Froberger, Johann Jacob

(b Stuttgart, bap. 19 May 1616; d Héricourt, nr Montbéliard, France, 6/7 May 1667). German composer, organist and keyboard player. Considered the foremost mid-17th century German composer of keyboard music, he was court organist in Vienna, studied with Frescobaldi in Rome, and travelled and performed in the Low Countries, England, France, Germany and Italy. He crafted a distinctive personal idiom from stylistic features of Italian, French and German keyboard music. His works strongly influenced Louis Couperin and German keyboard composers into the time of J.S. Bach.

1. Life.

2. Works.

3. Achievement and influence.

WORKS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HOWARD SCHOTT

Froberger, Johann Jacob

1. Life.

Notwithstanding Froberger’s importance in the history of keyboard music and the esteem in which he was held in the late 17th and 18th centuries, documentation of his life is fragmentary. The 18th-century accounts by Walther (WaltherML) and Mattheson (MatthesonGEP) are inaccurate. Walther, for instance, gave Halle rather than Stuttgart as Froberger’s birthplace and fixed his birthdate 19 years too late. It was only in the 1930s (see Seidler) that these mistakes were finally rectified. Halle, however, was where his family came from; his grandfather, Simon, lived there, and his father, Basilius, was also born there in 1575. Basilius entered the choir of the Württemberg ducal chapel in Stuttgart in 1599 as a tenor, rising to become Kapellmeister in 1621. While four of his six surviving sons were later employed at the Stuttgart court chapel, there is no record of Johann Jacob’s having served there.

Froberger presumably received musical instruction from his father, perhaps from other family members and possibly also from J.U. Steigleder who became court organist in 1627. (Thematic allusions to works of Steigleder’s have been noted in some Froberger ricercares.) The musical life of the Stuttgart court was enriched by musicians from many parts of Italy, France, England and Germany. The court archives show service there by several English lutenists: John and David Morell, and Andrew Borell, who received payment for teaching one of Basilius Froberger’s sons in 1621–2. Basilius himself was paid to teach one of his own sons in 1627–8; which of the six it was is not known. The young Froberger was therefore exposed at an early age to the major European stylistic currents in music. After Basilius’s death Johann Georg and Isaac Froberger sold their father’s musical library to the Württemberg court; the catalogue survives, showing that Basilius’s personal collection contained many works by leading contemporary Italian and German masters.

For reasons that remain obscure Froberger went to Vienna, probably in about 1634, perhaps intending to join the imperial chapel. Since, however, this occurred during the Thirty Years War, in which the Holy Roman Empire and Württemberg were on opposite sides, it is difficult to understand just how such an intention could have been fulfilled, no matter who might have recommended the 18-year old musician to the imperial court. Mattheson’s report that Froberger was taken to Vienna by the Swedish ambassador impressed by his capacities as a singer can hardly be correct. Sweden, too, was allied with Lutheran Württemberg against the Catholic forces of the emperor, whose army administered a crushing defeat on the Protestant forces in September 1634 at the Battle of Nördlingen. This débâcle even forced the Württemberg court to flee to Stuttgart, doing away with the entire musical establishment. No archival material in Stuttgart makes any mention of Johann Jacob either before or after he moved to Vienna. Nevertheless, he must have maintained some link with the ducal family, for his last position was as musician to the dowager Duchess of Montbéliard (Mömpelgard), a territory of the house of Württemberg. Basilius, his wife and daughter all succumbed to the plague in 1637.

Johann Jacob was employed as an organist in the imperial chapel in Vienna from 1 January to 30 October 1637. In June 1637, apparently after initially having been refused, he was granted leave to go to Rome to study with Frescobaldi with a stipend of 200 gulden. The document recording the granting of this scholarship to Froberger also shows that pressure was exerted on him to convert to the Catholic faith, which he eventually did, probably in Rome.

After study with Frescobaldi, Froberger returned to the imperial chapel in Vienna and resumed his post as organist and chamber musician in April 1641, remaining in office until October 1645. A second sojourn in Italy, which may have commenced as early as November 1645, appears to have led to further study with the Jesuit polymath Athanasius Kircher in Rome, rather than with Carissimi as previously believed (see Annibaldi). Frescobaldi, his mentor in instrumental music, had died in 1643; now Froberger wished to gain equivalent mastery of sacred vocal music in the prima pratica tradition. Kircher’s Musurgia universalis (Rome, 1650/R) contains the first publication of a Froberger composition, the hexachord fantasia included in the autograph manuscript of the 1649 Libro secondo presented by the composer to Emperor Ferdinand III in September 1649 (A-Wn Cod.18706). While in Rome, Froberger became adept in the use of Kircher’s arca musurgica, a device for composing in five different styles: recitative, church, fugue, dance and instrumental sinfonie, and polyphonic combinations for up to eight voices, and even as many as 16 divided among four choirs. This device, far more sophisticated than the arca musarithmica fully explained in Musurgia universalis, was barely mentioned in that mammoth tome. It was reserved for the favoured few, crowned heads most particularly. On the way back to Austria, Froberger demonstrated the arca musurgica to the ruling princes in Florence and Mantua and was rewarded with presents. In September 1649 he returned to Vienna and promptly showed off Kircher’s composing device to the Emperor, an enthusiastic amateur musician, who was duly impressed. He also presented him with the Libro secondo, which, like a similar presentation copy labelled Libro quarto (A-Wn Cod.18707), was calligraphically decorated by Froberger’s old friend Johann Friedrich Sautter, the son of an official at the Württemberg court in Stuttgart. (The Libro primo and Libro terzo are lost.) In a letter to Kircher of 18 September 1649 Froberger recounted how he had successfully presented the arca musurgica to Ferdinand III, as he had previously to various Italian princes. In Vienna Froberger was heard performing on the harpsichord by William Swann, an English diplomat in the service of the Prince of Orange. Swann reported on 15 September 1649 to the prince’s foreign secretary, Constantijn Huygens, that this musician was ‘un homme tres rare sur les espinettes’. All his life Froberger was greatly esteemed by Huygens, himself a lutenist and composer of talent, and through him Froberger came to know the music and writings of French musicians such as Chambonnières, the Gaultiers and Mersenne.

The mourning period following the death of the empress on 19 August 1649 limited musical activity at the Vienna court. This may well have been responsible for Froberger’s departure from Vienna on a tour that eventually lasted over three years. Just as musicians and artists like Dowland and Rubens had been entrusted with diplomatic missions or even, it has been said, espionage, so Froberger’s extended tour may well have involved extra-musical activity. It is likely that one of the first places he visited was Dresden, where he performed at the electoral court in friendly competition with Matthias Weckmann, probably during autumn or winter 1649–50, and delivered to the elector a letter from the emperor. He was rewarded with a gold chain and in turn, presented the elector with a manuscript volume of his works. His friendship with Weckmann, born of this encounter, was lasting. An important manuscript source of Froberger’s music (the Hintze MS, US-NH), containing the only unbowdlerized text of his Méditation sur ma mort future … Memento mori (the opening movement of Suite no.20), is thought to be in Weckmann’s hand. Froberger probably also came into contact with Schütz and Christoph Bernhard during his stay in Dresden. In March 1650 he was in Brussels at the court of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm von Habsburg, the emperor’s brother and governor of the Spanish Netherlands. There is archival evidence showing that money was paid through an agent of the archduke for Froberger’s entertainment and anticipated travel expenses for his onward journey. A payment to Froberger himself for performing before the archduke was made in December 1652. According to Balthasar Erben, who studied with Froberger in late summer 1653, his teacher’s tour had taken him from Dresden to Cologne, Düsseldorf, Brussels, Zeeland, Brabant and Flanders, leaving from Antwerp for Paris. Froberger performed in the French capital in September 1652 and was still there when the lutenist Blancrocher died in November after a sudden fall in his presence, as recorded in a touching musical elegy, the Tombeau de M. Blancrocher. During this period Froberger also travelled to London, arriving penniless after being robbed by pirates between Calais and Dover, as memorialized in the Plainte faite à Londres pour passer la mélancholie, the opening movement of his Suite no.30. Given the limitations of English public musical life during the Commonwealth, it is likely that Froberger hastened to return to Paris where music continued to flourish even during the wars of the Fronde, then still raging. In a letter of February 1654 to Kircher, Froberger reported that in England he had been asked about the polymath’s Musurgia universalis. That there was interest in a work by a Jesuit scholar in Puritan England during the Commonwealth is worthy of note. In spring 1653 Froberger passed through Heidelberg and Nuremberg en route to Regensburg where the imperial diet had been convened by the emperor. In April 1653 Froberger was again on the payroll of the imperial chapel and remained in office until his last salary was paid to him on 30th June 1657, shortly after the death of Ferdinand III.

Under the new regime Froberger was not reappointed to his post at the imperial chapel, despite his dedication of another volume of his works to Leopold I, described on the title-page as emperor perhaps even before his election (A-Wn Cod.16560). This was probably produced in some haste and unlike those presented to Ferdinand III, was not decorated calligraphically. The reasons underlying Froberger’s dismissal are believed to have been political rather than artistic. Both Mattheson and Walther ascribe it to ‘Kaiserl. Ungnade’ (imperial disfavour). Emperor Ferdinand III had died on 2 April 1657, but confirmation of his successor did not occur for another 15 months. The delay is said to have been caused by the opposition of Louis XIV and a number of his allied Rhenish princes including Elector-Archbishop of Mainz, a powerful temporal ruler as well as virtual Catholic primate of Germany. It is probable that the Jesuit order was also opposed to Leopold’s election. Froberger’s association with these interests believed inimical by the new emperor most likely caused his abrupt dismissal despite his long service in the imperial chapel. Kircher, his mentor in Rome, was a central figure in the Jesuit order, and Froberger’s link with the court of the powerful Elector-Archbishop of Mainz is shown by the fact that he performed there in September 1665, on which occasion he and Huygens finally met in person. The posthumous publication of Froberger’s works by Bourgeat of Mainz, beginning in 1693, were dedicated to the secretary to that archepiscopal see, J.J. Walter, a one-time pupil of Kircher in Rome, and possibly sponsored by him.

Most of what is known of Froberger’s last 18 months is contained in the correspondence between Huygens and the dowager Duchess of Montbéliard. Huygens’s letter in October 1666, in reply to one from Froberger, unfortunately not preserved, mentions his having written that he expected soon to return to the imperial court. This, however, did not occur, as far as is known. Instead, Froberger lived virtually in retirement at the Château d’Héricourt (near Montbéliard), the dower house of Duchess Sibylla. There he died of a stroke on 6 or 7 May 1667, and was buried on 10 May, as reported by Sibylla to Huygens on 25 June 1667. Froberger had apparently sensed that his end was near, and the day before his death had handed the duchess a gold coin to give to the rector of Bavilliers for a grave, alms for the poor, and gratuities for the servants at the castle where he lodged. Her physician Dr Binninger recounted in his memoirs that he had been summoned to attend Froberger but arrived only after the patient had already expired. Neither the church in Bavilliers nor the Château d’Héricourt remains.

Froberger, Johann Jacob

2. Works.

Except for two motets, all Froberger’s extant compositions are for keyboard. Contained in the three autograph volumes in the Austrian National Library are 12 toccatas, 12 ricercares, 12 suites, 12 capriccios, 6 fantasias and 6 canzonas. Found only in secondary sources are a further 8 toccatas, 5 capriccios, a single fantasia, 2 ricercares, 18 suites and a few single movements: the tombeau for Blancrocher, the Lamentation on the death of Emperor Ferdinand III, an Aria in D minor, and an Allemande and Courante in G major. Five toccatas in Adler’s edition (DTÖ) are now excluded from the canon: no.17 is by J.C. Kerll, no.22 a variant of no.16, and nos 23, 24 and 25 are spurious. Suite no.29 in that edition has also now been eliminated from the list of genuine compositions. In Schott’s edition it has been replaced by a suite in E major, numbered 29 nova, previously misattributed to Georg Böhm and since tentatively identified as the one Mattheson described as depicting a dangerous crossing of the river Rhine.

Froberger’s cosmopolitan life and musical experiences are reflected in his works, which synthesize Italian, French and German elements. He is particularly noted for his innovative and very personal programmatic compositions: Tombeau fait à Paris sur la mort de Monsieur Blancrocher; Lamentation faite sur la mort très douloureuse de Sa Majesté Impériale, Ferdinand le troisième, An. 1657; Lamento sopra la dolorosa perdita della Real Mstà de Ferdinando IV, Rè de Romani (first movement of Suite no.6 in the 1656 autograph); Plainte faite à Londres pour passer la melancholie (first movement of Suite no.30); Lamentation sur ce que j’ay été volé et se joüe à la discretion et encore mieux que les soldats m’ont traité (first movement of Suite no.14); and Allemande, faite en passant le Rhin dans une barque en grand péril (Suite no.29 nova).

The notation of the three autograph manuscripts is varied: open score on four staves for the polyphonic canzonas, capriccios, fantasias and ricercares; suites in French style on two five-lined staves; toccatas in Italian style on two staves, the lower of seven lines and the upper of six. There is no letter or number tablature notation. While the polyphonic works and even the toccatas, except nos.5 and 6 in the 1649 autograph expressly labelled Da sonarsi alla Levatione (to be played on the organ at Mass during the Elevation), are performable on both organ and string keyboard instruments, the suites and laments belong exclusively to the latter.

A characteristic Froberger toccata (save for the two Elevation toccatas, the similarly atypical no.5 of the 1656 autograph, and no.21) opens with an improvisatory (stylus fantasticus) section, usually headed by block chords intended to be elaborated freely as Frescobaldi directs, followed by a section built from a motif treated in quasi-contrapuntal imitation, often termed ‘imitative homophony’, rhythmically sharply profiled, somewhat playful in character, in pronounced contrast to the rhapsodic opening. The improvisatory style returns in briefer form as a transition leading to the following imitative section that treats the same motif in a rhythmically varied form. Another similar short bridge may lead to a third variation of the motif. The toccatas conclude with a brief improvisatory passage and elaboration of the final cadence. It is the improvisatory sections rather than the imitative episodes that are particularly striking in their originality.

Such imitative homophony in lesser hands can often impress as mechanical; while it certainly lacks the spice of the bold dissonances and turns of phrase that render the improvisatory sections so expressive, this is rarely the case in the fugato episodes of these toccatas. Froberger’s toccatas, while clearly influenced by those of his teacher Frescobaldi, are more tightly organized. Instead of a rhapsodic form built of numerous short sections that come to abrupt conclusions, the pupil’s are constructed of fewer and more extended sections. In this respect they resemble more those of his contemporary Michelangelo Rossi, also a Frescobaldi pupil, but without his extreme chromaticism and rhythmical eccentricities. Froberger’s toccatas are more sharply focussed on the central tonality than those of either.

The polyrhythmic pieces can be ranked by how closely they adhere to the stile antico: the ricercares do so only slightly more than the fantasias. While Frescobaldi distinguished these two genres sharply, Froberger’s are essentially similar. Both are based on neutral slow subjects without particular melodic interest that lend themselves to ingenious contrapuntal treatment and combination with other subjects. The working out is clearly in the tradition of 16th-century prima pratica. The opening subject in its various transformations dominates from beginning to end. Fantasia no.1, based on the hexachord, and no.4, Sopra sol, la, re answered by Lascia fare mi, both in the 1649 autograph, are evident tributes to Frescobaldi’s solmization pieces. The final ricercares in the 1649 and 1656 autographs merit special mention; both go beyond the limits of prevailing keyboard temperatures, calling for notes unavailable in such restrictive tunings as the ubiquitous 1/4-comma mean-tone scheme. It appears that, as has been suggested was Frescobaldi’s preference, Froberger espoused the cause of equal temperament, or at least something very close to it. Each of the three sections of Ricercare no.6, in C minor, in the 1649 autograph, ends with a perfect cadence with a tierce de Picardie. The similarly constructed sixth ricercare of the 1656 autograph closes each of its three sections in exactly the same way on an F major triad. Froberger’s ricercares and fantasias, well-proportioned and offering much rhythmic and motive variety, stand out as masterly, especially in comparison to many formulaic contemporaneous examples. This composer wore his contrapuntal learning with remarkable grace and lightness.

Froberger’s canzonas and capriccios, based on livelier subjects, are essentially similar in form, unlike Frescobaldi’s which are distinctly different in character. The younger composer, however, follows his mentor by composing them in multi-sectional variation form, like the canzonas in Frescobaldi’s Libro secondo, but somewhat more melodiously and gracefully. The variation technique is essentially rhythmic, achieved through changes of metre or by diminution. Bridge passages and concluding bars in improvisational toccata-like form lend variety and interest to the canzonas. The capriccios are somewhat lighter in character, often with scherzo-like subjects that lend the pieces a certain jollity despite their contrapuntal ingenuity. The fugal texture is unrelieved by episodes as such; the subject, as so varied, is adhered to tenaciously. Most of the canzonas are in three sections while the capriccios run the gamut from a single extended section to as many as six. Froberger’s contrapuntal techniques, while masterly, are essentially conservative, in sharp contrast to his radically individual suites and laments.

It is Froberger’s suites and laments that establish him as a composer of unique historical importance. Whether or not he can be claimed as the sole creator of the keyboard suite, he was certainly among its earliest pioneers. The dozen suites contained in the 1649 and 1656 autographs are not so labelled; each dance in the sequence is headed by its own title without any collective designation. In the 1649 set, three suites (nos. 1, 3 and 5) consist of an allemande, courante and sarabande. No.2 adds a gigue and places it at the end. No.6 is a type of variation suite, Partita auff die Maÿerin, a German folktune thought to have been a favourite of Emperor Ferdinand III; six variations are followed by a courante, its double and sarabande. The six suites in the 1656 autograph are all in four movements: allemande, gigue, courante and sarabande. This sequence was Froberger’s preference according to his friend Matthias Weckmann’s note in the Hintze manuscript (US-NH). Nevertheless, in the posthumous Amsterdam editions and, regrettably, in Adler’s too, these suites were arbitrarily recorded into the conventional 18th-century sequence of allemande, courante, sarabande and gigue. The remaining 18 suites fall into two principal groups: 13 are four-movement works, ten with the sarabande at the end and three with the gigue last; the other five are three-movement suites of allemande, courante and sarabande, each with a double. Froberger apparently began with a three-movement form which he later expanded to four. In these earlier suites there is often a thematic connection between the allemande and the courante. Except for one of the five suites found only in a secondary source (no.25), with a second courante instead of a double of the first, no suites have multiple courantes in the manner of Chambonnières, although Froberger was familiar with his compositions through his friendship with Huygens.

It is the stylus choraicus (Kircher’s term, literally ‘dance style’), a loose-textured monophony enlivened by French lutenists’ style brisé, that prevails in Froberger’s suites. Contrapuntal part-writing is only suggested by occasional thematic imitation. The binary-form sections are repeated. The allemandes in particular show French influence, making the fullest use of style brisé, lute-type figurations that lend them rhythmic life. Yet they are more intensely expressive than the somewhat four-square allemandes of Chambonnières and the lutenists. The courantes in the 1649 and 1656 autographs are of two types, both French-influenced: one in triple metre in 6/4 with occasional hemiola bars of 3/2 (typically the penultimate bar of each binary section) and a second slower dance notated in 3/2 throughout. In five of the non-autograph suites the courantes are in 3/4 time without hemiolas, somewhat quicker and closer to the Italian form as composed by Frescobaldi. Froberger’s gigues are of two types: one is either in compound 6/8 (barred as 6/4) or in triple time, rhythmically similar but with larger note values; the second type is in 4/4 using sharply profiled dotted rhythms. Both varieties feature fugal textures, sometimes using inversion of the opening subject in the second section. The sarabandes in 3/2 metre are solemnly dignified but with a particular intensity of expression. Some second sections end with a written-out petite reprise, presumably to be played more softly, or a free improvisatory passage reminiscent of his toccatas. The Tombeau for Blancrocher and the Lamentation for Ferdinand III, strongly influenced by the French lutenists, are even more intensely expressive. The Lamentation is unique in Froberger’s works; it is in F minor, a key not otherwise found, and in three rather than two sections, ending with the note F repeated three times. The Tombeau ends with a descending C minor scale, picturing Blancrocher’s fatal fall down a flight of stairs. In the Lamento for Ferdinand IV, heir presumptive to the imperial throne, Froberger depicts his ascent into heaven by a C major scale ascending to the top of the four-octave keyboard.

The two motets are cast in the 17th-century Venetian stile concertante imported into Germany by Heinrich Schütz, whose Symphoniae sacrae (1647) also are scored for one to three singers, two violins and continuo. While the stile antico still prevailed at S Pietro in Rome, Froberger composed these in this newer idiom despite his adherence to prima pratica traditions in his polyphonic pieces.

Froberger, Johann Jacob

3. Achievement and influence.

Froberger enjoyed considerable and lasting posthumous renown. The publications of his music after 1693 in Mainz and Amsterdam, as well as the widely distributed 17th- and 18th-century manuscript copies of his works, attest to his continuing fame. Not surprisingly, since they did not derive from the composer, the publications issued years after his death were inaccurate, not to say corrupted, when compared with the versions in Froberger’s autograph. The claim sometimes made that their variant readings represent the composer’s revisions cannot be documented. Although composing within a far more limited range of genres, Froberger can be seen as belonging to the same German eclectic tradition that culminated in the music of Handel and J.S. Bach. His works achieved a remarkable synthesis of Italian, French and German stylistic elements. It is not only in the works of German contemporaries like Weckmann and later north European composers like Buxtehude that his influence is manifest. The music of Louis Couperin includes an unmeasured Prélude à l’imitation de Mr. Froberger; a similar influence can be discerned in Couperin’s other unmeasured preludes, and the principal source of Couperin’s music, the Bauyn manuscript (F-Pn), also includes many Froberger compositions. Curiously, although he studied with Frescobaldi and had many links with Italy, none of Froberger’s music is found in Italian sources. Neither did he exercise any discernible influence on Italian composers with the exception of Michaelangelo Rossi, whose toccatas resemble his more than those of their teacher Frescobaldi. In the case of contrapuntal compositions of a less individual character, it is more difficult to pinpoint stylistic relationships.

Today it is especially Froberger’s works cast in an intensely personal, indeed emotional idiom – the laments and some of the opening movements in the suites – that impress most. Influential as one of the earliest composers of keyboard suites, including some programmatic movements praised by Mattheson (1739) and Kuhnau, Froberger was most prized, especially in 18th-century Germany, as a master of contrapuntal craft. Manuscript copies of his works in fugal forms survive in the hands of such devotees of the cult of counterpoint as J.P. Kirnberger and J.N. Forkel. Gottlieb Muffat, one of Froberger’s successors as imperial court organist, copied out only his toccatas and contrapuntal compositions. J.S. Bach’s moonlight copy of his brother’s book of keyboard pieces included some by Froberger, and Bach is reported to have held Froberger in high esteem, ‘although he was somewhat old-fashioned’ (Adlung). Two copies in Mozart’s hand of the opening sections of Froberger’s hexachord Fantasia no.1 as printed in Kircher’s Musurgia universalis survive, showing its continued value for study and teaching material. Burney, quoting Marpurg, wrote: ‘his works will always be models for good regular fugues’. Beethoven’s notes on his counterpoint studies with Albrechtsberger mention his teacher citing Froberger as an example.

Froberger, Johann Jacob

WORKS

Editions:J.J. Froberger: Orgel- und Klavierwerke, ed. G. Adler, DTÖ, viii, Jg.iv/1; xiii, Jg.vi/2; xxi, Jg.x/2 (1897–1903/R) [A]J.-J. Froberger: Oeuvres complètes pour clavecin, ed. H. Schott (Paris, 1979–92)Johann Jacob Froberger: Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Clavier- und Orgelwerke, ed. S. Rampe (Kassel, 1993–)

Froberger, Johann Jacob

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ApelG; FrotscherG; KöchelKHM; MatthesonGEP; WaltherML

A. Kircher: Musurgia universalis (Rome, 1650/R)

N. Binninger: Observationum et curationum medicinalium centurias quinque (Montbéliard, 1673)

J. Mattheson: Der vollkommene Capellmeister (Hamburg, 1739/R)

J. Adlung: Anleitung zu der musikalischen Gelahrtheit (Erfurt,1758/R, 2/1783)

E. Schebek: Zwei Briefe über Johann Jacob Froberger, kaiserliche Kammer-Organist in Wien (Prague, 1874)

W.J.A. Jonckbloet and J.P.N. Land: Correspondance et oeuvres musicales de Constantin Huygens (Leiden, 1882)

F. Beier: Über Johann Jacob Froberger’s Leben und Bedeutung für die Geschichte der Klaviersuite (Leipzig, 1884)

M. Lipsius [La Mara]: Musikerbriefe aus fünf Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1886), i, 107

J. Sittard: Zur Geschichte der Musik und des Theaters am württembergischen Hofe (Stuttgart, 1890–91/R)

G. Adler: ‘Die Kaiser Ferdinand III., Leopold I., Joseph I. und Karl VI. als Tonsetzer und Förderer der Musik’, VMw, viii (1892), 252–74

K. Krebs: ‘J.J. Froberger in Paris’, VMw, x (1894), 232–4

G. Bossert: ‘Die Hofkapelle unter Johann Friedrich, 1608–1628’, Württembergische Vierteljahrshefte für Landesgeschichte, new ser., xx (1911), 150–208

G. Bossert: ‘Die Hofkapelle unter Eberhard III. (1628–1657): die des Niedergangs, der Auflösung und der ersten Versuche der Wiederherstellung’, ibid., xxi (1912), 69–137

K. Seidler: Untersuchungen über Biographie und Klavierstil Johann Jacob Froberger’s (diss., U. of Königsberg, 1930)

H. Rauschning: ‘Geschichte der Musik und Musikpflege in Danzig’, Quellen und Darstellungen zur Geschichte Westpreussens, xv (1931), 228–9

F.W. Riedel: Quellenkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte der Musik für Tasteninstrumente in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts (Kassel, 1960, 2/1990)

A. Somer: The Keyboard Music of Johann Jakob Froberger (diss., U. of Michigan, 1963)

A. Somer: ‘The ‘Modern’ Harmonic-Contrapuntal Style of Johann Jakob Froberger’s Keyboard Music’, Chigiana, new ser., iv, (1967), 67–78

G.Leonhardt: ‘Johann Jakob Froberger and his Music’, L’organo, vi (1968), 15–38

U. Scharlau: ‘Neue Quellenfunde zur Biographie Johann Jakob Frobergers’, Mf, xxii (1969), 47–52

U. Scharlau: Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) als Musikschriftsteller (Marburg, 1969)

D. Starke: Frobergers Suitentänze (Darmstadt, 1972)

C. Massip: La vie des musiciens de Paris au temps de Mazarin (Paris, 1976)

H.M. Schott: A Critical Edition of the Works of J.J. Froberger with Commentary (diss., U. of Oxford, 1977)

H. Siedentopf: Johann Jakob Froberger: Leben und Werk (Stuttgart,1977)

H. Siedentopf: Studien zur Kompositionstechnik Johann Jakob Frobergers (Tübingen, 1977)

A. Silbiger: ‘The Roman Frescobaldi Tradition, c1640–1670’, JAMS, xxxiii (1980), 42–87

P. Dirksen: ‘A Froberger Miscellany: 1. The Huygens-Sibylla Correspondence (1666–1668); 2. A Preliminary Source-List of Froberger’s Keyboard Music [with R. Rasch]; 3. Bibliography’, The Harpsichord and its Repertoire: Utrecht 1990, 325–32

R. Rasch: ‘Johan Jakob Froberger and the Netherlands’, ibid., 121–41

S. Rampe: ‘Matthias Weckmann und Johann Jacob Froberger: Neuerkentnisse zu Biographie und Werke beider Organisten’, Musik und Kirche, lxi (1991), 325–32

A. Silbiger: ‘Tracing the Contents of Froberger’s Lost Autographs’, CMc, no.54 (1993), 5–23

C. Annibaldi: ‘Froberger in Rome: from Frescobaldi’s Craftsmanship to Kircher’s Compositional Secrets’, CMc, no.58 (1995), 5–27