for musicians (Du Pradel’s Livre commode des adresses de la ville de Paris, 1692, gives addresses of various maîtres). François Couperin explained that one of the reasons his first book of Pièces de clavecin (1713) was so late in appearing was his heavy teaching load:

A few of the occupations that have caused me delay are too glorious to complain about. For twenty years, I have had the honor of being with the King, and of teaching at the same time the Dauphin, the Due de Bourgogne, and six princes or princesses of the royal household.²³

Mignard/Vermeulen, portrait of D’Anglebert. Reprinted by arrangement with Broude Brothers Limited .

D’Anglebert’s edition includes an engraving by C. Vermeulen of a portrait by Pierre Mignard, an artist known for his many paintings of the king, the royal family, and various nobility. The portrait clearly shows D’Anglebert’s crossed eyes.

The Preface of the edition furnishes some interesting information and gives explicit instructions for the performance of the organ quatuor:

I have included in this collection pieces in only four keys, although I have composed in all the others. I hope to present the remainder in a second book. I have added to them some compositions of Mr. Lully, for it must be acknowledged that the works of this incomparable man are of a taste far superior to any other. As they succeed even more admirably on the harpsichord, I thought that my giving several of different character would be appreciated. I have added a few Vaudeviles [sic], principally to fill up the bottoms of pages that would have been useless otherwise. It is, however, true to say that these small airs are of an extraordinary finesse, and have a noble simplicity that has always pleased everyone.

I also wanted to give a sample of what I formerly wrote for the organ, so that is why I have included only five fugues on the same subject, varied with different mouvemens, and I have ended with a Quatuor on the Kyrie of the mass. As this piece is more contrapuntal than the others, its effect can only be achieved on a large organ with four different keyboards—I mean three keyboards for the hands and one for the pedals, with stops of equal weight and different timbre in order to distinguish the entries of the voices.

I have often been asked for some instructions for accompaniment. I thus give here the principles condensed into five lessons, which contain all that seems necessary to know in order to be able to acquire this skill on one’s own.

An important complement to the Pièces de clavecin is D’Anglebert’s manuscript, F-Pn Res. 89ter. As Kenneth Gilbert points out, it is an autograph,²⁴ as can be seen by comparing the signature with that in the document of 23 October 1662 in which D’Anglebert purchased his charge from Chambonnières.

Rés. 89ter, one of the few extant seventeenth-century keyboard autographs, contains fourteen pieces found in D’Anglebert’s Pieces de clavecin and five other original pieces (plus one double, or variation). Also included are a few more transcriptions from Lully, doubles of works by other keyboard composers (J. C. de Chambonnières, L. Couperin, and E. Richard), and transcriptions from a number of lute works by E. and D. Gaultier, R. Mesangeau, and Pinel. No original has been found for a sarabande bearing the name of (Marin) Marais, but it is probably another transcription. The miscellaneous pieces and fragments in other hands are later additions.

XLV, 213. Courtesy of the Archives nationals de France, Paris.

Rés. 89ter, l52V. Courtesy of the Département de la musique, Bibliothéeque nationale, Paris.

Bruce Gustafson dates Rés. 89ter between 1677 and 1680 because it includes a transcription from Lully’s Isis, performed in 1677, but lacks one from Proserpine, of 1680, which D’Anglebert included in his 1689 edition.²⁵ A good part of the manuscript may have been compiled much earlier, since D’Anglebert does not use the symbol for the turn that appeared in Chambonnières’s book of 1670, but writes out the turns in conventional notation. Thus the manuscript might have been begun in the 1660s, with additions being made over the years. The overture from Isis is one of the last pieces.

Rés. 89ter contains 48 pieces and twelve doubles in D’Anglebert’s hand. They are grouped by key as follows:

The largest key grouping in this manuscript that does not appear in the edition of 1689 is that in C major. Since these pieces use no pitch lower than C, they were probably written for an instrument lacking the short octave notes down to GG. The additional original pieces by D’Anglebert are all in C major except for the Gaillarde in A minor (No. 20). Variants between the Pièces de clavecin and Rés. 89ter are of relatively minor significance, the most substantive of which concern different ornamentation symbols, the use of written-out ornaments in the manuscript, and changes in rhythmic values in melodic lines (see chapter 4). This manuscript is especially valuable for the three preludes in a variant notation.

Appendix 1 contains a list of D’Anglebert’s harpsichord pieces and their sources, as well as information about miscellaneous pieces and transcriptions from eleven other manuscripts. The Oldham Manuscript (c. 1650s) includes two pieces in D’Anglebert’s hand. One is a Courante in C major (found in no other source), which remains unpublished at this time. Three previously unknown pieces by D’Anglebert—a Courante, Sarabande (with Double) and Gigue in A minor—are given in Appendix 2. These unattributed pieces in an English household manuscript are clearly in D’Anglebert’s unique and engaging style. A C-major Sarabande attributed to D’Anglebert in a manuscript from Troyes is a weaker piece and does not resemble his other writing.

D’Anglebert’s works received fairly wide circulation, since they are also found in two English and two German manuscripts—one from the late eighteenth century, the other a large manuscript from the Bach circle. J. G. Walther’s Musikalisches Lexikon (1732) includes a brief paragraph about D’Anglebert’s edition, and refers to his ornament table in several separate entries. One hundred years after his death, D’Anglebert earned a listing in E. L. Gerber’s Historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler.²⁶

D’Anglebert died on 23 April 1691 at rue St.-Anne and was buried at St.-Roch. In the posthumous inventory, his widow claimed “there is due the said estate the sum of 600 livres for the said deceased having taught Mademoiselle to play the harpsichord last year, 1690. . . .”²⁷ The inventory included the following possessions:

Fourteen paintings and seven engravings, among them a large painting on canvas by Monsieur Mignard that depicts the Virgin holding the child Jesus and St. Joseph at her side, together with a sculpted gilt wooden frame, green taffeta draperies, and a gilt iron curtain rod: 600^lt.

A clavecin with one keyboard and three registers: 90^lt.

An épinette with two registers on a footpiece of walnut, painted in the Chinese style: 6o^lt.

A clavecin of one keyboard and three registers (with a transposing keyboard), painted inside and out, on a walnut base: 200^lt.

A small Flemish clavecin by Ruckers with one keyboard and two registers, on a walnut base: 100^lt.

An old lute in its case.

An ardoize for composing music [perhaps a type of blackboard that could be cleaned after use].

Forty-one copies of Pieces de clavecin, composed by the deceased, bound in leather.

Clasp trimmed with diamonds: 280^lt.

Brillant (a jewel): 150^lt.

Wife’s necklace with 62 pearls: 250^lt.²⁸

Although D’Anglebert did not achieve Lully’s fame, he was well respected, for his children’s godparents include some illustrious names. He resided at a fashionable address, and the inventory suggests that he had modest wealth. However, contemporary accounts of D’Anglebert seem to be lacking, and Titon du Tillet’s biography of writers and musicians inexplicably omits him. Perhaps there is material waiting to be uncovered, or maybe D’Anglebert was a reserved figure content to remain in Lully’s shadow. Possibly the claveciniste owed his position at court to Lully’s intervention, for he seems to have had a close connection with the famous Italian. D’Anglebert named his first son after Lully (who served as godfather), transcribed and published many of his pieces, and praised his work in the Preface to his own edition.

It is tempting to speculate that D’Anglebert is absent from contemporary chronicles because he did nothing to attract special attention or notoriety, in contrast, for example, to François Couperin le grand’s uncle François, whose taste for wine was legendary. Titon du Tillet relates that a student could easily make him lengthen his lessons by providing a carafe of wine and a crust of bread—a lesson ordinarily lasted as long as the student continued to refill the carafe.²⁹ On the contrary, D’Anglebert appears to have been a sober family man who had at least ten children by the same wife over a period of 23 years. Perhaps his visual handicap made him reticent and retiring. Maybe the sophistication of D’Anglebert’s music was beyond the taste of the period, but without a contemporary judgment, who can say? It would appear that D’Anglebert, unlike Chambonnières before him and François Couperin after, was not a prominent performer. He may have found it politic to keep a low profile where Lully was concerned and to stay out of his way.

Other major composers of seventeenth-century clavecin literature include Jacques Champion de Chambonnières (c. 1601–1672) and his pupils Louis Couperin (c. 1626–1661) and Nicolas-Antoine Lebegue (c. 1631–1702). Etienne Richard (c. 1621–1669), a Parisian organist and harpsichordist, is assumed to be the composer of the few keyboard works ascribed to Richard. Much later in the century, Elisabeth-Claude Jacquet de La Guerre (c. 1669–1729) began a celebrated career as a child prodigy and published her first book of harpsichord pieces around 1687. The major sources for the music of these composers are given in Appendix 1. Not included in this discussion of seventeenth-century clavecin music is the large manuscript presumably by the organist Jean-Nicolas Geoffroy (d.1694). Bruce Gustafson notes that “the pieces are a peculiar combination of a traditional idiom with a harmonic vocabulary which is sometimes so mannered as to seem bizarre.”³⁰

Chambonnières, a well-known and influential figure praised by such notables as Marin Mersenne, Constantijn Huygens, and Johann Jakob Froberger, is considered to be the founder of the seventeenth-century clavecin school. Called gentilhomme ordinaire de la Chambre du Roy in his father’s will of 1632, Chambonnières’s name appears in payment records for 1643 ^as joueur d’espinette, but his fortunes declined in his last decade, after he was forced to sell the reversion of his post to D’Anglebert. In 1670, Chambonnières published two books containing 60 of his approximately 145 harpsichord pieces.

Louis Couperin had a brief but outstanding career after coming to Paris around 1651. He began the family dynasty as organist at St. Gervais in 1653. After refusing Chambonnières’s post at court, he was given another position as a treble viol player. He wrote approximately 215 pieces, most of which are for organ and harpsichord, and a few for instrumental ensemble. All exist only in manuscript form, including one autograph.

Lebègue published two books for harpsichord (1677 and 1687) and three for organ. His works had a wide currency and appear in a great number of foreign manuscripts. Their popularity perhaps resulted from their simple texture and ornamentation and their easily grasped formulas. Organist at St. Merry from 1664 to his death, Lebègue also held a post at the royal chapel for a quarter of each year from 1678.

La Guerre presents a colorful contrast to the other composers, for she was praised in the Mercure galant in 1677, when she was ten years old (?), and she was encouraged by the king himself. After her death, Titon du Tillet awarded her a substantial biography, which comments on her great reputation for improvisation.³¹ In contrast to the composers cited here, she published a good deal of stage, vocal, and instrumental ensemble music, in addition to two books of clavecin pieces. The first is undated, but was announced in the Mercure galant of March 1687; the second appeared in 1707. In 1754 Antoine de Leris wrote a brief biography of La Guerre:

LA GUERRE (Elisabeth-Claude JACQUET de), born in Paris in 1669 and died in 1729 at the age of about 70 years, was noted from her earliest youth for her musical style and for her art of playing the harpsichord. She had, moreover, a wonderful genius for composition, and left us the opera Céphale & Procis, three books of cantatas, some clavecin pieces, some sonatas, and a Te Deum. She married Marin de LA GUERRE, organist of Saint Severin and of Saint Gervais, by whom she had a single son who at the age of eight years played the clavecin in an astonishing manner, but he died in his tenth year.³²