(Fr., also chacony; It. ciaccona, ciacona; Sp. chacona).
Before 1800, a dance, often performed at a quite brisk tempo, that generally used variation techniques, though not necessarily ground-bass variation; in 19th- and 20th-century music, a set of ground-bass or ostinato variations, usually of a severe character. Most chaconnes are in triple metre, with occasional exceptions. The term is sometimes used interchangeably withPassacaglia (the terms ‘chaconne’ and ‘passacaglia’ are used throughout this article regardless of the national tradition under discussion). Many composers drew a distinction between the chaconne and the passacaglia, the nature of which depended on local tradition and to some extent on individual preference. The only common denominator among the chaconnes and passacaglias is that they are built up of an arbitrary number of comparatively brief units, usually of two, four, eight or 16 bars, each terminating with a cadence that leads without a break into the next unit. This almost limitless extendibility allows for the creation of a momentum sustainable over an appreciable length of time, a quality that contributes much to the special character of the genres as well as to their usefulness in certain contexts (for example, as the concluding number in an instrumental suite or stage work). Large-scale articulation by means of temporary shifts of mode or key is not uncommon in either early or more recent works.
1. Beginnings in Spain and Italy.
7. The chaconne and passacaglia after 1800.
ALEXANDER SILBIGER
The chaconne appears to have originated in Spanish popular culture during the last years of the 16th century, most likely in the New World. No examples are extant from this period, but references by Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Quevedo and other writers indicate that the chacona was a dance-song associated with servants, slaves and Amerindians. It was often condemned for its suggestive movements and mocking texts, which spared not even the clergy, and was said to have been invented by the devil. Its high spirits were expressed in the refrains that punctuated its often lengthy texts, usually beginning with some variant of ‘Vida, vida, vida bona!/Vida, vámonos á Chacona!’ (which can be freely translated as: ‘Let’s live the good life; let’s go to Chacona!’). Few could reportedly resist the call to join the dance, regardless of their station in life. The chaconne was traditionally accompanied by guitars, tambourines and castanets; among the less far-fetched of numerous proposed etymologies is a derivation from ‘chac’, the sound of the castanets. The theory that it was named after an as yet unidentified place (perhaps near Tampico, Mexico, referred to in some texts) is considered more plausible, however.
During the early 1600s the chaconne rapidly became established as Spain’s most popular dance, overshadowing its older (but equally ‘immoral’) rival, the zarabanda, with which it was often associated. For the earliest musical notations of chaconnes, however, one must turn to Italy, to the alfabeto (chord) tablatures of the newly popular five-course or ‘Spanish’ guitar, beginning with Montesardo’s Nuova inventione d’intavolatura (1606). The notations take the form of chord-strumming formulae, presumably based on the dance, which appear along with other formulae of Spanish origin such as the folía and zarabanda. They are usually presented in several keys and were no doubt intended as pedagogical examples and exercises. Although these tablatures do not provide tunes for the dances, they offer at least some indication of their harmonies and rhythms (Montesardo’s rhythmic notation is, however, not without ambiguity). The most common progression for the chaconne was I–V–vi–V, with a metric pattern of four groups of three beats (ex.1b); in later variants the final dominant was often extended by a standard cadential formula. Assuming that these formulae reflect to some extent the original Spanish chaconnes, one could reconstruct a hypothetical chacona song along the lines of ex.2a. Both in Spain and in Italy, especially in Naples, chaconnes were often incorporated into theatrical presentations and commedia dell’arte routines, which sometimes resulted in their being banned from the stage. The association with commedia dell’arte characters, particularly Harlequin, became long-lasting and widespread throughout Europe.
With a few isolated exceptions, the fully notated chaconnes that survive from the first half of the 17th century are almost exclusively from Italy. In addition to the chord-strumming guitar examples there are others calling for plucked playing or a combination of the two techniques, as well as chaconnes scored for different musical forces. Among the earliest are those by Domenico Visconti (1616) for violin (as a ritornello to an aria); by Falconieri (1616) for two voices with guitar continuo (alfabeto tablature); by Piccinini (1623) for chitarrone; and by Frescobaldi (1627) for harpsichord. Whereas the first alfabeto tablatures generally present only a single statement of a formula terminating in a cadence, the later examples, whether for guitar or other instruments, are almost always in the form of a chain of units incorporating variations of some sort. The near universality of these variation chains during the early years of the ciaccona (they are even found in a unique north European chacona published in 1618 by Nicolas Vallet) suggests that the improvisation of strings of variations on chaconne formulae was a common practice among Spanish guitar players, which by the second decade of the century had become sufficiently well known to be emulated elsewhere.
In Italian chaconnes, successive variations usually follow each other without a break, sometimes even overlapping beginnings and ends, a technique that had a long history in both Italy and Spain. The term ‘variation’ should be understood very loosely, however, as in chaconnes there is generally no underlying melodic theme tying the variations together but at most a harmonic-rhythmic or bass formula, which tends to be treated rather freely or may even be abandoned altogether. In ensemble chaconnes, the continuo bass, by defining the chord formula, often takes the form of an ostinato, but Italian solo chaconnes (and passacaglias for solo guitar, lute or keyboard) are almost never strict ground-bass pieces. The characteristic chaconne formulae, echoing the original battute progressions, commence with I–V–VI, and then return to V, either directly or by way of intermediary harmonies such as IV–V or I6–IV–V (ex.1c). The associated rhythmic formula often starts after the downbeat and tends to hover between two bars in compound triple metre (e.g. 2 × 3/2) and four bars in simple triple metre (e.g. 4 × 3/4); the Zefiro torna formula popularized by Monteverdi’s setting derives much of its charm from the conflict between a surface 3/4 metre with the background 3/2 (ex.1d). But as central to the Italian chaconne as any of these formal properties were its cheerful, often jocular spirit and its strong dance feeling, reflected, for instance, in the several joyful texts, both secular and sacred, set by Monteverdi to his chaconne bass (Ossi, 1988, p.251). Monteverdi also quoted this bass as a topical allusion in L’incoronazione di Poppea (1642; Act 1 scene vi); further evidence of the chaconne’s connotations is provided by Salvator Rosa’s comment in his satire La Musica that everyone was scandalized by ‘the singing of the Miserere on the Ciaccona’.
Frescobaldi appears to have been the first to draw the chaconne and the passacaglia together as a pair. When in 1627 he published the earliest known keyboard chaconne, the Partite sopra ciaccona, he followed it with another variation set, the Partite sopra passacagli, the first known appearance of the passacaglia as an independent musical genre (as opposed to an improvisation formula; seePassacaglia, §2). From this time onwards the histories of the chaconne and the passacaglia remained closely intertwined. Frescobaldi maintained his interest in the two genres, which were similar in many ways and yet to him clearly different, and in the ensuing decade he refined his conception of the pair, which reached its culmination in the chaconnes and passacaglias added to the 1637 edition of his Primo libro di toccate (ex.1c and Ex.2a). Although the chaconne shared with the passacaglia features such as the linking of variations, cadential articulation and the use of triple metre, Frescobaldi’s chaconnes also show some distinctions (not necessarily in every instance), such as a more exuberant, less restrained character, faster tempo, major rather than minor key, more disjunct melodic motion and fewer dissonant suspensions. In the metric patterns of his later chaconnes he favoured two compound triple-beat groups, whereas his passacaglias were usually based on four simple triple-beat groups. Having two rather than four strong beats per variation tends to give the chaconne stronger forward impetus; however, accent shifts in either genre often produced ambiguity in their patterns. Further ambiguity arose when, as was not uncommon, the chaconne was in the minor or the passacaglia in the major, or when the chaconne bass did not move immediately to a root-position dominant (I–V–VI … ) but to its first inversion, resulting in the bass pattern that descends by step (I–V6–VI … ) associated with the passacaglia. The similarities, differences and ambiguities between the genres are explored to the fullest in Frescobaldi’s extraordinary Cento partite sopra passacaglie (1637), with its alternating sections marked ‘passacaglie’ and ‘ciaccona’, and sometimes a gradual, subtle metamorphosis from one into the other (see Silbiger, 1996).
Some of these distinctions between the two genres remained in the works of later composers in Italy and elsewhere, particularly when a chaconne and a passacaglia appear side by side or in the same collection; however, when one or the other appears by itself, the distinctive features may be less evident or altogether absent. Italian composers who published chaconne-passacaglia pairs differentiated along these lines include Piccinini (1639), Falconieri (1650), Bernardo Storace (1664), G.B. Vitali (1682; not the well-known ‘Chaconne by Vitali’, which is not by Vitali and not called ‘chaconne’ in its source) and Mazzella (1689). Some composers also followed in Frescobaldi’s footsteps by introducing shifts in key and tempo, including, for example, Corelli in his one-movement Sonata op.2 no.12 (1685). This work, surely one of the peaks of Italian chaconne production, is also notable for incorporating ingenious contrapuntal development of its bass formula (ex.1f).
In vocal settings, Italian chaconnes were sometimes interrupted by recitatives (e.g. Frescobaldi’s Deh, vien da me pastorella, 1630, and Monteverdi’s Zefiro torna, 1632). Sections that resemble a chaconne without being identified as such are found in operas, cantatas and sacred works. However, the present-day tendency to identify any ostinato aria with the chaconne or passacaglia does not appear to have historical precedence unless the piece also shows the characteristic dance rhythms and other genre markings. By the beginning of the 18th century the chaconne was rapidly losing ground in Italy, but it continued to flourish in France, Germany and elsewhere for some time.
In Spain the chaconne’s popularity began to decline by the 1630s, but it maintained a presence as a popular dance and a folkdance. According to one report it was still danced in Portugal in the 19th-century during Corpus Christi processions. Only a small number of notated examples survive in Spanish guitar, harp and keyboard tablatures from the later 17th century (for example by Sanz, 1674; Ruiz de Ribayaz, 1677; Martín y Coll, 1708); the few that do survive suggest that the chaconne continued to be a subject for instrumental improvisation. (For the busier and artistically more significant passacaglia tradition that persisted in Spain throughout the 17th century and beyond, seePassacaglia, §3.)
In France the Hispanic-Italian chaconne, like the passacaglia, was transformed during the mid-17th century into a distinctive native genre that in turn became a model for emulation elsewhere. Before this, however, the genre had already had some impact as an exotic Spanish import. In 1623 the Spanish expatriate Luis de Briçeño published in Paris a guitar method that included in chord tablature brief chaconnes and passacaglias similar to the early Italian examples. A ballet presented in 1625 at the royal court included an ‘Entrée des chaconistes espagnols’, danced to the sound of guitars. During the 1640s the promotion of Italian music and musicians by Cardinal Mazarin brought wider familiarity with the two genres in their newer incarnations. Luigi Rossi’s Orfeo, performed in Paris in 1647 to great acclaim, contains a dramatically positioned chaconne, ‘A l’imperio d’Amore’, in its second act. Francesco Corbetta, who settled in Paris about 1648 and became guitar teacher to the future Louis XIV, was perhaps the greatest Italian guitar virtuoso of his time, and the composer of numerous chaconnes and passacaglias.
By the late 1650s the French chaconne tradition was firmly in place, already showing many of the characteristics that would mark the genre during the later 17th century and the 18th. Many elements were borrowed from the Italian tradition, but differences in both affect and design are evident at the outset. The playful, volatile Italian chaconne became in France a more controlled, stately dance, suggestive of pomp and circumstance; whereas the Italian pieces often proceed capriciously, in the vein of a spontaneous improvisation, the French ones exhibit a well-planned, orderly structure. The repetition of units, often with alternating half and full cadences, and the recurrence of earlier units, sometimes with variations superimposed, became important structural techniques. Rondeau schemes were common in the instrumental chaconnes (although not in the operatic ones), along with variation schemes and combinations of the two. Typically the refrains were of four- or eight-bar phrases, usually repeated, and ended on strong cadences; the couplets could modulate to related keys or provide contrast by other means.
The French chaconne, like the passacaglia, was cultivated both in chamber music, especially by guitarists, lutenists and keyboard players, and on the musical stage. Among the earliest surviving examples from before 1661 are those for harpsichord by Louis Couperin. His chaconnes are built on rondeau forms; the refrains are marked by a distinctive stop-and-go rhythm reinforced by colourful, richly textured chords; the couplets often bring thinner, more soloistic textures and faster-flowing rhythmic activity.
Lully was without doubt the primary architect of the theatrical chaconne and its much less common passacaglia counterpart. In his tragédies lyriques chaconnes assume a central place in the form of extended, lavish production numbers celebrating a hero’s triumph or apotheosis; in some of his last works (such as Roland, 1685, and Armide, 1686) they support and provide continuity for an entire scene. Several include chains of well over 100 units, which may include vocal and instrumental segments, sections in the relative minor, units without bass instruments or for solo wind, and other forms of contrast and variation. Following Lully, the grand, festive chaconne became established as a set piece in the French tragédie lyrique, with notable examples appearing in Charpentier’s Médée (1693), Marais’ Alcyone (1706) and Rameau’s Hippolyte et Aricie (1733) and Castor et Pollux (1737).
In France the chaconne and passacaglia served mostly as stage dances rather than as ballroom dances, although a dividing-line between the two functions cannot always be clearly drawn. Surviving choreographies for dances by Lully (all dating from after his death) show those for chaconnes and passacaglias to be quite similar, even if in passacaglias the details of gesture may have been more deliberate. Existing side by side with the noble theatre pieces, a lighter type of chaconne kept alive the dance’s Spanish roots and its commedia dell’arte associations, both on the stage and during entertainments at masked balls. Such dances were often on Spanish themes and danced with castanets (in fact, it seems castanets were used when dancing any type of chaconne), or the dancers represented Harlequin characters (Harris-Warrick, 1986; Hilton, 1986). Lully’s ballet for Le bourgeois gentilhomme (1670) contains a ‘Chaconne des Scaramouches, Trivelins et Arlequins’, and early 18th-century dance manuals still provided Harlequin choreographies for the chaconne (see fig.1).
In France, as in Italy, the distinction between chaconne and passacaglia is most evident when the two appear in the same context. According to theorists such as Brossard (1703) and Rousseau (1767), the chaconne was ordinarily in the major (a ‘rule’ often violated), the passacaglia in the minor; furthermore, chaconnes were performed at brisker tempos. Several 18th-century reports of precise tempo measurements indicate crotchet = c120–160 for chaconnes and c60–105 for passacaglias; the slower chaconne tempo range is probably more suitable for later pieces with frequent semiquaver subdivisions (such as those of Rameau) and the faster range more appropriate for the earlier type (such as Lully’s) with mostly quaver subdivisions (Miehling, 1993). Louis Couperin’s association of rondeau forms with chaconnes and ground-bass variations with passacaglias is observed occasionally in the keyboard works of other composers (e.g. D’Anglebert’s Pièces de clavecin, 1689) but never became a general rule, and versions of the characteristic bass formulae are sometimes encountered, but also without consistency.
The works of François Couperin include a variety of chaconne and passacaglia types that show the composer’s awareness of their ancient traditions; among them are a ‘Chaconne ou Passacaille’ (1726; ex.1g) and a ‘Passacaille ou Chaconne’ (1728), both of which play with the opposing qualities of the two genres, somewhat in the manner of Frescobaldi’s Cento partite. Couperin even wrote a chaconne in duple metre, something he considered remarkable enough to mention in his score. In addition to chaconnes and passacaglias in the grand French manner (often marked ‘noblement’), Couperin wrote two chaconnes of the lighter type, designated ‘chaconne leger’ (1722 and 1724); both are notated in 3/8.
After 1740 the chaconne fell largely out of fashion in instrumental solo and chamber music, but (to a much greater extent than the passacaglia) maintained a place on the musical stage throughout the final decades of the century, particularly in serious musical presentations at the Paris Opéra and elsewhere (less often in comedies). Chaconnes were still included, for example, in most of Gluck’s Parisian productions, as well as in J.C. Bach’s Amadis de Gaule (1779), Mozart’s Idomeneo (1781), Méhul’s Le jugement de Paris (1793) and Cherubini’s Anacréon (1803). These late examples are rarely cast in ostinato-variation form (Burney in 1789 considered the ground bass a ‘Gothic’ practice) and bear little resemblance to the old Lullian chaconnes, but they continued the tradition, being extended, triple-time dance numbers usually positioned at the conclusion of a divertissement. Whether the 19th-century dance step the pas de chacone preserved any elements of the earlier chaconne has not been determined.
The earlier German chaconnes (usually spelled ‘ciaccona’ or ciacona’, even as late as J.S. Bach) were closely modelled on foreign works, notably the closing section of Schütz’s Es steh Gott auf (1647), which by the composer’s own admission was based on Monteverdi’s Zefiro torna, but with a modulating ostinato pattern. Schütz’s work may in turn have inspired the impressive chaconne that concludes his pupil Matthias Weckmann’s Weine nicht (1663), in which the pattern is transformed several times. Distinct German forms of the chaconne developed only in the later years of the century, most strikingly in solo organ music. The German organists, drawing on traditions of cantus-firmus improvisation and ground-bass divisions, created a series of majestic ostinato compositions, shaped by increasingly brilliant figurations. A passacaglia and chaconne pair from well before 1675 by J.C. Kerll (who had studied in Rome) still used traditional ground-bass formulae, if treated rather loosely (ex.1e andEx.2b; in the sources the chaconne is notated with three semibreves per bar, but the passacaglia with three breves, presumably to emphasize the slower tempo); and forms of both formulae also appear together in Poglietti’s Compendium (A-KR L.146, 1676), the only known example of the specific basses being cited in a early treatise (fig.2). However, later composers such as Buxtehude and Pachelbel introduced bass formulae of their own devising, which were treated during at least the first part of the composition as rigorous ostinatos; they assume a thematic significance not present in the traditional formulae, as various techniques borrowed from chorale improvisation were brought to bear on them. The busy passage-work and contrapuntal density largely obliterated any dance feeling (except, some might hold, on a cosmic plane), and links with the genres’ origins became increasingly tenuous.
Chaconnes written during the same period for instrumental ensemble (for example by Biber, Georg Muffat and J.C.F. Fischer) followed French models more closely or combined the French and Germanic approaches, as did those conceived primarily for harpsichord (e.g. by Fischer, Georg Böhm and Fux). The hybrid type was pushed to its limits by J.S. Bach in his Chaconne in D minor from the fourth Partita for unaccompanied violin (ex.1h), a work in which several international chaconne and passacaglia traditions (including the virtuoso solo divisions of composers such as Biber and Marais) may be traced, and which in turn spawned its own tradition of adaptation (e.g. by Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms and Busoni) and emulation (e.g. by Reger, Bartók and Walton).
Although during the last few decades of the 17th century the chaconne also gained considerable popularity in England, it is difficult to identify uniquely English forms. Italian and especially French examples continue to be followed, even if as a rule the results were unmistakably English. There was a special fondness for ground-bass variations – not surprising in view of the age-old English predilection for this technique. Pieces called ‘passacaglia’ are much rarer, but some compositions entitled ‘ground’ resemble those called either chaconne or passacaglia on the Continent.
Among the finest chaconnes produced by any 17th-century composer are those of Purcell. King Arthur (1691) includes a grand instrumental chaconne in the ‘First Musick’ (used earlier in the 1687 ode Sound the trumpet), as well as an extended vocal passacaglia in the Lullian manner in Act 3. The ‘Chaconne: two in one upon a Ground’ in Dioclesian (1690), a canon for two recorders on a descending ostinato, is a true tour de force; the concluding number in the same work, ‘Triumph, victorious love’, is a chaconne in all but name and includes passages curiously reminiscent of Monteverdi’s Zefiro torna. Some of Purcell’s chaconnes for instrumental ensemble, notably the Sonata in Four Parts no.6 (as in Corelli’s op.2 no.12, the chaconne forms the entire sonata) and the marvellous Chacony (z730), well deserve their frequent performances.
When 19th- and 20th-century composers returned to writing chaconnes and passacaglias, they did not take as their models the most recent examples from the late-flowering French operatic tradition, nor the once paradigmatic works of Frescobaldi or Lully; they turned rather to a handful of ‘rediscovered’ pieces by the German masters, especially Bach’s Passacaglia for organ and his Chaconne for unaccompanied violin, and perhaps also the passacaglia from Handel’s Suite no.7 in G minor. While these impressive works are certainly deserving of their canonic status, they are atypical of the earlier mainstream genre traditions (Handel’s passacaglia was in fact in duple metre). From Bach’s passacaglia they took what now became the defining feature: the ostinato bass. The theme-and-variation idea, often incidental to earlier chaconnes and passacaglias (if present at all), became central to the revived genres. As with Bach, the ostinato theme is usually stated at the outset in bare form and in a low register. The association with Bach (and therefore the past) and with the organ also contributed to a mood of gravity: most post-1800 examples call for a slowish tempo. Some writers attempted to define a distinction between the chaconne and the passacaglia, based primarily on the examples by Bach, but no consensus was ever reached and for the most part the terms continued to be used interchangeably.
Already during the earlier 19th century several leading composers had found themselves inspired by the chained ostinato-variation idea, without necessarily calling the resulting works ‘chaconne’ or ‘passacaglia’. Notable examples are Beethoven’s 32 Variations in C minor (woo80), Liszt’s praeludium on ‘Weinen, Klagen, Zorgen, Zagen’ (based on a chromatically descending ostinato from Bach’s Cantata no.12) and, perhaps the most famous latter-day example, the final movement of Brahms’s Fourth Symphony, modelled on ostinato-variations by several earlier composers, in particular Buxtehude’s Chaconne in E minor and the final chorus of Bach’s Cantata no.150 (Knapp, 1989).
Works specifically called ‘passacaglia’ or (not nearly as often) ‘chaconne’ became more common in the 20th century, both as independent compositions and as movements in larger works. Almost all are of the cantus-firmus ostinato type, although treated with varying degrees of flexibility (as in the early German models, the first group of statements of the ground are usually strict, but later ones may be varied). In view of the antecedents by Bach it is hardly surprising that dense contrapuntal settings for keyboard (mainly organ, but also piano) and virtuoso settings for solo strings (violin as well as cello) are especially popular, but there are also works for chamber ensemble and for large orchestra, and even a few operatic scenes. Certain composers such as Reger, Hindemith and Britten showed a special fondness for the genres, incorporating them into several works. Other major figures who contributed to the genres include: Ravel (Piano Trio), Schoenberg (Pierrot Lunaire), Berg (Orchestral Songs, Wozzeck), Webern, Bartók, Vaughan Williams, Walton, Copland, Wolpe and Ligeti (Hungarian Rock (Chaconne) and Passacaglia ungherese, both for harpsichord) – a list that could be much expanded, especially if one includes 19th- and 20th-century works that are chaconnes and passacaglias in all but name.
MGG2 (M. von Troschke)
A. Machabey: ‘Les origines de la chaconne et de la passacaille’, RdM, xxviii (1946), 1–21
J. Hedar: Dietrich Buxtehudes Orgelwerke (Stockholm, 1951), 56–89
K. von Fischer: ‘Chaconne und Passacaglia: ein Versuch’, RBM, xii (1958), 19–34
L. Stein: ‘The Passacaglia in the Twentieth Century’, ML, xl (1959), 150–53
T. Walker: ‘Ciaccona and Passacaglia: Remarks on their Origin and Early History’, JAMS, xxi (1968), 300–20
R. Hudson: ‘Further Remarks on the Passacaglia and Ciaccona’, JAMS, xxiii (1970), 302–14
M. Querol: ‘La Chacona en la época de Cervantes’, AnM, xxv (1970), 49–65
R. Hudson: ‘The Ripresa, the Ritornello, and the Passacaglia’, JAMS, xxiv (1971), 364–94
R. Hudson: Passacaglio and Ciaccona: from Guitar Music to Italian Keyboard Variations in the 17th Century (Ann Arbor, 1981)
R. Hudson: The Folia, the Saraband, the Passacaglia, and the Chaconne, MSD, xxxv (1982)
R. Harris-Warrick: ‘Ballroom Dancing at the Court of Louis XIV’, EMc, xiv (1986), 41–9
W. Hilton: ‘Dances to Music by Jean-Baptiste Lully’, EMc, xiv (1986), 50–63
H. Schneider: ‘Chaconne und Passacaille bei Lully’, Studi corelliani IV: Fusignano 1986, 319–34
L.F. Tagliavini: ‘Varia frescobaldiana’, L’organo, xxi (1987), 83–128, esp. 123–7
B. Bang Mather: Dance Rhythms of the French Baroque: a Handbook for Performance (Bloomington, IN,1987), esp. 226–9, 280–81
M. Ossi: ‘L’armonia raddoppiata: on Claudio Monteverdi’s Zefiro torna, Heinrich Schütz’s Es steh Gott auf, and Other Early Seventeenth-Century Ciaccone’, Studi musicali, xvii (1988), 225–54
R. Knapp: ‘The Finale of Brahms’s Fourth Symphony: the Tale of the Subject’,19CM, xiii (1989), 3–17
L. Schnapper: ‘La mise en évidence d'un modèle dans les formes de la chacone’, Analyse musicale, no.22 (1991), 79–86
H. Pimmer: Die südeutsch-österreichische Chaconne und Passacaglia 1670–1770 (Munich, 1992)
K. Miehling: Das Tempo in der Musik von Baroque und Vorklassik (Wilhelmshaven, 1993), esp. 289–92
P. Holman: ‘Consort Music’, The Purcell Companion, ed. M. Burden (London, 1994), 254–98, esp. 260–65
S. Leopold: Al modo d’Orfeo: Dichtung und Musik im italienischen Sologesang des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts, AnMc, no.29 (1995), esp. i, 260–85
R. Legrand: ‘Chaconnes et passacailles dansées dans l'opéra français: des airs de mouvement’, Le mouvement en musique à l'époque baroque, ed. H. Lacombe (Metz, 1996), 157–70
A. Silbiger: ‘Passacaglia and Ciaccona: Genre Pairing and Ambiguity from Frescobaldi to Couperin’,Journal of Seventeenth-Century Music, ii/1 (1996) <www.sscm-jscm.org>
W. Hilton: Dance and Music of Court and Theater (Stuyvesant, NY, 1997)
M. Zenck: ‘Reinterpreting Bach in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries’, The Cambridge Companion to Bach, ed. J. Butt (Cambridge, 1997), 226–50
G.V. Burgess: Ritual in the ‘tragédie en musique’ from Lully's ‘Cadmus et Hermione’ (1673) to Rameau's ‘Zoroastre’ (1749) (diss., Cornell U., 1998)
L. Schnapper: L’ostinato: procédé musicale universel (Paris, 1998)
J. Schwartz: ‘The passacaille in Lully's Armide: Phrase Structure in the Choreography and the Music’, EMc, xxvi (1998), 300–20
A. Silbiger: Bach and the Chaconne (forthcoming)
For further bibliography see Passacaglia and Ostinato.