In view of the foregoing facts, the following account of Hingeston’s life is necessarily incomplete. Nevertheless, the biographical facts and the related material, together with the addition of a liberal amount of conjecture, have made it possible to obtain a reasonably clear picture of the composer and his activities.
Of particular interest is the fact that John Hingeston was one of the few musicians who was able to serve, with distinction, Charles I, Cromwell, and Charles II. This knowledge alone would lead us to believe that, besides being a musician of considerable skill and reputation, he must have been an astute man, quite able to conform to varying situations. One would like to think, perhaps, that his talents were so great that both the royalists and Cromwell fully appreciated his genius. But the absence from the musical scene during the Commonwealth of such men as John Jenkins and Matthew Locke indicates that even the most highly respected musicians of the time were unable, or more probably did not desire, to serve both sides.
Whatever the reason, so far as is known, there is no information anywhere that might give us an idea of Hingeston’s political philosophy. Probably he never had one, but was quite willing to serve any master and had the wits and personality to do so. From the few diaries and memoirs that mention him only casually it is not difficult to obtain the impression that he was a generous and amiable man. The same can be said of John Jenkins, who certainly was a man of greater eminence and accomplishment in the musical world of the time. At the risk of misrepresenting Hingeston's motives and character, perhaps it can be said that Jenkins was a man of firmer integrity who was less willing to compromise himself or his beliefs. Whereas Hingeston was comfortably located in the musical establishment of the Protector, Jenkins found himself in the same situation as that of other noted musicians of this era, that is, still dependent upon the patronage of the aristocracy and wealthy gentry. Rather than be unemployed, Jenkins spent the greater part of the Commonwealth period as teacher and resident musician in the establishments of such Norfolk families as Sir Hamon L'Estrange, Sir Dudley North, Edward Benlowes, and Sir Philip Woodehous. (3)
In spite of this somewhat negative impression of his character, there are instances, as will be seen later, in which Hingeston is mentioned with a great deal of respect and affection. On the other hand, the lack of comment on this musician during the Restoration is possibly indicative of the general attitude toward him. Certainly, his music, which displays accomplished skill and talent, would not warrant exclusion from the current repertory. The explanation of these circumstances may well lie in his personal relationships or in his lack of allegiance to the royalist cause during the Commonwealth.
As was stated earlier, it is not unusual to know little or nothing of the childhood and youth of many men who were prominent during the early part of the seventeenth century, and John Hingeston is no exception. No record of his birth has been found, but from the information that Sir John Hawkins (4) gives us, it can be estimated that Hingeston was born in approximately 1610.
Most of the commonly used sources that devote a few lines to this musician mention that Orlando Gibbons was the teacher of John Hingeston. The death of Gibbons in 1625 offers us the only clue to the age of Hingeston. Knowledge concerning the usual practice of musical training in England during this period allows the supposition that the boy Hingeston would not have been more than fifteen years of age at the time of his illustrious predecessor’s demise. The earliest date, therefore, to which his birth can safely be attributed is 1610, with a strong possibility of his having been born as late as 1615. For the authenticity of the statement that Gibbons was Hingeston's music master, we must rely solely upon the information that Hawkins has left us. There is little doubt that more proof than Hawkins gives will have to be disclosed before the statement can be established as true. One may form his own opinion after reading the quotation below:
Anthony Wood, from whose manuscript in the Ashmolean Museum the above account (Hawkins’ short biographical sketch of Hingeston) is partly taken, was not able to fill up the blank which he left therein for the name of Hingston's master; but a manuscript in the hand-writing of Hingston, now extant, ascertains it. This relic is thus inscribed: "My Masters Songs in score with some Fantazias of 6 parts of my own." The Fantazias stand first in the book and are about six in number, some subscribed Jo. Hingston, Jan. 1640, and other dates. Hence it is to be inferred that Orlando Gibbons was the master of Hingston: and this supposition is corroborated by the following anecdote, communicated by one of Hingston's descendants now living, to wit, that the Christian name Orlando, for reasons which they have hitherto been ignorant of, has in several instances been given to the males of the family. Note, that in the MS above-mentioned one of Gibbons's songs has this memorandum, "Made for Prince Charles to be sung with 5 voices to his wind instrument." (5)Opinion of whether or not Gibbons was Hingeston's teacher depends entirely upon interpretation of the phrase "My Masters Songs." Of equal importance and interest are two other points. If we can assume that Hawkins actually had access to the document mentioned above - it was extant in 1776 the date of the first edition of his History - we have definite proof that Hingeston wrote some of his fantasies as early as 1640, a date that certainly would not be out of keeping with the essential style of the fantasies, particularly those in six parts.
No official records have been found regarding Hingeston's marital status. Hawkins’ statement that "one of Hingston's descendants, now living" (1776 or slightly earlier), learned the reason the name Orlando was passed on to the male members of the family provides strong indication that he was married. It does not seem likely that this nam? would be given to any one other than his son, grandson, and other direct descendants, unless the reference is to a collateral line. Further, although the Italian influence was present, due to the Bassanos, Ferraboscos, and others, it does not seem probable that such a non-English name as Orlando would be handed down through the family except for good reason, that of commemorating the name of the famous teacher-composer.
Accepting the assumption, then, of Gibbons' relationship to John Hingeston, it is possible to go a step further and determine the approximate years during which the latter studied with the famous master. Lafontaine, in his valuable transcript of records, lists the persons who were present at the funeral of James I in 1625, the year of Gibbons' death. Gibbons is listed twice as organist, (6) once under the heading of "Gentlemen of the Chappell," and under "Singing men of Westminster." After serving as organist of the Royal Chapel since 1604, Gibbons became organist of Westminster Abbey in 1623. Since he is listed as a member of both musical organizations, he must have maintained his position as organist of the Chapel Royal at this time.
Thus the problem of where Hingeston received his early training confronts us. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that he may have been one of the boy choristers at Westminster. It is more likely, however, that his training with Gibbons was limited to the organ. Gibbons' influence on Hingeston regarding this instrument appears obvious, since the younger musician became an organist of considerable reputation. Also discernible is the influence of the illustrious teacher upon his pupil in regard to writing for strings, and it is possible that Hingeston may have had instruction in composition from Gibbons.
Considering, however, that Gibbons held the chief organ post in both musical establishments and therefore had a busy life, we may suppose that the teacher-pupil relationship was limited to the organ. In the same entry, cited above, is listed the "Master of the Children," Nathaniel Giles, who had held the post since 1595. His main interest and skill also appears to have been the organ.(7) It is entirely possible that Giles not only took care of Hingeston’s general musical education, but may have been the youth's organ teacher as well, at least after the death of Gibbons in 1625, with Hingeston's work under Gibbons taking place between 1620 to 1625.
Most of the above is conjecture based upon a few threads of evidence. From this time onward there is no information whatsoever on the life of Hingeston, nor is there any evidence that might give us a hint of his activities or professional standing, until we learn of his attachment to the musical establishment of Oliver Cromwell. There is, however, one statement that seems to be repeated by almost all the authors who mention Hingeston, one of the earliest of these being Hawkins.(8) This early music historian says that Hingeston was first in the service of Charles I. Yet a search of all available records of the royal musical establishment prior to the Puritan Revolution fails to reveal the presence of John Hingeston during this period. It is possible that Hawkins was taking the liberty of assuming that Hingeston graduated to the service of Charles I from his status as one of the boy musicians, a process quite common at the time. In fact, one of the main reasons for training boys was to supply musicians for the royal musical court and chapel. Since there is no documentary evidence of Hingeston’s presence at court, Hawkins’ statement must be discounted, and with it, those of all other authors based upon it, until such time as proof may be found.
Those years before the Revolution, during which we do not hear of Hingeston, may very well constitute mute evidence of the fact that the musician was one of that growing number who, during the third decade of the century, found themselves increasingly unsympathetic to the royalist cause. His quick induction to the most important musical post under Cromwell supports this conjecture.
As has been indicated in a previous chapter, the royal court was not the only place where a musician could gain a satisfactory livelihood. The fact that the great John Jenkins was in the service of several wealthy and distinguished families during the Commonwealth has already been discussed. It is possible that Hingeston's activities may be hidden, for the time being, in the records of various well-known families whom he might have served in the capacity of musician and teacher. Even more probable is the surmise that he may have been one of the many private teachers in the city of London who found It profitable to be responsible to no higher authority than themselves.
The most direct evidence we have bearing on this conjecture can be found in John Playford's Musicall Banquet (1651), of which only two copies are in existence today. (Scholes reproduces the title page of this treatise in facsimile in his study of the Puritans.) The title page is in effect an advertisement, and perhaps among the earliest, for the benefit of music teachers. After giving the contents, purpose, and scope of the Musicall Banquet, Playford goes on with a few words that read, in part, as follows:
... I shall wish you good successe in the practick part, which will soone bee obtained by the helpe of an able Master, this City being at present furnished with many excellent and able Masters in this Art and Science, some of whose names for information of such as desire to become Practitioners therein, I have heere inserted. (9)Following these words are listed twenty-seven musicians, many of them among the most noted of the day. Under the column "Voyce or Viole" we find Henry Lawes mentioned first, followed by Davis Mell, one of Hingeston's few fellow-musicians under Cromwell. In addition, there are listed such men as Captain Cooke and Henry Ferrabosco.
Among the teachers of the "organ and Virginall" are named Christopher Gibbons, the son of Orlando, Benjamin Rogers, and John Hinkston [sic].
Although the date of this publication is 1651, it provides a strong indication that the profession of private music teacher was not an unusual one, and thus it is quite probable that Hingeston was only one of many who earned their livelihoods in this manner during the fifteen years that preceded the Commonwealth.
In addition, one must consider that Hingeston was a man of several skills and was fortunate to ?? ? keeper and repairer of organs, a particularly lucrative profession at that time. Pulver, in his very brief biographical sketch of the musician, closes his account with the statement that Hingeston died a prosperous man. (10)
This is without doubt an assumption rather than a statement of fact based upon concrete evidence. But the assumption is a valid one and is apparently founded upon that rich store of information compiled by Lafontaine. (11)
A glance through the volume will show that the number of entries devoted to the activities and payments made to Hingeston are exceeded by those of only a few of the musicians covered in the compilation. Many entries are concerned with Hingeston’s employment as a repairer, buyer, or Inspector of organs in various palaces, churches, and other establishments.
Needless to say, this activity did not commence with the musician's entry into the service of Charles II, for to acquire the necessary skills and reputation he must have practiced not only during the Commonwealth but also during the reign of Charles I, perhaps as a self-employed musician. Pulver's allusion to Hingeston's prosperity indicates that he must have exercised his skill and art for quite a few years prior to his death, particularly in view of the fact that his salary was in arrears for as long as five or six years during his service under Charles II.
The first definite mention of Hingeston as organist and composer is from the period of the Commonwealth. A true account of the musical situation under the Protectorate should leave no doubt regarding the real status of music. The erroneous conception that has existed for several centuries has finally been erased in part by the excellent study of Percy A. Scholes (12). In addition, his volume contains the richest store of information concerning Hingeston that is within easy reach. It is only natural that this writer should devote so much attention to Hingeston, for the latter was, in fact, one of the most noted musicians of this period.
It is common knowledge that he was Cromwell's favorite musician and the head of a small staff of performers. The only available record we have of actual members of the staff is contained in the diary of Thomas Burton, which names the domestic musicians who followed the Protector's body to the grave in 1658. They are listed as follows: John Hingston, Davis Mell, six other men, and two boy singers. (13) The "six other men," according to Scholes, were John Rogers, Thomas Mallard, William Howe, Thomas Blagrave, William Gregory, and Richard Hudson. (14) Davis Mell, as has been mentioned, was, with the possible exception of Thomas Baltzar, the finest violinist of the day. There is very little information regarding the "six other men," who apparently did not contribute a great deal to the music of the seventeenth century. Three of them, Howe, Gregory, and Hudson, together with Hingeston and Mell, assume some importance in connection with a petition to Cromwell, to be discussed shortly (see below, p.l09f.). All of them are of the older generation, and in view of the poor state of musical education at the time, this fact should not be surprising.
John Rogers (d. 1675) was a celebrated lutanist who was appointed to the court of Charles II as "lutenist, in the place of Gaultier." ' This Gaultier, however, is not the famous Denis but Jacques, also a lutanist, who served Charles I as well as his successor, Charles II. Of Mallard we know but little. He is mentioned eight times in the Diary of Samuel Pepys. A rather humorous entry, pertaining to Mallard, is found for January 22, 1663/64, which reveals that Pepys was not quite prepared to be generous, even concerning his first love, music.
. . . After we had dined came Mr. Mallard, and after he had eat something, I brought down my vyall, which he played on, the first maister that ever touched her yet, and she proves very well and will be, I think, an admirable instrument. He played some very fine things of his owne, but I was afeared to enter too far in their commendation for fear he should offer to copy them for me out and so I be forced to give or lend him something. (16)William Hove (or Howes) (d. 1676) was a musician who enjoyed a high reputation. Like some of the other musicians, he was appointed to the private music of Charles I (17) and Cromwell. He was competent to the extent that he was included in John Banister's band of violins, the pet musical ensemble of Charles II, and a direct copy of Lully's 24 Violons du Roi.
Another musician who served both Stuarts as well as Cromwell was Thomas Blagrave (or Blagrove). He is first mentioned in the Lord Chamberlain's Records on December 22, 1637, when he was appointed to his month of "waiting in the Chapell and at his Majesty's table." (18) Although he played the violin, he was assigned as one of the musicians of the wind instruments, performing mainly on the sackbut and hautboy.
William Gregory (d. 1663) was a flutist and violist whose service dated back to the funeral of James I. In addition to being a member of Cromwell's musicians, he is listed as one of the select group of music teachers in the Musicall Banquet. The last three years of his life were spent in the service of Charles II. (19)
The final member of the "six other men," Richard Hudson (d. 1668), also became one of the violinists in John Banister's celebrated band of violins. Whether he was related to the more famous George Hudson, singer, lutanist, violinist, and composer, has not yet been ascertained. (20)
Thus we have a picture of the small group of musicians of whom Hingeston had charge. It cannot be said that they were great men, but certainly they were capable musicians, and considering the predominance of strings, Hingeston most likely had no difficulty in having his fantasies performed. It is significant that several of them were violinists rather than viol players. It may well be that Meyer's assertion that Hingeston was the first to add violins to the bass viols in his duos and trios has a certain basis in fact. (21) The violin was becoming increasingly more popular in England by the middle of the century, being used not only by Baltzar and Mell but by those of less skill. It had been regarded, as has been mentioned in Chapter I, as a second-rate instrument and employed by minstrels and waits for the performance of the more popular type of music, the "aristocratic" viol being reserved for the performance of fantasies and other art music. Its more widespread use during the Commonwealth serves to prove that the importation of skilled violinists from the Continent during the Restoration was not the only factor contributing toward wider acceptance of the violin as a generally approved musical instrument.
The presence of two boy singers in Cromwell's musical establishment is well worth noting, particularly since the tradition of boy singers ceased with the advent of the new regime. A contemporary account concerning the reason for maintaining these boys is found in the writings of Anthony Wood, the great Oxford antiquarian, chronicler, and music lover. This manuscript, written in a rather illegible hand, contains the following statements:
Hingston, John, an able Composer, and Organist; He was Orga. to Oliver Protector, who had the Organ of Magd: College in the Palace Hall of Hampton Court: till his majesti?s Restauration: He bred up two Boyes to sing with Himselfe (M?. Dearings) printed latin songs for 3 voices: which Oliver was most taken with tho he did not allow singing, or organ in Churches. He had them sung at the Cokepit at White Hall, where he had an Organ: and did allow this John Hingston £100 per Annum during his usurpation. (22)This is the earliest biographical account of Hingeston and is one of Wood's many small sketches of musicians arranged in alphabetical order. It is enlightening in so far as Cromwell himself is concerned, for the presence of the two boys, a highly irregular situation at this time, would indicate strongly that Cromwell was indeed a lover of music, and that Hingeston had more to do than just play the organ. He was, in reality, a sort of musical companion to the Protector and contributed to several types of musical activity.
Very few of the commentaries on Hingeston omit the information that he instructed Cromwell's daughter in music. This fact, in itself, would demonstrate not only the confidence the ruler had in the musician, but also that he, as a teacher, had ready entrance into the family circle.
His primary duty, however, was to entertain Cromwell. It is said that the Protector was particularly fond of sacred songs; hence, the maintenance of the two boys to sing the songs of Deering and others. Scholes is of the opinion that the music often sung for Cromwell included the two- and three-part motets of Deering entitled Cantica sacra ad duos & tres voces, composita cum basso-continuo ad organum, then currently in manuscript but published early in the Restoration, in 1662. (23) These appear to have a relationship to the bicinia and tricinia common in Europe during the last half of the sixteenth century and first half of the seventeenth. It is possible that with the other men present in Cromwell's organization, similar compositions by Deering for four, five, and six voices were also sung, with the likelihood that the Protector himself participated surreptitiously in this and other "forbidden" music. That Cromwell enjoyed the company of his musicians is revealed in a pamphlet published by Roger L'Estrange, the well-known musical amateur, written in defense of himself against the accusation that he had had musical associations with Cromwell. In reality, L'Estrange was a staunch loyalist who went into exile, not returning until rather late in the Commonwealth period.
The following quotation from the pamphlet is enlightening also in regard to some of Hingeston's activities during this time;
. . . Being in St. James his Parke. I heard an Organ touched in a little low Room of one Mr Hinckson's. I went in, and found a Private Company of some five or six Persons. They desired me to take up a Viole, and bear a Part. I did so: and That, a Part too, not much to advance the Reputation of my cunning. By and by (without the least colour of a Design or Expectation) in comes Cromwell; He found us Playing and (as I remember) so he left us. (24)It is evident that Cromwell had the freedom of social intercourse with his friend and musician John Hingeston, whose apartment he undoubtedly frequented when he felt a need for companionship and relaxation.
The musical activities of Cromwell were not limited to those in which Hingeston participated as either organist, teacher, or viol player, performing, most likely, some of his own fantasies. There were many other musical functions of state, some of which could have compared favorably with any during the reign of the Stuarts of those on the Continent. Interesting evidence is found in a letter written by a William Dugdale to John Langley on November 15, 1658. A copy of it is printed in the Appendix to the Fifth Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission and is quoted by Scholes as follows:
On Wednesday last was my Lord Protector's daughter married to the Earl of Warwick's grandson; Mr. Scobell, as a Justice of the Peace tyed the knot after a godly prayer was made by one of His Highnesses divines; and on Thursday was the wedding feast kept at Whitehall, where they had 48 violins, 50 trumpets and much mirth with frolics, besides mixt dancing (a thing heretofore accounted profane) till 5 of the clock yesterday morning. (25)This document is quite revealing in several respects. First, it is one of the many bits of information that help to dispel the myth of the lack of music during the Commonwealth. The passage also contributes to knowledge of some of Hingeston's activities. It is unlikely that Cromwell's chief musician would be completely divorced from these musical extravaganzas, or for that matter, from any music of state that might be more elaborate than usual. One assumes that if he did not personally lead the larger ensembles, he probably, as the chief musician, had charge of the organization. The document further discloses that Hingeston was a man of considerable influence. An interesting instance of this respect and influence is reflected in a suggestion by General Montague, who wrote in 1656 that "those who have disposal of the monument money at Westminster may use it for the maintainance of five masters of music, of whom Hingston is to be one." (26)
Another document reveals that the composer was evidently concerned over the plight of the professional musician. It must be admitted that the musical festivities described above were rather infrequent in occurrence. An obvious deduction is that there were many well trained musicians who, for the most part, found themselves employed only upon occasion. In addition, it can be assumed that most of these musicians were not of the younger generation, since formal musical training in England was not then at its best and most certainly not equal to the standard that had existed during the reign of Charles I. The only group of which we have record as teachers are those listed in the Musicall Banquet (see above p.96).
The governing body of England realized quite well to what level musical training had fallen. In order to remedy this state of affairs, the Puritan Council appointed a "Committee for Advancement of Musicke." In February, 1657, the group, headed by John Hingeston, submitted a petition asking that steps be taken to organize a corporation of music, to improve music facilities in general, to regulate the manufacture of musical instruments, and to consider the prevailing conditions of musicians.
The text quoted below speaks quite eloquently for itself and needs no further comment. The endorsement on the folded document states:
The humble Petition of John Hingston and other ye Gent, of his Highness Musique. 19th Febr. 1656(-7).The actual date of the document according to the new calender is February 19, 1657. The body of the petition reads as follows:
To the Right Honourable the Committee of the Council for Advancement of musicke.Perhaps it should be stated that, in spite of the good intentions of Hingeston and of those under him, there is no record of any action being taken on the petition. At the time, its only value was to show an awareness of the deplorable situation of the professional musician as well as of music in general.
The humble Peticion of John Hingston, Davis Mell, William Howse, Richard Hudson and William Gregory, Gentlemen, on behalfe of themselves and others the Professors of Musick. ShewethThat by reeson of the late dissolucion of the Quires in the Cathedralls where the study and practice of the Science of Musick was especially cherished, many of the skilfull Professors of the said Science have during the late Warrs and troubles dyed in want, and there being now noe preferrment or Encouragement in the way of Musick, noe man will breed his child in it, soe that it must needes bee, that the Science itselfe, must dye in this Nacion, with those few Professors of it now living, or at least it will degenerate much from that perfection lately attained unto. Except some present maintenance and Encouragement bee given for educating of some youth in the Study and practice of the said Science.
Wherefore your petitioners most humbly pray, That there bee a Corporacion or Colledge of Musitians erected in London, with reasonable powers to read and practise publiquely all sorts of Musick, and to suppress the singing of obscene scandalous and defamatory Songs and Ballads, and to reforme the abuses in making all sorts of Instruments of Musick, with other reasonable powers of purchasing Lands and having a Common Seale and the like, as were heretofore granted to the professors of the said Science. And alsoe that whatever Lands, Rents, Moneys, or other effects or Revenues shall bee found to have bin heretofore given or employed for maintenance of professors of Musick in any way, may bee restored settled and employed for future maintenance and encouragement of the said Science.
And your peticioners shall pray, &c.John Hingston, Davis Mell, Will: Howes, Richard Hudson, William Gregory (27)
This document, with others, also serves to indicate that Hingeston not only was very much interested in the profession, but also was sympathetic to the predicament of the average musician. His activities during 1664 in connection with the Musicians' Company imply, still further, a man of considerable stature, who displayed a strong spirit of altruism and concern for his friends. A few clues as to Hingeston’s character are found in the Diary of Pepys, who evidently valued the friendship of the musician. An entry for December 19, 1666, reads as follows :
Thence going away met Mr. Hingston the organist (my old acquaintance) in the Court, and I took him to the Dog Taverne and got him to set me a bass to my "It is decreed," which I think will go well, but he commends the song not knowing the words, but says the ayre is good, and believes the words are plainly expressed. He is of my mind against having of 8ths unnecessarily in composition. This did all please me mightily. Then to talk of the King's family. He says many of the musique are ready to starve, they being five years behind-hand for their wages; nay, Evens, the famous man upon the Harp, having not his equal in the world, did the other day die for mere want, and was fain to be buried at the almes of the parish, and carried to his grave in the dark at night without one linke, but that Mr. Hingston met it by chance, and did give 12d. to buy two or three links. He says all must come to ruin at this rate, and I believe him. (28)Hingeston's solicitude here is evident, both for all musicians and for his friend Lewis Evans. Parenthetically, it might be added that this display of generosity contrasts strikingly with Pepys’ own fear of having to disburse something (see above, p. 100).
Nor was Hingeston too busy to help Pepys with his composition. Apparently the great diarist was satisfied, for a few days later, on Christmas day, an entry reads, ". . . After dinner I began to teach my wife and Barker my song, 'It is decreed,' which pleases me mightily as now I have Mr. Hinxton's base." (29)
Pepys was a great lover of music, as the numerous references in his diary testify. Like many amateurs, he lacked perception of the problems involved, and patience to learn all the rules and skills. Hence, when a bass was needed, he went to a composer. But another entry, on December 10, 1667, reflects a dissatisfaction, not only with Hingeston's help, but also with all other musicians. The entry reads as follows:
Here met Mr. Hinxton, the organist, walking, and I walked with him; and, asking him many questions, I do find that he can no m?r? give an intelligible answer to a man that is not a great master in his art, than other man. And this confirms me that it is only want of an ingenious man that is master in musique, to bring musique to a certainty, and ease in composition. (30)The conclusions Pepys reaches, regarding musicians and music, are humorous indeed, as the following additional entry reveals:
There is no record of Pepys having ever achieved that magic formula of “ten easy lessons” or of his succeeding in finding it among the writings of "other" composers.
Since the advent of the Restoration has been discussed in a previous chapter, there is need only to be concerned with the part that John Hingeston played in the very noticeable acceleration of musical activity that began in 1660.
The first entry mentioning Hingeston in Lafontaine's The King's Musick is dated June 23, 1660, and reads as follows: "John Hingeston appointed for a viol, in the place of Alphonso Forobosco." This is followed shortly, on July 2, 1660, by "John Hingeston, timer and repairer of organs, virginalls, and wind instruments in the place of Arthur Norgate." (32)
After these there are almost one hundred references to John Hingeston and his activities, these entries in the Lord Chamberlain's Records well-nigh equalling those of any other composer or musician of the period. It becomes apparent immediately that Hingeston was not only one of the leading musicians of the Court, but also one of the best remunerated. The two extracts from the records, quoted above, are indicative of this fact, since the second title does not cancel the first, but is in addition to his first assignment. He was paid accordingly. For example, on December 13, 1679, he is listed as a member of the "Private Musick, “no doubt as a viol player, at £50 per annum. In the same list, a few lines below, he is mentioned again as "tuner and repairer of wind instruments £60 per annum." (33) His combined salary was greater than most and was equaled or bettered by only a few.
Hingeston's duties in connection with his craft as organ repairer required him to handle more money and material than perhaps any other one person in the musical establishment, with the possible exception of the master of the boys. These funds were supplemented by the usual livery allowances.
A lengthy list of his activities, including a financial account of his various duties, can be found in Lafontaine’s transcript of the Lord Chamberlain's Records. It is quoted here in full to demonstrate the scope of his responsibilities.
1675-6, February 7It is unlikely, considering the variety of his activities and privileges, that Hingeston should not profit financially from all these transactions. In addition, the list directs our attention to the fact that he had considerable authority and freedom of action, commuting between the living quarters of Charles II at Whitehall and those at Windsor, as well as managing the necessary transactions with other craftsmen, servants, and merchants. (35)
Warrant for the payment of £133 5s. 6d. to Mr. John Hingston, keeper and repairer of
all his Majesty's organs, in his Chappells and Privy Lodgings, all harpsicords, pedalls and all other instruments, for the following items:-
1673.
For two new locks for 2 of his Majesty's harpsicords and for a new lock for the organ in the privy lodgings … £0 10s 0d
For repairing and mending two harpsicords for the practise of the private musick in the Great Hall … £1 10s 0d
For repairing and amending two harpsicords and carrying them to the play house … £0 10s 0d
For portage for his Majesty's chamber organ, and to Bernard Smyth for his charge to Windsor … £2 10s 0d
For repareing and setting up an organ in the banquetting house for Maundy Thursday … £1 10s 0d
To George Wyatt for blowing the organs at Whitehall for one year … £8 0s 0d
For the rent of a large roome to keepe his Majesty's instruments in for one whole year … £8 0s 0d
1674
For my charges to Windsor in giving order to make a new loft for the new organ there and seeing it placed, being there at severall tymes, 14 dayes. … £5 0s 0d
For three new locks and six keyes for the organ loft at Whitehall … £0 12s 0d
To Bernard Smyth, the organ maker, for cleanseing the organ at Whitehall. … £5 10s 6d
To Bernard Smyth, the organ maker, for the loane of an organ for the banquetting house and for three days tyme … £2 0s 0d
For the setting it up in the banquetting house … £2 0s 0d
For 4 of his porters for carrying it thither … £0 18s 0d
For portage of instruments for two whole years … £2 10s 0d
To Mr. Charles Haward for mending the harpsicords and pedalls in the Great Hall in the Privy Lodgings and for the private musick, for 2 whole years. … £6 10s 0d
To George Wyat for blowing the organ at Whitehall, and for his journey to and time att Windsor, 15 weekes … £12 10s 0d
For the rent of a large roome to keepe his Majesty's instruments in for one whole year … £8 0s 0d
1675.
To Mr. Humphrey Madg for a cornett for the private musick … £6 10s 0d
To Mr. Fittz for a sagbutt for the wind musick … £12 10s 0d
June.
For my charges to and at Windsor 4 days to putt his Majesty's organ in the Chappell in order against his coming thither … £1 10s 0d
To Mr. Smyth, organ maker, for his charges and his worke there … £2 10s 0d
September.
For my charges to Windsor, and for 20 yards of sail cloth to cover and secure the organ there from the weather and dust … £1 10s 0d
For the rent of a large room to keep his Majesty's instruments in for half a year … £4 0s 0d
To one to blow the organ, his Majesty being at Windsor … £1 10s 0d
For strings for the harpsicords and pedalls for half a year … £0 10s 0d
For portage for instruments for half a year … £0 15s 0d
To Mr. Haward, the virginall maker, for mending the harpsicords … £2 0s 0d
To Mr. Beale for mending and altering two recorders … £2 0s 0d
For a greate harpsicord with 3 ranks of strings for his Majesty's musick in the hall and in the privy lodgings … £30 0s 0d
Signed by N. Staggins, master of the Musick. (34)
Only a few hints of the respect with which he was treated are provided. His association with the venerable Musicians' Company indicates that he was one of the moving forces in and a spokesman for the association. The minutes of this corporation are preserved in the Harleian MSS at the British Museum. The two excerpts that concern Hingeston, quoted below, are printed in Hawkins' History of Musick
1664. May 13. Ordered that Henry Cooke, George Hudson, John Hingston, and John Lilly do meete fower of the musique of the cittie of London, to treat upon such matters and things as concern the good of the said corporation."Matters" concerning "the good" of the corporation probably were related to the ever-present problem of protecting the profession from the infiltration of vagabond minstrels and unskilled performers into the city of London (see Chapter I, p. 16).1672. June 24. Henry Cooke, Esq. being marshall of the corporation of musique in Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, resigns by reason of sicknesse, and Thomas Purcell, appointed in his room. Signed, John Hingeston, deputy marshal, and by the wardens and assistants. (36)
1671, October.Charles II regarded John Hingeston as one of his most noteworthy musicians. An entry of June 18, 1669 singles him out of the whole King's Musick to be included among ten men, most of whom are now known to have been prominent musicians in their time. The following quotation is self-explanatory:
Letter from the undermentioned musicians to Thomas Townsend, esquire:-
We whose names are underwritten, musitians to his Majesty, desire you will be pleased to deliver our talleys, and order on the fee farmes for one year's liverie due at St. Andrews, 1669, unto our fellow John Hingeston, and his acquittance in the behalf of us shall be a sufficient discharge. John Willson, Thomas Lates, William Gregorie, Thomas Lanier, Theophllus Fittz. John Gamble, William Clayton, Charles Colman. (37)
1669, June 18.In the same records is found an unusual item which may have a direct bearing on the entry quoted under the date February 7, 1675/6 (see above pp. 116ff.).
These are to certifie that by an order of his Majesty concerning the retrenchment of his Majesty's musick, dated February 21, 1668-9, his Majesty was pleased to exempt out of the said retrenchment his musick of the Chappell, whose names are:-
Thomas Purcell
Pelham Humphreyes
Dr. Christopher Gibbons
John Hingston
Dr. William Child
William Gregory
Dr. John Wilson
Theodore Steftkin
Thomas Blagrav
Paul Bridges
and which are his Majesty's private musick likewise, and these are the persons his Majesty intends to be continued and paid in their respective places in the Treasury Chamber as formerly. (38)
1676, June 15.Although there seen to be no indications as to the disposition of the case, nor any more information relating to it, there is no doubt that the debt referred to must have been accumulated during the years 1673 to 1675 for amounts payable to Smyth (40) for the services that he rendered to Hingeston during that period.
Whereas Bernard Smyth hath petitioned for leave to take his course at law against John Hingston for debt due, order that John Hingston give an appearance at the common law. (39)
Hingeston may have shared the financial troubles that were the common lot of musicians under Charles II, notwithstanding his rather lucrative position. It seems that in spite of the monarch's grandiose ideas and his attempt to emulate the music of the court at Versailles, he was either unwilling or unable to meet his financial commitments.
Presumably Hingeston had to discharge his debt to his hired artisans and laborers upon completion of the solicited labor. Meanwhile, however, Charles II did not feel the urgency to remunerate his musicians punctually.
One is reminded of Hingeston's complaint to Samuel Pepys (see p.111 above) in reference to his late friend Lewis Evans, in which he states that "many of the musique are ready to starve, they being five years behind-hand in their wages."
Several entries in the Lord Chamberlain's Accounts record the Loyal indebtedness to many of the musicians. Hingeston was no exception. For instance, an entry after his death indicates that Charles II owed the musician his livery for the years 1676 to 1682. In addition, there is an itemized list of money due him for five and a half years:
1683, December 25With all this presumably paid, Hingeston probably left an estate that was greater than that of the average musician. Even as early as 1670, his name is mentioned among many who were in arrears on their liveries for the years 1667 to 1670, inclusive.
Order to pay to John Hingston, keeper and repairer of his Majesty's organs, £124 for repairing and keeping and mending the organs, harpsicords and pedalls, for setting up organs against Maundy Thursday, for portage of instruments, for blowing the organ, for rent of a room to keep the instruments in and for other services during the past five years:
Layd out in his Majesty's service since the 24th of June 1678 unto the 25th December 1683, being five yeares and a halfe, by John Hingston, keeper and repairer of all his Majesty's organs in his Chappells at Whitehall, Windsor, Hampton Court; and also of all pedalls, harpsicords and other instruments in the Privy Lodgings.
For repairing and mending severall harpsicords at severall tymes for ye practice of ye private musick in ye hall and in ye privy lodgings … £7 15s 0d
For preparing and setting up an organ in ye banquetting house against Maundy Thursday, 1679 … £2 5s 0d
For setting up an organ in ye banquetting house against Maundy Thursday, 1680. … £2 5s 0d
For setting up an organ there against Maundy Thursday, 1681 … £2 5s 0d
For setting up an organ there against Maundy Thursday, 1682 … £2 5s 0d
For strings for ye harpsicord and pedals for 4 ½ years … £3 10s 0d
For portage of instruments for 5 ½ years … £6 15s 0d
For ye organ blower for blowing ye organ at Whitehall for 5 ½ years … £42 0s 0d
For rent of a large roome to keep ye instruments in for 5 ½ years … £44 0s 0d
For mending and tuning ye great organ in ye chappell at Whitehall at severall tymes … £5 15s 0d
For my charges to Windsor with an organ maker and two men to tune ye organ there in His Majesty's chappell (41) … £3 0s 0d
Total … £124 0s 0d
There are many more items that tell the story of Hingeston’s activities. During the last ten years of his life, however, the entries in the records become less frequent, undoubtedly on account of his advanced age. It is possible that some of his work was taken over by his apprentice, the young Henry Purcell. The warrant quoted below seems to tell us as much about the association between these two men as does any source:
1673, June 10.This appointment was made when the younger musician was fourteen years of age. Evidently it was a post of such special skill that he continued as an apprentice, without fee, in spite of succeeding John Blow to the high post of organist of Westminster Abbey in 1679. Purcell maintained this association with Hingeston for more than ten years, up to the time of the older musician's death. There is no record that Purcell was in any other way instructed by Hingeston. Since there is no evidence to indicate otherwise, it must be assumed that the association led to nothing more than the repairing, tuning, and building of organs. In fact, other than teaching Cromwell's daughters and being listed as a teacher in the Musicall Banquet, there appears to be no mention anywhere of Hingeston's activity as a teacher, excepting that in a few sources he is mentioned as John Blow's instructor. Hawkins makes the rather positive statement that "Hingston was Dr. Blow's first master, though the inscription on Blow's monument takes no notice of it." (43)
Warrant to admit Henry Purcell in the place of keeper, maker, mender, repayrer and tuner of the regalls, organs, virginalls, flutes and recorders and all other kind of wind instruments whatsoever, in ordinary, without fee, to his Majesty, and assistant to John Hingston, and upon the death or other avoydance of the latter, to come in ordinary with fee. (42)
Burney, after stating that Blow had received instruction from Captain Cooke, remarks that he "likewise received instructions from Hingeston, domestic organist to Oliver Cromwell, and Dr. Christ. Gibbons." (44)
Henry Leland Clarke, in his valuable study on John Blow, declares that this composer received formal instruction from Cooke and Christopher Gibbons and that this fact is undisputed, but that "his relationship to John Hingston, keeper of the organs, is somewhat obscure." (45)
Yet in a later discussion, Clarke appears to have no doubt about Hingeston having been Blow's teacher. (46) In a personal interview with the present writer, (47) Clarke stated that he had uncovered no actual evidence that Blow was taught by Hingeston. No documentary or contemporary account has been found thus far to verify either Burney's or Hawkins' statements, until more evidence is discovered, it cannot be stated with certainty that Hingeston had anything to do with the musical instruction of Blow or of any other young student, including Purcell. There is only the bare possibility that if the teacher-pupil relationship did exist between Blow and Hingeston, it may have taken the form of organ instruction during the closing years of the Commonwealth rather than afterward. It is more probable, however, that Blow's organ teacher was Christopher Gibbons.
As was mentioned previously, entries in the records regarding Hingeston's activities become less frequent during the last ten years of his life. Whether this reflects lessened musical activity on account of his advanced age is hard to say. However, the noticeable reduction in the number of petitions for payments in connection with services rendered on organs and in the repair of wind instruments does indicate a curtailment of activity. Young Purcell most likely was contributing more and more as both grew older.
Hingeston died in December 1683, most likely in a more prosperous state than that of the average musician, and certainly as one of the most respected among the performers and composers of his time and place, being one of the few musicians who had found employment with Cromwell as well as with the Stuarts. He was buried at St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, on December 17, 1683. This information has been verified by a letter, dated April 21, 1955, from E. M. Austen, the vestry clerk of that church, to the author, part of which is quoted below:
I have verified the fact that John Hingeston was buried at St. Margaret's on December 17, 1683 but regret that no details or other information is given in the Register. It is just "Mr. John Hingeston" and the date Dec. 17, 1683.It had been hoped that some additional information might have been entered, such as names of survivors, date of baptism, or mention of a residual estate. The lack of such data does not automatically exclude the possibility of marriage and heirs. However, marriage appears to be unlikely, in view of the fact that information of this nature is usually to be found not only in church registers, but also occasionally in the Lord Chamberlain's Records. If Hingeston did indeed have descendants, the only evidence on the point available at present is Hawkins' information mentioned earlier (see above, p. 90).
His portrait (see frontispiece) hangs in the Music School collection at Oxford. It has been reported that Hingeston left it to the School, together with the major portion of his string fantasies. This information, however, is doubtful because of the fact that an Edward Lowe presented the library with the manuscripts of Hingeston that it now owns.
There seems to be no other information regarding the portrait, and so far as this writer is concerned, the artist is unknown. It is painted in oil on a canvas 29½ by 24¼ inches. Rachel Poole has attempted a description of the painting which reads as follows:
John Hingeston. This portrait, now much in want of cleaning, may be more interesting than it appears. It displays a man in middle life, with a slight chin tuft and a feint moustache. The hair escapes in front from under the skullcap in a sparse, ugly fringe over the forehead. He wears the usual wide collar and black dress. (48)The author goes on to give an excellent sketch of Hingeston's biography and work. The reader, in studying the portrait, may come to his own conclusions regarding the composer's appearance. An examination of the collection of portraits contained in the third volume of Hawkins' celebrated History will disclose that most of Hingeston's contemporaries wore similar clothes and affected a similar chin tuft and mustache. This writer will hesitatingly add that the portrait seems to portray a man who has a bit of the cavalier about him. The eyes reveal a humor and perhaps a charm, that his rather strong and protruding chin tends to cover. Certainly, both qualities must have been a part of his character and were contributive to his success as a man.
This biographical account of John Hingeston, musician, composer, and organ-maker and keeper, is concluded with the following three entries found in Lafontaine 's listing of the Lord Chamberlain's accounts:
1683, December 171. Jeffrey Pulver, A Biographical Dictionary of Old English Music (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1927), p237.
Appointment of Henry Purcell to be organ-maker and keeper, etc., in the place of Mr Hingston, deceased. (49)1683, December 22
Robert Carr appointed musician for the violl in the place of Mr. Hingston, deceased. (50)1683-4, February 16. Henry Purcell appointed "keeper, maker, repairer and mender and tuner of all and every his Majesty's musicall-wind instruments; that is to say all regalls, virginalls, organs, flutes, recorders and all other kind of wind instruments whatsoever, in the place of John Hingston, deceased." Wages £60 per annum, together with the money necessary for the "workinge, labouringe, makeing and mending any of the instruments aforesaid." "And also lycence and authority to the said Henry Purcell or his assigns to take up within ye realme of England all such mettalls, wyer, waynscote and other wood and things as shall be necessary to be imployed about the premisses, aggreing, paying and allowing reasonable rates and prices for the same. And also in his Majesty's name and upon reasonable and lawfull prices, wages and hire, to take up such workmen, artificers, labourers, worke and store houses, land and water carriages and all other needefull things as the said Henry Purcell or his assignes shall thinke convenient to be used on ye premisses. And also power and authority to the said Henry Purcell or his assignes to take up all tymber, strings, and feathers, necessary and convenient for the premisses, agreeing, paying and allowing reasonable rates and prices for the same, in as full and ample manner as the said John Hingston formerly had." (51)