bergquist peter_orlando di lasso studies

Orlando di Lasso Studies

Orlando di Lasso was the most famous and most popular composer of the

second half of the 1500s. This book of essays written by leading scholars

from Europe and the United States is the first full-length survey in English of

a broad spectrum of Lasso’s music. The essays discuss his large and varied

output with regard to structure, expressive qualities, liturgical aspects, and

its use as a model by other composers, focusing in turn on his Magnificat

settings, masses, motets, hymns and madrigals. His relationship to

contemporaries and younger composers is the main subject of three essays

and is touched on throughout the book, together with the circulation of his

music in print and in manuscript. His attitude toward modal theory is

explored in one essay, another considers the relationship of verbal and

musical stress in Lasso’s music and what this implies both for scholars and

for performers.

Peter Bergquist is Professor Emeritus of Music at the University of Oregon.

He has edited works by Orlando di Lasso for Bärenreiter Verlag and A-R

Editions.

Orlando di Lasso at the age of thirty-nine, from Moduli quinis vocibus

(Paris: Adrian Le Roy and Robert Ballard, RISM 1571a), quinta vox

partbook, reproduced by courtesy of the Musikabteilung, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Munich.

Orlando di Lasso Studiesedited by peter bergquist

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521593878

© Cambridge University Press 1999

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place without

the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 1999

This digitally printed first paperback version 2006

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

Orlando di Lasso Studies / edited by Peter Bergquist.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references.

Contents: Aspects of form in Orlando di Lasso’s Magnificat

settings / James Erb – Orlando di Lasso and Andrea Gabrieli / Marie

Louise Göllner – Post-Tridentine liturgical change and functional

music / Daniel Zager – The salon as marketplace in the 1550s /

Donna G. Cardamone – Lasso’s “Standomi un giorno” and the canzone

in the mid-sixteenth century / Mary S. Lewis – Lasso’s “Fertur in

conviviis” / Bernhold Schmid – Orlando di Lasso and Rome / Noel

O’Regan – Orlando di Lasso as a model for composition as seen in

the three-voice motets of Jean de Castro / Ignace Bossuyt – The

madrigal book of Jean Turnhout (1589) and its relationship to Lasso

/ James Haar – Modal ordering within Orlando di Lasso’s

publications / Peter Bergquist – Correct and incorrect accentuation

in Lasso’s music / Horst Leuchtmann.

ISBN 0 521 59387 5 (hardback)

1. Lasso, Orlando di, 1532–1594 – Criticism and interpretation.

I. Bergquist, Peter.

ML410.L3075 1999

782´.0092–dc21 98-11734 CIP MN

ISBN-13 978-0-521-59387-8 hardback

ISBN-10 0-521-59387-5 hardback

ISBN-13 978-0-521-02813-4 paperback

ISBN-10 0-521-02813-2 paperback

Contents

Preface [vii]

List of abbreviations [xi]

21 Aspects of form in Orlando di Lasso’s Magnificat settings [1]

james erb, university of richmond

22 Orlando di Lasso and Andrea Gabrieli: two motets and their

masses in a Munich choir book from 1564–65 [20]

marie louise göllner, university of california, los angeles

23 Post-Tridentine liturgical change and functional music: Lasso’s

cycle of polyphonic Latin hymns [41]

daniel zager, university of north carolina at chapel hill

24 The salon as marketplace in the 1550s: patrons and collectors of

Lasso’s secular music [64]

donna g. cardamone, university of minnesota

25 Lasso’s “Standomi un giorno” and the canzone in the mid-sixteenth

century [91]

mary s. lewis, university of pittsburgh

26 Lasso’s “Fertur in conviviis”: on the history of its text and transmission [116]

bernhold schmid, bayerische akademie der wissenschaften,

musikhistorische kommission

27 Orlando di Lasso and Rome: personal contacts and musical influences [132]

noel o’regan, university of edinburgh

28 Orlando di Lasso as a model for composition as seen in the three-voice

motets of Jean de Castro [158]

ignace bossuyt, katholieke universiteit leuven

29 The madrigal book of Jean Turnhout (1589) and its relationship

to Lasso [183]

james haar, university of north carolina at chapel hill

10 Modal ordering within Orlando di Lasso’s publications [203]

peter bergquist, university of oregon

v

11 Correct and incorrect accentuation in Lasso’s music: on the implied

dependence on the text in classical vocal polyphony [227]

horst leuchtmann, bayerische akademie der wissenschaften,

musikhistorische kommission

General index [247]

Index of Lasso compositions and printed sources [251]

contents

vi

Preface

Orlando di Lasso (1530/2–1594) was the most famous, popular, and acclaimed

composer of his day. Born in Mons in what is now Belgium, as a subject of the

Empire, he spent his formative years in Italy, serving as choirmaster at St. John

Lateran in Rome when he was barely twenty years old. He soon returned north,

however, and settled in Antwerp for a few years until he was hired in 1556 by Duke

Albrecht V of Bavaria in Munich, where he lived and worked for the rest of his life.

His birth in a French-speaking area and his Italian sojourn together with his long

residence in Germany (he probably also visited England briefly in the mid-1550s)

made him the most cosmopolitan musician of his day. Early on he was recognized

as a leading composer throughout Europe, and publications of his music far

exceeded those of any contemporary, or for that matter any other musician for at

least a century afterwards. He was especially noted for his ability to convey in

music the content of the text he was setting; an early commentator praised his

ability to “place the object almost alive before the eyes.” Only during the last ten

years or so of his life did his popularity wane, though he composed prolifically

almost without interruption through his last years, and his music remained a

model and a pervasive influence in Germany well into the seventeenth century.

Lasso’s music continues to be highly esteemed today, but he tends to stand in

the shadow of his contemporary Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, who is more

often taken as the representative figure of the later sixteenth century, especially in

settings of Latin texts. Many reasons might be adduced for this preference. One is

Lasso’s close attention to the text: when the music is so intimately associated with

words, understanding of the text is essential for the listener or student in order for

the music to make its full effect, and how many of us today are fluent in Latin? Or

in archaic French, German, or Italian, the other languages that Lasso set? Another

obstacle to a proper estimate of Lasso’s achievement has been the sheer bulk of his

production and difficulty of access to it. The first collected edition of his music,

SW, was begun in 1894 and ceased publication in 1927 after publishing less than

half of Lasso’s output. SWNR continued this edition after World War II, and only

after its completion was all of Lasso’s music finally available in print, though in

editions of widely varying quality. Considering that in the same space of time one

complete edition of Palestrina and most of a second have appeared, it is not entirely

surprising that Palestrina has been more thoroughly studied and understood.

vii

Lasso has increasingly been receiving his due, however. Through much of

the twentieth century the main Lasso scholarship was published in German or

French. Studies by Adolf Sandberger and Charles van den Borren remain

important; Wolfgang Boetticher’s lists of Lasso sources with a survey of all the

music and Horst Leuchtmann’s magisterial biography are essential for any serious

study of Lasso.1 Wide-ranging studies like these have not appeared in English. Brief

surveys by Jerome Roche and James Haar are valuable, but the only full-length

book about Lasso’s music in English known to me is David Crook’s study of the

imitation Magnificats.2 James Erb’s annotated bibliography of writings about Lasso

is an invaluable guide to publications prior to 1990.3 Papers and essays in English

on Lasso have appeared in recent festschrifts and in proceedings of the Antwerp

and Munich conferences on Lasso in 1982 and 1994; these publications are

frequently cited in the present volume, which is the first compilation of such

studies entirely in English. I hope that it will be a useful contribution to the more

comprehensive study of Lasso’s music that is urgently needed.

Orlando di Lasso Studies begins with three essays on Lasso’s liturgical music

for the Munich court, music that was little known until its publication in SWNR,

where it occupies twenty-two of the twenty-six volumes. James Erb, who edited

Lasso’s Magnificats for SWNR, examines the formal aspects, both small and large

scale, of this large body of music. Marie Louise Göllner compares mass settings by

Lasso and Andrea Gabrieli found in a Munich manuscript, both based on motets

by Lasso. Daniel Zager considers Lasso’s cycle of polyphonic hymn settings in

relation to the liturgical revisions promulgated by the Council of Trent that were

gradually being established in Bavaria during Lasso’s lifetime.

Lasso’s settings of vernacular texts include some of his best-known and most

preface

viii

1 Adolf Sandberger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der bayerischen Hofkapelle unterOrlando di Lasso, only vols. 1 and 3 published (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel,1894–5); Charles van den Borren, Orlande de Lassus (Paris: Librairie Felix Alcan,1920); Boetticher, Lasso; Leuchtmann, Leben and Briefe.

2 Jerome Roche, Lassus, Oxford Studies of Composers 19 (London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1982); New Grove, s.v. “Lassus” by James Haar, revised andpublished separately in The New Grove High Renaissance Masters (New York:Norton, 1984); David Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats forCounter-Reformation Munich (Princeton University Press, 1994). Crook’s study isa revision of his Princeton dissertation; other dissertations on Lasso have notachieved publication in book form. One regrets the non-existence of SherlockHolmes’s “monograph upon the Polyphonic Motets of Lassus,… said by expertsto be the last word on the subject” (Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Adventure of theBruce-Partington Plans,” His Last Bow, concluding paragraph); this is at least anitem to consider in the Lasso Rezeptionsgeschichte.

3 James Erb, Orlando di Lasso: A Guide to Research (New York: Garland, 1990).

popular music. His settings of Italian texts are the most numerous and perhaps the

most significant in this category. Donna Cardamone in another of her incisive

examinations of Lasso’s early years in Italy throws new light on the dissemination

and publication there of Lasso’s madrigals, villanesche, and moresche. Mary Lewis

provides close scrutiny of Lasso’s setting of a six-movement canzone and shows

how the music’s structure and expressivity work together to build a musical unity

parallel to that of Petrarch’s poem. Lasso’s motets include settings of a considerable

number of secular Latin texts in addition to the predominant religious subjects.

Though classed as motets, some of these pieces are more closely related to the

chanson or madrigal, especially those with comic texts or the drinking songs.

Bernhold Schmid closely examines the history of one of the latter and the

checkered career of its text in publications during Lasso’s lifetime.

Lasso’s widespread fame and influence are frequently touched on in the

essays already mentioned, and they are the main subject of three other essays. Noel

O’Regan provides a complement to Donna Cardamone’s essay in considering the

impact of Lasso’s sacred music in Rome, both during the time he worked there and

in later years. Ignace Bossuyt and James Haar observe Lasso’s influence in the land

of his birth. Bossuyt shows how Lasso’s motets were models for Jean de Castro,

especially Castro’s three-voice motets, while Haar considers the 1589 madrigal

book of Jean Turnhout in relation to Lasso’s Libro quarto of 1567.

The two final papers in the collection view Lasso’s music from a broader

perspective. My own study considers Lasso’s practice of representing the eight

modes in numerical order in publications throughout his life and the extent to

which these publications may represent his own intentions as distinct from those

of his publishers. Horst Leuchtmann examines the relationship of verbal and

musical stresses in Lasso’s music and draws conclusions for performance and

scholarship alike.

The frontispiece and the jacket illustration are reproduced by permission of the

Musikabteilung, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich. The frontispiece reproduces

one of the best available portraits of Lasso. It first appeared in Mellange d’Orlande

de Lassus, the collected edition of Lasso’s chansons published in Paris by Adrian Le

Roy and Robert Ballard in 1570 (RISM 1570d) and was included in their Lasso

prints for the next ten years.4 It depicts Lasso at the age of thirty-nine years, which

means that the engraving dates from 1569, since Lasso through most of his life

believed that he had been born in 1530.5 The jacket picture shows the beginning of

preface

ix

4 Leuchtmann, Leben, pp. 253–4. The date “1560” in the lower-right corner of thedecorative frame is unrelated to the portrait itself.

5 Ibid., p. 45.

Lasso’s “Magnificat Ultimi miei sospiri”, as copied 1579 in Mus. Ms. 11 of the

Munich collection. The reproduction in Mary Lewis’s paper of the text of Petrarch’s

“Standomi un giorno” as edited by Gianfranco Contini and translated by James

Wyatt Cook is by permission of the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance

Studies, State University of New York.

This collection of studies had its inception in a conference on Orlando di

Lasso held at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 23–25 October 1994. Five

of the participants in that conference are represented in this volume (Cardamone,

Erb, Göllner, Haar, and Bergquist), though not with the papers that were delivered

on that occasion. The conference was possible in large part because of the initiative

and support of Anne Dhu McLucas, Dean of the School of Music, University of

Oregon. After the conference she took the first steps in exploring the publication of

augmented conference proceedings, the result of which was ultimately the present

collection of studies. I am more grateful than I can hope to say for her

contributions to making this volume possible and for her continuing interest and

active support as the project evolved. I am also grateful to my colleagues and

friends Marian Smith, University of Oregon, James Erb, University of Richmond,

and David Crook, University of Wisconsin, for help with various stages of the

project, and to my wife, Dorothy Bergquist, who has always been a careful reader

and astute critic of just about everything I have ever written. Above all, my deepest

thanks go to my colleagues who so willingly contributed to this volume.

peter bergquist

university of oregon

preface

x

Abbreviations

Boetticher, Lasso Wolfgang Boetticher, Orlando di Lasso und seine Zeit. I.

Monographie. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1958.

CM Orlando di Lasso, The Complete Motets. Ed. Peter

Bergquist with David Crook and James Erb. Madison:

A-R Editions, 1995– .

KBM 5/1 Martin Bente et al., Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. Katalog

der Musikhandschriften: I Chorbücher und

Handschriften in chorbuchartiger Notierung. Kataloge

Bayerischer Musiksammlungen, Band 5/1. Munich: G.

Henle, 1989.

Leuchtmann, Leben Horst Leuchtmann, Orlando di Lasso: I. Sein Leben.

Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1976.

Leuchtmann, Briefe Horst Leuchtmann, Orlando di Lasso: II. Seine Briefe.

Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1977.

MOM Orlando di Lasso, Magnum Opus Musicum. Munich: N.

Henrici, 1604 (RISM 1604a)

New Grove The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Ed.

Stanley Sadie. London: Macmillan, 1980.

Orlandus Lassus and his Orlandus Lassus and his Time. Colloquium Proceedings

Time Antwerp 24–26 August 1994. Ed. Ignace Bossuyt, Eugeèn

Schreurs, and Annelies Wouters. Yearbook of the Alamire

Foundation, 1. Peer: Alamire, 1995.

RISM Répertoire international des sources musicales.

Einzeldrucke vor 1800. Series A/I. Kassel: Bärenreiter,

1971– ; Recueils imprimés XVIe–XVIIe siècles, Series B/I.

Munich: Henle, 1960. Citations from Series A/I use the

form 1555a rather than L 755 when possible.

SW Orlando di Lasso, Sämtliche Werke. Ed. Franz Xaver

Haberl and Adolf Sandberger, 21 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf

und Härtel, 1894–1927. Reprint, 1973.

SW2 Orlando di Lasso, Sämtliche Werke: Zweite, nach den

xi

Quellen revidierte Auflage. Ed. Horst Leuchtmann.

Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1968– .

SWNR Orlando di Lasso, Sämtliche Werke, neue Reihe. Ed.

Siegfried Hermelink et al. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1956–96.

abbreviations

xii

1 Aspects of form in Orlando di Lasso’s Magnificat settings

james erb

The fundamental, text-generated contour of polyphonic Magnificat

settings in the late sixteenth century, familiar to most students of that era’s

music, has recently been outlined in the first chapter of David Crook’s

exemplary new study of Lasso’s Magnificats.1 However, since virtually all

vocal music ultimately takes its form from its text, and since form is the

topic of this essay, it may be useful to review that contour before going into

the specifics of form itself.

The Magnificat is the closing element at Vespers, belonging to the

species of ritual lyrics of scriptural origin known in the Roman rite as “can-

ticles.”These lyrical texts, which resemble psalms in their devotional, often

ecstatic, tone, also resemble psalms in having individual verses of bipartite

structure – that is, each verse has two parts, generally of parallel or apposi-

tive content. Though these two parts are often of unequal length, it is custo-

mary for the sake of brevity to refer to them as “halves.” The text of the

Magnificat comes from Luke 1: 46–55. To these ten verses of Scripture are

added, in liturgical use, the two verses of the standardized Lesser Doxology

(“Gloria Patri et Filio . . . et in saecula saeculorum. Amen”), so that the text

of the sixteenth-century Magnificat has, in all, twelve verses.

At Vespers on any given day an antiphon proper to the day is sung

before the chanting of the Magnificat,and again after it.The antiphon’s text,

appointed to a particular day, is sung to its own tune in one of the eight

modes of plainchant. The repertory of plainchant psalmody provides a set

of eight standardized “Magnificat tones,” and the twelve verses of the

Magnificatarechantedtowhicheverof thesemelodicformulascorresponds

tothemodeof theMagnificat-antiphonproper toVespersonthatday.

1

1 David Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats for Counter-ReformationMunich (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 3–14.

Magnificat tones consist of a single, modally characteristic pitch,

called the “reciting tone,” to which most of the text in a given verse is

chanted. It is notated in indeterminate length so that it can be used to sing

any number of syllables. This reciting tone has an identifying tessitura

characteristic of the mode with which it is associated (i.e., tone 1 with mode

1, tone 2 with mode 2 and so on). The characteristic reciting tone is pre-

ceded by an equally characteristic opening melodic flourish. A medial

flourish occurs between the first appearance of the reciting tone and its

continuation in the second half of the verse; and a terminating flourish

closes the verse. For example, two successive verses chanted to tone 8, with

its reciting tone on c�, preceded, interrupted and followed by the initial,

medial and terminal flourishes,would be written as in Example 1.1.

The intimate connection between the mode of the antiphon and the

Magnificat tone directly affects polyphonic settings based on them. In

Lasso’s time it was already a long-standing custom that such settings would

use one of the eight Magnificat tones as a cantus firmus. The dimensions

and structure of Magnificat tones determine the form and, less directly, the

dimensions of polyphonic Magnificat settings.

Relatively few polyphonic Magnificats of the period are composed as

a single long motet set in polyphony throughout. More often we find alter-

natim Magnificats, i.e., those with the verses sung to chant and polyphony

in regular alternation. Lasso left no settings of the odd-numbered verses; in

all but four of his Magnificats he set only the even-numbered verses in

polyphony, leaving the odd-numbered verses to be performed in chant or

on the organ.2 In doing so he followed the prevalent custom of Magnificat

composition of his time. Settings of only the six even-numbered verses

james erb

2

2 The four exceptions: Nos. 35, 64, and 65 (a8), and 102 (a10). All employ cantus-firmus technique. Reference to specific Lasso Magnificats, here andsubsequently, is to the complete edition in SWNR, vols. 13–17.

Example 1.1: Magnificat, tone 8, verses 9 and 10

V œ œ œ œ9.Su -

10.Sic -sce -ut

pitlo -

–Israelcutus est

pu -ad

œ œ œ œe -pa -

rumtres

su -no-

um,stros,

–recordatusAbraham et

misericor -semini ejus

œ œ œ œdi -in

aesae -

su -cu -

ae.la.

Initialflourish

Recitingtone

Medialflourish

Recitingtone

Terminalflourish

greatly outnumber those of only the odd-numbered verses in sixteenth-

century Magnificat settings.3 A reason for this preference for the even-

numbered verses might be that setting the even-numbered verses has two

advantages: first, in intoning the first verse, the cantor and his small choir of

chant singers can give the pitch at the start and reinforce the relationship to

the mode of the preceding antiphon; and second,a setting that concludes in

polyphony makes a more impressive close than a quieter (and possibly anti-

climactic) close in plainchant. The distinction between this primarily

esthetic consideration, in contrast to the routinely utilitarian purpose that

the Magnificat served as accompaniment to a ritual act, is central to this

study.

Whatever the disposition of the verses set in polyphony, the

Magnificat tone determined to a significant degree their tonal dimensions

(cleffing and tessitura, the appropriate tonal frame and modal final); more

to the point of the present study, the text provides the backbone of the

structure upon which the monophonic verses were sung, and upon which

polyphonic settings were traditionally made. The tones determine the

dimensions and structure of the polyphony, so to speak, as the dimensions

and structure of a boat’s keel determine the structure of the boat.4 Table 1.1

represents this outline, which constitutes the norm for almost all Lasso’s

Magnificat settings.

In the ninety-seven alternatim Magnificats credibly ascribed to

Lasso, two choirs of unequal size normally performed in alternation: the

schola cantorum, a group of four or five singers trained in plainsong,

chanted the Magnificat-antiphon and sang the odd-numbered verses of the

Magnificat (unless these were played on the organ – see below); the choir,

made up of some twelve to twenty-four trained specialists, sang the six

even-numbered polyphonic verses.5

Original sources for Lasso’s alternatim Magnificats contain only the

six polyphonic, even-numbered verses ascribed to him. The scribes and

aspects of form in l asso ’s magnificat set tings

3

3 See Winfried Kirsch, Die Quellen der mehrstimmigen Magnificat- und Te DeumVertonungen bis zur Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1966),p. 44.

4 The history of polyphonic Magnificat settings from their beginnings in thefifteenth century is summarized in MGG, 8, cols. 1484–5, and in New Grove, s.v.“Magnificat.” 5 Cf. SWNR, vol. 13, pp. xi–xii.

printers who produced these sources (dating c. 1565–c. 1630) clearly took it

for granted that the users would know what to do about the odd-numbered

verses, and most of these users would have been professional church musi-

cians familiar with the appropriate service books and liturgical practices.

These practices (e.g., the degree of solemnity and, consequently, the

number of participants at any given Vespers) varied from one parish to

another even within one diocese. In addition to singing the odd-numbered

verses in plainchant they certainly also included playing them on the organ,

as surviving sixteenth-century manuscript collections of organ verses for

the Magnificat attest. Conversely, the scarcity of polyphonic settings of

Magnificat antiphon texts – even by Lasso – suggests that these were rarely if

ever sung in the place of plainchant antiphons, and that, since a schola can-

torum was available for that purpose, they also chanted the antiphons. Even

when, as was quite common, local dialects of chant differed from the one

james erb

4

Table 1.1 Overall form in Lasso’s Magnificats

Verses given here in normal type are sung in plainsong (Schola cantorum)Verses given here in italics are sung in polyphony (Choir)*

(A) ANTIPHON (Schola cantorum)

(B) MAGNIFICAT Schola cantorum (chant) alternating with Choir (polyphony)Verse 1: Magnificat / anima mea Dominum (12)Verse 2: Et exultavit spiritus meus / in Deo salutari meo (19)Verse 3: Quia respexit humilitatem ancillae suae / ecce enim ex hoc beatam medicent omnes generationes (35)Verse 4: Quia fecit mihi magna qui potens est: / et sanctum nomen ejus (19)Verse 5: Et misericordia ejus a progenie in progenies / timentibus eum (25)Verse 6: Fecit potentiam in brachio suo: / dispersit superbos mente cordis sui (24)Verse 7: Deposuit potentes de sede, / et exaltavit humiles (18)Verse 8: Esurientes implevit bonis: / et divites dimisit inanes (20)Verse 9: Suscepit Israel puerum suum, / recordatus misericordiae suae (23)Verse 10: Sicut locutus est ad patres nostros, / Abraham et semini ejus in saecula (24)Verse 11: Gloria Patri, et Filio, / et Spiritui Sancto. (16)Verse 12: Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, / et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.(25)

(C) ANTIPHON (reprise – Schola cantorum only)

Note:*The diagonal line in each verse shows the location of the caesura; the number inparentheses at the end of each verse gives its length in syllables.

Lasso used as cantus firmus for his settings,6 or even when the polyphonic

part of the Magnificat was based on music from outside the plainchant rep-

ertory – that is, constituted an “imitation”or “parody”Magnificat – profes-

sional church musicians would have used their own sources to sing (or

play) the odd-numbered verses to the appropriate Magnificat tone.

Overall formThe term “overall form,” as used here, refers to relationships among

the twelve verses of Lasso’s alternatim Magnificats. These relationships are

many-sided, but one can discern recurrent patterns. The first has to do with

length. In Lasso’s huge output of Magnificats the length of individual works

varies considerably, and of course one wonders why. In his notes to

Breitkopf ’s Palestrina edition, Franz Xaver Haberl notes that at solemn

Vespers while Palestrina was choirmaster at St.Peter’s in Rome,each partic-

ipant was individually censed during the singing of the Magnificat, and

since at solemn Vespers in so important a church there were many partici-

pants, the Magnificat needed to be a quarter of an hour long. The censing

requirement, he says, explains the grandiose dimensions of Palestrina’s

third and fourth sets of Magnificats (200–75 measures for the six poly-

phonic verses alone).7 Investigation into relationships between Bavarian

liturgies and musical style in Lasso’s liturgical music, called for years ago by

James Haar and now under way,8 may lead to reasonable explanations of the

great range in the dimensions of Lasso’s Magnificats: from barely more than

40 measures to well over 200.

Such external factors as Haberl mentions were surely fundamental to

the musical form of much liturgical music of Lasso’s time; but other factors

less objective and more esthetic in nature appear to have been equally


5

6 See SWNR, vol. 13, p. xv, n. 9.7 Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, Werke: Erste kritisch durchgesehene

Gesamtausgabe, 33 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1862–1907), vol. 17, p. i.Reference is to Nos. 17–32 in that edition (pp. 79–237).

8 New Grove, vol. 10, s.v. “Lassus [Lasso]. Franco-Flemish Family of Composers,”pp. 480–502, esp. p. 487b. David Crook’s chapter on vespers polyphony for theBavarian court and the local usages in the time of the Council of Trent,Imitation Magnificats, pp. 33–64, makes a substantial contribution in thisdirection.

important. This study proposes that demonstrable features of structure in

Lasso’s Magnificat settings show that, while composing music to existing

formulas and patterns for the Bavarian court chapel, he also followed prin-

ciples that were purely musical.

The article on musical form in the old Harvard Dictionary of Music

makes a useful distinction between the form of a piece of music on the one

side and, on the other side, the form in it (i.e., the shape of the events that

take place within the fixed elements of that outline).9 Table 1.1 above dia-

grams the form of a Lasso Magnificat, its six plainsong verses alternating

with Lasso’s six polyphonic verses. The overall form in such a piece is

evident in the manner in which Lasso arranged relationships between the

six polyphonic verses so as to create, in the succession from one to the next,

unified and yet remarkably varied designs of musically satisfying propor-

tions. No one can claim that Lasso was unique in this respect, but I hope to

provide a glimpse of his manipulation of formal units, both within the

overall frame and within the frame of individual verses, so that we can then

compare his practices to those of his contemporaries and deepen our per-

spective on the nature of form in all the music of his time.

The basic traits of overall form in Lasso’s Magnificats are consistency

of style and length between the several verses, regular reduction of the

number of voices in certain verses, and a tendency to treat the thematic

material more freely in the inner verses than in opening and closing verses.

These three traits, though strongly influenced by ritually conditioned

externals like providing music for a procession or for the censing of partici-

pants,are primarily esthetic (as distinct from utilitarian) in nature.

Like Magnificats by Morales, Gombert, Clemens, Senfl, and

Palestrina, Lasso’s settings display among their constituent verses a consis-

tency both of dimension and of style. Requirements of a particular Vespers

may have determined whether the Magnificat as a whole was to be long or

short; but a composer’s care for its proportions within that desired length

will have been a matter of musical judgment alone, affected only tangen-

tially by external considerations. It is true, of course, that in the six even-

numbered verses which normally make up a Lasso Magnificat the lengths of

james erb

6

9 Willi Apel, ed., Harvard Dictionary of Music. Second Edition, Revised andEnlarged (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1969), pp. 326–8.

texts do not cover a wide range: the final verse is longest with twenty-five

syllables, and the two shortest each have nineteen syllables (see Table 1.1).

Lasso’s settings of these verses might therefore be expected to have similar

dimensions, and generally they do. Even so, the first and last verses tend to

be a little longer than the others, the last verse so regularly that its greater

length constitutes a norm. Its longer text doubtless contributes to this

status, but in most Lasso Magnificats the nature and structure of the final

verse reflects as much a need to create an impressive close as to accommo-

date the longest text.Lasso always uses all the voices in the opening and final

verses (and nearly always in verse 4). In a few earlier Magnificats he even

increases the number of voices in the last verse, a fact that strengthens the

impression of a conscious effort to compose an effective close.

The second trait of style in overall form is that Lasso, like other com-

posers of his time, reduces the number of voices in certain verses of the

Magnificat (as also in his masses and larger motets); for instance, in a five-

voice Magnificat he will set one or more of the three inner verses (6,8,or 10)

for only three voices. These verses were perhaps meant for soloists, but in

the Munich manuscript sources for Lasso’s masses and Magnificats the

application of divisi notation to individual voice-parts at cadential points

suggests that this may not always have been the practice.

Such reductions of the number of voices rarely occur more than twice

in any one Magnificat. Reduction of voices in verse 4 occurs only in

Magnificats 62, 80 and 94. Item 3 in Table 1.3 below represents one of them,

showing how Magnificat 80 repeats a pattern of upper-voice trios in each of

the four inner verses. These trios in verses 4, 6, 8 and 10 of Magnificat 80

may obliquely refer to angelic choirs of treble voices, evoked by its model,

Cipriano de Rore’s setting of Petrarch’s “Vergine bella” (Canzone 366, first

stanza). The two other works named display comparably symmetrical pat-

terns, but offer no such reasons for Lasso’s having made them: Magnificat

62 (SWNR, vol. 15, pp. 126–37) is configured SSATTB–BBB–TTT–

AAA–SSS–SSATTB, and Magnificat 94 (SWNR, vol. 17, pp. 14–30)

SAATBB–TB–SAA–SATB–SAATBB–SSAATTBB. It will be noted that the

thinning of texture in verse 4 is peculiar to these three works, in which the

overall formal plan evidently took precedence over Lasso’s otherwise con-

sistent practice of setting verse 4 for the full complement.A reduced combi-

nation involving the same voices may occur more than once in a Magnificat


7

(see Table 1.3, No. 3, verses 4, 6, 8, 10), but never in two successive verses. Its

purpose is clearly not only to illustrate the text on occasion, but equally to

offer variety of sonic texture.

The third trait of overall form is that borrowed monophonic or poly-

phonic themes regularly receive freer treatment in certain verses. This trait

is linked to the reduction of the number of voices, because wherever such

thinning-out occurs, free use of the model unavoidably and thus character-

istically occurs along with it. The expression “free use of the model” here

distinguishes between strict and unembellished quotation from whatever

piece supplied the thematic material, be it a plainsong Magnificat tone

serving as the cantus firmus, or a polyphonic model. For instance, in verse 2

of Magnificat 16, tone 8 is clearly quoted in the tenor; 10 but if one compares

it to the standard chant formula,a modest degree of variation on it is appar-

ent.

In four-, five- or six-voice Magnificats derived from comparable

polyphonic models, verses scored for fewer voices than the model typically

treat the borrowed material, as noted above, with greater freedom. In both

cantus-firmus and parody Magnificats free treatment of the model also

occurs in verses employing all the voices; but among all the Magnificats this

free treatment is more consistently characteristic of verses 6, 8 or 10 than it

is of verses scored for the full complement.11

Winfried Kirsch and Gustave Reese, writing of sixteenth-century

Magnificats as a whole, attach text-illustrative significance to the frequent

thinning of texture in verse 8 in polyphonic Magnificats (“Esurientes

implevit bonis”), suggesting that it symbolized the “hungry ones” referred

to in the first half of the verse.12 Lasso often used such obvious opportu-

nities for text-illustration as well, of course; but even so, the Magnificat

verse in which he most often reduces the number of voices is not verse 8,but

verse 10 (“Sicut locutus est”), where opportunity for text-illustration

through a palpable change in texture is less obvious. This fact suggests that

james erb

8

10 SWNR, vol. 13, pp. 227–9.11 Analysis of four parody masses selected from the whole chronological range of

Lasso’s mass output yielded a correlation between reduction of voice-parts andfree treatment of the model comparable to that observed in the Magnificats.

12 Winfried Kirsch, Quellen, pp. 49–50; Gustave Reese, “The Polyphonic Magnificatof the Renaissance as a Design in Tonal Centers,” Journal of the AmericanMusicological Society, 13 (1960), p. 77.

Lasso may have desired the change in texture near the end of the piece

merely to enhance the effect of the upcoming final verse,and that a juxtapo-

sition of textures may have mattered as much to him as would the occasion

to practice the text-illustration for which he was repeatedly praised in his

own time.

Table 1.2 represents the typical pattern of the relationships between

the number of voices in a given verse and the degree of assimilation or free

treatment of the borrowed material. No single Lasso Magnificat conforms

to this scheme in all particulars, of course; but traces of it do appear in all of

them regardless of chronology and style, and regardless of whether the

model is monophonic or polyphonic.Nor does it appear in either of the two

Lasso Magnificats that seem to be freely composed on invented themes.13

For the sake of illustration, Table 1.3 shows, in five representative

Magnificats, the range and degree of conformity to the prototype described

above.

A survey of all 101 authentic Lasso Magnificats shows the proportion


9

13 Of the authentic Lasso Magnificats, this applies only to Nos. 72 and 94 (SWNR,vol. 16, pp. 14–24, and SWNR, vol. 17, pp. 14–30, respectively). Magnificat 67(SWNR, vol. 15, pp. 201–11) seems also to be freely composed, but is notconsidered here because it is spurious (see ibid., pp. xi–xii).

Table 1.2 Pattern of altered scoring and treatment of themes in

Lasso’s Magnificats

Alteration of number of voice-parts: Treatment of themes:*↓ �↓

Absent or rare → Vs 2 Vs 4 Vs 12 ← Usually strict| | | |��|��| |

Frequent → Vs 6 Vs 8 Vs 10 ← Usually free

Note:

* “Strict treatment” of borrowed themes here indicates that in which the borrowed

material is quoted without substantial change (e.g., an unembellished cantus

firmus in long notes in the tenor, or a nearly direct quotation from a polyphonic

model); “free treatment” designates degrees of metamorphosis in which the

borrowed material is only perceptible or is only present as a structural principle

(e.g., as an altered harmonic progression or as a mutant succession of intervals

drawn from the model).

james erb

10

Table 1.3* Overall form in five Lasso Magnificats

(1) SWNR, vol. 13, pp. 106–21: Magnificat 7 (c. 1565), a6, cantus-firmus setting oftone 7

Verse: 2 4 6 8 10 12

Length in breves C: 27 24 27 25 23 32Treatment of model: x x (x) (x) x xVoices employed all all all SSAT ATTB all

(2) SWNR, vol. 14, pp. 126–32: Magnificat 37, tone 1 (14 October 1583), a4,parody on Si par souhait (model: Lasso, a4)

Verse: 2 4 6 8 10 12

Length in breves C: 12 10 17 15 18 16Treatment of model: x x (x) (x) x xVoices employed all all TB all SA all

(3) SWNR, vol. 16, pp. 108–19: Magnificat 80, tone 1 (1585–90), a5, parody onVergine bella (model: Rore, a5)

Verse: 2 4 6 8 10 12

Length in breves C: 22 20 22 21 20 20Treatment of model: x (x) (x) (x) (x) xVoices employed all SSA SST SSA SST all

(4) SWNR, vol. 14, pp. 49–60: Magnificat 30 (c. 1565), a4, cantus-firmus setting oftone 6

Verse: 2 4 6 8 10 12

Length in breves C: 29 29 25 27 29 39Treatment of model: x x x – x xVoices employed all all SA all ATB SSATB[!]

(5) SWNR, vol. 15, pp. 212–27: Magnificat 68, tone 6 (c. 1585), a6, cantus-firmussetting on Dies est laetitiae (model: anonymous cantio)

Verse: 2 4 6 8 10 12

Length in breves C: 15 21 27 17 21 26Treatment of model: x x (x) x x xVoices employed all all SS all SAT all

Note:* The sign “x” (underlined) stands here for strict quotation of a completepsalmodic cantus firmus, or, in the parodies, for nearly direct quotation of at leasthalf a verse from a polyphonic model; “x” (not underlined) stands for incompletereference to a cantus firmus, or for substantially altered quotation of polyphony;“(x)” in parentheses stands for indirect, barely perceptible, reference to borrowedmaterial, be it monophonic (from a plainsong cantus firmus or a singleidentifiable melodic strand from a polyphonic model); a dash stands for absenceof reference to the model, thus for free composition on invented themes. Upper-case letters indicate voice parts: S: Superius; A: Altus; T: Tenor; B: Bassus.

of more thinly scored verses to be lowest in those pieces set for four voices,

probably because four-voice settings, being usually shorter, create less need

for variety of sonic texture. The Magnificats for five, six and eight voices,

with richer texture and concomitant greater length, offer a potentially

greater variety of sound,while at the same time their greater length creates a

need for that variety. Other usages suggest that structural considerations

motivated the reduction of voice-parts. As already noted, Lasso rarely uses

the same combination twice in one work; and furthermore he generally

reduces the number of voices by two: in the six-voice Magnificats some

combination of four voices is most common, in the five-voice works it is the

trio, and in those for four voices the duo – all presumably in order to make

more clearly audible the difference in the sonic texture.

The manifold ways in which Lasso uses the overall form in the

Magnificat – that is, the relationships between its six polyphonic verses –

within the traditional layout of it show a care for balanced proportions for

their own sake, and for achieving variety and effect in the overall acoustical

pattern by reducing – or occasionally increasing – the density of the

scoring. This, along with the absence of any tendency to compose to a

formula or stereotype, is the outstanding trait of overall form in Lasso’s

Magnificats.

It is appropriate that witty and often profound application of text-

illustration is often adduced to explain the popularity of Lasso’s music in

his time; but there are other qualities, too. His workmanlike attention to

proportion and balance in the overall form of his Magnificats will also have

been a factor. His care for structural clarity within the prescribed outline

indeed has much in common with that of his contemporaries; but this body

of works all on the same text, in numbers left us by no other composer,

affords an overview of Lasso’s assiduous care for musical form and thereby

provides a standard of usage and of quality to which other compositions –

even those of a different species – might profitably be compared. In that

respect the corpus is unique.

Verse formThe term “verse form,”as used here, refers to relationships among the

component parts in the six polyphonic verses of Lasso’s alternatim


11

Magnificats. This form is based on the matrix for the individual verses rep-

resented in Table 1.1. The matrix derives from the species of composition

(canticle), and this species in turn originates in a quasi-psalmodic text. It is

also governed by the characteristic bipartite form of psalmodic plainchant

verses, represented in Table 1.1 by the divisions shown in each verse. Some

of the identifiable traits that emerge are standard for their time, others

more nearly Lasso’s own.

The central trait is the form A–B, a pattern imposed on the composer

of Magnificat verses by the tradition of cantus-firmus composition in litur-

gical music. Cantus-firmus technique was already old-fashioned by the

time Lasso’s earliest Magnificats appeared around 1565; and though his

reputation as a composer of this vespers canticle owes much to his having

been the first to apply parody technique to it repeatedly,nearly two thirds of

his settings are composed on traditional psalmodic plainsong cantus

firmus.14 In the corpus of Lasso’s Magnificat settings its influence is perva-

sive. The last chord in each verse, for instance, generally has as its root the

final of the Magnificat tone, even when that pitch (as is often the case in

plainchant Magnificat tones) differs from the final of the corresponding

mode; and while the cantus firmus on occasion may be freely or obliquely

stated in superius or altus,or even occasionally in bassus, it generally inhab-

its the tenor, dutifully performing its traditional function as “holder” of

thematic material received from the cantus firmus.

The tessitura thus given by the plainchant-derived cantus firmus

affects the general pitch-orientation of the tenor part, which in turn affects

the tessituras of the other parts. In a Lasso Magnificat of tone 4, for example,

the tenor’s tessitura is low because the ambitus of the melodic formula of

tone 4 is low in plainchant (e–c�), and the tenor voice-part has a clef appro-

priate to that tessitura, c4. For comparable reasons, the tenor in one of his

cantus-firmus settings of tone 7 is high because the tessitura of tone 7 is

high (a–d�); and the tenor part of a Lasso cantus-firmus Magnificat of tone

7 has the high ambitus and the clef appropriate to it, c3. In any Lasso

james erb

12

14 Pietro Pontio, writing in 1588 after the majority of Lasso’s parody Magnificatshad been composed, still prescribes cantus-firmus technique as the norm forcomposing Magnificats and other canticles. See his Ragionamento di Musica(Parma, 1588), facs. ed., with note by Suzanne Clercx, in Documentamusicologica 16 (Kassel and New York: Bärenreiter, 1958).

Magnificat, the ambitus derived from the tessitura of the tenor affects the

range and cleffing of the voices composed to accompany the tenor, with the

result that the ambitus of all the voice-parts in a Lasso Magnificat of tone 4

(for example) is comparatively low, and (for example) in one of tone 7 it is

high.15 The medial cadence that marks the mid-verse caesura in any Lasso

Magnificat also makes itself felt in various ways,depending on the degree of

freedom he takes with the materials in a given verse.

In thus displaying these traits of cantus-firmus technique, individual

verses in Lasso’s cantus-firmus Magnificats reflect the bipartite structure of

the Magnificat tones of plainchant. The ever-returning chant in the odd-

numbered verses and the more or less constant presence of the same chant

formula in Lasso’s polyphonic verses, through points of imitation based on

its initial melodic flourish, through the characteristic tessitura and cleffing

generated by its reciting tone, and through references to its terminal

flourishes at the ends of the verses, generate a contour and modality of the

Magnificat tone that permeates the whole composition.

More than a third of Lasso’s Magnificats, however, are based not on

the psalmodic Magnificat tones, but on a wide variety of nonpsalmodic

models from the polyphonic repertoires of chanson, madrigal, and motet,

and even on a few nondescript compositions of other kinds. None of these

displays anything resembling psalmodic verse structure. In spite of this

radical difference in the structure of the forms upon which Lasso draws, the

forms of these nonpsalmodic models have no effect on the form of the verse

in a Lasso Magnificat. Instead, many of a given model’s constituent ele-

ments – melodic fragments,chord progressions,rhythmic patterns,succes-

sions of intervals, combinations of textures – receive totally new

treatments, revealing new relationships and aspects, often only remotely

related to their original context. In this rich variety of recomposition

(which also involves imitation of the style of the model), the form of the

verse remains as firmly bipartite as in the cantus-firmus Magnificats based

on the plainchant Magnificat tones.


13

15 These descriptions are simplified for the sake of brevity. Within the parody or“imitation” Magnificats the verse form remains constant, but the patterns oftonal relationships vary considerably from those described here, especially insettings of tone 7. See the exhaustive study of tonality in Lasso’s Magnificatsettings in Crook, Imitation Magnificats, pp. 85–146.

The consistency of contour in the verses, which holds Lasso to the

bipartite structure of psalmody, regardless of the origin of their themes and

their original treatment, is the most significant aspect of form in his

Magnificat settings.Whatever the model’s structure, Lasso reconforms it in

a given Magnificat verse to the A–B mold of plainchant psalmody. As noted

earlier, the traditional structures and requirements of texts set for liturgical

use were in the latter half of the sixteenth century a compelling priority.

Lasso’s concern with building a musical form around the skeleton of an

authorized text may even help us understand why sixteenth-century musi-

cians (doubtless most of the time meeting the requirements of their

patrons) seem to have found no incongruity in setting venerated sacred

texts to musical material derived from pieces that originally had profane or

indecent texts. The transformation thus effected – in Lasso’s parodies, at

least – may have done more than erase the incongruity. It may even have

been thought to have sanctified what had been profane.16

The division between sections A and B of each verse is invariably

marked by a primary medial cadence that corresponds to the caesura in the

text (see above, Table 1.1) and to the medial flourish in psalmodic plain-

chant. Primary medial cadences in Lasso’s Magnificat verses reveal them-

selves at those points where the text of the first half of the verse ends and that

of the second half begins. Full stops at medial cadences, with simultaneous

fermatas or following in all voice-parts (such as regularly occur in English

Magnificats from the Eton Choirbook to Byrd),17 do appear in some early

Lasso Magnificats as archaic rarities or as a recurrent feature in the seven

short, idiosyncratic quasi-falsobordone Magnificats a5 of the 1580s.18 Much

more normal, however, is the practice typical in Lasso’s motets, where the

text in the several voices overlaps between the end of one segment and the

beginning of the next, as one may see in Magnificat 16, verse 4, mm. 16–19,

and Magnificat 58,verse 2,mm. 9–13.19 Other internal cadences that do not

james erb

14

16 Crook, Imitation Magnificats, pp. 207–9.17 The Eton Choirbook Magnificats are in Musica Britannica, 12 (London: Stainer

& Bell, 1961), those by Tallis in Tudor Church Music 6 (London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1928), pp. 64–72 and 73–84; and those by Byrd in TudorChurch Music 9 (1928), pp. 90–106, 111–18 and 190–212.

18 Munich, Bavarian State Library, Mus. ms. 2748, originally copied contiguouslyon fols. 52–96 (SWNR, vols. 14 and 15, as Nos. 47 and 51–6).

19 See SWNR, vol. 13, pp. 230–2 and SWNR, vol. 15, pp. 58–61, respectively.

conform to this simple standard, like the five that occur in Magnificat 38,

verse 6,mm.8–12,20 can be regarded as secondary.

In polyphonic Magnificat verses with bipartite structures thus

descended from both a bipartite text and a tradition of bipartite mono-

phonic chant formulas, text underlay plays a decisive role in clarifying

form. In the huge posthumous Magnificat collection Iubilus B. Virginis . . .

Centum Magnificat (RISM 1619a), editor Rudolf di Lasso, Orlando’s son,

several times obscured the primary medial cadence in individual

Magnificat verses through what appear to be arbitrary changes of text

underlay. An example of this problem occurs in Magnificat 16,21 where the

primary medial cadence of verse 4 clearly comes on the C major chord at the

beginning of m.17: the functioning bass moves V–I at mm.16, third note, to

17, first semibreve (tenor g, then bassus c), and the same measures have

clausulae in the upper three voices, creating the audible cadence that begins

m. 17. The unmistakably cadential flavor of these measures is supported by

the text underlay in the earlier sources for Magnificat 16, preparation of at

least four of which Lasso directly or indirectly supervised.22 In both the

posthumous edition and the early sources the first words of section B (“et

sanctum nomen ejus”) enter in tenor at m. 16, note 3, one minim before the

last syllable of section A (“est”) in the altus (m.17,note 1).The posthumous

edition, however, gives the text “et sanctum nomen ejus” to superius 2

already at the second note of m. 15, note 2 (g�), anticipating by six minims

the entrance of the next text segment and obscuring the originally distinct

medial cadence. In vocal polyphony of the time discrete textual segments

routinely overlap in this manner at cadences, sometimes even by several

measures; but here is an instance in which a posthumous editor inexpli-

cably ignores a structural caesura that is characteristic of the genre and that

clearly is present in authoritative earlier sources, a cadence that the text in

the other voices clearly confirms. This seemingly trivial editorial blunder

indicates carelessness toward customs carefully observed by earlier scribes

and printers, customs that in this instance directly affect form and struc-

ture.

The two sections of Lasso’s Magnificat verses, effectively separated by


15

20 See SWNR, vol. 14, pp. 135–6. 21 SWNR, vol. 13, pp. 230–32.22 See SWNR, vol. 13, p. lxix, s.v. “16. Magnificat Octavi Toni, Quinque Vocum . . .,”

regarding sources A, B, E, and Mü22.

the medial cadence, can usually also be distinguished from each other by

use of contrasted themes, textures or techniques, and by contrasting com-

binations of these.The degree of the contrast will vary from one verse to the

next,and it is more distinct in Magnificats we can consider late than in those

we know to be early. Seldom do sections A and B have the same length in any

verse (compare, for instance, Magnificats 38 and 16, cited below), but the

degree of that inequality, like the degree of contrast, varies greatly from

verse to verse, and also between early Magnificats and late. In early

Magnificats both parts of the verse tend to have about the same length; in

later ones, oftener than not, the second section of the verse is longer, and

more likely contains written-out structural repetition such as one finds at

the ends of chansons and madrigals, in which the bass repeats while the

upper voices exchange parts the second time. For example, “Fecit poten-

tiam,”verse 6 of Magnificat 38,a parody on Claudin’s “Il est jour,”23 presents

two very unequal sections separated by a clearly defined, early medial

cadence (m. 3, second semibreve). Striking contrasts between the textures

and themes in sections A (mm.1–3) and B (mm.3–15) and the use of varied

multiple subordinate sections in section B are features typical of Lasso

Magnificats written after 1575. Despite exact parity between the two halves

of the text (nineteen syllables each), the proportion between sections A and

B is conspicuously unequal, 1 : 4. Lasso’s manipulation of the subdivisions

determines the musical proportions of the verse. Section A has no subordi-

nate sections, while section B has five, each marked off by subordinate

cadences of varying finality and clarity: mm. 6 and 8, second minim; m. 9,

third minim; and mm. 11 and 13, first minim. The bassus from mm. 7,

fourth minim to 11, second minim, is repeated immediately in mm. 11 to

15; and the upper voice-parts of the corresponding portions of mm. 7 to 11

are interchanged in mm. 11 to 15. Tenor sings what had been altus, altus

what had been superius, and superius what had been tenor, with the result

that mm. 11 to 15 constitute a lightly varied reprise of mm. 7 to 11. The

rhythmic augmentation on the word “mente” in m. 13 provides the only

salient element of variation.

Lasso’s early Magnificats (Nos. 1–32) usually display a consistency of

texture throughout the verse that distinguishes them from later works rep-

james erb

16

23 SWNR, vol. 14, pp. 133–40.

resented by the example just cited from Magnificat 38. This consistency in

the earlier Magnificats arises from their more melismatic, contrapuntal

style, with its slower harmonic and syllabic rhythm. An example from such

an early work, Magnificat 16 (c. 1565), has already been examined; another,

showing a different manipulation of verse form, comes from the middle-

period Magnificat 58 (c. 1575–1585).24 Each exhibits conservative style,

which differs from that represented by Magnificat 38.

The consistently smooth rhythmic and contrapuntal texture in verse

4 of Magnificat 16 and in verse 2 of Magnificat 58 contrasts noticeably with

the agitation and differentiation between the two segments of Magnificat

38, verse 4. So also does the more nearly equal balance between the two sec-

tions in the verses cited from Magnificats 16 and 58. In the verse from

Magnificat 16, section A takes up mm. 1 to 17, first minim, and section B,

with a short overlap of texts, takes up mm. 16 to 32, a proportion of nearly

1 : 1. In the above example cited from Magnificat 58, section A takes up mm.

1 to 10 and section B takes up mm.9 to 25, a proportion of approximately 2 :

3. At this point we may recall that in the verse from Magnificat 38 the

dimensions of section A to section B stand in a proportion of 1 : 4.

The medial cadences in both the two earlier examples are indistinct,

the subordinate sections longer, fewer and less strongly differentiated than

those in the later one. Like the diagrams of representative overall forms

shown in Tables 1.1 and 1.3, these three examples display the range of

Lasso’s use of conventional bipartite structures, i.e., of the forms in the

music he composed upon the frame of the authorized traditional text forms

of the Magnificat. The relation these forms have to style, and style to chro-

nology in general,may be summed up in two sentences:

(1) Long Magnificats in smooth imitative-melismatic style usually

can be shown to originate from sources prepared earlier than the sources

for short Magnificats in a syllabic, rhythmically agitated style.

(2) Magnificats consisting of verses in which the two sections are

similar in length and texture usually can be traced to early sources; those in

which the two sections differ from each other in length and texture usually

come from later sources.

For the sake of balance, I should add to this observation another: that


17

24 SWNR, vol. 15, pp. 58–73.

since Magnificat 58 is based on Verdelot’s morose “Ultimi miei sospiri”

(1541), a relatively early model, one might expect it to have a more conser-

vative style, even if composed in the 1590s, because, however radically

Lasso’s parodies may manipulate and disperse the material received from

their models, they characteristically assume their styles.25 In addition to

this consideration, the source for Magnificat 58 is also one of the earliest we

have for those Lasso settings that do not belong to the first thirty-two

Magnificats in the complete edition, all of which date from the 1560s.26 The

tendency for parodies to mimic the style of their models undermines the

credibility of stylistic analysis as a criterion of chronology, at least so far as

Lasso’s Magnificats are concerned. Magnificat 90, a cantus-firmus setting

upon the plainchant hymn “Pange lingua,” is notably more conservative in

style than most of the others in its earliest source,where it is dated 5 January

1584; but because of Lasso’s habit of adapting his parody settings to the style

of the models, its style is alone insufficient reason to assume it was com-

posed earlier than that year.27

Form in Lasso’s Magnificat settings exists parallel to the given liturgical

context and its requirements of length and style. His musical forms, to be

sure, can be properly understood only with reference to that liturgical

context, but his use of overall form (the relationship among the verses) and

his use of the verse form (the relationship between the component parts of

each verse) show the operation of his musical judgment in regions where

liturgical usage seems to have only tangential influence, if any at all.

Much of what has been said here about form in and of Lasso’s

Magnificats can most probably be said about other Lasso works, too. In his

masses, for instance, there are comparable interrelationships between the

length of the text and the lengths of his settings – Kyrie and Credo (to name

the shortest and longest texts). Without going into detail, I can report that

an investigation of these relationships revealed a care for purely musical

james erb

18

25 Crook, Imitation Magnificats, pp. 206–9.26 See SWNR, vols. 13–14 (Magnificats 1–32) and SWNR, vols. 14–15 (Magnificats

33–70). On the dating of Magnificat 58, see SWNR, vol. 15, p. xxvii, s.v.“Lesarten / Titel,” explicitly establishing the earliest date for Magnificat 58 atSeptember 1579.

27 See SWNR, vol. 16, pp. 241–58, and ibid., pp. x and xxxi.

proportions that is only tangentially related to the number of syllables in

the text, and that parallels the care for musical proportion for its own sake

that appears to be inherent in Lasso’s Magnificat settings.

Still, formal traits in a uniquely large number of settings of the one

text, such as are described here,are hardly likely to be peculiar to this species

of Lasso works, nor even to Lasso. Rather, we might begin inquiring about

the degree to which the traits mentioned above correspond to those found

in comparable works of other composers. That Lasso was both extremely

productive and very highly regarded is obvious from the number of his sur-

viving compositions and the number of contemporary printed and manu-

script sources for them that are so widely distributed in Europe. But in what

ways is he unique? We may only have begun to surmise whether the

Magnificats of Morales, Gombert, Clemens, Senfl, and Palestrina – to name

Lasso’s closest competitors in quantity of settings of this very widely com-

posed canticle – contain traits parallel to those mentioned above; and if so,

why; and if not,why not.


19

2 Orlando di Lasso and Andrea Gabrieli: twomotets and their masses in a Munich choir bookfrom 1564–65

marie louise göllner

In the year 1563 Orlando di Lasso succeeded Ludwig Daser as

Kapellmeister at the court of Albrecht V in Munich. From the evidence pre-

sented in a small group of choir books written around this time and now

held in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, the composition of

parody masses by members of the chapel itself had taken on increased

importance for the group of composers who worked with the new director.

Whereas most manuscripts from the early 1560s still contained masses

written either by Daser himself (e.g. Mus. Ms. 18) or by other well-known

contemporaries, such as Clemens non Papa or Cipriano de Rore or even

Palestrina (e.g. Mus. Mss. 40, 45 and 46), four choir books, all written

around 1565, are devoted principally to parody masses by Lasso and the

new circle of composers around him (Mus.Mss.17,51,54,and 2746).These

include minor figures, such as Johannes Lockenburg, Gottfried Palmarts

and Johannes Flori, as well as the better-known Ivo de Vento and Anton

Gosswin, but two names stand out in particular, namely Lasso himself and

Andrea Gabrieli, the latter represented by no fewer than four masses.1

Within this group of choir books, Mus. Ms. 17 stands out both by

virtue of its external features and the uniformity of its contents. It seems to

have held a special place of honor. Decorated with exceptionally ornate ini-

tials, it is among the first, if not the first, to have been copied entirely by

Franz Flori, who was to become Lasso’s main scribe. It contains five parody

masses, composed by Lasso, Andrea Gabrieli, Ivo de Vento, and Johannes

Flori, all based on motets, in contrast to the other manuscripts mentioned

above, which reflect the still dominant preference for secular models. The

20

1 Two in Mus. Ms. 17, one each in Mus. Mss. 54 and 2746. For descriptions ofthese manuscripts and their contents see KBM 5/1.

order of the contents appears to have been carefully thought out, beginning

with the mass by Lasso as Kapellmeister and followed by two masses by

Gabrieli, the distinguished visitor from Venice.Although one of these two is

based on a motet by Gabrieli himself, all of the other models are by Lasso.

Also unusual is the exact dating of two of the masses, those by Lasso (“Anno

1565 / Complevit 13. Januarii”= date of composition; and “finis anno 1565

die 24. februarii” = completion of manuscript copy) and by Flori’s son

(“Anno 1564”). With the single exception of the last, all of the masses and

most of their models are composed for six voices, including the rather

unusual combination of two deep bass voices. This apparently reflects the

presence at that time of two outstanding bass singers in the chapel, Franz

Flori himself and Franz Pressauer, both of whom were paid salaries almost

commensurate with that of the Kapellmeister himself.2 Gabrieli further

adds a seventh voice for the Agnus Dei in both of his masses.

The manuscript thus seems to reflect a special purpose in its creation,

the desire to celebrate an exceptional situation of which Gabrieli is the

focus. Since only a total of seven masses by Gabrieli, who is known mainly

for his madrigals and instrumental works, have been preserved,3 this

emphasis provides significant support for the thesis that a stay at the

Bavarian court may account for at least the latter part of the “lost years” in

his biography between 1557 and 1566, the year he was appointed organist at

St.Mark’s in Venice.4

In this connection several additional facts should be mentioned. The

collection in which Gabrieli’s motet was printed, Sacrae cantiones . . . liber

primus, for five voices, published in Venice in 1565, is dedicated to Duke

Albrecht: “Illustrissimo et excellentissimo Principi D. Alberto Palatino

Rheni Comiti, et Utriusque Bavariae Duci . . .Andreas Gabrieli humillimus

servus.” And a copy of this print is included in the volume from the Ducal

orland o di l asso and andrea gabrieli

21

2 See Boetticher, Lasso, pp. 161–2.3 The parody masses, including the two from Mus. Ms. 17, are printed in

Gabrieli’s only mass publication, Primus liber missarum (Venice: Gardano,1572).

4 The editors of Gabrieli’s collected works, David Bryant and Martin Morell,suggest several possibilities for Gabrieli’s whereabouts during this time,including Munich and Milan. See “A Documentary Biography,” EdizioneNazionale delle opere di Andrea Gabrieli [1533]–1585, vol. I: IntroduzioneStorico-Critica (Milan: G. Ricordi, 1988), pp. 74–5.

Library which is still preserved with its original binding in the Bavarian

State Library under the call number 4 Mus. Pr. 135.5 Within this collection

of fourteen sets of partbooks, dating mainly from the years 1565–6, it is the

only item not devoted to works by Lasso – again a sign of special recogni-

tion. Since all of these distinctions are concentrated around the same two

years, 1565–6, it would seem likely that Andrea Gabrieli’s association with

the Munich court was a direct one during this time, subsequently inter-

rupted by his appointment to the post at St.Mark’s in Venice.

The choice of models for the masses, as indicated above, was some-

what unusual for the time. It seems to have indicated a conscious desire to

explore the possibilities of composing a mass on a motet rather than on

chansons or madrigals and to use six voices, utilizing the two prominent

bass voices of the chapel, rather than the usual four or five voices of the

secular models.6 As Lewis Lockwood has shown, the newer imitative

motives of the motet had a direct effect on the composition of masses based

on them,7 necessitating the development of new techniques. This may well

have accounted for the still noticeable preference for the simpler four-voice

chansons as models in the 1560s. The clear melodic contours of the latter,

corresponding to the lines of poetry, were generally easier to adapt to the

new surroundings than the often irregularly formed and frequently over-

lapping motives of the motet. The new technique, however, based on brief

melodic motives in all voices rather than on single melodic lines, had its

advantages. It allowed for far greater flexibility and thus for greater variety


22

5 Although the present ex libris dates from 1629 and the rule of KurfürstMaximilian I (see Fr. Dressler, Die Exlibris der Bayerischen Hof- undStaatsbibliothek [Wiesbaden: O. Harassowitz, 1972], number B3), it is too largefor the partbooks and was pasted over the earlier version from 1618 (the first exlibris used at the Bavarian court). The volumes were assembled in 1566 or veryshortly thereafter. They include four sets of Lasso’s chansons (1564–6), four ofhis madrigals (1555–66), the Sacrae Lectiones of 1565 and four books of Lassomotets (1565–6), these last preceded by the 1565 print of Gabrieli’s motets forfive voices.

6 For a detailed listing of Lasso’s parody masses with their models and dates seeRufina Orlich, Die Parodiemessen von Orlando di Lasso. Studien zur Musik, Bd. 4(Munich: W. Fink, 1985), pp. 12–13 and 165–6.

7 Lewis Lockwood, “A View of the Early Sixteenth-Century Parody Mass,” QueensCollege 25th Anniversary Festschrift (Flushing, NY: Queens College Press, 1964),pp. 53–77.

in its application, as evidenced in the many different kinds of imitation, or

parody,masses from the second half of the sixteenth century.8

This variety can also be observed among the masses contained in

Mus.Ms.17.The approach to composition was, for example, fairly straight-

forward in the case of the masses by Gabrieli and Ivo de Vento based on six-

voice settings of hymn texts by Lasso.9 The multiple partes of these models

(four in each case) provided a clear choice of motives, i.e., the beginnings of

each pars, for the different sections of the mass. None the less, two very

different approaches to their composition could be identified: a systematic

use of these motives by Gabrieli to achieve balance and symmetry,as against

the selection of individual motives, often from within the sections, of a par-

ticularly striking nature (e.g. the long upward runs of the two bass voices)

by Ivo de Vento.

The two masses by Lasso and Gabrieli on shorter motets of their own

composition present quite different problems, out of which again two very

different works emerge, each with a highly individual approach to the

concept of parody. Both Lasso’s six-voice motet “Locutus sum in lingua

mea” and the mass based upon it were published only subsequent to the

completion of the choir book containing the mass, again an indication of

the difficulty of dating works from their appearance in printed form.10 Like

the two hymn texts and their masses in Ms.17,both are set for cantus,altus 1

and 2, tenor, and bassus 1 and 2 – emphasizing, that is, the lower register.

They are composed in the phrygian mode, and the motet is based on two


23

8 For a discussion of the terms used in the titles of these masses see Lockwood,“On ‘Parody’ as Term and Concept in Sixteenth-Century Music,” Aspects ofMedieval and Renaissance Music: A Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese (NewYork: Norton, 1966), pp. 560–75.

9 ”Jesu nostra redemptio” and “Vexilla regis prodeunt.” See Marie Louise Göllner,“Lassos Motetten nach Hymnentexten und ihre Parodiemessen von Ivo de Ventound Andrea Gabrieli,” Orlando di Lasso in der Musikgeschichte. Bericht über dasSymposion der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften München, 4.–6. Juli 1994(Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996),pp. 87–100.

10 The motet in Gerlach’s Selectissimae Cantiones in 1568 (RISM 1568a) and themass only much later as a separate publication by Le Roy and Ballard in 1587(RISM 1587b). The motet can be found in modern transcription edited by PeterBergquist in CM, vol. 6, pp. 47–55, the mass by Siegfried Hermelink in SWNR,vol. 7, pp. 89–134.

psalm verses,11 features which have, as we will see, an important influence

on the music and its adaptation to the mass.

Two features of the motet stand out immediately: the long passages of

imitation between the two bass voices,which exchange motives throughout

most of the work, and the frequent alternation between different groups of

voices, either four plus four or three plus three (see, for example, the begin-

ning of the second part, mm. 50–66, in which the combination of voices

changes continually). There is, in other words, a strong tendency towards

antiphonal singing, a practice which is, of course, typical of the psalms. The

phrygian mode, in its turn, exerts a powerful influence on the melodic con-

tours and their motives. The motet begins with the motive shown in

Example 2.1, each of the six voices entering in turn with either the original

form or its inversion,both of which emphasize the half-tone step character-

istic of the mode.This,however,with its leap of the fifth,e–b,resembles very

closely the beginnings of a variety of other works from the sixteenth

century in the phrygian mode, the most famous being Luther’s chorale,

“Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu Dir.”12 In the motet the mode is further evident


24

11 The text is taken from Psalm 39 [38]: 3–4: “Then spake I with my tongue: Lord,make me to know mine end and the measure of my days, what it is; that I mayknow how frail I am”; and (Part II) Psalm 86 [85]: 17: “Show me a token forgood; that they which hate me may see it and be ashamed: because Thou, Lord,hast helped me and comforted me.” (Translations from the King James Bible.)

12 One of Luther’s earliest chorales, derived from Psalm 130, it was published inthe Geystliche gesangk Büchleyn (Wittenberg, 1524). The same initial formulacan be found in many secular songs of the time as well, e.g. Paul Hofhaimer’s,“Mein’s traurens ist” or the anonymous “Dich als mich selbst,” published in Arntvon Aich’s Liederbuch of 1512 (both edited in H. J. Moser, Paul Hofhaimer[Stuttgart and Berlin: Cotta, 1929/R1965], Part 2, pp. 72 and 160) and later setby Ludwig Senfl (ed. A. Geering in Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 10 [Wolfenbütteland Berlin: Georg Kallmeyer Verlag, 1938], no. 13).

Example 2.1: Lasso, “Locutus sum in lingua mea,” mm. 1–5, cantus and

altus 1

Cantus

Altus

&V

24

24∑ w

Lo -WLo -

w wcu -

w w#cu - tus

w ˙ ˙tus sum in

w Ó ˙sum in

˙ ˙ wlin- gua me -˙ w ˙

lin - gua

a,wme -

in the recurring cadences centered around a–g(�)–a. These exhibit a great

many variants throughout the work, but their resemblance to the main

psalm tone for the fourth mode with its reciting tone on a is scarcely coinci-

dental (see Ex.2.2).

In composing this motet, then, Lasso relied rather heavily on charac-

teristics which would have been familiar to him from other practices, both

sacred and secular, and which in this case are almost more important than

any relationship to the specific text itself. The latter, to be sure, is also

evident at various points, for example the strong cadence of all six voices

together on “finem meum,” and the subsequent rapid entrances on “et

numerum” (mm. 21–4). The highly expressive setting of the final phrase of

text, “et consolatus es me,” is stressed through frequent repetition, culmi-

nating on the highest tone of the cantus and introduced in imitation by the

two bass voices (see Ex.2.3).

The characteristics peculiar to the motet also form the basis of its

adaptation to the text of the mass, a subtle relationship which would

scarcely be possible in setting a model by a different composer and which

often defies the more obvious “rules” of the parody mass. Although, for

example, four of the five main movements do begin as expected with the

leap of a fifth that derives from the main motive of the motet, the fairly


25

Example 2.2: (a) Psalm tone 4; (b) Lasso, “Locutus sum in lingua mea,”

mm. 10–14, cantus

V œ œ œ 6 .œ 6 œ œ œ .œ 6 œ œ œ œ œ œ .œ

Cantus & 24��

Ó ˙ win lin -

˙ .˙ œ ˙gua me -

˙ ˙# ˙ ˙a, in

˙ w ˙lin - gua me -

œ œ# œ# ˙ wa:

Motive A

(a)

(b)

Example 2.3: Lasso, “Locutus sum in lingua mea,” mm. 75–80,

bassus 1 and 2

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

??

CC

w ∑Ó

��

w ˙et con -

„˙ w ˙so - la - tus

∑ Ó ˙etw w

es me,

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙conso - la -„

˙ ˙ wtus es„

wme, ∑

Motive B

inconspicuous motive at the beginning of its second part (Ex. 2.4) is used

only twice. Instead of the latter, two other motives from the interior of the

motet (motives A and B; see Exx. 2.2 and 2.3), both emphasizing the half-

step of the phrygian mode, play an unusually prominent role even at the

beginnings of sections. A contrasting motive, the quarter-note run from c

to g and its inversion in imitation in the two bass voices, can be found fre-

quently within the movements (see Ex.2.5).

The mass, then, may be outlined as follows (unless otherwise indi-

cated the sections employ all six voices and are in common time):

Kyrie I – Part I of the motet (a longer quotation: mm. 1–14 of the mass =

mm. 1–14 of the motet)

Christe – new plus end of Part I of the motet (a longer quotation: mm.

33–46 of the mass = mm. 33–46 of the motet with mm. 37/3–39/3 of the

latter rewritten)

Kyrie II – motives A and B combined (mm. 71/4–end of the mass = mm.

92/4–end of the motet)

Et in terra pax – Part II of the motet (a longer quotation: mm. 1–14 of the

mass = mm. 50–63 of the motet, with many adaptations to fit the new text)

Domine Deus – a2; Part II (variant) plus motive B

Qui tollis – motive A; begins in 3/2 meter

Quoniam tu solus – motive A

Patrem omnipotentem – Part I, different order in entry of voices

Crucifixus – a4; Part II

Et in spiritum – motive A


26

Example 2.4: Lasso, “Locutus sum in lingua mea,” mm. 52–4, cantus

Cantus & C�� ∑ wFac

˙ ˙ .˙ œme- cum si -

œ œ ˙ wgnum

Secunda pars

Example 2.5: Lasso, “Locutus sum in lingua mea,” mm. 34–9, bassus 1 and 2

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

??

CC

˙ut

w(est:)

��œ œ œ œ wsci -Ó ˙ œ œ œ œ

ut sci -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙am quid de - sitw ˙ ˙

am quid

˙ ˙ Ó ˙mi - hi, ut˙ ˙ ˙ ˙de - sit mi - hi,

œ œ œ œ wsci -Ó ˙ œ œ œ œ

ut sci -

wam

w wam

Sanctus – Part I: Cantus and Tenor in cantus firmus style; different

counterpoint in other voices

Hosanna in excelsis – motive A

Benedictus – a3; variant of motive B (= end of Part I)

Agnus Dei – Part I (similar to Kyrie I)

In this mass Lasso couples Kyrie and Gloria in his presentation of the

main material, bringing longer quotes of the two parts of the motet at the

beginnings of these two movements rather than in the different sections of

the Kyrie. The end of the Christe is notable for its almost exact quotation of

the closing measures of the motet, a curiosity observed in Ivo de Vento’s

mass on “Jesu nostra redemptio” as well.13 Three of the inner sections are

written for fewer voices, but none of them, not even the Hosanna, is written

entirely in triple time, although this meter is used very briefly at the begin-

ning of the “Qui tollis”and at two points within the Credo (“Et iterum ven-

turus est cum gloria judicare” and “Et unam sanctam catholicam”). There

does exist, then, a certain system in the presentation of the main motives at

the beginning, in the differentiation between main and subsidiary sections

and in the correspondence between the beginnings of Kyrie and Agnus Dei

to each other and to the model. The main unifying elements within the

movements, however, are the ubiquitous variation of the psalm-tone

cadence (motive A) in the top voice and the ending motive B in the bass

voices on the one hand and the alternation among groups of voices and imi-

tation between the two bass voices on the other. These can be quoted

directly from the model, as at the beginning of the Kyrie, or simply employ

the same technique, as in the passage from the Gloria shown in Example

2.6.14

As we have seen, all of these elements were prominent in the motet as

well. Lasso was thus certainly justified in emphasizing these aspects of the

model rather than following the more usual practice of singling out partic-


27

13 See Göllner, “Lassos Motetten nach Hymnentexten,” pp. 97–8 (Ivo de Vento) andRobert Wilder, The Masses of Orlando di Lasso with Emphasis on his ParodyTechnique, Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1952 (Rochester, NY: University ofRochester Press, 1958), microfiche, p. 188 (Lasso).

14 For a longer passage in which the three higher voices alternate with the threelower see mm. 58–78 of the Credo, at the words “descendit de caelis etincarnatus est,” culminating in all six voices on “et homo factus est.”

ular motives for frequent repetition. Only the Kyrie and the beginning of

the Gloria present longer quotations of all of the voices from the model.

One final curiosity, certainly intended to call the listener’s attention to the

model, is the sudden reduction of all six voices to strict homophony on the

words “qui locutus est”in the Credo (mm.136–7).

Gabrieli’s motet “Pater peccavi,”in contrast to Lasso’s “Locutus sum,”

was written for five voices only, with two in a high register (cantus and

quintus), to which a second bassus was added for the mass.15 Using a well-

known responsory based on the story of the prodigal son,16 it is anchored

solidly in the lydian mode, a choice which again had clear consequences for

the music of both motet and mass. Employed almost as a transposition of

Glarean’s more modern ionian mode, it enabled Gabrieli, the organist, to

emphasize entirely different aspects of the music from those observed

above in the Lasso works. Gabrieli’s motet and mass thus afford a clear con-

trast to the latter, reflected, for example, in the frequent emphasis on the

vertical element as opposed to the horizontal.This is particularly evident in


28

15 The motet was published in the above-mentioned collection of 1565, the massin 1572 (see note 3 above). To date neither the motet nor the mass has appearedin modern edition, including the published volumes of the collected workscurrently in progress (see note 4 above). Measure numbers in the examplesgiven here refer to sections of the Gloria and Credo.

16 Responsory for the first Saturday after the second Sunday in Quadragesima,from Luke 15: 17–19, but in reverse order: “Father, I have sinned against heavenand before thee. And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as oneof the hired servants”; and Part II, beginning with verse 17: “How many hiredservants of my father’s have bread enough...and I perish with hunger! I will ariseand go to my father and will say unto him: make me as one of thy hiredservants.” This text, including the repetition of the final line and its music asdictated by the responsory, was also set by Lasso in the early 1560s for the samecombination of voices. See SW, vol. 7, pp. 24–31, and CM, vol. 17.

Example 2.6: Lasso, “Missa super Locutus sum,” Gloria, mm. 29–35, bassus

1 and 2

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

??

Ó .˙ œ ˙Do - mine.˙ œ

Do - mi-

��

.˙ œ ˙ ˙De - us,˙ .˙ œ ˙ne De -

Ó .˙ œ ˙Rex

w .˙ œus, Rex

˙ w ˙coe- le - stis,˙ ˙ w

coe - le -

Ó ˙ œ œ œ œDe- usw Ó ˙

stis, De -

w wPa -œ œ œ œ w

us

��

w ∑terw wPa - ter

the many skips of fourths, fifths, and octaves in the bass voice, in the use of

motives built around the triad f–a–c, and in the straightforward rhythmic

dependence on the semibreve, features which are emphasized even more in

the mass (see Exx.2.7 and 2.8).

In contrast to Gabrieli’s rather conventional adaptation of Lasso’s

hymn-motet “Vexilla regis”to the mass in Ms.17,17 his treatment of his own

motet as model is in many respects unorthodox, frequently emphasizing

the features just mentioned rather than concentrating on the repetition of

prominent motives – with one significant exception, as we will see. The

added bass voice, in particular, often serves as a harmonic foundation, and

even passages in imitation tend to reinforce the main triad on f–a–c. The

passage from the motet shown in Example 2.7 is adapted to various parts of

the mass (see Exx. 2.10b, 2.10f, 2.11, and 2.12 below). In addition to the

regular rhythmic emphasis on the semibreve,various passages of the Gloria

and Credo proceed in almost recitation-like fashion, as shown in Example

2.8, where the five upper voices all come together on the word “simul.” The

motet itself contains three main points from which motives would most

likely be taken: the beginning of each of the two parts and that of the

responsory’s repetendum, “Fac me sicut,” the last two very similar to each

other (see Ex. 2.9). These are in fact presented as the main motives of the

three parts of the Kyrie, but only Kyrie II brings a longer quotation in all

voices, from the beginning of Part II of the model. And subsequent move-

ments are very free in their presentation of these motives.This is due at least


29

17 See Göllner, “Lassos Motetten nach Hymnentexten,” pp. 92–5.

Example 2.7: Gabrieli, “Pater peccavi,” mm. 86–91

Cantus

Quintus

Altus

Tenor

Bassus

&&VV?

bbbb

b

CCCCC

˙Sur -

˙re -

Wo.œ œ .œ Jœ w

.˙ œ .œ Jœ ˙Sur -

˙ .˙ œ .œ Jœo. Sur -

Wo.

Ó .˙ œ .œ JœSur -

w ∑gam,

w .˙ œgam, sur -.˙ œ w

∑ Ó ˙Sur -

W∑ Ó ˙

sur -

.œ Jœ œ œ w

w wgam,œ œ .œ jœ w

��

w Ó ˙gam, sur -œ œ .œ Jœ w

˙ .˙ œ .œ Jœgam, sur -.˙ œ .œ Jœ ˙sur -

Wgam,

œ œ .œ Jœ w

w .˙ œgam, sur -.˙ œ w

w ∑gam,Ó .˙ œ .œ jœ

sur -

w ˙ ˙gam, et

.œ jœ ˙ ˙ ˙gam, et

w ˙ ˙gam, et

Ó ˙ wet i -

w wgam,

in part to the intimate relationship of the initial motive of the motet to its

text: the word “Pater,” set apart as the agonized cry for help from the sinner

to the Father. Although all of the main movements except the Agnus Dei

contain some reference to this beginning, it is frequently limited to the

downward leap of a fourth or third as in the Gloria, the Sanctus and the

Benedictus.Only the Kyrie and Credo,beginning significantly on the words

“Kyrie” and “Patrem,” make more extensive use of the initial phrase of the

model. The remaining two motives are so similar to each other that it

becomes difficult to distinguish between them.

Gabrieli finds an intriguing solution to these problems. As the mass

progresses, he makes increasing use of an unassuming subsidiary motive

found near the beginning of the motet: the falling fourth, which is pre-

sented there as the two successive components of the descending octave

f�–f, divided between the two inner voices, altus and tenor (marked in Ex.

2.9a by an asterisk,mm.3ff ).

Although it would scarcely attract any attention at all in this form, the

falling fourth becomes a central unifying factor within the mass. It is not

only the frequent occurrence of this motive which is so striking, however,

but the way in which it is used. Presented almost exclusively in longer notes

(semibreves or breves), its prominence increases throughout the course of

the mass (see Ex. 2.10a–f). Since the Kyrie opens with a relatively brief (five


30

Example 2.8: Gabrieli, “Missa super Pater peccavi,” Credo, “Et iterum

venturus est,” mm. 29–34

Cantus

Quintus

Altus

Tenor

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

&&VV??

bbbb

bb

˙ ˙ wpro - ce - dit„

˙ ˙ .˙ œce - dit qui cum

˙ ˙ .˙ œce - dit qui cum

˙ .˙ ˙ œce - dit quicum∑ .˙ œ

qui cum

„„˙ œ œ ˙ ˙patre et fi - li -

˙ œ œ ˙ ˙patre et fi - li -˙ œ œ ˙ ˙patre et fi - li -

˙ œ œ ˙ ˙patre et fi - li -

.˙ œ ˙ œ œqui cum patre et

.˙ œ ˙ œ œqui cum patre et

œ ˙ œ ˙ œ œo, quicum patre etœ ˙ œ ˙ œ œo, quicum patre etw ∑o

w ∑o

˙ ˙ wfi- li- o˙ ˙ wfi- li- o˙ ˙ wfi- li- o˙ ˙ wfi- li- o„∑ .˙ œ

simul

.˙ œ ˙ ˙si - mul a - do -

.˙ œ ˙ ˙si - mul a - do -.˙ œ ˙ ˙si - mul a - do -

.˙ œ ˙ ˙si - mul a - do -

.˙ œ ˙ ˙si - mul a - do -

˙ ˙ wa - do - ra -

wn wra - tur

w wra - turw wra - tur

w ˙ ˙ra - tur et˙ ˙ Ó ˙ra - tur et

w wtur et

31

Cantus

Bassus

&?

b

b wFac

„˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

me si - cut

∑ Ó ˙Facw w

u - num,

��˙ ˙ ˙ ˙me si - cutw ∑

&?

b

b

.˙ œ œ œ ˙u -

„w Ó ˙

num, fac

∑ wfac

˙ w ˙me si - cut

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙me si - cut

w wu - num

w wu - num

[Repetendum]

Example 2.9: Gabrieli, “Pater peccavi”: (a) mm. 1–10; (b) mm. 32–9, cantus

and bassus only; (c) mm. 53–65

Cantus

Quintus

Altus

Tenor

Bassus

&&VV?

bbbb

b

CCCCC

∑ wPa -

„WPa -

„„

w wter,

∑ wPa -W

ter,WPa -

„

∑ wPa -w wter,

�∑ wPa -

w ∑ter,WPa -

w ˙ ˙ter, pec -

w wPa - ter,.w ˙ter, pec -

„

Wter,

5 .w ˙ca - vi,

˙ w ˙pec - ca -w wca - vi,

„„

&&VV?

bbbb

b

∑ wPa -

w ∑vi,WPa -

�WPa -

„

w ˙ ˙ter, pec -

∑ wPa -w ∑

ter,

.w ˙ter, pec -WPa -

wb ˙ ˙ca - vi, Pa -w ˙ ˙

ter, pec -

„

w wca - vi

˙ ˙ wter, pec - ca -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ter, pec - ca -

w wca - vi,

w ˙ ˙Pa - ter, pec -

W˙ ˙ ˙ ˙vi, Pa - ter, pec -

10

˙ ˙ wvi,W

w wca - vi,

∑ win

w ˙ ˙ca - vi in

Prima pars(a)

(b)


32

Example 2.9: (cont.)

Cantus

Quintus

Altus

Tenor

Bassus

&&VV?

bbbb

b

CCCCC

„„w ˙ ˙

Quan - ti mer -

„„

„„˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

ce - na - ri -

w ˙ ˙Quan - ti mer -„

„��

∑ wQuan -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙i in do - mo

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ce - na - ri -„

„

˙ w ˙ti mer - ce -

˙ ˙ wpa - tris me -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙i in do - mo„

&&VV?

bbbb

b

„˙ ˙ ˙ ˙na - ri - i in˙ w ˙i, quan - ti

œ œ œ œ wpa -∑ w

Quan -

„˙ ˙ .˙ œ œdo - mo pa -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

mer - ce - na - ri -˙ ˙ wtris me -

˙ w ˙ti mer - ce -

∑ wQuan -

˙ œ œ œ œtris me -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙i in do - mo

˙ w ˙i, Quan - ti

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙na - ri - i in

�˙ w ˙ti mer - ce -w w

i,.˙ œ ˙ ˙pa - tris

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙mer - ce - na - ri -

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙do - mo

Secunda pars

&&VV?

bbbb

b

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙na - ri - i in∑ Ó ˙

quan -˙ ˙ wme - i,

.˙ œ wi

˙ ˙ wpa - tris me -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙do - mo pa - tris

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ti mer - ce -Ó w ˙

quan - ti

w win do -

w Ó ˙i, quan -

w ˙ ˙me - i, quan -

˙ ˙ wna - ri - i,˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

mer - ce - na - ri -

w wmo pa -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

ti mer - ce -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ti mer - ce -„

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙i in do - mo

w wtris me -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙na - ri - i in

�˙ ˙ wna - ri - i,Ó w ˙

quan - ti.˙ œ ˙ ˙pa - tris

w ∑i,

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙do - mo pa - tris

Lasso Studies (Göllner) Ex. 2.9c, p. 2

(c)

measures) quotation from the model, only the altus preserves the original

presentation of the motive. In contrast to the motet, however, all of the

voices subsequently pick it up in close succession, including the quintus,

which at that point is the top voice (see Ex. 2.10a). In the Gloria it enters in

long notes as a kind of cantus firmus in three of the voices (Ex. 2.10b; entry


33

Example 2.10: Gabrieli, “Missa super Pater peccavi”: (a) Kyrie I, mm. 1–14;

(b) Gloria, “Qui tollis,” mm. 1–12; (c) Credo, “Patrem omnipotentem,” mm.

1–5; (d) Credo, “Et incarnatus est,” mm. 1–7; (e) Credo, “Crucifixus,” mm.

1–7; (f) Agnus Dei, mm. 1–10

Cantus

Quintus

Altus

Tenor

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

&&VV??

bbbb

bb

CCCCCC

∑ wKy -„

.w ˙Ky - ri -

„„„

˙ ˙ wri - e,∑ w

Ky -We, .w ˙

Ky - ri -„„

∑ wKy -˙ ˙ w

ri - e∑ �wKy -

w ∑e,„

.w ˙Ky - ri -

˙ ˙ wri - e

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙e - lei- son, Ky -.w ˙ri - e -

„„We,

5 .w ˙e - lei -

˙ w ˙ri - e - lei -w wlei - son

∑ Ó ˙Ky -„

∑

w ∑son,

w wson, Ky -∑ Ó ˙

Ky -˙ ˙ wri - e.w ˙

Ky - ri -„

∑ Ó ˙Ky -

˙ ˙ wri - e -

˙ ˙ wri - e

.˙ œ ˙ ˙e - lei -

w ∑e,Ó w ˙

Ky - ri -

&&VV??

bbbb

bb

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ri - e e -

w wlei - son,˙ ˙ we - lei- son,

w Ó ˙son Ky -∑ �w

Ky -

˙ .˙ œ œ œe e -

w wlei - son,∑ �w

Ky -.˙ œ œ œ ˙Ky -

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ri -.w ˙

ri - e -W

10�w w

Ky - rie.w ˙ri - e˙ ˙ .˙ œ

ri - e

œ œ w ˙e e -W

lei -

.˙ œ wlei -

˙ ˙ we - lei -

w wlei - son,˙ w ˙

e -

w wlei - son,

w wson, Ky -

w ∑son,

w ∑son,„

˙ ˙ wlei - son,

Ó w ˙Ky - ri -.˙ œ ˙ ˙

ri - e�w wKy - ri -

∑ wKy -„

w ∑ ˙ ˙ w e - lei -˙ w ˙e - lei -

˙ ˙ w e - lei -

.˙ œ ˙ ˙ri - e.w ˙Ky - ri -�w ˙ ˙Ky - ri - e

.˙ œ œ œ ˙w ∑

son,

w ∑son,

(a)

in cantus at m. 17), appearing again as the motive for the phrase,“qui sedes

ad dexteram patris”. It then becomes the central motive of the Credo, where

it provides the continuation to the beginning motive on “Patrem” for the

word “omnipotentem”(Ex.2.10c). In the further course of the movement it

then serves as the primary motive for two of the inner sections,“Et incarna-

tus est”and “Crucifixus”(Exx. 2.10d and 2.10e), and reaches its final culmi-

nation in the grand longa–brevis–brevis–maxima of the top voice at the

beginning of the seven-voice Agnus Dei (Ex. 2.10f). This constitutes a


34


Cantus

Quintus

Altus

Tenor

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

&&VV??

bbbb

bb

CCCCCC

w .˙ œQui tol -„

∑ wQui

„„„

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙lis pec -∑ �w

Qui.˙ œ œ œ œ œtol -

„„„

.˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ca -

w wtol -œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙

∑ wQui„

„

˙ ˙ wta mun -

w wlis pec -˙ ˙ .˙ œlis pec - ca -.˙ œ œ œ ˙tol -„

„

5 ˙ .˙ œ ˙di, pec -

.w ˙ca - taœ œ ˙ w

ta

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œlis pec- ca -„„

˙ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ca- ta mun -

Wmun -.w œ œmun -˙ ˙ w

ta mun -„„

&&VV??

bbbb

bb

Wdi

˙ ˙ .˙ œdi, qui tol -w Ó ˙di, qui

Wdi,�W

Qui∑ wQui

„œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙

lis pec -˙ .˙ œ ˙tol -

∑ Ó ˙quiw w

tol -.˙ œ œ œ ˙tol -

„

˙ ˙ wca - ta mun -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙lis pec - ca - ta.˙ œ ˙ ˙tol -w wlis pec -˙ .˙ œ ˙lis pec -

10 „

w ∑di .˙ œ ˙ ˙

mun - di,

˙ .˙ œ ˙lis pec -.w ˙ca - ta.˙ œ ˙ ˙ca - ta

„„w ˙ ˙

pec - ca - ta˙ ˙ œ œ œ œca - taW

mun -

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œmun -

Ó w ˙mi - se -∑ Ó ˙

mi -.˙ œ œ wmun -

˙ œ œ wmun - di,

Wdiœ œ w ˙

(b)


35


Cantus

Quintus

Altus

Tenor

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

&&VV??

bbbb

bb

„∑ w

Pa -„WPa -„

„

∑ wPa -w ˙ ˙

trem o -WPa -

WtremWPa -„

w wtrem

˙ ˙ wmni - po - ten -w ˙ ˙trem o - mni -�w ˙ ˙

o - mni - po -

w ∑trem„

∑ wpa -w ∑

tem,˙ w ˙po - ten -

w wten - tem,„

WPa -

wtremwpa -w

tem,Ó wpa -W

pa -

wtrem

Cantus

Quintus

Altus

Tenor

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

&&VV??

bbbb

bb

CCCCCC

WEt

WEtWEtWEtWEt

WEt

w win - car -

w win - car -w win - car -w win - car -.w ˙in - car -w win - car -

w wna - tus

w wna - tusw wna - tus

˙ w ˙na - tusw w

na - tus

w wna - tus

w west de

w west dew west de

w west de˙ w ˙est de spi -

w west de

5

˙ ˙ wspi - ri - tuw ˙ ˙spi - ri - tu˙ ˙ ˙ ˙spi - ri - tu san -.w ˙spi - ri -œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙

ri -.w ˙spi - ri -

Wsan -Wsan -˙ œ œ w

w wtu san -

w wtu san -w wtu san -

˙cto˙ctowctowctowcto

Wcto

Cantus

Quintus

Altus

&&V

bbb

„„W

Cru -

„„w wci - fi -

∑ wCru -„

w Ó ˙xus e -

w wci -„

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ti - am pro

5 w wfi - xusW

Cru -.˙ œ œ œ ˙bno -

„w wci - fi -œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙

Ó w ˙e - ti -

w wxus e -˙ ˙ w

bis

(c)

(d)

(e)


36


Cantus

Quintus

Altus 1

Altus 2

Tenor

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

&&VVV??

bbbbb

bb

CCCCCCC

�WA -

.˙ œ œ œ ˙A -∑ .˙ œ

A -

„„„„

W˙ ˙ w

gnus De -

œ œ ˙ wgnus

.˙ œ œ œ ˙A -„„„

Wgnus

˙ .˙ œ œ œi, A -.˙ œ w

De -˙ ˙ wgnus De -„

„„

WDe -

˙ ˙ wgnus˙ w ˙

i, A - gnus˙ ˙ ˙ ˙i, A - gnus De -„„„

5

Wi

w wDe -

w wDe - i,œ œ w ˙

„„„

&&VVV??

bbbbb

bb

W

Wi,Ó .˙ œ œ œ

A -w Ó ˙i, A -�W

A -„∑ .˙ œ

A -

WW˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

gnus De - i,

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙gnus

W

.˙ œ œ œ ˙A -

œ œ ˙ wgnus

W„„

œ œ œ .˙ œ ˙De -

Wgnus

˙ ˙ wgnus De -.˙ œ w

De -

„„„

˙ w ˙i, A - gnus

WDe -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙i, A - gnus De -

˙ w ˙i, A - gnus

10∑ Ó ˙A -„

∑ .˙ œA -

w wDe - i,

Wi,œ œ w ˙

.˙ œ wDe -

(f )

steady build-up towards a climax which is entirely foreign to the nature of

the mass itself and to Renaissance sacred polyphony in general. It may well,

however, reflect a practice grounded in the improvised preludes and tocca-

tas of the organist.

If we call the descending fourth motive A, then, the mass may be out-

lined as follows:

Kyrie I – Part I (mm. 1–5)

Christe – repetendum, “Fac me sicut” (C and B = variant of mm. 32ff of the

motet)

Kyrie II – Part II (longer quotation: mm. 1–8 in all voices, 1–13 in C and B

= motet mm. 53–60 and 53–65)

Et in terra pax – Part I, very brief

Qui tollis – motive A in long notes in quintus and bassus 1, later in cantus;

motive B (from “vocari filius tuus,” mm. 20ff of the motet).

Patrem omnipotentem – “Pater” plus motive A

Et incarnatus est – motive A in three top voices

Crucifixus a3 – motive A

Et resurrexit a3 – repetendum

Et iterum venturus est – Part I, very brief

Sanctus – “Pater” (note the similarity between the two-syllable words

“Pater” and “Sanctus”)

Benedictus a4 – use of initial leap of fourth, otherwise new

Osanna 3/2 – new

Agnus Dei a7 – motive A as cantus firmus with new counterpoint;

“miserere” uses beginning of repetendum

Although the beginning of Part II occurs only once in the entire mass,

its twin, the beginning of the repetendum of the motet, “Fac me sicut

unum,” is used frequently within the various movements and becomes an

important unifying element. It is particularly prominent within the Credo,

where it forms the entire substance of the section “Et resurrexit” (see Ex.

2.11). This section of the Credo is set rather surprisingly for the three lower

voices in contrast to the three higher ones which have just preceded in the

“Crucifixus.”Note the use of the motive on the concluding phrase,“sedet ad

dexteram patris,”as well as at the beginning.

Two other interior motives are taken over into the mass with some

frequency, namely those on the words “vocari filius” and “surgam” in the


37


Example 2.11: Gabrieli, “Missa super Pater peccavi,” Credo, “Et resurrexit”:

(a) mm. 1–12; (b) mm. 37–52

Tenor

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

V??

b

bb

w wEt re -∑

∑

˙ ˙ wsur - re -∑

∑

w Ó ˙xit ter -∑ w

Et∑

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ti - a.w ˙

re - sur -∑

5œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙di - e,w wre - xit∑

.˙ œ wter -Ó ˙ œ œ ˙

ter -WEt

V??

b

bb

˙ ˙ .˙ œti - a di -

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œti - a di -w w re -

œ œ w ˙œ œ ˙ w

e,˙ ˙ wsur - re -

w Ó ˙e, ter -∑˙ ˙ œ œ ˙xit ter -

10

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ti - aw w

et re -

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œti - a di -

˙ w ˙di -˙ ˙ wsur - re -

œ œ ˙ we,

w ∑e,˙ ˙ œ œ ˙xit ter -∑ w

et

V??

b

bb

37 ∑ Ó ˙se -w w

pa - tris

œ œ œ

œ œ œ ˙

˙ ˙ wdet ad dex -

∑ Ó ˙se -

˙ ˙ wtris,

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œte- ram pa - - - - - - - - -˙ ˙ wdet ad dex -

∑ Ó ˙se -

œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œte - ram pa - - - - - -

˙ ˙ wdet ad dex -

.˙ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ ˙

˙ ˙ wte - ram pa -

V??

b

bb

42

-

œ œ œ œ .˙ œ

-

œ œ œ œ wtris,

w Ó ˙tris se -

-

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙∑

˙ ˙ wdet ad dex -

-

œ œ w ˙∑


˙ ˙ ˙ ˙tris, se - det ad

∑ Ó ˙se -›

tris,

w ˙ ˙dex - te - ram˙ ˙ wdet ad dex -

∑

V??

b

bb

47

œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙pa - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

˙ ˙ wte - ram pa - - - - - - - - - - - - -

∑

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ.˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ

∑ Ó ˙se -

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

˙ ˙ wdet ad dex -

œ œ ˙ œ

œ œ œ.˙ œ œ

œ ˙


˙ œ

œ w˙ œ

œ w

›tris.

›tris.›tris.

›

(a)

(b)

motet,both based on the triad f–a–c and both used in imitation.The former

(motive B) is found not only at the beginning of the second section of the

Gloria (see Ex. 2.10b) but also at the ends of the Kyrie and Benedictus, and

the latter (see Ex. 2.8) lends itself to one of the few instances of word paint-

ing in the mass, i.e. the contrast between “vivos”and “mortuos”(Ex.2.12).

The two masses by Lasso and Gabrieli thus serve to introduce us to

quite different approaches to the adaptation of a relatively brief model to

the long movements of the Mass Ordinary. Apparently written in a serious

effort to challenge the imagination and talents of their composers in using

the often irregularly spaced motives of motets rather than the clear phrases

of secular chansons as their models, these works demonstrate both the sub-

tleties and the variety of the techniques of imitation and parody.

Significantly, neither mass makes much use of “direct parody,”18 i.e. the

literal quotation of longer passages from the model, beyond the presenta-

tion of material in the Kyrie and Gloria. In both cases the reliance is instead

mainly on motives which can be easily recognized by the listener and which

can occur in myriad transformations, lending both unity and variety to the

mass as it progresses. The older practice of composing masses around

melodic motives derived from a specific mode is also still strongly reflected


39

18 See Wilder, The Masses, pp. 187ff.

Example 2.12: Gabrieli, “Missa super Pater peccavi,” Credo, “Et iterum

venturus est,” mm. 12–16

Cantus

Quintus

Altus

Tenor

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

&&VV??

bbbb

bb

[-ca-]

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙re vi -

��

Ó .˙ œ .œ Jœvi -

[-ca-]

w wre

w wca - re„

[-ca-]

w wre

œ œ .œ Jœ ww w

vos,.˙ œ .œ Jœ ˙vi -

„Ó .˙ œ .œ jœ

vi -

w .˙ œvi -

W

.˙ œ .œ jœ ˙vi -œ œ ˙ w

vos.˙ œ .œ Jœ ˙vi -

w wvos.œ Jœ ˙ wvos

w ∑vos

˙ ˙ wvos et mor -w wbet mor -

˙ ˙ wvos et mor -Ó ˙ wb

et mor -w ∑

„

˙ ˙ wtu - os˙ ˙ wtu - os

˙ ˙ wtu - os˙ ˙ wtu - os„

in both cases. These works, finally, illuminate two very different musical

talents of the late sixteenth century: the perfection of the long lines of imi-

tative polyphony on the one hand and the beginnings of a more vertically

oriented, rhythmically direct style on the other. Although the latter reflects

instrumental influence, it is here still found within the confines of the main

sacred genre of the Renaissance, the polyphonic mass.


40

3 Post-Tridentine liturgical change and functionalmusic: Lasso’s cycle of polyphonic Latin hymns

daniel zager

The study of Orlando di Lasso’s polyphonic Latin hymn cycle found

one of its earliest stimuli in the work of Julius Joseph Maier (1821–89), the

first “Conservator der Musikalischen Abteilung der Kgl. Hof- und

Staatsbibliothek,”now the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.His 1879 catalogue,

Die musikalischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in

München, identified three manuscript sources of Lasso’s hymn cycle, all of

which are still preserved in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek as Mus. Mss. 55,

75, and 520.1 In his landmark study of 1958, Wolfgang Boetticher provided

a brief overview of the hymn cycle, focusing on questions of dating and

authenticity in the oldest manuscript source, Mus. Ms. 55, as well as on its

relationship to the two later Munich sources identified by Maier.2 He also

pointed out a fourth source among manuscripts in Augsburg.3 In her 1980

41

1 Julius Joseph Maier, Die musikalischen Handschriften der K. Hof- undStaatsbibliothek in München, Erster Theil: Die Handschriften bis zum Ende desXVII. Jahrhunderts, Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae RegiaeMonacensis, Tomi VIII, Pars 1 (Munich: In Commission der Palm’schenHofbuchhandlung, 1879), pp. 68–71, 76–8. The successor to this catalogue isKBM 5/1; see pp. 191–5, 222–3, and 262–8 for physical descriptions andinventories of the manuscripts preserving Lasso’s hymn cycle.

2 Boetticher, Lasso, pp. 644–50. Mus. Ms. 55 was copied 1580–1 for the MunichHofkapelle; Mus. Ms. 75 was copied c. 1600 for the Jesuit church of St. Michaelin Munich; Mus. Ms. 520, the latest source of Lasso’s hymn cycle, was copied in1622 for the Augustiner Chorherrenstift in Polling.

3 Boetticher, Lasso, pp. 882–3. For an inventory of Augsburg, Staats- undStadtbibliothek, Ms. 25 (Schletterer Catalogue, 24), see Clytus Gottwald, DieMusikhandschriften der Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg,Handschriftenkataloge der Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg, Bd. 1(Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974), pp. 138–52. This Augsburg source,copied for the Benedictine monastery of Sts. Ulrich and Afra in Augsburg, isdated 1585, though the title page preceding the hymns (fols. 237–324) and each

edition of the hymn cycle, Marie Louise Göllner brought to the fore a fifth

manuscript source whose provenance may be traced to Munich’s

Frauenkirche.4

Subsequent to Boetticher’s and particularly Göllner’s investigation of

these sources, and her preparation of a critical edition, a nexus of contex-

tual questions remains to be explored. Why did Lasso compose a hymn

cycle in 1580–1? What was the functional context for the creation and use of

this repertory? Was there a specific liturgical stimulus? To pose such ques-

tions is to assert that beyond source studies, and beyond investigations of

musical style and structure, there remain important lines of inquiry

regarding the relationship between liturgical rite and musical repertory,

and, more broadly, the symbolic role of liturgy within a particular religious

culture.

Lasso’s hymn cycle for the Munich Hofkapelle provides an opportu-

nity to explore such relationships among liturgy, music, and post-

Tridentine Catholic culture. There is clearly a direct causal relationship

between liturgical change at the Munich court chapel and the concomitant

need for this new musical repertory. This study will contrast the vespers

hymns required by the Tridentine Breviarium Romanum and Lasso’s hymn

cycle as a response to this liturgical book, with those required by an earlier

Freising diocesan breviary and the hymn settings by Ludwig Senfl

(c. 1486–1542/3),one of Lasso’s predecessors at the Hofkapelle.

Although the connection of this repertory to a specific liturgical

stimulus is in itself a useful link, further consideration invites an inquiry

into the broader context.Why was Wilhelm V interested in liturgical change

at the Bavarian court? While it is not inaccurate to suggest that the liturgical

dictates of the Council of Trent no doubt played a role, Wilhelm’s motiva-

daniel zager

42

of the individual hymns are dated 1584 by the scribe, Johannes Treer. For afurther consideration of this Augsburg source of Lasso’s hymns, see DanielZager, “Liturgical Rite and Musical Repertory: The Polyphonic Latin HymnCycle of Lasso in Munich and Augsburg,” Orlandus Lassus and his Time, pp.215–31.

4 SWNR, vol. 18. For an inventory of Munich, Metropolitan-Kapitelarchiv, Artes238, see Helmut Hell et al., Die Musikhandschriften aus dem Dom zu UnsererLieben Frau in München: Thematischer Katalog, Kataloge BayerischerMusiksammlungen, Bd. 8 (Munich: G. Henle, 1987), pp. 49–52. Göllner hasdated this source at c. 1605–1610.

tion to initiate liturgical changes at the ducal court may well go beyond

simple obedience to papal decrees regarding the adoption of newly revised

Tridentine liturgical books. To propose that the acceptance of such liturgi-

cal change was, in part, a conscious identification with and emulation of

Rome and the papal court is to position Wilhelm (and, one could argue, his

father and predecessor, Albrecht V) squarely within post-Tridentine

Roman Catholic culture, and to recognize liturgy as a cultural marker

bearing significant associative meaning, possessed of the capacity to link

one entity (in this case, the Bavarian ducal court) to another (the papal

court and Rome).

Finally, in this exploration of liturgy and music, chronological con-

siderations related to the composition and copying of Lasso’s hymn cycle

are instructive. Such a chronological examination allows us to view both

composer and scribe in the process of creating a functional,day-to-day rep-

ertory, the sequence of their work defined in large part by the liturgical year.

Some of the most influential liturgical reforms identified with the Council

of Trent came to fruition in the years immediately following the close of its

deliberations. Though the Council endorsed the importance of revised

liturgical books, the actual work of reform was delegated to committees of

bishops and cardinals working after the close of the Council in 1563. In

1568, during the papacy of Pius V (1566–72), a revised breviary appeared:

Breviarium Romanum, ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum,

Pii V Pont. Max, jussu editum.5 In the papal Bull “Quod a nobis” of 9 July

1568, Pius V pronounced the abolition of all previous breviaries in use for

less than two hundred years and stated that nothing was to be added to or

subtracted from this new breviary:

lasso ’s cycle of p olyphonic latin hymns

43

5 For a detailed history of this breviary reform, see Pierre Batiffol, History of theRoman Breviary, trans. Atwell M.Y. Baylay (London: Longmans, Green, 1912),pp. 191–207; for a concise history, see Jules Baudot, The Breviary: Its History andContents, trans. Benedictines of Stanbrook (London: Sands, 1929), pp. 48–54.See Hanns Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, 1501–1850, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart:Anton Hiersemann, 1963), pp. 31ff, for a listing of the numerous editions of thisbreviary. Details concerning the wide dissemination of the 1568 breviary arefound in Suitbert Bäumer, Geschichte des Breviers (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder,1895), pp. 457–67.

We order that this Breviary of Ours be observed . . . in all churches,

monasteries, orders and even exempt places in the whole world, in which

the Office must be said or has customarily been said . . . and that all those

who are bound by law or custom to say or sing the Canonical Hours

according to this custom and rite of the Roman Church are absolutely

bound to say and sing hereafter . . . according to the order and plan of this

Roman Breviary. . . .6

That the acceptance of such a new breviary would have far-reaching

consequences for musicians may be seen by comparing the liturgical

requirements and musical repertories in use at a particular establishment.

The content of liturgical books compiled before and after Trent, and the

musical repertories composed in response to such liturgical rites, consti-

tute a matrix of comparative information shedding light on questions of

liturgical function in sixteenth-century Latin sacred music. In this investi-

gation, the vespers hymns specified by the 1568 Breviarium Romanum will

be compared with those required by the 1516 Breviarium Frisingense, six-

teenth-century Munich being part of the Freising diocese.7

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 enumerate highly ranked Vespers feasts – occasions

typically calling for polyphonic performance of hymns – and their asso-

ciated hymn texts, in both the 1568 Breviarium Romanum and the 1516

Breviarium Frisingense.8 The similarities and differences are readily appar-

ent in both the temporal and sanctoral cycles. The temporal cycles in these

two breviaries share common hymn texts for Passion Sunday and for Easter.

Further, the hymns for Advent (“Conditor alme siderum”) and weekdays of

Lent (“Audi benigne conditor”) in the Breviarium Romanum also find a

daniel zager

44

6 Quoted in Pierre Salmon, The Breviary through the Centuries, trans. Sister DavidMary (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1962), p. 20.

7 For the boundaries of the various German dioceses in the sixteenth century, seeMax Spindler, Bayerischer Geschichtsatlas (Munich: Bayerischer Schulbuch-Verlag, 1969), pp. 26–7, or Karl Hausberger and Benno Hubensteiner, BayerischeKirchengeschichte (Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1985).

8 The fundamental work concerning polyphonic vespers hymns is by Tom R.Ward; see his “The Polyphonic Office Hymn from the Late Fourteenth Centuryuntil the Early Sixteenth Century,” Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh (1969);“The Polyphonic Office Hymn and the Liturgy of Fifteenth-Century Italy,”Musica Disciplina, 26 (1972), pp. 161–88; and The Polyphonic Office Hymn,1400–1520: A Descriptive Catalogue, Renaissance Manuscript Studies 3 (Rome:American Institute of Musicology, 1980).

place in the 1516 Freising diocesan breviary, though in this earlier source

additional hymns are appointed for these seasons as well. Other than these

similarities, however, there are significant differences, both in the feasts

requiring vespers hymns (in the Freising rite the feasts of Holy Innocents,

Transfiguration, Pentecost, Trinity, and Corpus Christi do not specify a


45

Table 3.1 Vespers hymns specified by 1568 Breviarium Romanum;

hymn settings provided by Lasso in Mus. Ms. 55

Feast Hymn Mus. Ms. 55

Advent Conditor alme siderum xChristmas Christe redemptor omnium/Ex Patre xHoly Innocents Salvete flores martyrum xEpiphany Hostis Herodes impie xLent (Weekdays) Audi benigne conditor xLent (Sundays) Ad preces nostras xPassion Sunday Vexilla regis prodeunt xEaster Ad cenam agni providi xAscension Jesu nostra redemptio xPentecost Veni creator spiritus xTrinity O lux beata Trinitas (also Saturdays per annum) xCorpus Christi Pange lingua gloriosi xSundays per annum Lucis creator optime xTransfiguration Quicumque Christum quaeritis xSt. Peter’s Chair Quodcumque vinclisSt. John Baptist Ut queant laxis xSTs. Peter and Paul Aurea luce et decore xSt. Mary Magdalene Lauda mater ecclesia xSt. Peter’s Chains Petrus beatus catenarum xSt. Michael Tibi Christe splendor Patris xMarian feasts Ave maris stella xAll Saints Christe redemptor omnium/Conserva x[Conversion of St. Paul] [Doctor egregie] x

(Not included in 1568 Breviarium Romanum.)Common of Apostles Exultet caelum laudibus xCommon of Apostles in Tristes erant apostoli x

Paschal TimeCommon of One Martyr Deus tuorum militum xCommon of Many Martyrs Sanctorum meritis xCommon of Martyrs in Rex gloriose martyrum x

Paschal TimeCommon of Confessors Iste confessor xCommon of Virgins Jesu corona virginum xDedication of a Church Urbs beata Jerusalem x

vespers hymn) and in the hymns appointed for particular feasts (cf. the

different hymns appointed for Christmas, Epiphany [in the Freising brevi-

ary “Hostis Herodes impie” is specified for Compline rather than Vespers],

and Ascension). In the sanctoral cycle the Marian hymn “Ave maris stella”is

the only text shared by the two breviaries in the Proper of Saints; in the

Common of Saints, on the other hand, all of the hymn texts of the Freising

breviary are also present in the Breviarium Romanum.

Apart from this last correspondence,however, it is clear that the feasts

requiring vespers hymns, and the hymn texts appointed for those feasts,

differ significantly in these two breviaries. In fact, the differing profiles of

daniel zager

46

Table 3.2 Vespers hymns specified by 1516 Breviarium Frisingense ;

hymn settings provided by Senfl in Mus. Ms. 52

Feast Hymn Mus. Ms. 52

Advent Veni redemptor gentium xAdvent Verbum supernum prodiensAdvent Conditor alme siderumChristmas A solis ortus cardine xEpiphany Gratuletur omnis caro xLent Ex more docti mysticoLent Audi benigne conditorLent Clarum decusPassion Sunday Vexilla regisEaster Ad cenam agni providiAscension Festum nunc celebre xSt. Andrew Exorta a BethsaidaSt. Catherine Ave CatherinaSt. Nicholas Plaudat letitiaConception of Mary Gaude visceribus xa

Conversion of St. Paul Doctor egregiePurification of Mary Quod chorus vatum xMarian feasts Ave maris stellaCommon of Apostles Exultet caelum laudibusCommon of Many Martyrs Rex gloriose martyrumCommon of One Martyr Deus tuorum militumCommon of Confessors Iste confessorCommon of Virgins Jesu corona virginumDedication of a Church Urbs beata Jerusalem x

Note:a Designated for Assumption.

feasts and hymns relate to larger liturgical traditions (of German and

Italian provenance) for the polyphonic hymn, the feasts and hymns in the

Freising diocesan breviary being part of a German tradition, those in the

Breviarium Romanum being part of an Italian tradition.9 Thus, in a case

where the Breviarium Romanum replaced an existing diocesan breviary,

certain extant polyphonic repertories, such as vespers hymns, might well

have been rendered largely obsolete.

When Lasso became a singer at the Munich court chapel of AlbrechtV

in 1556, he would have encountered an extensive collection of polyphonic

music for Vespers, including hymns for some of the major temporal and

sanctoral feasts: the Liber vesperarum festorum solennium (Munich,

Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. Ms. 52).10 Although most of the compo-

sitions in this source lack attributions, Martin Bente identified concor-

dances attributed to Ludwig Senfl in Heidelberg and Stuttgart manuscripts,

concludingthatallof thecompositions inMus.Ms.52couldbeattributedto

Senfl, who was employed at the Munich court chapel from 1523 until his

death in 1542 or 1543.11 By using liturgical evidence,David Crook has dem-

onstrated that Mus. Ms. 52 “was copied in Munich after Senfl’s arrival in

1522 or 1523,” the clear implication being that this repertory was prepared

for use in connection with Freising liturgical books – such as the 1516

Breviarium Frisingense or the 1520 Scamnalia secundum ritum et ordinem

ecclesie et diocesis frisingensis.12 Table 3.2 shows that seven of Senfl’s hymn

settings inMus.Ms.52wouldhavebeenuseful inconnectionwithVespersas

defined by the 1516 Freisingbreviary;only one of these seven hymns –“Urbs

beata Jerusalem” (Dedication of a Church) – was to find a place in the 1568

Breviarium Romanum. In all, five of Senfl’s fifteen settings could have been


47

9 Ward has defined both traditions (see Ward [1969], pp. 2–8 for a summary) andprovided a convenient listing of each tradition (see Ward [1980], pp. 16–17).For a comparative study of sixteenth-century hymn cycles drawing on theItalian tradition of feasts and texts, see Daniel Zager, “The Polyphonic LatinHymns of Orlando di Lasso: A Liturgical and Repertorial Study,” Ph.D. diss.,University of Minnesota (1985), pp. 35–64, 155–79.

10 For an inventory of Mus. Ms. 52 see KBM 5/1, pp. 178–88.11 Martin Bente, Neue Wege der Quellenkritik und die Biographie Ludwig Senfls: Ein

Beitrag zur Musikgeschichte des Reformationszeitalters (Wiesbaden: Breitkopfund Härtel, 1968), pp. 57–62.

12 David Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats for Counter-ReformationMunich (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 43.

used with the Breviarium Romanum (see Table 3.3), this group obviously

comprising only a small fraction of the hymn settings required by this new

bookforVespers(seeTable3.1).Thus,whenWilhelmVcommittedhiscourt

chapel to the use of the 1568 Breviarium Romanum, Lasso was obligated to

prepare a new vespers hymn cycle to accord with the Tridentine breviary.

It would be perfectly plausible to assume that Wilhelm’s motive in

adopting the Breviarium Romanum for use in his court chapel was based on

the papal decree regarding use of the revised Tridentine breviary.While this

consideration may have been a pertinent one, the reasons for undertaking a

major liturgical change – one that would require newly composed poly-

phonic repertories – may well run deeper than conformity with a papal

decree. Beyond acquiescence, it is possible to view this liturgical change as a

way of forging an identity with Rome and with the larger post-Tridentine

Catholic culture.

*

Discussing the years after the close of the Council of Trent in 1563,

Elizabeth G. Gleason remarks that “reform under papal leadership went

beyond a ‘Counter’ Reformation to positive and constructive efforts at

building a more tightly organized, better instructed, and effectively con-

daniel zager

48

Table 3.3 Hymns by Senfl in Mus. Ms. 52

Vespers hymn specified by theFeast Hymn 1568 Breviarium Romanum

Advent Veni redemptor gentiumChristmas A solis ortus cardineEpiphany Hostis Herodes impie xEpiphany Gratuletur omnis caroSundays of Lent Christe qui luxAscension Festum nunc celebrePentecost Veni creator spiritus xTrinity O lux beata Trinitas xCorpus Christi Pange lingua gloriosi xAll Saints Omnes superni ordinesMarian feasts Quod chorus vatumMarian feasts In Mariam vitae viamMarian feasts Gaude visceribusMarian feasts Quem terra pontusDedication of a Church Urbs beata Jerusalem x

trolled church than the old institution before 1563 had been.”13 She goes on

to identify some of the tools and tactics of the Tridentine reforms, including

in her list liturgy as an aspect of reform:

The restructuring of the church’s administration was only one achievement

of the later sixteenth-century popes. More significant for the church on the

local level was a series of catechetical, liturgical, and disciplinary

innovations, all emanating from Rome, which would determine the

character of Catholic culture for centuries to come. . . . In 1566 the Roman

Catechism was issued, which became the principal tool of Christian

instruction for pastors and teachers of religion. Two years later the revised

Roman Breviary appeared, with mandatory daily readings for the clergy. In

1570 the Missale Romanum codified a uniform liturgy of the mass for the

entire liturgical year, for use by every church throughout the Catholic

world. . . . That almost all of these works contained the word “Roman” in

their titles underlined that Rome was the nerve center of the Catholic

church. . . . In a much stronger sense than before the Reformation, the

Catholic church became Roman Catholic.14

In his study of post-Tridentine Roman sermon literature Frederick J.

McGinness puts it another way: “The Council of Trent presented the

Roman clergy with a model for rebuilding Catholic life and worship. And a

firm commitment to that enterprise was the only way to reestablish a sorely

needed credibility.”15 This “model for rebuilding Catholic life and worship”

extended beyond Rome and its clergy to, for example, the Bavarian ducal

court, which long had been staunchly Catholic, but in the post-Tridentine

era was concerned with becoming Roman Catholic. One could argue that

Albrecht had laid the groundwork for this concept, though it was Wilhelm

who would employ liturgy as a means of fostering and making explicit a

closer and more overt connection with Rome.

Albrecht’s loyalty to the papacy was never in question. Writing in

1567 to Francis Borgia (1510–72), Peter Canisius (1521–97) gives pride of


49

13 Elizabeth G. Gleason, “Catholic Reformation, Counterreformation and PapalReform in the Sixteenth Century,” Handbook of European History, 1400–1600:Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, ed. Thomas A. Brady, Jr., HeikoA. Oberman, and James D. Tracy (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), vol. 2, p. 333.

14 Ibid., pp. 338–9.15 Frederick J. McGinness, Right Thinking and Sacred Oratory in Counter-

Reformation Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 6.

place to Albrecht as one zealous for the Catholic faith in Germany.16

Cardinal Commendone, writing to Canisius in 1568, refers to Albrecht and

Ferdinand II, Archduke of Tyrol, as “the principal pillars of the Catholic

faith in Germany.”17 Indeed, Pastor’s account of Rome’s efforts to maintain

a strong presence in Germany refers to Albrecht’s consistent support.18

Given Albrecht’s loyalty to Rome and the esteem in which he was held,

it is not surprising that Etienne Dupérac’s engraving of the Sistine Chapel

from 1578 is dedicated to Albrecht V. The engraving is titled “Maiestatis

Pontificiae Dum in Capella Xisti Sacra Peraguntur Accurata Delineatio,”

which Niels Krogh Rasmussen translates as:“An Exact Drawing During the

Celebration of Mass in the Sistine Chapel of the Papal Majesty.”19

Rasmussen points out that Dupérac, “one of the great French artists and

cartographers in Rome,”would have had a propensity,as a cartographer, for

producing an “exact drawing . . . made during a liturgical celebration in the

Sistine Chapel.”While the engraving thus shows “as well as if it were photo-

graphed – how the Chapel really functioned,” Rasmussen concludes that

“the liturgical celebration,however, is only the vehicle,which serves the real

aim of the engraver, and that is – clearly and without any possibility of

contradiction – the illustration of the Maiestas pontificia, the ‘Papal

Majesty’.”20 Commenting further on this engraving, McGinness writes that

“the engraving portrays symbolically the spiritual and temporal power of

the Papacy and the Roman Curia as center of a city, state,and world. . . .”21

As an advocate for the papacy in Germany, Albrecht V would be not

daniel zager

50

16 Cited by Ludwig Pastor, The History of the Popes from the Close of the MiddleAges, ed. Ralph Francis Kerr (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1930), vol.20, p. 42. Gleason, ‘Catholic Reformation’, p. 340, characterizes Pastor’s work inthis way: “The still standard History of the Popes . . . immensely useful though itremains, shows signs of its age in its value judgments and apologeticapproach. . . .” 17 Pastor, History of the Popes, vol. 20, p. 42.

18 Ibid. Pastor states that with respect to Germany, “Bavaria was indeed at thattime the pivot of Catholic hopes.” For a more recent discussion of Albrecht’spolitical activities in support of the Roman church see Philip M. Soergel,Wondrous in His Saints: Counter-Reformation Propaganda in Bavaria (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1993), pp. 75–80.

19 Niels Krogh Rasmussen, “Maiestas Pontificia: A Liturgical Reading of EtienneDupérac’s Engraving of the Capella Sixtina from 1578,” Analecta RomanaInstituti Danici (Rome), 12 (1983), pp. 109–48, here at 144.

20 Ibid., p. 109. 21 McGinness, Right Thinking and Sacred Oratory, p. 87.

only an altogether logical dedicatee for this engraving but also one who, as a

defender of the papacy, would be in a position to understand and cherish

the illustration of the Maiestas pontificia. In his detailed explanation of the

engraving, Rasmussen points out that among those present at this papal

celebration of the Mass are three dukes (no. 10 on Rasmussen’s schematic,

p. 139). While there is no evidence that Albrecht was ever present in the

Sistine Chapel at Mass,22 it is plausible that through this dedication

Dupérac signified at least a symbolic place for Duke Albrecht at the spiritual

and temporal center of the Roman Catholic world – the papal court.

McGinness articulates the importance of the papal court in this way:

The relationship between heaven and the papal court was even more than a

mere image-likeness reflection. At court divine power became more

concentrated, so that good works, prayers, and sacrifices acquired greater

value and efficacy in God’s eyes. The setting and the liturgical rites of the

papal court thus differed both quantitatively and qualitatively from other

terrestrial courts. . . . The papal court was therefore quantitatively holier,

and as a result more meritorious than any other place on earth. . . . The

motif of the papal liturgy as a sacred event in the holy center of the orbis

terrarum characterizes many sermons given before popes in the

Renaissance. But what then was perhaps more descriptive became in the

post-Tridentine era more emphatically the model for order: as heaven and

the papal court are ordered, so should the entire world.23

That Dupérac’s engraving of a liturgical celebration in the Sistine

Chapel was dedicated to Albrecht in 1578 suggests that Albrecht might well

have acquired the engraving. The significance of this depiction is that it

makes visible the Tridentine emphasis on Rome as the center of the

Catholic Church. Thus, it would carry the connotation for someone within

the Catholic Church but outside of Rome that (in the words of McGinness)

“as heaven and the papal court are ordered, so should the entire world.”The

meaning conveyed by such an engraving, and, more generally, the

Tridentine emphasis on Rome, carried with it a host of implications for

Albrecht. His death a year later, on 24 October 1579, left such matters

to Wilhelm. That precisely one year after Albrecht’s death Lasso was


51

22 Rasmussen, “Maiestas Pontificia,” p. 109, states that “there is no recorded visit ofAlbert to Rome. . . .”

23 McGinness, Right Thinking and Sacred Oratory, pp. 90–1.

beginning work on a new musical repertory to match the 1568 Roman bre-

viary is, therefore, of particular significance, constituting, as it does, some

of the earliest evidence that Wilhelm indeed intended to use liturgy as a

means of embracing Tridentine reforms, therefore linking his own court

more explicitly to the papal court in Rome.

In the course of copying Mus. Ms. 55, Franz Flori, the chief scribe of the

Hofkapelle, dated twenty-one individual settings (nineteen different

hymns), a practice that Clive Wearing suggested became more frequent in

the 1580s as Lasso’s copyists sought to link newly composed repertories

with the newly accepted Tridentine rite.24 The hymns bearing scribal dates

are listed chronologically in Table 3.4, showing that Flori began to copy this

manuscript at least in November 1580, perhaps earlier since some of the

daniel zager

52

24 Clive Wearing, “Orlandus Lassus (1532–1594) and the Munich Kapelle,” EarlyMusic, 10 (1982), p. 151.

Table 3.4 Scribal dating of hymn settings in Mus. Ms. 55

Date Hymn Folio

1580 9 No Iste confessor 111580 in Novembri Jesu corona virginum, verse 2 13

19 Novembris Jesu corona virginum, verse 4 15v1581 4 Januarii O lux beata Trinitas 391581 7 Januarii Lucis creator optime 441581 25 Januarii Ave maris stella 49v[1581] 10 Martii Vexilla regis prodeunt 63[1581] 30 Martii Ad coenam agni providi 68v1581 Aprilis 12 Exultet caelum laudibus 136v1581 15 Aprilis Deus tuorum militum 142[1581] 20 Apri Deus tuorum militum 1311581 25 Aprilis Jesu nostra redemptio 75v1581 2 Maÿ Veni creator spiritus 771581 Junii 13 Ut queant laxis 1011581 27 Junii Aurea luce et decore 1051581 18 Ju Lauda mater ecclesia 1111581 23 Au Sanctorum meritis 1461581 25 Au Conditor alme siderum, verse 2 191581 25 Augusti Conditor alme siderum, verse 6 22v1581 27 Au Salvete flores martyrum 31[1581] 29 Au Hostis herodes impie 33

hymns are not dated.25 These dates also provide a clue to Flori’s working

methods in compiling this manuscript, for the order in which he copied

these dated hymns can be related directly to the liturgical needs of the

church year.

As part of Mus.Ms.55,Flori included a table of the sanctoral and tem-

poral feasts (together with their associated hymns) that were to be observed

at the Munich court chapel during Vespers.26 By correlating the dates pro-

vided by Flori for these nineteen hymns with his table of feasts, it is possible

to demonstrate that almost all of the hymns dated by Flori were copied

shortly before they were needed for a particular sanctoral or temporal

feast.27 Table 3.5 demonstrates that the sanctoral hymns were copied just

prior to the feasts for which these hymns were appointed. The temporal

hymns dated by Flori (see Table 3.6) also were copied according to the needs

of the church year. These feasts are moveable depending upon when Easter

falls, but in each case it is clear from the traditional progression of the festi-

val part of the church year (Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter,

Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Christi) that the appropriate hymns were

copied prior to the feasts for which they were appointed. Thus, based on the

scribal dating of hymns, the operative assumption here is that the manu-

script was compiled gradually during 1580–1 – each hymn being copied

just prior to its appointed feast, then rehearsed and subsequently per-

formed on that feast.


53

25 Boetticher, Lasso, p. 645, proposed approximate dates for the undated hymns;these hymns will be examined in detail below.

26 This table, occupying seven folios immediately following the dedication andpreceding the first polyphonic setting, is entitled: “Hymni per totum annum,a[nno] 1581.” The first and longest part of the table is organized by month,beginning with November and ending with October, and lists primarilysanctoral feasts together with their appointed hymns and the folio numberswhere each polyphonic setting begins. Following this part of the table is a list ofmost of the temporal feasts, moveable feasts depending on when Easter falls,together with their hymns. The entire table has been transcribed by Göllner,SWNR, vol. 18, pp. viii–x.

27 The one exception is “Sanctorum meritis,” which was copied on 23 August 1581.Yet the only feast in Flori’s table that calls for this hymn is the feast of SaintsFabian (Pope) and Sebastian, Martyrs, which is observed on 20 January. While aRoman Calendar such as that in the Liber Usualis indicates feasts of ManyMartyrs in late August and September, just after the date on which this hymnwas copied, none of these feasts is noted in Flori’s table.

The other thirteen hymn settings, listed in Table 3.7 by the order in

which they appear in Mus. Ms. 55, were not dated by Flori. For these hymns,

Boetticher proposed approximate dates based on the individual fascicles

in which the undated hymns were copied. Presumably, according to

daniel zager

54

Table 3.5 Scribal dating of sanctoral hymns in Mus. Ms. 55

correlated with dates of related sanctoral feasts

Scribal date Feast date Feast Hymn

9 Nov. 1580 11 Nov. Martin, Bishop and Confessor Iste confessor19 Nov. 1580 25 Nov. Catherine, Virgin and Martyr Jesu corona virginum25 Jan. 1581 2 Feb. Purification of the BVM Ave maris stella12 Apr. 1581 25 Apr. St. Mark, Apostle and Evangelist Exultet caelum laudibusa

15 Apr. 1581, 23 Apr. St. George, Martyr Deus tuorum militumb

20 Apr. 158113 June 1581 24 June Nativity of St. John Baptist Ut queant laxis27 June 1581 29 June Sts. Peter and Paul Aurea luce et decore18 July 1581 22 July St. Mary Magdalene Lauda mater ecclesia

Notes:a In his table of feasts and hymns, Flori specified the hymn for Common of Apostles inPaschal Time, “Tristes erant apostoli,” for the feast of St. Mark. While that hymn was notdated by Flori, it probably was copied in April 1581 together with “Exultet caelum laudibus,”the hymn for Common of Apostles.b Lasso provided two settings of “Deus tuorum militum.” The first, copied on 15 April, is forthe Common of One Martyr, while the second setting, specified by Flori for the feast of St.George, is for the Common of One Martyr in Paschal Time.

Table 3.6 Scribal dating of temporal hymns in Mus. Ms. 55

correlated with related temporal feasts

Scribal date Hymn Feast

4 Jan. 1581 O lux beata Trinitas Saturdays from the Octave ofEpiphany–Quadragesima

7 Jan. 1581 Lucis creator optime 1st Sunday after Epiphany to 1st Sunday of Quadragesima (and 3rd Sun. after Pentecost to Advent)

10 Mar. 1581 Vexilla regis prodeunt Passion Sunday/Palm Sunday30 Mar. 1581 Ad coenam agni providi Saturdays and Sundays from the

Octave of Easter to Ascension23 Apr. 1581 Jesu nostra redemptio Ascension2 May 1581 Veni creator spiritus Pentecost

Boetticher, an undated hymn would have been copied at approximately the

same time as dated hymns in the same fascicle.28 Several of Boetticher’s pro-

posed copying dates for the undated hymns may be confirmed through

liturgical evidence – the correlation of feast designation for each hymn with

the liturgical needs of the church year as specified in Flori’s table of feasts,

and with the date of that feast in the Roman liturgical calendar. Others of


55

28 See Boetticher, Lasso, p. 645, for his proposed dating of the undated hymns. Henotes there that “Die Zeitlage der undatierten Sätze bestimmen wir annäherndaus dem Ort, der ihnen in den einzelnen Faszikeln zugewiesen ist.” Göllner,SWNR, vol. 18, p. vii, used the same approach in establishing an overallchronology for the hymn collection.

Table 3.7 Hymns in Mus. Ms. 55 lacking scribal dates

Folios Hymn Feast

1v–6 Christe redemptor omnium/Conserva All Saints23v–29 Christe redemptor omnium/Ex Patre Christmas50v–53 Audi benigne conditor Lent (weekdays)53v–59 Ad preces nostras Lent (Sundays)59v–60 Te lucis ante terminum Compline86v–99 Pange lingua gloriosi Corpus Christi107v–110 Doctor egregie Paulea Conversion of St. Paul116v–118 Petrus beatus catenarum St. Peter’s Chains118v–122 Quicumque Christum quaeritis Transfiguration122v–126 Tibi Christe splendor patris St. Michael127bisv–130 Tristes erant apostoli Common of Apostles in

Paschal Time132v–134 Rex gloriose martyrum Common of Many Martyrs

in Paschal Time151v–155 Urbs beata Jerusalem Dedication of a Church

Note:a Though the setting of “Doctor egregie Paule” was not dated by Flori, Boetticher,Lasso, p. 645, included it with those hymns bearing a scribal date. Since “Doctoregregie” is a stanza of “Aurea luce,” and follows this hymn in Mus. Ms. 55,Boetticher undoubtedly was correct in proposing a copying date of late June,similar to the scribal date of 27 June 1581 for “Aurea luce.” A copying date of lateJune indicates that the hymn “Doctor egregie” was prepared for theCommemoration of St. Paul, Apostle, on 30 June, one day after the Feast of Sts.Peter and Paul. Of course, the hymn “Doctor egregie” also would have been usedon 25 January for the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. Flori’s table of feasts andhymns indicates the use of “Doctor egregie” for both of these feasts.

Boetticher’s proposed copying dates may be refined considerably by using

such liturgical evidence.

The two Lenten hymns – “Audi benigne conditor,” for weekdays of

Lent up to Passion Sunday, and “Ad preces nostras,” for the first four

Sundays of Lent – are among the hymns not dated by Flori. Based on their

location in the individual fascicles, Boetticher proposed a copying date of

February 1581 for these hymns.29 Table 3.8 shows that this dating is entirely

consistent with the liturgical needs of the church year. Flori would have

copied “Audi benigne conditor” and “Ad preces nostras” sometime during

Epiphany so that they would be ready for use at the beginning of Lent.Thus,

Boetticher’s proposed scribal dating of these hymns is confirmed through

the requirements of the liturgical calendar.

Boetticher proposed a copying date of late May or fall of 1581 for the

Corpus Christi hymn “Pange lingua gloriosi.”Corpus Christi is a moveable

feast that always falls eleven days after Pentecost.30 Since the Pentecost

hymn “Veni creator spiritus” was copied by Flori on 2 May 1581, there is

every reason to believe that he would have copied the Corpus Christi hymn

shortly thereafter. Thus, early to mid-May would seem to be a more likely

scribal date than either of the dates that Boetticher proposed. That “Pange

lingua gloriosi” immediately follows “Veni creator spiritus” in Mus. Ms. 55

only serves to strengthen this proposed scribal date.

Three of the undated hymns may be assigned more precise scribal

daniel zager

56

29 Since “Audi benigne conditor” and “Ad preces nostras” are flanked by hymnscomposed in January and March, the logical conclusion is that the two undatedhymns were copied sometime during mid- to late January or February.

30 On the importance of the Corpus Christi feast in Bavaria see Soergel, Wondrousin His Saints, pp. 80–90.

Table 3.8 Temporal hymns for Epiphany and Lent in Mus. Ms. 55

Scribal date Feast Hymn

4 Jan. 1581 Epiphany (weekdays) O lux beata Trinitas7 Jan. 1581 Epiphany (Sundays) Lucis creator optime[Lacking] Lent (weekdays) Audi benigne conditor[Lacking] Lent (Sundays) Ad preces nostras10 Mar. 1581 Passion/Palm Sundays Vexilla regis prodeunt

dates than those proposed by Boetticher. For two of these hymns, “Petrus

beatus catenarum” (St. Peter’s Chains) and “Quicumque Christum quaer-

itis” (Transfiguration), Boetticher indicated only summer of 1581 as a

scribal date. He proposed an even broader range for the scribal date of a

third hymn – summer–fall of 1581 for “Tibi Christe splendor Patris” (St.

Michael). During the months of July, August, and September, four feasts

have hymns assigned primarily to them;31 they are listed in Table 3.9. Since

the first of these hymns was dated by Flori, it is possible to narrow consider-

ably the broad range of scribal dates proposed by Boetticher for each of the

other three hymns.Based on the dates of the feasts to which these hymns are

assigned,“Petrus beatus catenarum”and “Quicumque Christum quaeritis”

would have been copied during the last few weeks of July, while “Tibi

Christe splendor Patris” would have been copied during August or

September. The fact that the four hymns listed in Table 3.9 are copied suc-

cessively in Mus.Ms.55 (nos.22–5) supports the hypothesis that each of the

three undated hymns was copied sometime after 18 July but before the date

of the respective feast for each hymn.

Two of the undated hymns are designated for the Common of Saints

during Paschal Time: “Rex gloriose martyrum” (Common of Many

Martyrs in Paschal Time), and “Tristes erant apostoli” (Common of

Apostles in Paschal Time). Although both hymns are used during Paschal

Time, Boetticher proposed quite different scribal dates for these hymns:

end of April 1581 for “Rex gloriose martyrum” and early fall 1581 for

“Tristes erant apostoli.” Based on the liturgical needs of the church year,


57

31 All of the other sanctoral feasts during these months employ a hymn from theCommon of Saints, or, in the case of Marian feasts, use the hymn “Ave marisstella.”

Table 3.9 Scribal dates of hymns assigned to feasts during July,

August, September

Scribal date Feast date Feast Hymn

18 July 1581 22 July St. Mary Magdalene Lauda mater ecclesia[Lacking] 1 Aug. St. Peter’s Chains Petrus beatus catenarum[Lacking] 6 Aug. Transfiguration Quicumque Christum quaeritis[Lacking] 29 Sept. St. Michael Tibi Christe splendor Patris

both of these hymns were probably copied in April 1581 for use on sanctoral

feasts occurring in April and May, during Paschal Time.32 The order of

hymns in Mus. Ms. 55 supports this conclusion, for Lasso’s setting of “Deus

tuorum militum” (Common of One Martyr in Paschal Time), entered in

Mus. Ms. 55 between “Tristes erant apostoli”and “Rex gloriose martyrum,”

is dated 20 April 1581. Thus, even by using Boetticher’s methodology of

assigning a scribal date based on where the hymn is copied in the manu-

script, it would be difficult to justify a fall 1581 date for “Tristes erant apos-

toli,” a hymn that, like other Paschal Time hymns entered near it in the

manuscript,would be used primarily during April and May.

A more precise scribal date may be proposed for one other of the

undated hymns.“Christe redemptor omnium/Conserva,” the hymn for All

Saints, is the first hymn entered in the manuscript.33 While Boetticher sug-

gested a scribal date of late 1580 for this hymn, it is possible to set the date

more precisely at mid- to late October 1580, therefore making this hymn

the first of the entire cycle to be copied by Flori. “Christe redemptor

omnium/Conserva” precedes two hymns (nos. 2 and 3 in Mus. Ms. 55)

bearing scribal dates in November 1580: “Iste confessor” (9 November

1580) and “Jesu corona virginum”(19 November 1580). Given the fact that

“Christe redemptor omnium/Conserva”is needed for the feast of All Saints

on 1 November,a scribal date of late October is very plausible.

Thus, based on the liturgical needs of the church year, approximate

scribal dates may be proposed for all but two of the undated hymns.34 By

daniel zager

58

32 See Flori’s table of feasts for April and May in Göllner, SWNR, vol. 18, p. ix.33 Göllner, SWNR, vol. 18, p. x, pointed out that the winter part of the liturgical

calendar begins with the feast of All Saints: “Im Gegensatz zu allen späterenHandschriften fängt der Hymnenzyklus in Mü 55 auffallenderweise nicht mitdem Kirchenjahr, sondern mit dem Fest Allerheiligen, also mit Beginn desWinterteils der Liturgie an, einem Zeitpunkt, an dem auch Messgewänder und -bücher gewechselt wurden.” Whether Lasso intentionally began the compilationof his hymn collection at this point in the liturgical calendar is impossible todemonstrate. None the less, it is clear that the organization of hymns in Mus.Ms. 55 is tied directly to the time of the church year when the compilation ofthe manuscript began.

34 The exceptions are “Te lucis ante terminum,” for Compline, and “Urbs beataJerusalem,” for the Dedication of a Church. Since these two hymns are notassigned to particular feasts or seasons of the church year, it is impossible toconfirm or even test Boetticher’s suggested scribal dates for these hymns: earlyMarch 1581 and early September 1581, respectively.

correlating both dated and undated hymns with the liturgical requirements

of the church year as observed at the Munich court chapel (according to the

table of feasts and hymns in Mus. Ms. 55), it becomes clear how Flori com-

piled this earliest source of Lasso’s hymns. Flori entered hymns gradually,

probably from late October of 1580 through August of 1581, as they were

needed for particular liturgical feasts, both sanctoral and temporal. By

September of 1581 the hymn cycle was complete. Thus, when the new

church year began in Advent 1581 (late November or early December),

Lasso’s hymn cycle was ready for its first complete use over the span of an

entire church year.

The dates discussed above are scribal dates and not necessarily indic-

ative of Lasso’s dates of composition. The only tangible chronological evi-

dence available for these hymns is the scribal dating, and one cannot

assume that the date of composition and the date of copying necessarily

approximate each other.Two questions arise concerning the compositional

chronology: (1) were the hymns available as a complete corpus before being

given to the copyist, or (2) were they composed gradually during 1580–1

and copied shortly thereafter in the same order in which they were com-

posed? The scribal dates and their relation to the liturgical needs of the

church year provide an important clue to the question of date of composi-

tion.

Table 3.10 summarizes the previous discussion by offering a pro-

posed chronology of Flori’s copying of the hymns.The chronology is deter-

mined by correlating the designation of feast in each hymn with the date of

that feast in the liturgical calendar.Göllner arrived at a substantially similar

chronology by correlating the positions in the manuscript of both dated

and undated hymns, the same method used by Boetticher. Thus, two

different methodologies, liturgical and bibliographical, support a consis-

tent chronology.35 Both the dated and undated hymns are included in Table

3.10, the undated hymns being integrated with the dated hymns according

to the dates proposed in the preceding discussion.

One aspect of this chronology suggests that Lasso’s hymns were not

available to Flori as a complete corpus when he began copying Mus. Ms. 55.

It is clear that almost invariably Flori copied a particular hymn shortly


59

35 Göllner, SWNR, vol. 18, p. vii.

Table 3.10 Proposed scribal chronology of hymns in Mus. Ms. 55

Scribal datea Feast Hymn No. in Mus. Ms. 55

[Oct. 1580] All Saints (1 Nov.) Christe redemptor omnium/Conserva 219 Nov. 1580 Common of Confessors (Martin, Bishop and Confessor, Iste confessor 22

11 Nov.)19 Nov. 1580 Common of Virgins (Catherine, Virgin and Martyr, 25 Nov.) Jesu corona virginum 234 Jan. 1581 Saturdays per annum O lux beata Trinitas 287 Jan. 1581 Sundays per annum Lucis creator optime 2925 Jan. 1581 Marian feasts (Purification of the BVM, 2 Feb.) Ave maris stella 10[Feb. 1581] Lent (weekdays) Audi benigne conditor 11[Feb. 1581] Lent (Sundays) Ad preces nostras 1210 Mar. 1581 Passion Sunday Vexilla regis prodeunt 1430 Mar. 1581 Octave of Easter Ad coenam agni providi 1512 Apr. 1581 Common of Apostles (St. Mark, Apostle and Evangelist, 25 Apr.) Exultet caelum laudibus 2915 Apr. 1581 Common of One Martyr (St. George, Martyr, 23 Apr.) Deus tuorum militum 30[Apr. 1581] Common of Apostles in Paschal Time (St. Mark, Apostle and Tristes erant apostoli 26

Evangelist, 25 Apr.)20 Apr. 1581 Common of One Martyr in Paschal Time (St. George, Martyr, Deus tuorum militum 27

23 Apr.)[Apr. 1581] Common of Many Martyrs in Paschal Time Rex gloriose martyrum 2825 Apr. 1581 Ascension Jesu nostra redemptio 162 May 1581 Pentecost Veni creator spiritus 17[May 1581] Corpus Christi Pange lingua gloriosi 1813 June 1581 St. John Baptist (Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 24 June) Ut queant laxis 1927 June 1581 Sts. Peter and Paul (29 June) Aurea luce 20

[June 1581] Conversion of St. Paul (Commemoration of St. Paul, 30 June) Doctor egregie Paule 2118 July 1581 St. Mary Magdalene (22 July) Lauda mater ecclesia 22[July 1581] St. Peter’s Chains (1 Aug.) Petrus beatus catenarum 23[July 1581] Transfiguration (6 Aug.) Quicumque Christum quaeritis 2423 Aug. 1581 Common of Many Martyrs Sanctorum meritis 31[Aug.–Sept. 1581] St. Michael (29 Sept.) Tibi Christe splendor Patris 2525 Aug. 1581 Advent Conditor alme siderum 24[26 Aug. 1581] Christmas Christe redemptor omnium/Ex Patre 2527 Aug. 1581 Holy Innocents Salvete flores martyrum 2629 Aug. 1581 Epiphany Hostis Herodes impie 27

Note:a Proposed date of a hymn not dated by Flori is enclosed in brackets.

before the feast for which it was appointed. The only exceptions to this pro-

cedure are the hymns for Advent (“Conditor alme siderum”), Christmas

(“Christe redemptor omnium/Ex Patre”), Holy Innocents (“Salvete flores

martyrum”), and Epiphany (“Hostis Herodes impie”). All of these hymns

are appointed for feasts in December and early January but were copied in

late August of 1581, the last hymns to be copied by Flori.Moreover, it is clear

from the table of feasts and hymns prepared by Flori for Mus. Ms. 55 that he

was keenly aware of the liturgical needs of the church year. Why, then, were

the hymns for Advent, Christmas, Holy Innocents, and Epiphany not

among the first to be copied, in November–December 1580, so that they

would be available for use beginning with the new church year in December

1580? The answer can only be that Lasso had not yet composed them. Had

the cycle been composed in toto before copying began, Flori undoubtedly

would have copied the hymns strictly in church year order.

This anomaly in the order of copying suggests that Flori copied the

hymns only as they were given to him by Lasso. Therefore, the scribal chro-

nology likely reflects Lasso’s compositional chronology rather closely.With

the exception of the hymns for Advent, Christmas, Holy Innocents, and

Epiphany, it would seem that Lasso composed the settings in church year

order, returning in August 1581 to the four hymns that, for some reason

(perhaps the press of musical duties during Advent and Christmas), he had

been unable to compose in November–December 1580, previous to their

appointed time in the liturgical calendar. Thus, the evidence of scribal

dating and the overall scribal chronology of Mus. Ms. 55 suggests that the

cycle was composed gradually between October 1580 and August 1581,

largely according to the needs of the liturgical calendar.

Lasso’s cycle of polyphonic Latin hymns provides some of the earliest evi-

dence that, in the first year of his reign, Duke Wilhelm V was committed to

implementing Tridentine liturgical reforms at his court. The composition

and copying of the hymn cycle, extending from October 1580 to August

1581, predates the arrival in Munich of Walram Tumler, who in October

1581 came from the Jesuits’ German College in Rome to assist the Munich

court in observing Roman liturgical ceremonies more closely.36 While

daniel zager

62

36 Regarding Tumler see Thomas D. Culley, Jesuits and Music: I: A Study of theMusicians Connected with the German College in Rome During the 17th Century

Tumler’s presence in Munich has long provided evidence of Wilhelm’s

desire for liturgical reform,it is clear that Tumler’s arrival did not constitute

the initial catalyst for such change, which, given the chronology of Lasso’s

work on the hymn cycle, was already underway in 1580 (only one year after

Albrecht’s death in October 1579). Thus, Lasso’s composition of a hymn

cycle is motivated specifically by post-Tridentine liturgical change at the

Munich court.37 While Wilhelm’s decision to embrace Tridentine liturgical

reforms may be viewed in part as obedience to a papal decree regarding use

of the 1568 Breviarium Romanum, it was, more importantly, an explicit

means of identifying the Bavarian ducal court with its ultimate model – the

papal court in Rome.


63

and of Their Activities in Northern Europe, Sources and Studies for the History ofthe Jesuits 2 (Rome: Jesuit Historical Institute, 1970), pp. 89–92; Leuchtmann,Leben, pp. 189–90; and Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats,pp. 335–8.

37 This collection did not originate, as Boetticher, Lasso, p. 648, has suggested,from a vague “unknown, exterior cause”: “Mag auch ein fremder äußerer Anlaßden Meister genötigt haben, sein Hymnarium 1581 zu entwerfen. . . .” Inattempting to establish the stimulus for Lasso’s hymn cycle, Boetticher, Lasso,p. 649, omitted any reference to a direct liturgical stimulus, emphasizing insteadmusical style change in accord with Tridentine aesthetic sensibilities.

4 The salon as marketplace in the 1550s: patronsand collectors of Lasso’s secular music

donna g. cardamone1

In 1555 the Flemish music printer, Tielman Susato, issued a miscel-

lany of Lasso’s works under two separate titles, the first in French and the

second in Italian, resulting in an edition often referred to as the composer’s

“Opus l.” The Italian-titled issue, by far the more accurate of the two in

respect to text placement, was dedicated to Stefano Gentile, a prominent

merchant-banker in the Genoese nation of Antwerp.2 This collective enter-

prise not only marked the debut of madrigals and villanelle in the Low

Countries, but it was the first publication that Lasso authorized and cor-

rected in situ,3 leaving the impression that he selected compositions from a

substantial repertory and meticulously edited them to satisfy a very partic-

ular patron and community of Italian readers whose interpretive styles he

knew well.Although Lasso’s dedicatory letter speaks eloquently to Gentile’s

love of music,his patron had an equally strong passion for poetry as evinced

in various books dedicated to him by humanist scholars.4 This combina-

64

1 Research support for this article was provided by the University of Minnesota,CLA Scholar of the College Award. I am most grateful to Jane Bernstein, JeaniceBrooks, Franca Camiz, and Mary Lewis for their advice on many points.

2 D’Orlando di Lassus il primo libro dovesi contengono Madrigali, Vilanesche,Canzoni francesi, e Motetti, a quattro voci (RISM 1555b). The French-titled issue(RISM 1555a) includes the phrase “faictz a la Nouvelle composition d’aucunsd’Italie.”

3 Kristine K. Forney, “Orlando di Lasso’s ‘Opus 1’: The Making and Marketing ofa Renaissance Music Book,” Revue belge de musicologie, 39–40 (1985–6), pp.45–51; Donna G. Cardamone and David L. Jackson, “Multiple Formes andVertical Setting in Susato’s First Edition of Lassus’s ‘Opus 1’,” Notes, 45 (1989),pp. 23–4.

4 Saskia Willaert and Katrien Derden, “Het mecenaat van de Genuese natie inAntwerpen in de tweede helft van de 16de eeuw,” Orlandus Lassus en Antwerpen1554–1556 (Antwerp: Stad Antwerpen, 1994), pp. 52–4.

tion of interests suggests that Gentile vied with his compatriots for atten-

tion from the cultured elite by organizing festive social gatherings

enhanced by music and recitation of poetry. Indeed, the Venetian humanist

Gian Michele Bruto was struck by the spirit of competition among Genoese

merchants when recalling the hospitality he received in Antwerp during

1554 and 1555, the very period of time in which Lasso attracted Gentile’s

patronage.5

We know from Quickelberg’s biography of Lasso that some of his

time in Antwerp was spent “teaching music to the most illustrious,

learned, and noble persons by whom he came to be loved and richly

honored.”6 When interpreted in a broader context this remark means that

Lasso, an ambitious newcomer to a city known for its competitive private

spaces, won recognition in coteries of patrician dilettantes seeking

instruction in music, which they considered a worthy accomplishment. In

Antwerp it was natural that coteries devoted to the vernacular arts and pat-

terned on Italian models would form in the cosmopolitan merchant colo-

nies.7 While these groups were generally described as accademie in

contemporary literature, only a few maintained membership lists and

formal statutes. The typical academy at mid-century in northern Europe

and Italy was an informal sodality of friends that met in a spacious home

with salons to accommodate conversations, banquets, and musical enter-

tainments. In academies focused almost exclusively on music, a maestro di

musica was appointed to teach and organize performances, while groups

with no special musical agenda hired an advisor as needed. Polished self-

presenters could advance up the social ladder as long as they met the

requirements of the privileged class that held and attended academies.

Since Lasso was amply endowed with the improvisatory wit expected in

such gatherings, one might imagine that he attracted invitations as a

the salon as marketplace in the 1550s

65

5 Karel Bostoen, “Italian Academies in Antwerp: Schiappalaria and Vander Nootas ‘Inventors’ for the Genoese Community,” Italian Academies of the SixteenthCentury (London: The Warburg Institute, 1995), p. 196.

6 Leuchtmann, Leben, pp. 298–301.7 Stefano Schiappalaria, writing in the 1570s, claimed that an Academy of the

Gioiosi was “founded some years ago in Antwerp” (Bostoen, “ItalianAcademies,” p. 195). Some scholars have proposed that the Gioiosi flourishedabout 1554–5, but its existence has never been verified.

favored guest rather than as mere entertainer or teacher. Under these

circumstances, he could mentor by example and stimulate coterie perfor-

mances as well.8

An intriguing hint of coterie performance in Antwerp is found in

Lasso’s chromatic motet, “Alma Nemes,” which he may have composed at

Gentile’s request to honor a female singer known as Nemes.9 The final

lines not only pay tribute to her extraordinary vocal powers, but they

allude to personal engagement with the composer himself, a capable

singer: “Come, let your voice with which you make rivers stand still, sing a

mellifluous new song with me” (emphasis mine). Nemes was probably a

woman of high birth from Gentile’s inner circle. Her pseudo-antique

name referring to Nemesis – the nymph goddess of due enactment – is

reminiscent of an academic tradition in which members took nicknames

that stress, by ironical paradox, some personal quality. In Lasso’s expres-

sive construction of Nemes, she is endowed with the positive attributes of

a divine enchantress and figuratively entrusted with the responsibility of

transmitting music “composed in the new manner of some Italians” (see

note 2).

Bearing in mind that Lasso came to Antwerp in 1554 from Rome,

where the salon was the main marketplace for commerce in secular music, it

is understandable that he would initially display his talents in the homes of

merchants intent on increasing their status by supporting the fashionable

new music from Italy. Lasso’s success in attracting a Genoese benefactor

and supportive printer can be attributed in part to his ability to promote his

own interests by weaving intricate webs of relations, a strategy he had to

deploy in Roman high society where trust was rare and fitful. His easy

accommodation to northern print culture stands in sharp contrast to the

conditions he faced in Rome where his music was widely transmitted in

manuscript, but published only after he left and then, it seems, without his

explicit consent. Thus my first concern will be to reconstruct the mecha-

d onna g. cardamone

66

8 In the German version of Quickelberg’s biography, Lasso taught (“lernt”) music,but in the Latin version the analogous word is “excitavit” meaning to stimulateinterest.

9 In the dedication to his “Opus l,” Lasso disclosed that he conceived some of thecompositions in Antwerp: “I give to print, my magnificent and honored Signor,a part of my efforts composed in Antwerp after returning from Rome... .” “Almanemes” appears at the end of the book paired with Rore’s chromatic motet,“Calami sonum ferentes.”

nisms of artistic exchange in Roman salons and to situate Lasso in relation

to the individuals that traded on his name.10 In pursuing this line of investi-

gation, I shall bring forward the multiple roles played by Roman editori and

printers in the initial stage of collecting and marketing Lasso’s music.11

I

In 1555, the same year that Lasso assembled his first opus in Antwerp,

Valerio Dorico compiled and printed an anthology of villanelle in Rome

with Lasso’s name displayed prominently on the title page: Villanelle

d’Orlando di Lassus e d’altri eccellenti musici libro secondo (RISM 155530; the

first book is lost). Yet Dorico failed to indicate which villanelle were com-

posed by Lasso or to supply any attributions whatsoever. At first glance this

anthology appears to be a surreptitious form of commercial exploitation in

which Dorico appropriated Lasso’s name in absentia and without permis-

sion. However, when it is viewed in the context of normative modes of

transmission and textual production in urban salon culture, a richly tex-

tured picture of creative exchange emerges from which Lasso stood indi-

rectly to benefit.

Throughout the sixteenth century the various genres of Italian

secular music thrived in salons where creative individuals gathered to

discuss one another’s works and to circulate them in manuscript before

they were printed.12 In this poetics of “group improvisation,” writers were

positioned, together with composers,as “readers and producers simultane-

ously.”13 Their readers, in turn,understood that they were alluding to, com-

menting upon or reworking other compositions – the same principles of

imitatio often observed by Lasso and his contemporaries when producing


67

10 I owe the concept of the urban salon as marketplace to Martha Feldman, CityCulture and the Madrigal at Venice (Berkeley: University of California Press,1995), pp. 21–2.

11 On the growth of collecting and its effects, see Mary S. Lewis, “Manuscripts andPrinted Music in the World of Patrons and Collectors,” Atti del XIV congressodella Società Internazionale di Musicologia: Trasmissione e recezione delle forme dicultura musicale, vol. 1, Round Tables (Turin: Edizioni di Torino, 1990), pp.320–5.

12 On these activities in the Roman palace of the Altoviti family, where Lassoresided in 1551, see my article, “Orlando di Lasso and Pro-French Factions inRome,” Orlandus Lassus and his Time, pp. 31–2.

13 Ann Rosalind Jones, The Currency of Eros: Women’s Love Lyric in Europe,1540–1620 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), p. 3.

madrigals and villanelle. In this milieu copies of recent compositions were

casually handed around, individually or in sets, becoming the property of

whoever wanted to keep or publish them. Modes of production depended

in large measure upon the social standing of participants and their attitude

toward print culture. For example, the work of an exclusive aristocratic

salon would often be collected in manuscript albums, because some

members of the feudal nobility (the old knightly class) considered print

beneath their station, desiring scripted fame instead. In contrast, the work

of a salon open to diverse social classes and professional affiliations was

often published in a group-authored volume, sometimes without the

consent or knowledge of participants.

Now Dorico’s anthology undoubtedly represents the work of a

diverse group in which he, enabled by fluid social conventions, operated as

an insider. The tone of his dedicatory letter is remarkably direct and ami-

cable, confirming knowledge of his patron’s habits and taste:

To the generous M. Francesco Guidobono. Here for you, dear M. Francesco,

is an array of choice villanelle by which charming and graceful

shepherdesses come to venerate your exquisite noble intellect, being

portents of the future in which that intellect will be just as illustrious and

splendid as providential for this worthy and excellent art of music. So

welcome these villanelle agreeably, and while amusing yourself with them

sometimes, be reminded of someone who cares about you. In your service,

Valerio Dorico.14

[Giovan] Francesco Guidobono II (b. 1544) was the son of Nicola

Guidobono di Giovan Francesco, scion of a prominent noble family from

Tortona (then in the state of Milan). By age ten Francesco had been pro-

vided with a major benefice and sent to Rome to prepare for an ecclesiastical

career, having already taken minor orders.15 Notarial records describe him

as a cleric and abbot in commendam of the monastery of S.Paolo outside the

d onna g. cardamone

68

14 For the original dedication, see Suzanne G. Cusick, Valerio Dorico, Music Printerin Sixteenth-Century Rome (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1981), p. 186.

15 Under canon law the recipient of ordination had to have a means of supportsuch as a benefice or private income, and he must have attained the appropriateage, about seven for first tonsure and minor orders. Denys Hay, The Church inItaly in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977),p. 51.

walls of Tortona.16 Francesco was able to reap the fruits of an ecclesiastical

office in his home region (which in effect he never occupied) because his

uncle, Giovan Battista Guidobono, had compiled a distinguished record of

service to the Roman court as judge of the Rota.17 Most likely the judge

maintained his own home in Rome and provided quarters for his protégé.18

Italian noblemen like the Guidobonos with lucrative appointments

usually came from regions in which a cardinal held major benefices or had

been given administrative responsibilities. Their chances of attaining a bril-

liant career in the church increased with a cardinal’s protection and the

opportunity to acquire a benefice vacated by a member of his household.19

Thus far it has not been possible to connect Francesco to a cardinal-protector,


69

16 Francesco was nominated for the benefice in a constitutio dated 27 January 1554,and described as “discretus adolescens Jo. Franc.s Guidobonus Terdonen indecimo etatis suo anno.” Rome, Archivio di Stato, Notai Auditor Camerae, vol.6164, fol. 121. Marginalia in records pertaining to the benefice verify that he wasknown informally as Francesco.

17 During the process of nomination, Francesco was granted license to takepossession of the benefice without expedition of bulls and to derive its fruits.On 26 October 1554 the judge ruled in favor of his nephew, “omnes et singulesfructus” (ibid., vol. 6166, fol. 312). Another document, dated 14 October 1556,contradicts the temporary nature of the nomination with the title perpetualcommendator, that is for life: “Johannes Franciscus Guidobonis clericusTerdonen abbas perpetuus comm.e datarius abbatie Sancti Pauli prope et extramuros Terdonens” (ibid., vol. 6172, fol. 376). I am truly grateful to Franca Camizfor discovering and sharing the content of all the documents relating to theGuidobonos, which were recorded by the notary Reidettus.

18 In 1545 the Camera Capitolina met in secret to confer Roman citizenship on“huomini eccellenti et virtuosi et facultosi,” among them Giovan BattistaGuidobono. Rome, Archivio Capitolino, Atti della Camera Capitolina,credenzone, vol. 18, fols. 6–7. Francesco’s brother, Giovan Battista Guidobono(namesake of the judge), served both Albrecht and Wilhelm of Bavaria andfraternized with Lasso, although this friendship seems to have evolvedcircumstantially, independent of any prior connection to the Guidobono family.In a letter to Wilhelm (2 April 1576), Lasso tells of gambling with GiovanBattista and winning handsomely. See Leuchtmann, Briefe, p. 181. On the detailsof Giovan Battista’s career (and that of his maternal uncle, Prospero Visconti,who collected music for Albrecht), see Henri Simonsfeld, “Mailänder Briefe zurbayerischen und allgemeinen Geschichte des 16. Jahrhunderts,” Abhandlungender historischen Classe der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 22(1902), pp. 488–93.

19 Gigliola Fragnito, “Cardinals’ Courts in Sixteenth-Century Rome,” Journal ofModern History, 65 (1993), p. 53.

although a logical person to consider would be the worldly-minded Ippolito

II d’Este, Archbishop of Milan (with jurisdiction over Tortona)20 and an

activesupporterof Romanmusiciansthroughouthiscareer.

Francesco Guidobono, too, believed that a necessary step in his social

ascent was to become a patron of music, which he undertook at the tender

age of eleven. But he must have been guided in this venture by his uncle,

whose enthusiasm for villanelle probably arose through contacts formed in

Naples. The elder Guidobono held the office of Monsignor at the

Neapolitan church of the Santissima Annunziata in 1546, the same year in

which the choirmaster and poet-composer,Giovan Thomaso di Maio,pub-

lished a collection of canzoni villanesche and established the paradigm for

a metrical form in wide use until about 1565 (in Rome villanesche were

sometimes called villanelle). Two-thirds of the compositions in Dorico’s

anthology have this form (abb abb abb ccc), including the opening villa-

nella,which is unique among Roman anthologies in providing readers with

a context for understanding how the repertory at hand evolved.

This villanella is narrated by the leader of a group of improvisers pre-

paring to perform for an expectant audience. However, in the course of col-

laboration they experience some indecision, which the leader resolves by

pointedly invoking a fatherly figure:

1 Credo che sia meglio ca se risolvemo I think it’s better that we resolve

Farli sentire qualche villanella: To make them hear some villanelle:

Orsù, dicimo questa e ‘no di quella. Come on, let’s recite one of this and

one of that.

2 Quanto tardiamo chiù, chiù ce facimo The more we delay, the more we’ll

Rompere a quisto e quillo le cervelle: Bust our brains making this and

that:


one of that.

3 Non dubitate ca ci accordiamo, No doubt we’ll come to an

agreement,

d onna g. cardamone

70

20 Conrad Eubel, Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi (Regensburg:Monasterii, 1923), vol. 3, p. 310. D’Este resigned the archbishopric of Milan in1550, but reserved collation of benefices until 1558. See Lucy Byatt, “Este,Ippolito d’,” Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Rome: Società Grafica Romana,1993), vol. 43, p. 367. G. B. Guidobono’s cardinal-protector was probablyUmberto de Gambara from Tortona (d. 1549).

Et saccio ca dirimo la chiù bella: And I know that we’ll recite the

most beautiful one:


one of that.

4 O che bregogna dir tante parole, Oh, what a shame to utter so many

words,

Ognun canta e dica quale vuole, Let each person sing and recite

what he likes,

Ca d’un patrea tutte son figliole. Because all [villanelle] are

daughters of one father.a Neapolitan dialect for padre.

This “keynote” villanella recalls a custom practiced two decades

earlier in Roman literary academies and institutionalized by the Accademia

della Virtù. Every week during the carnival season the membership selected

a person with attributes of a king to host a banquet at which his “vassals”

staged a competition in his honor featuring improvisation of original verse

to instrumental accompaniment.21 Significantly, some members of the

Virtù referred to themselves as “padri,” even after the academy had folded.

Although Monsignor Guidobono’s name does not appear in documents

pertaining to this academy or its successors, it is still plausible that he and

his friend Annibal Caro,22 one of the original Virtuosi, kept the tradition of

competitive improvising alive in Rome. Clearly the opening villanella of

Francesco’s anthology is a thematic device intended to draw attention to an

extemporaneous activity that thrived under Guidobono patronage. Thus

some readers might have understood the Monsignor as the “patre”and host

of competitions from which a repertory of“choice”villanelle descended.At

the center of this activity, however, is the leader, to be construed as Lasso

because his name stands out on the title page in the company of “other

excellent musicians.”

There remains the possibility that the anthology was commissioned

shortly after Lasso left Rome in retrospective recognition of contributions


71

21 Michele Maylender, Storia delle accademie d’Italia (Bologna: Licinio Cappelli,1930), vol. 5, pp. 466–7 and 478–80.

22 Caro’s friendship with Guidobono is disclosed in a letter of 31 December 1546.See Annibal Caro: Lettere familiari, ed. Aulo Greco (Florence: Felice Le Monnier,1959), vol. 2, p. 23.

he had made to the Guidobono household. Lasso’s previous history of

employment in aristocratic homes with young children and active musical

salons (d’Azzia in Naples and Altoviti in Rome), combined with his stature

as choirmaster of the Lateran Church, suggests that he would have been an

ideal preceptor for Francesco and organizer of domestic entertainments as

well. In this hypothetical scenario the Guidobonos stood to inherit expend-

able copies of villanelle that Lasso and his cohorts created under informal

conditions solely for purposes of amusement. Published as trios for two

high voices and a tenor, they were well suited to performance by Francesco

and his adolescent friends or by an adult ensemble with the upper parts

taken by falsettists.

The most popular villanella in the anthology proved to be “Voria che

tu cantas’ una canzona,” a solmization piece subsequently reworked by six

different composers who may have believed that Lasso composed the

model (see Ex. 4.1).23 Neither the usual musical puns on solmization syl-

lables nor inganni are present in the model, however. The humor resides

instead in the poem, which centers on the figurative meaning of “cantare la

solfa”(to copulate).Double meanings arise from verbal punning on the syl-

lables (sol fa/solfa, so la/sola, fa mi/fami) or from references to playing

upon instruments which, in popular song traditions, signify love-making.

Citation of the famous adage, “la sol fa re mi (re),” at the end of the final

strophe provides a droll pun on Lasso’s name, which may have been inten-

tional.

1 Voria che tu cantas’ una canzona, I would like you to sing a song,

Quando mi stai sonando la viola, While you are playing the viol for

me,

E che dicessi: fa mi la mi so la. And for you to say: fa mi la mi so la.

2 Voria lo basso far col violone, I would like to make the bass part

with the violone,

Tutto di contraponto alla spagnola, All of counterpoint in the Spanish

style,


3 Voria toccassi sempre di bordone, I would like you always to finger the

drone,

d onna g. cardamone

72

23 Isabelle His, “Les modèles italiens de Claude Le Jeune,” Revue de musicologie, 77(1991), pp. 42–3.


73

Example 4.1: Anon., “Voria che tu cantas’ una canzona,” Villanelle d’Orlando

di Lassus (Rome: V. Dorico, 1555), no. XV. Cantus from 1555 ed., tenor

from 1558 repr. (RISM 155816, no. XVI), bass reconstructed

C

T

B

&&&

bbb

22

22

22

1 h=· wVo - -

wVo - -

wVo - -

˙ ˙ria che

.˙ œria che

˙ ˙ria che

˙ ˙tu can -

˙ ˙tu can -

˙ ˙tu can -

˙ ˙ta - s'u -

˙ ˙ta - s'u -

˙ ˙ta - s'u -

œ œ ˙na can - zo -

œ ˙ œna can - zo -

œ œ ˙na can - zo -

˙ .. ˙na, Quan -

˙ .. ˙na, Quan -

˙.. ˙

na, Quan -

&&&

bbb

7 œ œ œ œdo mi stai so -

œ œ œ œdo mi stai so -

œ œ œ œdo mi stai so -

˙ ˙nan - do,

˙ ˙nan - do,

˙ ˙nan - do,

Œ œ œ œquan- do mi



œ œ œ œstai so - nan - do



˙ ˙la vi -

˙ ˙la vi - - -

˙ ˙la vi -

wo - - -˙ n

o -

wo - - -

&&&

bbb

13 ˙ ˙..la, E˙ ˙..la, E

˙ ˙..la, E

˙ ˙che di -

˙ ˙che di -

˙ ˙che di -

˙ ˙ces - si:

˙ ˙ces - si:

˙ ˙ces - si:

.˙ œfa mi

.˙ œfa mi

.˙ œfa mi

œ œ ˙la mi so

˙ ˙la mi

œ œ ˙la mi so

&&&

bbb

..

..

..

18

œ ˙ œla, fa mi

˙ ˙so la,

˙ œ œla, fa mi

œ œ ˙la mi so

Œ ˙ œfa mi

œ œ ˙la mi so

œ ˙ œla, fa mi

œ œ ˙la mi so

œ ˙ œla, fa mi

œ œ ˙la mi so

œ ˙ œla, [mi so

œ œ ˙la mi so

wla.

wla].

wla.

Sonando sol re fa, non sol fa so la, Sounding sol re fa, not sol fa so la,


4 Ch’io cantaria per accordar con tene, Then I would sing to harmonize

with you,

Dolce conforto mio caro, mio bene, My sweet comfort, my dear beloved,

Tutta la notte: la sol fa re mi re. All night long: la sol fa re mi re.

Not surprisingly, a book filled with such clever songs invigorated the

market for villanelle and allowed Dorico to mobilize his business with a

reprint. Most likely he depended upon a generous subvention from the

Guidobono family for the first edition, because the Roman market was not

strong enough to support independent sponsorship of publications by

music printers. By taking little financial risk at the outset, Dorico would

have made a good return when he reprinted the anthology in 1558 (one of

two reprints in his single-impression annals).24 Lasso’s gain, of course, was

not financial but rather steady public exposure of his name. To clarify our

understanding of Lasso’s position in the Roman marketplace, it is helpful to

consider other types of financial arrangements and methods of collecting

his music,especially those in which local editori played defining roles.

II

Like the struggling writers residing in Rome during the 1550s, young com-

posers faced a competitive environment in respect to attracting subsidies

for publications devoted exclusively to their works. Some may even have

preferred to promote themselves by circulating compositions informally in

hospitable salons or selling them to collectors and printers for a flat fee

rather than risking their meager funds in temporary partnerships with

printers.25 However, dedications to some madrigal books provide evidence

that a consequence of self-promotion could be publication without the

author’s knowledge or consent, for example, Dorico’s unauthorized

edition of Monte’s first book of five-voice madrigals in 1554 (RISM

d onna g. cardamone

74

24 The other one is Canzoni alla napolitana de diversi eccellentissimi autorinovamente ristampati, libro primo (RISM 155719). The first edition is lost.

25 Jane A. Bernstein, “Financial Arrangements and the Role of Printer andComposer in Sixteenth-Century Italian Music Printing,” Acta musicologica, 63(1991), pp. 50–2.

26 Brian Mann, The Secular Madrigals of Filippo di Monte, 1521–1603 (Ann Arbor:UMI Research Press, 1983), p. 3.

M3327).26 The dedication by the editore Giovanbattista Bruno to Cavalier

Honofrio Vigili, then caporione of Rome, discloses that Vigili’s home was a

magnet for musicians, thus offering Bruno the opportunity to collect the

latest works by rising stars:

Most honored cavalier, this book justly and fittingly fulfills the debt of my

devoted service, and similarly the obligation that this truly divine power of

music owes you today in Rome, as all the elegant spirits gathered regularly

in your home to enjoy the generous effects of your beautiful soul, will fully

testify.27

Continuing,Bruno takes all the credit for bringing Monte’s madrigals

to light, just as he would do later in his dedication to Secondo libro delle Muse

a Cinque Voci, madrig. d’Orlandus di Lassus (Rome: Antonio Barrè, RISM

1557b). This time the enterprising collector positions himself in Spoleto

(Vigili’s hometown), disclosing a location where copies of Lasso’s madri-

gals circulated as a set:

Finding myself a while ago in Spoleto, I happened by chance upon many

madrigals by Orlando di Lassus full of sweetness and art, which I held in

my possession for a long time, and because they are fruits of that most rare

talent, I am inclined by the requests of an infinite number of discriminating

intellects to keep them hidden no longer.28

Bruno also makes it clear that in the past he expended a great deal of

effort collecting music for his patron, Pier Francesco Ferrero, Bishop of

Vercelli. Moreover, he claims to be an “intimate friend” of Lasso, whom he

predicts will “attain great fortune”under Ferrero’s protection. If Bruno was

telling the truth, then under what circumstances would a friendly associa-

tion with Lasso evolve?

Inmid-centuryRometherewerenormallythreepartiestoanyprinting

contract: the printer, the editore or guarantor of financial support, and the

author or his agent, often a friend.29 Financial arrangements made for the

publicationof musicbookswereoftenmorecomplicatedand editori, inpar-

ticular, assumed multiple roles. For instance, Bruno was a collector who


75

27 For the original dedication, see Cusick, Valerio Dorico, p. 183.28 For the original dedication, see SW, vol. 2, pp. xvii–xviii.29 Cusick, Valerio Dorico, pp. 93–4, summarizes the general practice which is

consistent with the few contracts for printing music that have survived. See alsoBernstein, “Financial Arrangements,” passim.

found silent partners in Vigili and Ferrero, and it is conceivable that he

formed liaisons with composers as well. In spring 1554,when Lasso realized

hewouldhaveto leaveRomehurriedly tovisithisailingparents,hemayhave

approached Bruno knowing that he made a habit of attending salons where

his music circulated in manuscript copies. If all the copies could not be

retrieved before departing – which is plausible – then Lasso might have

authorizedBrunotoroundthemupandfindasupportivepatronandprinter.

There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that composers took pains to

keep their music out of the hands of editori, and it appears that Lasso

himself trusted the Venetian editore, Giulio Bonagiunta, to see his second

book of motets (RISM 1565c) through the press.30 One wonders, then, if

Lasso’s initial foray into Venetian publishing – the first book of five-part

madrigals – was a calculated move on his part, masterminded by Bruno.

Issued by Gardano in 1555 (RISM 1555c, reprinted thirteen times between

1557 and 1586), this book was even more crucial to establishing Lasso’s

European reputation than Susato’s miscellany. However, the circumstances

under which Gardano obtained the madrigals are puzzling.While claiming

to have printed them for the first time, he does not provide the dedication

customarily found in a first edition. No earlier edition has ever been

located, although a logical place of publication would have been Rome.

These circumstances leave open the possibility that by 1555 Bruno had col-

lected enough of Lasso’s five-voice madrigals to fill two books, working

arduously for Ferrero as he disclosed in the dedication to the second book.

Moreover, he may have undercut Vigili by operating surreptitiously on his

turf for a wealthy bishop whom he described in the second book as “mio

vero et unico Padrone.”31

Another Roman editore whom Lasso may have known was Francesco

d onna g. cardamone

76

30 In the dedication Bonagiunta claims that Lasso generously gave him somemotets to use as he wished, for the editor’s own benefit, which suggests thatLasso was not yet financially prepared to negotiate terms of publication for hissteadily growing repertory of motets. See CM, vol. 5, p. xi and Plate 2, whichincludes a translation of the dedication.

31 Ferrero, from a powerful noble house in Piedmont, became cardinal in 1561after serving as papal legate to the court of Philip II and as papal nuncio inVenice. In 1556 he participated in Pope Paul IV’s commission on reform andmay have met Bruno in Rome at that time. See Alessandro Gnavi, “Ferrero, PierFrancesco,” Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Rome: Società Grafica Romana,1997), vol. 47, p. 35.

Tracetti. Evidently aware that the market value of Lasso’s madrigals was

rising in Italy, he acquired a set and published them in association with

Dorico: Il primo libro delli madrigali d’Orlando di Lassus et altri eccellenti

musici a quattro voci (RISM 156018).32 Tracetti’s dedication to cardinal

Louis I de Guise, like Bruno’s to Ferrero, leaves the distinct impression that

he sought to polish Lasso’s image as well as to increase his own status in

curial circles:

To the Illustrious and most Reverend Signor, Monsignor, Cardinal Guise.

Having brought together certain madrigals by Orlando di Lassus, and

desiring that such a sweet concept be made known to the world by bringing

them to light, I thought it would be proper to dedicate them to you, most

Illustrious and Reverend Signor, for two reasons. First, I believe that all

beautiful and virtuous works should be dedicated to you, because you

encourage and support virtuous artists. Second, because by bringing them

out under the name of such a kind, courteous, and generous Signor, they

will be seen, read, and sung by virtuous persons with so much more

pleasure. Therefore most Illustrious Signor, deign to accept my very humble

gift as a token of the faithful service and devotion that I bring you, and

retain me for the most humble and devoted servant that I am, and in

kissing your honorable hand, I pray that God may grant you all the

happiness you desire. Rome, 15 January 1560 [recte 1561]. Most humble

and devoted servant, Francesco Tracetti.33

The extent of Tracetti’s connection to cardinal de Guise is not known,

although it is conceivable that he operated as an agent to further the inter-

ests of the culturally ambitious Guise family,whose patronage of artists and

musicians from Rome increased steadily during the 1550s.34 If he is identi-


77

32 Dorico reprints the seven madrigals that Lasso included in his “Opus l,” but in adifferent order. Moreover, the quality of editorial correction is far inferior andnot at all typical of Dorico’s products (Cusick, Valerio Dorico, p. 87). Here is anexample of how sets of the same compositions circulated in differentgeographical locations, the separately obtained copy in Rome in need of acompetent editor.

33 For the original dedication, see Cusick, Valerio Dorico, pp. 194–5, and SW, vol.8, p. vi. Cusick assumed the cardinal to be Charles de Guise, but after 1547Charles was known as cardinal of Lorraine. His younger brother Louis took thetitle cardinal de Guise upon his elevation in 1553.

34 Jeanice Brooks, “Italy, the Ancient World and the French Musical Inheritance inthe Sixteenth Century: Arcadelt and Clereau in the Service of the Guises,”Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 121 (1996), pp. 147–90.

cal to the Francesco Tracetti employed as a tenor in the choir at San Lorenzo

in Damaso (annexed to the Apostolic Chancery) from January 1564 to

December 1569, then he was ideally situated to pursue his interests in col-

lecting music.35 His name surfaces later in notarial records where he is

described as “gallus belgicus”and father of two musical sons,one of consid-

erable means.36

Most of the persons responsible for collecting Lasso’s compositions

and bringing them to light lived in adjacent districts in the heart of

Renaissance Rome. The printers, Barrè and Dorico, operated their presses

in S. Angelo, the district that Vigili represented. Clearly well positioned to

build informal neighborhood networks upon pragmatic interests, they

looked for social definition by establishing ties with local officials like

Vigili.37 In Rome class boundaries between artisans,bureaucrats,and cour-

tiers were vague and easily traversed, resulting in strongly felt connections

between persons of diverse occupations with shared values, including the

two music printers who were not mere artisans, but well-educated men.

This explains the ease with which Barrè, a French priest, entered Vigili’s

circle shortly after he arrived in Rome.38 Before turning printer in 1555,

d onna g. cardamone

78

35 Luca Della Libera, “L’attività musicale nella basilica di S. Lorenzo in Damaso nelCinquecento,” Rivista italiana di musicologia, 32 (1997), p. 56.

36 In 1580 Tracetti’s son Lorenzo presented his bride with 200 gold scudi and manyprecious jewels. Lorenzo was a lutenist whose estate, passing to his father uponpremature death, consisted of several plucked string instruments, aclavicembalo, eleven books of intabulations and partbooks for compositions infive voices – the makings of a well-equipped musical salon. Vera Vita Spagnuolo,“Gli atti notarili dell’Archivio di Stato di Roma: Saggio di spoglio sistematico,l’anno 1590,” La musica a Roma attraverso le fonti d’archivio: Atti del ConvegnoInternazionale Roma 4–6 Giugno 1992, ed. Bianca Maria Antolini et al. (Lucca:Libreria Musicale Italiana, 1994), pp. 26, 41–2.

37 Barrè dedicated his first book of four-voice madrigals (1552, RISM B951) toVigili as well as the first music book that he printed: Primo libro delle muse acinque voci (RISM 155526). See John Steele, “Antonio Barré: Madrigalist,Anthologist and Publisher in Rome – Some Preliminary Findings,” Altro Polo:Essays on Italian Music in the Cinquecento, ed. Richard Charteris (Sydney:Frederick May Foundation for Italian Studies, 1990), pp. 92–3.

38 Barrè is named as “Dominus Antonius Bari” in a contract to print EliseoGhibellini’s Introitus missarum (1564). See Gian Ludovico Masetti-Zannini,Stampatori e librai a Roma nella seconda metà del Cinquecento: Documenti inediti(Rome: Fratelli Palombi Editori, 1980), p. 226. Barrè may have been related tothe De La Barre family, whose most illustrious member was Antonius De La

Barrè had been active both as composer and singer in the Cappella Giulia,

forming contacts and developing the instincts he needed to function as

anthologist.Flexible modes of transmission in Roman salons allowed Barrè

to validate his method of gathering music by inferring that composers

acted irresponsibly. Nowhere is Barrè more explicit than in the dedication

to his Terzo libro delle Muse (RISM 15627, an anthology containing three

previously unpublished madrigals by Lasso), when he asserts that the

works would have “almost perished through the negligence of their

masters,” had it not been for his diligent efforts in recovering them.39 In

bringing out Lasso’s third book of madrigals for five voices (RISM 1563c),

Barrè covered his tracks by exclaiming how gratifying the composer’s works

were for musicians and everybody else.40

To summarize thus far,Lasso’s madrigals were continuously collected

in Rome and environs for almost a decade after his departure, a process he

appears to have set in motion by allowing copies of his works to circulate in

musical salons. If Lasso actually trusted Bruno to negotiate terms of publi-

cation, without risking his own funds, then he sacrificed very little for the

sake of increasing his reputation in Italy.But these are only attractive specu-

lations. More demonstrable is the way in which Roman salon culture was

animated by the influx of musicians from the kingdom of Naples. In

turning to explore this matter, I shall stress reception of the Neapolitan

genres Lasso and his companions cultivated while in Rome,contributing to

the formation of a musical axis that ultimately extended to France.

III

Nestled among the villanelle in Guidobono’s book is a pair of Neapolitan

arie in the proposta-risposta form so appealing to improvisers. The protag-

onists are aristocratic lovers lamenting their separation by political exile,


79

Barre I, appointed Archbishop of Tours in 1528. See Gallia christiana inprovincias ecclesiasticus distributa, ed. Bartolomaeus Hauréau (Paris: FirminDidot, 1856), vol. 14, col. 133.

39 Emil Vogel, Biblioteca della musica vocale italiana di genere profano, con aggiuntidel Professore Alfred Einstein (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1972), vol. 2,p. 656. The anthology is dedicated to Innico Piccolomini, Duke of Amalfi, thenliving in exile in Rome. See Scipione Ammirato, Delle famiglie nobili napoletane(Florence: Amadore Massi da Furlì, 1651), parte seconda, pp. 273–4.

40 Il Nuovo Vogel: Bibliografia della musica italiana vocale profana pubblicata dal1500 al 1700 (Pomezia-Geneva: Staderini-Minkoff, 1977), vol. 1, p. 905.

yet poignantly holding out hope for a reunion in the homeland. These arie

came to be popularly associated with the Prince and Princess of Salerno,

who attracted public attention in 1552 when the prince was banished from

the kingdom of Naples for defecting to France. The widespread oral trans-

mission of the lyrics in variant forms as canzoni da cantare suggests that key

figures in their continual re-creation were musical exiles, among them

Salerno and his familiar, the famous lute-singer Don Luigi Dentice.Dentice

and Salerno were scheming with the French to liberate the kingdom of

Naples from Spanish occupation and therefore motivated to promote arie

in a picturesque dialect that for partisans, at least, signified Neapolitan

autonomy. Since the arie surfaced first in Rome where Dentice (with his

teenage son Fabrizio, a precocious improviser) was stationed to promote

solidarity among Neapolitan fuorisciti, then the Dentices might be consid-

ered prime transmitters, if not creators, of songs conceived to carry a con-

soling message.41 A natural venue for the Dentices would have been an

aristocratic salon receptive to improvisers and French partisans, which

points toward the Guidobonos, whose commission brought the arie to

light. (The likelihood that the Guidobonos were pro-French is increased by

the family’s loyalty to Christine of Lorraine, whose “città dotale” was

Tortona.42) Of all the hypotheses that could be advanced to explain the

sudden appeal of high-pitched Neapolitan songs in Rome, the most com-

pelling would be an intersection between Lasso (a tenor) and the Dentices

(falsettists) in a salon devoted to the vernacular arts.

Yet another explanation is offered by a theory of reception that postu-

lates a direct, immediate relationship between “textual signals” and hori-

zons of expectation in the experience of readers. During the 1550s their

imaginations were bound to be affected by the escalating struggle between

France and Spain, which generated rival factions in the Roman courts and

d onna g. cardamone

80

41 This argument is advanced in my article, “The Prince of Salerno and theDynamics of Oral Transmission in Songs of Political Exile,” Acta musicologica,67 (1995), pp. 77–108, including modern editions of the arie.

42 On Christine’s relations with France and struggle to maintain control overTortona, given to her upon her first marriage to Francesco Sforza II of Milan, seeSimonsfeld,“Mailänder Briefe,” pp. 541–52. Francesco Guidobono becameChristine’s captain of the guard in 1565, having forsaken an ecclesiastical career tomarry. See Vittorio Spreti, “Guidobono Cavalchini Garofoli,” Enciclopedia storico-nobiliare italiana (repr. Milan: Archetipografia di Milano, 1930), vol. 3, p. 643.

increased subversive actions in cadres of exiled Neapolitan noblemen.

Canzoni saturated with Neapolitan dialect and parallel fifths would quite

naturally provoke diverse and contrasting responses, depending upon

one’s political inclination. Furthermore, the ravages and massacres com-

mitted by the Turks, then allies of the French, caused widespread conster-

nation,and feverish preparations were made to fortify seaports throughout

central and southern Italy. Nowhere was strategic planning to contain

Ottoman advances more urgent than in Rome, where it was felt that the

popes, as spiritual heads of the respublica christiana, should assume leader-

ship for repulsing the infidels made fanatically loyal to Islam and the

Sultan.43 With this background it is hardly surprising that Barrè would

sense a developing market for canzoni moresche, which are musical paro-

dies of Muslim slaves, and readily obtain patronal support for their printed

debut in Rome: Secondo libro delle muse a tre voci canzoni moresche di diversi

aut. novamente raccolte et poste in luce (1555).

Barrè’s dedicatory letter to “Molto Mag. M. Francesco De La Mola”

reveals that his patron was an amateur musician or at least interested in

music:

Knowing that among your Lordship’s virtuous activities, music is the most

pleasing, and because these charming and beautiful canzoni moresche

recently came my way by chance, never having been published, I wanted to

bring them to light under your name so that you (together with your

friends) might enjoy them.44

From Barrè’s salutation, we can surmise that his patron was an unti-

tled member of the nobility, taking his name from the place where he

resided or where his family held fiefs, that is, Mola, a seaport on the Adriatic

in Terra di Bari. Mola was one of the few provincial cities in the kingdom of

Naples with a musical academy, founded by Gasparro Toraldo, third

marquis of Mola and Polignano.45 When he died impoverished in 1551, his


81

43 On the “Turkish peril” and its influence on the policies of the imperial powers,France, Spain, and the Ottoman Empire, see Charles L. Stinger, The Renaissancein Rome (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), pp. 106–23.

44 For the original dedication, see Luigi Werner, “Una rarità musicale dellaBiblioteca Vescovile di Szombathely,” Note d’archivio, 8 (1931), pp. 102–3.Barrè’s anthology is not listed in RISM.

45 Scipione Ammirato, Delle famiglie nobili napoletane (Florence: G. Marescotti,1580), vol. 2, p. 71.

lands (but not his title) were promptly sold to Giovan Francesco Carafa di

Stigliano;46 however, in 1554 Polignano reverted to Gasparro’s wife Maria

Piccolomini so that she could establish a dowry for her eldest daughter,

Anna,betrothed to Carafa.47 Since no member of this branch of the Toraldo

family living in 1555 bore the name Francesco, it is conceivable that Carafa

– then holding the fief of Mola – was Barrè’s patron. Like many other

persons named Giovan Francesco, he may have been familiarly known as

Francesco.

The continual presence of the formidable Ottoman fleet in the

eastern Mediterranean presented a real threat to coastal towns such as

Mola, and the ruling families – invigorated by Spanish power – stood ready

to repulse the aggressors, as in 1555 when the Turks raided and plundered

towns from Naples to Mola, reputedly carrying off more than 4,000

persons.48 Throughout the sixteenth century the struggle for supremacy of

power led to a brisk trade in slaves on both sides.49 Moors, then broadly

defined as Muslims or narrowly as inhabitants of the Barbary coast, often

ended up as servants in noble households. In Rome, for example, they were

valued as exotica,yet subject to perpetual servitude by their masters.50 Thus

in Francesco De La Mola’s frame of reception, the performance of morescas

could lead to vicarious reveling in the debasement of comic subjects as well

as reinforcing feelings of superiority.

Typically the opening gesture of a moresca sets the scene for a sere-

nade and then continues with episodes of singing and dancing which, in

context, would have been read as metaphors for love-making. Of the nine

morescas in Barrè’s anthology, “Tiche toche” is by far the most clever in

respect to musical and sexual puns (see Ex. 4.2). Like “Voria che tu cantas’

d onna g. cardamone

82

46 Maria Luisa Capograssi, “Due secoli di successioni feudali registrati nei cedolaridi Terra di Bari,” Rivista del Collegio Araldico, 54 (1956), p. 194.

47 Pompeo Litta, Famiglie celebri italiane, 2nd series (Naples: Richter, 1911), s.v.“Toraldo di Napoli,” plate 3.

48 Biblioteca Vaticana, Cod. Urb. Lat. 1038, fol. 76v (Avvisi di Roma, 13 July 1555).49 Significantly, in 1555 Barrè published a best-selling book about persecution of

Christian slaves in the Ottoman Empire. See Steele, “Antonio Barré,” pp. 91–2.50 In Rome Capitoline officials could manumit baptised slaves who claimed

sanctuary in their offices. But Roman nobles, in defiance of authority, still triedto hold them in servitude. In 1546 Paul III was successfully petitioned to decreethat Romans could keep their slaves in perpetuity. Pio Pecchiai, Roma nelCinquecento (Bologna: Licinio Cappelli, 1948), pp. 371–80.


83

Example 4.2: Anon., “Tiche toche,” Li quattro libri delle villotte alla

napolitana a tre voci de diversi eccellentissimi auttori con due moresche,

nuovamente ristampati (Venice: G. Scotto, RISM 156511), pp. 75–6. First

printed in Barrè’s anthology of 1555, of which only the bass is extant.

C

T

B

&V?

42

42

42

1Ocœ

= hœ œ œ

Ti-che toche,

œ œ œ œTi-che toche,

œ œ œ œTi-che toche,

œ œ œti - che toch,

œ œ œti - che toch,œ œ œti - che toch,

œ œ œ œti- che toche,œ œ œ œti- che toche,

œ œ œ œti- che toche,

œ œ œti - che toch,

œ œ œti - che toch,œ œ œti - che toch,

œ œ œti - che toch.

œ œ œti - che toch.œ œ œti - che toch.

‰ jœ œ œO Pa - ta -

‰ Jœ œ œO Pa - ta -

‰ Jœ œ œO Pa - ta -

œ œ œ œle - na zo- iaœ œ œ œle - na zo- iaœ œ œ œle - na zo- ia

&V?

8

œ œmi - a,œ œ# œ

mi - a,œ œmi - a,

.œ jœA - pri.œ JœA - pri.œ JœA - pri

œ œ œpor - ta Car -œ œ œpor - ta Car -œb œ œpor - ta Car -

œ œ œciof - fa - laœ œ œciof - fa - la

œ œ œciof - fa - la

œ œtu - a.œ œ œ

tu - a.œ œtu - a.

‰ œ jœA - pri

‰ œ JœA - pri

‰ œ JœA - pri

œ œ œpres - sa, cu -œ œ bœpres - sa, cu -œb œ œpres - sa, cu -

&V?

43

43

43

42

42

42

43

43

43

-

-

-

15

œ œ œla mi -

œ œ œ Jœ#la mi -œ œb œla mi -

˙a,˙a,

˙a,

h = h k˙ œSe voi˙ œSe voi˙ œSe voi

˙ œsen - ta˙ œsen - ta˙b œsen - ta

˙ œmau - ti -˙ œmau - ti -˙b œmau - ti -

h k = h˙na -˙na -˙na -

h = h. ˙ta.˙ta.˙ta.

&V?

43

43

43

42

42

42

22

˙ œGen - te˙ œGen - te˙ œGen - te

˙ œni - gra˙ œni - gra˙b œni - gra

˙ œbo can -˙ œbo can -˙b œbo can -

h k = hta -˙ta -˙ta -

˙ta:˙ta:˙ta:

œ œLa sol

Œ œLa

∑

œ œ œfa re mi,œ œ œsol fa re

Œ œLa

d onna g. cardamone

84


&V?

29 Œ œ[laœ Œ

mi,œ œ œsol fa re

œ œ œsol fa reœ œ[la solœ Œmi,

œ Œmi,]œ œ œfa re mi,]œ œla sol

œ œla solŒ œ

laœ œ œfa re mi,

œ œ œfa re mi,œ œ œsol fa re

∑

∑˙

mi,˙la,

Œ ‰ jœUt∑

œ œ œUt re mi

&V?

36

œ œ œ œre mi fa sol‰ jœ œ œ

Ut re miœ œ œ œfa sol la, ut

œ ‰ jœla, utœ œfa solœ œre mi

œ œre miœ ‰ jœla, utœ œfa sol

œ œfa solœ œre miœ ‰ Jœla, ut


œ œre mi.œ Jœla, solœ œfa sol

œ œfa solœ œla mi

œ œut sol

&V?

43

43

43

43

œ ‰ jœla. Niœ ‰ Jœfa. Ni

œ ‰ Jœut. Ni

œ œ œ œma- chi- da gi -œ œ œ œma- chi- da gi -œ œ œ œma- chi- da gi -

œ œ œ œna- ca- che, ni

œ œ œ œna- ca- che, niœ œ œ œna- ca- che, ni

œ œ œ œma- chi- da gi -œ œ œ œma- chi- da gi -œ œ œ œma- chi- da gi -

œ œh 3

œna - ca- che.

œ œ œna - ca- che.œ œ œna - ca- che.

= h kŒ Œ œSe

Œ Œ œSe

Œ Œ œSe

˙ œtu voi

˙ œtu voi˙ œtu voi

&V?

42

42

42

50

˙h k

œbe - n'a

˙ œbe - n'a˙ œbe - n'a

= hc

me,˙me,

˙me,

.œ jœCac - cia.œ JœCac - cia.œ JœCac - cia

œ œ œ œca- p'a 'sa per -œ œ œ œca- p'a 'sa per -œ œ œ œca- p'a 'sa per -

œ œtu - sa,œ œ œ

tu - sa,œ œtu - sa,

‰ œ jœSen - ti

‰ œ JœSen - ti

‰ œ JœSen - ti

œ œ œ œbel- la canta -œ œ œ œbel- la canta -œ œ œ œbel- la canta -


85


&V?

57

œ œra - ta:œ œ œ

ra - ta:œ œra - ta:

œ œUt

œ œUt re

œ Œ

œ œre mi

œ œmi fa

∑

œ œfa solœ œsol la,

Œ œMi

œ œla, Mi

Œ œutœ œ

fa ut

œ œfa sol

œ œre mi

œ œre mi

œ œla reœ œfa solœ œfa sol

&V?

64

mi.˙la.

˙ut.

∑∑∑

œ œ œ œU - na, doi, eœ œ œ œU - na, doi, e

œ œ œ œU - na, doi, e

œ ‰ jœtre, La,œ œtre, Fa,

œ ‰ Jœtre, Fa,

œ œ œla sol la,œ œ œfa mi fa,œ œ œfa sol fa,

‰ jœ œ œFa, fa miœ œ œ#

sol, sol fa

‰ Jœ œ œre, re la

œ Œre,œ Œsol,

œ Œre,

&V?

71

Ut ∑∑

œ œre mi∑Œ œ

Ut

œ œfa solŒ œ

Utœ œre mi

œ œla, ut

œ œre miœ œfa sol

œ œre miœ œfa solœ œla, ut

œ œfa solœ œla, utœ œre mi

la.

œ œ œ œre mi fa solœfa.

&V?

43

43

43

78 ‰ jœ œCa- lia,œ ‰ Jœ

la. Ca -

Œ ‰ JœCa -

‰ jœ œca - liaœ œ

lia tau -œ œlia tau -

œ œtau - zaœ ‰ Jœza ci -œ ‰ Jœza ci -

‰ jœ œci - lum

Jœ œ Jœlum ce -œ ‰ Jœ

lum ce -

‰ jœ œ œce - lum- di -.œ Jœ

lum - di -.œ Jœlum - di -

h 3˙ni.˙ni.˙ni.

= h k .œ jœ œPar - mi- ni,.œ Jœ œPar - mi- ni,.œ Jœ œPar - mi- ni,

una canzona”(Ex.4.1), it plays on the figurative meaning of“cantar la solfa”

and quotes the motive “La sol fa re mi” with a solmization pun on the syl-

lables,perhaps a humorous reference to Lasso.51

d onna g. cardamone

86

51 This motive was Fabrizio Dentice’s trademark and he frequently used it as thesubject of ricercari. For examples, see Dinko Fabris, “Vita e opere di FabrizioDentice, nobile napoletano, compositore del secondo Cinquecento,” Studimusicali, 21 (1992), pp. 92–5. Lasso’s musical signature utilized the pitches “Lasol” (Leuchtmann, Briefe, p. 197).


&V?

42

42

42

85 .œ jœ h k =œpar - mi- ni.œ Jœ œpar - mi- ni.œ Jœ œpar - mi- ni

hc.œ jœ

zor - fa -.œ Jœzor - fa -.œ Jœzor - fa -

œ œna - ta,œ œ# œ

na - ta,œ œna - ta,

‰ œ jœCia mu -

∑∑

œ œsa - ta,

∑∑

‰ jœ œ œlic - ca pi -

‰ Jœ œ œlic - ca pi -

‰ Jœ œ œlic - ca pi -

œ œgna - ta,œ œ œ

gna- ta,œ œgna - ta,

&V?

92 ‰ jœ œ œCu- la paz -∑

∑

œ œzu - ta,∑

∑

‰ jœ œ œmu- sa cac -‰ Jœ œ œmu- sa cac -

‰ Jœ œ œmu- sa cac -

œ œca - ta:œ œ œ

ca - ta:œ œca - ta:

∑∑

˙Ut

ŒœUt∑

œ œre mi

œ œre miŒ œ

Utœ œfa sol

œ œfa solœ œre miœ œla, ut

&V?

100

œ œ œ œla, ut re miœ œ œ œfa sol la, utœ œ œ œre mi fa sol

œ œ œ œfa sol la, utœ œ œ œre mi fa solœ œ œ œla, ut re mi

œ œre miœ œla, utœ œfa sol

œ œfa solœ œre miœ ‰ Jœla, Ut


œ œre mi.œ Jœla, solœ œfa sol

œ œfa solœ œla mi

œ œut sol

UUU

˙la.˙fa.

˙ut.

4

Tiche toche, tichi toch. Ticky tocky, ticky tock.

O Patalena zoiaa mia, Oh Patalena my joy,

Apri porta Carcioffalab tua. Open the door to your Carcioffala.

Apri pressa, culac mia, Hurry up, open right now my rump,

Se voi senta mautinata. If you want to hear a morning song.

Gente nigra bo cantata: The black man is going to sing:

La sol fa re mi, La sol fa re mi,

Ut re mi fa sol la. Ut re mi fa sol la.

Ni machida ginacache. [Moorish jargon]

Se tu voi ben a me, If you love me,

Cacciad cap’ a ‘sa pertusa, Put your head to this hole,

Senti bella cantarata: Listen to the nice singing:

Ut re mi fa sol la, Ut re mi fa sol la,

Mi fa sol la re mi. Mi fa sol la re mi.

Una, doi, e tre, One, two, and three,

La, la sol la,e La, la sol la,

Fa, fa mi re, Fa, fa mi re,


Calia tauza cilum celumdini. [Moorish jargon]

Parmini zorfanata,f Tell me about it in solfa,

cia musata, licca pignata,g hungry mouth, glutton,

Cula pazzuta, musa caccata: Crazed ass, filthy mug:


a Venetian dialect for gioia, an example of editorial intervention.b Carciofolo, an obsolete form of carciofo, metaphor for phallus. A figurativemeaning in Neapolitan dialect is big, deformed nose. Carcioffala and Patalena(corpulent person) are affectionate nicknames.c Moorish slang for culo.d Metaphor for copulation. See Jean Toscan, Le carnaval du langage. Le lexiqueerotique des poètes de l’equivoque de Burchiello à Marino (XVe–XVIIe siècles)(Lille: Université de Lille, 1981), vol. 4, p. 1672.e These syllables are sung by the cantus; tenor and bass have different syllablescorresponding to their pitches.f Neapolitan dialect for solmizing; another meaning is to repeat oneselfcontinually (ibid., 1674).g Female pudenda, metaphorically (ibid., 1732).

Given casual patterns in the circulation of Neapolitan genres in

Rome, it is safe to assume that Barrè collected copies of morescas by

working circles previously inhabited by Lasso and his cohorts. Proof of


87

Lasso’s direct access to the Roman repertory is found in his Libro de villa-

nelle, moresche, et altre canzoni (RISM 1581g), which contains reworkings

of six morescas in Barrè’s anthology. Lasso’s predilection for Neapolitan

texts riddled with sexual puns is well known through his many reworkings

of canzoni villanesche by Gian Domenico da Nola, a singer, poet, and com-

poser from Naples. Both Nola and Lasso have been proposed as composers

of the morescas in Barrè’s anthology, and there is some support for the

notion that they met in Rome and launched the genre together.Nola cannot

be traced in Naples between 1547 and 1563; however, his madrigals circu-

lated in Rome where he probably fled for fear of being found guilty by asso-

ciation with leaders of the uprisings against Viceroy Toledo in 1547, among

them Luigi Dentice.52

The re-use of textual phrases and musical motives in morescas

collected in Rome attests to production by an intimate circle of poet-

composers practiced in intertextual allusion and citation. Indeed, attribut-

ing the morescas in this repertory to any one person is difficult because the

style is remarkably uniform, suggesting group improvisation.53 Of all the

Neapolitan genres, morescas are the most theatrical in content and design,

being essentially miniature comic skits. Therefore, they are likely to have

originated in artistic collectives comprised of musicians with a flair for

comedic routines, bringing to mind Lasso (whose familiarity with the

broad tradition of Italian comedy is well known) and the Dentices,who had

doubled as singing actors in comedies staged at the Prince of Salerno’s

palace. Had these compatible spirits met in Rome and formed an ad hoc

troupe specializing in vivacious genres of Neapolitan entertainment, then

they would have found in Nola the ideal person to stylize their improvisa-

tions in three-part arrangements for public consumption.

This study concludes by coming around to where it began, on the axis

between southern Italy and northern Europe, with an anthology of Barrè’s

commissioned by Olivier Le Crec, ordinary nuncio in Rome for Henry II of

France: Secondo libro delle muse a tre voci, Canzon villanesche alla napoli-

d onna g. cardamone

88

52 On Nola, the Dentices, and other musical refugees likely to have relocated in thePapal States after the uprisings, see my article, “Orlando di Lasso and Pro-French Factions in Rome,” pp. 38–41.

53 “O Lucia miau miau” is attributed to Lasso in Il terzo libro delle villotte allanapoletana (Venice: Gardano, RISM 156014), p. 42.

tana di nuovo raccolte e date in luce (RISM 155712). In the salutation, Barrè

describes Le Crec as the Abbot of Jovis, a Cistercian monastery located at

what is now Jouy le Chatel (Dept. Seine-et-Marne).54 Barrè may have

known Le Crec before their paths crossed in Rome, since he was raised in

Langres (Haute-Marne). Clearly he was aware of the distinguished clergy-

man’s taste in music:

My most Reverend Signor, having collected some new villanelle in these hot

days, I wanted to bring them to light for the amusement of virtuous

persons, and knowing that beside your other talents how much you enjoy

music, I wanted to dedicate and offer them to you so that you may entertain

yourself with them some time and share them with your friends both here

and at your Majesty’s court, where I understand similarly pleasing

canzonette are valued for their charming and delightful qualities. Therefore,

Your Excellency, deign to accept them together with my affection, and also

make Monsignor of S. Martino enjoy them, so that even he, through Your

Excellency, may count me among his admirers, in whose grace I pray that

he may always hold me, promising that we will soon send him some others.

And offering myself to Your Excellency and to him, I kiss your hands.

Although the Monsignor remains unidentified, he is likely to have been

associated with St. Martin of Tours and a vital member of a clerical circle of

collectors that included Jean du Moulin (d. 1563), canon and cantor at Sens

Cathedral where Le Crec, too,was canon.At some point in their association,

du Moulin gave Le Crec the manuscript now known as the Copenhagen

Chansonnier,which confirms his interest in collecting music.55

It appears as if Le Crec was sent to Rome following the invasion of the

Papal States by the Duke of Alba in August 1556, which influenced Henry II

to decide in favor of an expedition to Naples.The community of Neapolitan

exiles in Rome rallied around the Prince of Salerno and Duke François de

Guise, both commanders in Henry’s army. That Le Crec and his associates

in the French embassy would find canzoni in the rustic dialect of Naples,

harmonized with parallel fifths, amusing in the “hot days”of summer 1557


89

54 Census-Catalogue of Manuscript Sources of Polyphonic Music 1400–1550(Neuhausen: Hänssler-Verlag, 1979), vol. 1, p. 163.

55 Knud Jeppesen, ed., Der Kopenhagener Chansonnier (Copenhagen: Levin &Munksgaard, 1927), p. xxvii. I am deeply grateful to Paula Higgins for drawingmy attention to Le Crec’s ownership of the Copenhagen Chansonnier.

is a clever allusion on Barrè’s part to a potentially mixed reception. Henry

had come to doubt the promise of Guise’s expedition, and there were vast

differences of opinion among all concerned persons in Rome, including the

French diplomats present,about how to proceed.56

Enthusiasm for villanesche alla napolitana at Henry’s court was due in

large part to the presence of Neapolitan exiles in the retinue of the Prince of

Salerno, who had been extended a warm welcome by Queen Catherine de’

Medici.A captivating lutenist-singer,Salerno introduced Neapolitan songs

to the French court in 1544 and upon returning, he carried on a politicized

musical discourse centered on the pair of laments mentioned earlier.

However, credit for spreading Neapolitan songs beyond the court to the

clerical elite must be given to both Barrè and Le Crec. All the canzoni Barrè

collected are anonymous, yet similar in metrical form and content to those

in Guidobono’s book. Quite likely they emanated from the same circle of

composers that formed around Lasso.57 Following the Treaty of Cateau

Cambrésis in 1559, which resolved the conflict between France and Spain,

the market for anthologies of Neapolitan songs dried up in Rome.The most

logical explanation for this turn of events would be the breaking up of

coteries sponsored by persons with a vested interest in Neapolitan genres,

and the dispersal of exiles and their supporters who had mobilized the

rustic idioms to reinforce dynastic claims.

d onna g. cardamone

90

56 Frederic J. Baumgartner, Henry II, King of France 1547–1559 (Durham, NC:Duke University Press, 1988), pp. 191–2.

57 Le Crec’s book contains five canzoni that enumerate the physical attributes ofcourtesans, presumably resulting from group improvisation on a commontheme: “O biancolella come gelsomino,” “O dolce più che l’uva moscatella,” “Ofaccia d’una luna rotondella,” “O dolce saporita cianciosella,” “O occhi manzamia cigli dorati” (reworked by Lasso, Libro di Villanelle, 1581).

5 Lasso’s “Standomi un giorno” and the canzone inthe mid-sixteenth century

mary s. lewis

A new madrigal genre began to appear in Italian publications in the

mid-1540s, consisting of settings of entire multi-stanza poems, some with

as many as fourteen strophes. The genre came to be known collectively as

the canzone, although other multi-stanza poetic forms such as the sestina

and ottava rima were also set.The genre had its first flourishing in the 1540s,

but continued in popularity throughout the end of the century. Here I will

address some of the compositional problems and solutions resulting from

the composers’ decision to write in such a large-scale form, concentrating

on an early example of the genre by Lasso.

In 1557 Antonio Barrè1 published his Secondo libro delle muse, a

cinque voci, madrig. d’Orlando di Lassus con una canzone del Petrarca (RISM

155722=1557b),a collection devoted for the most part to works of Lasso not

previously published. Leading off the collection was Lasso’s setting of the

six stanzas of Petrarch’s “Standomi un giorno,”a visionary poem which had

been set to music in its entirety only once before.2 By 1557 Lasso had already

been away from Rome for at least two years. His music in Barrè’s anthology,

while published in Rome, appears not to be directly connected to the com-

poser’s sojourn there. In the volume’s dedicatory letter its signator,

Giovanbattista Bruno,who styles himself“one who knows the author well,”

stated that he had come into possession of the pieces by Lasso “many days

91

1 The orthography of the publisher’s name given here is the one he used himself.See Maureen E. Buja, “Antonio Barrè and Music Printing in Mid-SixteenthCentury Rome,” Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina (1996).

2 It seems probable that Matteo Rampollini’s setting predated Lasso’s, but see thediscussion of its publication below. A setting for four voices of the first stanzawas printed in 1543 in Gardano’s Secondo libro de li madrigali de diversi (RISM154318), where it was attributed to Jan Gero. In two subsequent editions (154930

and 155219), Scotto attributed the work to Arcadelt.

ago in Spoleto.”3 How the music came to be in Spoleto we are not told, but

we must assume these pieces were composed by Lasso while he was still in

Italy,perhaps in Naples,and left behind when he traveled north.

Lasso’s “Standomi un giorno”was not the first multi-stanza madrigal

that Barrè printed, and even those he published earlier had been preceded

by examples in Venetian publications. Barrè’s Primo libro delle muse a

quattro voci madrigali ariosi (RISM 155527) included his own setting of four

stanzas from Ariosto, “Dunque fia ver dicea,” and his five-stanza madrigal

on Francesco Bellano’s “Sorgi superbo,” as well as a three-stanza madrigal

by Lupachino,“Occhi leggiadri amorosett’e gravi.”Another of Barrè’s pub-

lications of that year, the Primo libro delle muse a cinque voci (RISM 155526),

is made up almost entirely of canzone, including works by Arcadelt, Ruffo,

Jachet Berchem,and Barrè.4

Multi-movement madrigals had appeared sporadically during the

1540s. The earliest to be published was probably Jachet Berchem’s“A la dol-

c’ombra de la belle frondi,” included in Doni’s Dialogo of 1544 (RISM

154422). The participants in the Dialogo seem not to have been surprised to

find an entire sestina set to music. There is no sense of novelty; conversa-

tion centers around some mistakes in the music.5 The singer who intro-

duces the piece mentions that he found it in a book, but we do not know if

the book was printed or in manuscript; no source for the piece survives

from before 1544. However, the attitude of those present suggests that the

composition of entire canzone had been taking place for at least a little

while before 1544.

Gardano first published multi-movement madrigals in 1547. One

was a setting of “Io vo cangiar l’usato” by L’Hoste da Reggio in that com-

poser’s Primo libro de madrigali a 4. The others are part of Animuccia’s

Primo libro di madrigali a quatro a cinque & a sei voci (RISM A1241).

An earlier origin has been claimed for the canzoni of Rampollini,which

Moderne printed in an undated edition.6 Alfred Einstein suggested it was

mary s . lewis

92

3 The entire dedication and its translation are given in Buja, “Antonio Barrè,”pp. 311–13. [Ed. note: See also Donna Cardamone’s discussion on p. 75 above.]

4 For complete contents and further information on these prints, see Buja,“Antonio Barrè,” pp. 202–9.

5 Antonfrancesco Doni, Dialogo della Musica, ed. Virginia Fagotto (Venice:Fondazione Giorgio Cini, 1965), pp. 130–63.

6 Il primo libro de la musica di M. Mattio Rampollini . . . sopra di alcune canzoni deldivin poeta M. Francesco Petrarca. Lyons: Moderne, [n.d.] (RISM R215).

printedin1540or1541,7butSamuelPoguehasgivenconvincingbibliograph-

ical and historical evidence to support a date of 1554 or later; Pogue chose the

date 1560 based on a citation of the book by Poccianti in his Catalogus, pub-

lished in Florence in 1589.8 Frank D’Accone, however, has argued for a date

somewhere between Einstein’s and Pogue’s.9 If D’Accone is correct, then

Rampollini’s setting of “Standomi un giorno,” included in Moderne’s collec-

tion,wouldhaveprecededLasso’s.Wedonotknowif LassoknewRampollini’s

setting. The older composer set the work not in six movements as Lasso did,

butinseven,devotingtheseventhmovementtothecommiato.

Despite its early publication history in Venice, compositionally the

canzone was not really a Venetian phenomenon. Rather, its chief practition-

ers before 1560 appear to have been composers who worked at some time in

Florence or Rome,as well as a group of musicians active in theVeneto,several

of whom had professional connections at one time or another with the acad-

emies of the area.10 Barrè, Animuccia, Arcadelt, Palestrina, Lupacchino,

Ruffo, Rore, Nasco, Porta, and Portinaro are the most important of these.11

Berchem, the innovator, is more difficult to place as we know so little about

his life, but he evidently spent some time in Venice and Verona around 1546.

He may have been in Rome before then, but the evidence for such a stay is

slight.12 While the canzone of Petrarch take pride of place among the multi-

stanza texts these composers set, they were joined by the poetry of Ariosto,

Sannazaro,Bembo,Tansillo,Cassola,Affani,Bellano,and Boccaccio.13

lasso ’s “stand omi un giorno” and the canzone

93

7 Alfred Einstein, The Italian Madrigal (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1949), p. 135.

8 Samuel Pogue, Jacques Moderne: Lyons Music Printer of the Sixteenth Century,Travaux d’humanisme et renaissance 101 (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1969),pp. 214–15.

9 Frank A. D’Accone, “Matteo Rampollini and his Petrarchan Canzoni Cycles,”Musica Disciplina, 27 (1973), pp. 79–81.

10 For a list of multi-movement madrigals published in Italy in the sixteenthcentury, see Patricia Ann Myers, “An Analytical Study of the Italian CyclicMadrigals Published by Composers Working in Rome ca. 1540–1614,” Ph.D.diss., University of Illinois (1971), pp. 274–375.

11 Other composers who wrote canzone during the forties and fifties includeFiesco, Dorati, Werrecore, Passetto, Boyleau, Fogliano, L’Hoste da Reggio,Martoretta, and Taglia.

12 Dale Hall, “The Italian Secular Vocal Works of Jacquet Berchem,” Ph.D. diss.,Ohio State University (1973), pp. 9–17.

13 Myers, “An Analytical Study,” pp. 376–414, gives a list of Italian texts set ascyclical madrigals c. 1540–1614.

We can only speculate as to the impetus for writing these large-scale

works. Perhaps the academicians with whom the composers were asso-

ciated objected to the practice of setting dismembered stanzas from larger

poems. Perhaps the composers themselves felt limited by the small scale of

the one- or two-part madrigal. And perhaps they wished to experiment

with the problems of organizing music over a longer time span. Certainly a

different approach to the music was required of both performers and listen-

ers by these extended works.

Producing a coherent setting of such long texts within the stylistic

requirements of the madrigal posed a major compositional problem for

composers. In the past, the principal multi-movement forms had been the

mass and the Magnificat. Masses were, first of all, not intended for sequen-

tial, uninterrupted performance. Even so, in addition to being in the same

mode throughout, they often used thematic unifying devices, such as a

cantus firmus, a motto, or a polyphonic work to be imitated in some way.

Magnificats usually were based on the Magnificat tones, which automati-

cally bound the various movements together. The closest earlier relative of

the multi-movement madrigal would probably be the motetti missales cycle

of the fifteenth century, a genre that poses numerous historical and musical

difficulties of its own.

The multi-movement madrigal, however, had no thematic devices at

its disposal. Its composers had to resort to other organizational means in

building a large musical structure. Sometimes they used a varying number

of voices, usually in a pattern such as 5–4–3–4–5, in which the texture thins

towards the middle stanzas, and then thickens again as the end of the work

approaches. At other times, contrasting mensurations, such as � and �, or

even triple meter, were employed, again in some sort of overall structural

pattern. In “Standomi un giorno,” Lasso maintained a five-voice texture

throughout, however, although from time to time in this work one or two

voices may drop out, usually in response to the text. Likewise, he kept all six

movements in � mensuration.

Sometimes, the text and its musical expression could provide their

own shape for a piece. This was particularly true in the sestina, with its

pattern of recurring words at line endings, but affective shape could also be

achieved at the stanza level, where contrasts of mood would be reflected in

the musical setting.

mary s . lewis

94

Probably the most important structural tool available to composers

of multi-movement works, however, was the musical and affective use of

mode.The composer could work with modal traditions on both the general

and local level. Employment of the modes and their aesthetic is both the

most complex and the most intriguing aspect of the approach to large-scale

musical structures in these pieces. In our investigation of Lasso’s canzone,

we will study one example of the use both structurally and affectively of the

modal pitch spectrum in these pieces.

Petrarch wrote “Standomi un giorno” in the 1360s, long after the

death of Laura. This strange and mystical poem presents six visions, each

describing the destruction of a beautiful object, and ends with the despair-

ing cry of the poet who wishes for his own death. In a typical Petrarchan

paradox, each stanza produces a vision of beauty in the first half, and a

vision of beauty’s destruction in the second. Thus, the recurring idea of

metamorphosis, a central theme in Petrarch’s poetry, is given dramatic

expression here.14

The six visions reflect recurrent emblematics in Petrarch’s poetry – a

deer, a ship, a laurel tree, a fountain, a phoenix, and a beautiful lady.

References both to Petrarch’s own poetry and to myth are abundant. Thus,

the figure of Eurydice is evoked in the sixth stanza when the lady dies after

being bitten by a snake, and the deer in the first stanza recalls the story of

Actaeon. Robert Durling sees “Standomi” as a counterpart to no. 23 of the

Canzoniere, “Nel dolce tempo de la prima etade,” the canzone in which

Petrarch recounts the story of his love for Laura, “as reenactments of six

Ovidian myths of metamorphosis.”15 In a highly complex set of references,

the two poems represent both the lover and Laura as a laurel tree, the lover

as Actaeon and Laura as a deer, Laura as a fountain of inspiration, and the

lover as a fountain of tears.16

Stanza 1

1(1) Standomi un giorno solo a la fenestra, While one day at my window as I

stood

1(2) onde cose vedea tante, et sí nove, Alone, I saw so many novel sights

1(3) ch’era sol di mirar quasi già stancho, That merely gazing almost wearied

me:


95

14 Robert M. Durling, Petrarch’s Lyric Poems (Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1976), p. 26. 15 Ibid., p. 27. 16 Ibid., p. 32.

1(4) una fera m’apparve de man destra, At my right hand appeared a

creature wild,

1(5) con fronte humana, da far arder Giove, With human features that could

Jove inflame;

1(6) cacciata da duo veltri, un nero, un Two hounds pursued her – one was

biancho; black, one white;

1(7) che l’un et l’altro fiancho They tore first one flank, then

1(8) de la fera gentil mordean sí forte, The other ravened till, in a short

time,

1(9) che ’n poco tempo la menaro al passo They brought that gentle beast to

such a pass

(10) ove, chiusa in un sasso, That there, enclosed with stone,

(11) vinse molta bellezza acerba morte: Was beauty great by bitter death

laid low,

(12) et mi fe’ sospirar sua dura sorte. Which left me sighing at its

grievous fate.

Stanza 2

1(1) Indi per alto mar vidi una nave, Then on the high seas I beheld a

ship

1(2) con le sarte di seta, et d’òr la vela, With silken rigging and a sail of

gold,

1(3) tutta d’avorio e d’ebeno contesta; All framed of ivory and ebony;

1(4) e ’l mar tranquillo, et l’aura era soave, The sea was tranquil, and the breeze

was soft,

1(5) e ’l ciel qual è se nulla nube il vela, As when heaven glows, veiled not by

any cloud;

1(6) ella carca di ricca merce honesta: Freighted she was with rich and

virtuous goods;

1(7) poi repente tempesta A sudden eastern storm

1(8) oriental turbò sí l’aere et l’onde, Then cast into great tumult wind

and waves,

1(9) che la nave percosse ad uno scoglio. And so the vessel splintered on a

reef.

(10) O che grave cordoglio! Oh, insupportable woe!

(11) Breve ora oppresse, et poco spatio Brief hour o’erwhelmed and little

asconde, space concealed

(12) l’alte ricchezze a nul’altre seconde. Those noble riches, next in rank to

none.

mary s . lewis

96

Stanza 3

1(1) In un boschetto novo, i rami santi In a new-planted grove, a laurel

bloomed

1(2) fiorian d’un lauro giovenetto et With hallowed limbs so young and

schietto, pure, it seemed

1(3) ch’un delli arbor’ parea di paradiso; A tree of those that grow in

Paradise;

1(4) et di sua ombra uscian sí dolci canti And from its shade there issued

such sweet songs

1(5) di vari augelli, et tant’altro diletto, Of divers birds, and other great

delight,

1(6) che dal mondo m’avean tutto diviso; That I was carried wholly from the

world.

1(7) et mirandol io fiso, While, marveling, I stared,

1(8) cangiossi ’l cielo intorno, et tinto in The sky above was altered –

vista, overcast;

1(9) folgorando ’l percosse et da radice Flashing, it struck and by the roots

at once

(10) quella pianta felice Tore up that happy plant,

(11) súbito svelse: onde mia vita è trista, And ever since, my life’s been full of

woe,

(12) ché simile ombra mai non si racquista. For shade like that I’ll never find

again.

Stanza 4

1(1) Chiara fontana in quel medesmo In that same wood a crystal

bosco fountain flowed

1(2) sorgea d’un sasso, et acque fresche et Out of a stone, and waters cool and

dolci sweet

1(3) spargea, soavemente mormorando; Came gushing, murmuring

delightfully;

1(4) al bel seggio, riposto, ombroso et To that fair seat, hidden, shaded,

fosco, and dark,

1(5) né pastori appressavan né bifolci, No country folk nor shepherds

ventured near,

1(6) ma nimphe et muse a quel tenor But nymphs and muses singing

cantando: harmony;

1(7) ivi m’assisi; et quando There I sat down; as I

1(8) piú dolcezza prendea di tal concento Most sweetness took from such a

melody –


97

1(9) et di tal vista, aprir vidi uno speco, And from such a view – I saw a

chasm yawn

(10) et portarsene seco And borne away within

(11) la fonte e ’l loco: ond’anchor doglia The fountain and the place: still I

sento, feel pain;

(12) et sol de la memoria mi sgomento. By that mere memory am I

dismayed.

Stanza 5

1(1) Una strania fenice, ambe due l’ale Observing a rare phoenix in the

woods

1(2) di porpora vestita, e ’l capo d’oro, Alone and proud, with both her

wings attired

1(3) vedendo per la selva altera et sola, In purple, and in gold her head, I

thought

1(4) veder forma celeste ed immortale At first to view her heavenly,

deathless form

1(5) prima pensai, fin ch’a lo svelto alloro Till she to that uprooted laurel

came

1(6) giunse, ed al fonte che la terra invola: And to that fountain swallowed by

the earth:

1(7) ogni cosa al fin vola; All, in the end, takes flight.

1(8) ché, mirando le frondi a terra sparse, For, seeing scattered leaves upon the

ground,

1(9) e ’l troncon rotto, et quel vivo humor The broken trunk, that living liquid

secco, dry,

(10) volse in se stessa il becco, Upon herself her beak

(11) quasi sdegnando, e ’n un punto She turned as in disdain, and

disparse: vanished all

(12) onde ’l cor di pietate et d’amor At once; whence love and pity sear

m’arse. my heart.

Stanza 6

1(1) Alfin vid’io per entro i fiori et l’erba At last amidst the grass and flowers

I saw

1(2) pensosa ir sí leggiadra et bella donna, A pensive lady go, so graceful, fair,

1(3) che mai nol penso ch’i’ non arda et That just to think of her I burn and

treme: quake:

1(4) humile in sé, ma ’ncontra Amor One humble in herself, against Love

superba; proud;

mary s . lewis

98

1(5) ed avea indosso sí candida gonna, And she was wearing such a flawless

gown,

1(6) sí texta, ch’oro et neve parea inseme; Woven to seem of gold and snow at

once,

1(7) ma le parti supreme But yet her crowning parts

1(8) eran avolte d’una nebbia oscura: Were all enfolded in a mist obscure;

1(9) punta poi nel tallon d’un picciol Then a small serpent pricked her

angue, heel, and as

(10) come fior colto langue, A gathered flower wilts,

(11) lieta si dipartio, nonché secura. She passed not only certain, but in

joy.

(12) Ahi, nulla, altro che pianto, al mondo Woe! Nothing, save for tears, in this

dura! world lasts.

Commiato

(I) Canzon, tu puoi ben dire: Song, you may surely say:

(II) – Queste sei visioni al signor mio All these six visions of my master

(III) àn fatto un dolce di morir desio. – Produced in him a sweet desire for

death.17

The poem is a canzone with stanze divisi, the form of all but one of

Petrarch’s canzoni. The six lines of each stanza’s fronte and the six of the

sirima serve perfectly to express the paradox of life and death in each of the

six stanzas. The rhyme scheme of each strophe is ABCABCcDEeDD.18 The

poem ends with a commiato of three lines, addressed, as is so frequently the

case in Petrarch’s verse, to the song itself. We will see that Lasso responded

musically to the requirements of the poem’s form as well as to its symbolism

and emotional impact.

The style of Lasso’s setting is essentially that which James Haar has

identified as belonging to the composer’s Roman, and even Neapolitan,


99

17 The text and its translation are taken from Petrarch’s Songbook: Rerumvulgarium fragmenta, a Verse Translation by James Wyatt Cook with Italian textby Gianfranco Contini (Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and EarlyRenaissance Studies, State University of New York, 1995). This version is quotedin the following discussion. The Italian text as it appears in SW is presumablythe version Lasso knew. It sometimes differs in orthography and punctuationfrom the critical text established by Contini.

18 In this scheme, capital letters stand for eleven-syllable lines, lower-case lettersfor seven-syllable lines.

years, before he left Italy for the Netherlands in 1554.19 The setting is for the

most part line-by-line, with clear cadential demarcation of line endings,

but Lasso carries the music forward whenever there is a continuation of

meaning or syntax from the end of one line to the beginning of the next.

Most strong cadences occur at the ends of poetic lines, though not all poetic

lines end with strong cadences. There is very little of the fragmentation of

the line into syntactic units that we can see in the Venetian style of the

period. On the other hand, Lasso occasionally repeats a line, or a portion of

a line, for emphasis. The texture is frequently chordal, with some rhythmic

variety and a few brief melismas, mostly for expressive purposes. Text

setting is generally syllabic, with melismatic writing found mainly at orna-

mented cadences. Within these general guidelines, Lasso seems to have

employed what might be described as a declamatory, recitational style

intensified by various affective elements. Thus, while the chordal texture,

stretches of uniform note values, stepwise melodies with frequent repeated

notes, and melodic reminiscences of recitational performance suggest the

art of the improvvisatori, the music is imbued with affective devices such

as sudden upward leaps greater than a third, chromaticism and cross-

relations, colorful harmonies and harmonic juxtapositions, short melis-

mas and expressively ornamented cadences, tone painting of various sorts,

and imitation,all of which reflect the text.

While the use of imitation in this work is restrained, Lasso employs

two types. The first occurs at the beginnings of phrases, sometimes at the

start of a stanza and sometimes to launch an internal phrase. The latter

points are often incomplete and disguised, without the participation of all

five voices and with contrapuntal writing in the other voices overlapping

the imitative entrances (e.g. mm. 82–5; see Ex. 5.1). A second kind of imita-

tion occurs in connection with text expression, and consists of short frag-

ments of rhythmic imitation tossed about from one voice to another, as in

the setting of the word “sospirar”in mm.48–50 (see Ex.5.2).

Throughout the canzone, Lasso both respects and exploits the duality

mary s . lewis

100

19 James Haar, “The Early Madrigals of Lassus,” Revue Belge de Musicologie, 39–40(1985–6), pp. 17–32. Space restrictions have limited me to only a few musicalexamples in this article. For a score of Lasso’s setting the reader is referred to SWor SW2, vol. 2, pp. 89–110. Measures are numbered consecutively through theentire madrigal rather than beginning anew in each parte as in SW2.

of the poem’s contents and structure. At the end of the sixth line, the mid-

point of the stanza and the point where, metaphorically speaking, light

turns to darkness, there is always a clear cadence. Some of these are stronger

than others, with suspensions and bass support, but all allow opportunity

for a new musical and emotional impulse.

Lasso uses the traditional hierarchy of modal cadential pitches, as

cited by the theorists, to shape the music both structurally and affectively

on a large scale from strophe to strophe, and within the course of each indi-

vidual movement. The first, second,and last strophes turn to the final of the


101

Example 5.1: Lasso, “Standomi un giorno,” mm. 82–5

&&VV?

82˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ce'ho - ne - - -

w wne - sta,˙ ˙ w

merce'ho - ne -

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œca di ric - - -

-

˙ ˙ Ó ˙sta, El -

w ∑sta,

∑ .˙ œEl - la˙ .˙ œ ˙

sta, El - la car -˙ ˙ .˙ œca mer - - -œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙

la car - ca di

∑ Ó ˙El -

˙ w ˙car - ca di˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ca di ric - ca˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

ce'ho - ne - sta,˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ric - ca merce'ho -

œ œ ˙# ˙ ˙la car - ca di

w ˙ ˙ric - ca mer -˙ ˙ w

mer - ce'ho - ne -

Ó ˙ ˙# ˙di ric - caw w

ne - sta.

Example 5.2: Lasso, “Standomi un giorno,” mm. 48–50

&&VV?

24

24

24

24

24

48 Œ ˙ œ ˙ Œ œso - spi - rar, so -

œ# ˙ œ ˙ ˙fe so - spi - rar, eŒ ˙ œ ˙ Œ œ

so - spi - rar, so -

˙ Œ ˙ œ ˙fe so - spi - rar,

˙ ˙ Œ ˙ œmi fe so - spi -

œ œ ˙ ∑spi - rar,

˙ ˙ œ œ ˙mi fe so - spi - rar

œ œ ˙ Œ ˙ œ#spi - rar, so - spi -.˙ œ ˙ ˙

so - spi - rar sua

˙ Œ ˙ œ ˙rar, so - spi - rar

„

˙ w ˙sua du - ra

˙a Ó ∑rar,

˙ w ˙du - ra˙ w ˙

sua du - ra

mode for their closing cadences; in between, the stanzas cadence first on the

most widely accepted alternative pitch, then on one less-often recom-

mended as primary, and in stanza 5, on a pitch widely used for expressive

irregular cadences in modes 3 and 4 – A-mi.20

Thus we see a pattern of final cadences: E–E–A–B/E–A-mi–E. Lasso

appears to have constructed a basic tonal plan in which,at least as far as final

cadences are concerned, the pitch structure begins and ends around the

phrygian E, but wanders into the realm of the repercussion in the middle

stanzas. In the theoretical literature of the time, both A and B have support

as the second-most important cadential point in an E-mode piece.

Theorists are generally agreed on a repercussion of B or C for mode 3, and A

for mode 4; Lasso is extremely sparing in his use of B as a cadential pitch.

The tonality of“Standomi un giorno”is somewhat ambiguous,a situ-

ation not unusual for E-mode pieces.The work’s range suggests mode 3,but

Lasso’s treatment of A as the repercussion is strongly suggestive of the

fourth mode. Throughout the work, Lasso makes careful use of commixtio

modi and of cadences irregular to the mode for both structural and expres-

sive purposes. As we have seen, not all stanzas close on E, for instance, and

those that do, do not always end with the cadential motion in the tradition-

ally strong canto–tenore pair. Thus, stanza 1 cadences on E, but in the alto

and quinto (tenor 2), and stanza 2 employs the canto and quinto for its final

E cadence. The third stanza has the strongest final cadence up to that point,

employing the canto and tenore with bass support, but on the repercussion

A rather than on E. In stanza 4, Lasso brings the canto and quinto to a

cadential octave on B, but with e in the basso (reached by an upward fifth

from A to e). Stanza 5 closes with the tenore and basso sounding an A-phry-

gian cadence, though a cadence on E between alto and basso is heard two

measures earlier (mm. 258–9). Finally, the last movement cadences on E in

m.342 in the alto and tenore,and closes on a weak E cadence in m.344.

mary s . lewis

102

20 For affective use of the A-mi cadence see Bernhard Meier, The Modes of ClassicalVocal Polyphony Described According to the Sources, trans. Ellen S. Beebe (NewYork: Broude, 1988), pp. 259–79. In the following discussion capital lettersusually refer to a pitch class in general, while lower case letters (e, e�) refer tospecific octaves.

Viewing the structure of the poem, the first two stanzas appear to

belong together, portraying the visions seen from the poet’s window. The

next three stanzas depict visions of a laurel tree,a fountain,and a phoenix in

a magical grove, while the sixth stanza focuses away from the grove toward

the “lady . . . so graceful, fair” who is now revealed as the true object of the

entire poem. Lasso’s tonal plan would seem to fit with such a reading, with

the stanzas that close more or less firmly on E belonging to the opening pair

of visions and to the last one, though the last cadence is weakened some-

what, perhaps in response to the poet’s unfulfilled longing for death. The

three stanzas describing visions seen in the grove then have finals on A, B/E,

and A-mi.

Most of the cadences in this canzone, both final and internal, fall on

pitches recommended as cadential points within the mode by one theorist

or another, although the theorists are far from unanimous as to what those

pitches should be. Zarlino recommends e, g, and b. Pontio calls for primary

cadences on e and a, with g and b per transito, and c� come propera. Dressler

lists e, b, and c� as primary cadence points, and g and a as secondary. Both

Lusitano and Montanus name e and c�,with Montanus adding a.21 No theo-

rist cites d� as a cadential pitch for mode 3, and we shall see that Lasso fre-

quently cadences on that pitch at moments of affective significance. Only

Aaron lists D as a regular cadential pitch for mode 4,and then only d,not d�.

Most cadences, then, fall on modally “acceptable” pitches – E, A, G,

and C – with moves to D and A-mi reserved for such affectively significant

words as “asconde,”“trista,”“treme,” and “oscura.” Such usage has a cumu-

lative effect throughout the piece, as irregular cadences repeatedly under-

score words of deep emotional significance against a background of modal

unity emphasized by the tensions of the final cadential pitches of the

stanzas. Thus, the young Lasso worked within a structural-affective pitch

hierarchy that skilfully blends the familiar traditions of modal pitch

significance with madrigalian text expression. In the following section, I

will present a more detailed discussion of some of the strategies Lasso used

in setting Petrarch’s canzone.


103

21 Ibid., pp. 105–16.

Stanza 1

The stage is set – with the poet standing alone at a window – for the appear-

ance of strange and new things. The first vision: an animal (a deer) with a

beautiful human face appears, pursued by two hounds, one black and one

white, who trap it in a rocky pass and kill it. The poet sighs at the animal’s

harsh fate.

The E-mode tonality is established in the quinto and then the alto and

canto, through the statement of a rising line starting with an e–a leap which

then works its way upward with successive pitch goals of b, c�, and d� (mm.

3–6), thus outlining the upper range of the authentic mode.

As we can see from Table 5.1, Lasso cadences primarily on A (five

cadences) and C (four). Four cadences, including the first and last, fall on E,

and there are three on D and G. The D cadences are reserved for special

moments.The first occurs in mm.6–7 on the words “giorno”and “fenestra,”

as Lasso repeats the opening motive a fourth higher. This early move into

modally foreign territory ushers the listener into the visionary world seen

from the window.22

mary s . lewis

104

22 In all of the tables ! denotes an irregular cadence in the mode.

Table 5.1 Cadences in “Standomi un giorno,” Stanza 1

Line Measure Voices Pitch Comments

21 23 AQ E2 27 CT D! “fenestra/giorno”

11 TQ A22 15 AQ D! “nove”23 18(–20) AT C24 24 TQ C

26 AB A/D! “humana”25 28 CA A26 31 AQ C27 33 AB E28 37 AB G29 39 CT A10 42 TB G11 46–7 CQ G/C12 51 AB E

55 AQ E/A, then E

The role of the D cadence in pointing to that visionary world is reiter-

ated in m. 15 in the quinto and basso on the word “nove”(novel). Finally, at

one of the more dramatic moments in the stanza (m. 26), as it is revealed

that the beast has a human face, on the word “humana” an expected A

cadence is diverted to one on D by way of an E major to D major chord pro-

gression. Throughout the work, Lasso uses such motion of major triads a

whole step apart to underscore important moments.

If we consider the strongest cadences in the stanza, most of which are

at the ends of lines,we find the following series: D–A C–C–A–C G–A–G–E.

The D–A section corresponds to the opening phrases of the text, those that

set the scene. The section emphasizing C and A corresponds to the descrip-

tion of the beast,while the G–A–G–E section describes the beast’s death and

poet’s sorrow.

The passage from the world of reality to that of visions takes place by

way of a modally unsettling passage that moves through a downward circle

of fifths as the viewer’s gaze moves through the window to see so many

strange things. The passage begins in m. 11 with a cadence on A. By m. 15

the cadence on D discussed above has been reached; it is followed in the

next measure by one on G. Then, in m. 18 the alto, tenore, and basso have a

transitory cadence on C that is followed by a plagal one (mm. 19–20) also

on C. In that cadence, all five voices come together on long notes on the

word “stancho,” ending together at the close of the third line. By this time,

all sense of E-mode has been erased, and the music works in an area closer

to A and C until it cadences on G at the close of line 8 in m. 37. Beginning in

m. 37, the trapping and death of the beast are described, as the music

moves through a series of cadences on G, A, G, A, and finally, when the

speaker expresses his sorrow, back to a final cadence on E with a cadential

coda.

The final cadence is a phrygian one on E in the alto and quinto (m.

55), but sounded within an A minor triad. The harmonic language gradu-

ally settles towards a clearer statement of E in the coda, but without another

strong cadence. Thus, the hearer is left with a sense of anticipation rather

than one of closure.


105

Stanza 2

The second strophe of the poem describes a vision of a boat with golden

sails that is shattered against the rocks in a sudden storm. The opening

point of imitation includes a strikingly affective upward leap of a sixth in all

voices on the word “alto.” Lasso points immediately here to the focus on A

that is one of the marks of the pitch structure of this stanza.An A cadence in

m. 61 is balanced two measures later, however, with one on E in the quinto

and basso. This second cadence lacks both the suspension treatment and

the lower-voice support of the first.

At the end of line 2 (mm. 66–7) Lasso introduces another strong

cadence on A, on the word “vela.” As the poet marvels in line 3 at the ivory

and ebony decorations on the boat, Lasso moves further afield to an equally

strong cadence on C on the word “contesta,” ending the first part of the

fronte there.

Lasso cuts the fourth line in half (“E ’l mar tranquillo”) with a grand

pause after the word “tranquillo”and a cadence on D that can also be inter-

preted as an interrupted cadence on G. The effect undermines the sense of

mary s . lewis

106



21 261 CA A263 QB E

22 267 CQ A23 271 TQ C24 273 AB G interrupted

276 TQ D/G25 279 AQ A26 280 SQ A

285 ST A287 SQ A-mi! “honesta”288 ST G

27–8 291 AQ E/A29 294 TB G10 297 QB A/E11 299 AT D! “asconde”12 107 SQ A

109 SQ E with coda

tranquillity that has just been introduced by the long notes on “tranquillo.”

Tension is continued as line 4 ends without a real cadence. The succeeding

line,which states a new thought – “Freighted she was with rich and virtuous

goods” – is heard not once but twice. Only the second statement, however,

closes with a cadence, in this case a phrygian cadence on A that hints of the

drama soon to come.

The description of the tempest in lines 7 and 8 is recitational yet poly-

phonic in style, set syllabically with frequent repeated notes. The effect is

one of straightforward narrative, almost devoid of emotion, its only

affective characteristic being the quickening of note values and the cross-

relations (F–F � and C–C �) on “percosse ad uno” (m.93).

Line 10, however, brings a dramatic change. Lasso sets the words “Oh,

insupportable woe”to a descending series of long notes, starkly contrasting

in mood and rhythmic motion to the description of the storm that came

before. The phrase ends with a double cadence, first to A and then plagally

to E (mm.94–7), thus extending the A–E tension of the strophe.

The narrative style returns briefly for line 11 as do several cross-

relations and unusual pitch juxtapositions – F–F �, C–C �, C �–B � (mm.

98–9), as the phrase ends on a D cadence on “asconde.” This is the only

cadence in the second half of the strophe with both lower-voice support

and suspension treatment, and its emphasis underscores the poet’s horror

at the destruction of a thing of such beauty.

The final line of the stanza completes the thought begun in line 11,

but Lasso sets it at the start with the descending tetrachord of grief (mm.

98–102), which is echoed in various permutations in the other voices, until

the superius closes with an octave descent in long notes to the E final (mm.

105–9),with a phrygian cadence in mm.108–9 and a brief coda in which the

other voices finish out their descents.

Tonally, this stanza, like the first, seems to correspond to the two

halves of the strophe. The principal cadences in the first half emphasize A

and are on A–E–A–C–A–A–A-mi, while those in the second half are on

G–E–G–E–D–A–E. The second half, besides introducing cadences on G

and D, also places more emphasis on the final, E. However, the A–E dichot-

omy that forms a structural device in the entire work and that mirrors the

paradoxes of the poem itself has been skilfully introduced here.


107

Stanza 3

In the third stanza, Petrarch moves in his visions from the elevated location

of his window, looking out over the sea and the hunt, to a woodsy setting.

There he sees a laurel tree “of those that grow in Paradise,” and whose

unhappy end is the result of a lightning bolt and storm. Lasso begins the

strophe in narrative style with the first really strong cadence at the end of

line 2,on A (m.117).

The style has by now become more affective as the poet contemplates

the scene before him. The ecstatic emotion of the lover as he listens to the

songs of the birds inspires the composer to move beyond the mode to a pair

of cadences on D (mm. 128 and 130–1). Thus we see that Lasso uses D

cadences in this work to express both positive and negative strong emo-

tions. Following a strong cadence on A in m. 135, the sixth line describes the

lover’s transport into another world as the music moves to a new cadence

point on C (m.138),ending the fronte there,as in stanza 1.

At the end of line 9 (mm. 145–6), on the word “radice,” Lasso intro-

duces a phrygian cadence on A, but avoids a cadence at the very end of the

line by using the motion of a D cadence to bridge the two lines between the

mary s . lewis

108



21 114 AQ G22 117 CQ A23 123 QB G24 127 ST B/E25 131 AB D! “vari’uccelli”

135 CQ A26 138 TB C27 141 AQ G28 144 CB G (no leading tone)29 146 CQ A-mi/D! then to A, “radice”10 146 AT D! “radice quella”; enjambment10 149 TQ E “felice”11 151 AB A-mi! then to E in m. 152; “trista”12 154 CA G

156 TQ C158 CQ B/E161 ST A

words “radice” and “quella” (mm. 146–7). Slightly more definition is given

to the cadence on E at the end of line 10 (mm. 148–9), but such definition

can be seen as appropriate since immediately afterwards four of the voices

declaim the word “subito”together, launching the passage in which the poet

declares that his life is sorrow. On the word “trista” we hear another phry-

gian cadence on A (m. 151), this one ornamented to underscore the word,

which moves immediately to a cadence in all four sounding voices on E to

end the line (m. 152).23 After the words “subito svelse” the canto drops out

(mm. 150–2), leaving the four lower voices to express the observer’s grief.

Lasso repeats the text after a cadence on G (m. 154), closing on a strong,

ornamented cadence on A without a coda. Here, at the poem’s midpoint,

Lasso has avoided the E final altogether.

Stanza 4


109

23 One could argue that the melodic configuration in m. 151 is not a true cadence,since it occurs within a word. Nevertheless, the vocal lines move in a stronglydelineated cadential pattern through A-mi on the way to the E cadence inm. 152.



21 166 TQ D! “bosco”22 169 AB E/A23 172 AQ C

175 SB G24 178 TB C25 182 AB G26 186 TB C

188–9 CQ E/A28 192 TB C

195 CQ B “concento”29 199 AT C10 200 ST E “seco”11 204 QB A-mi! “sento”12 208 CQ G/E, then C

216 CQ B/E “sgomento”

Still in the grove where the laurel tree grew, the poet now sees a fountain that

further enhances the beauty of the secluded place. But yet again disaster

strikes, as a chasm opens and swallows up both the fountain and the grove,

restoring the poet’s grief. The setting opens in narrative style. Affective ele-

ments are soon introduced, however, in the form of a C–C � cross-relation

between alto and canto in mm. 163–4, and a cadence on D at the end of the

first line, on the word “bosco” – a note of foreboding, perhaps, that yet

another calamity lurks behind this peaceful scene. The D cadence,however,

is immediately supplanted by one on G which bridges the two lines and

their enjambment (mm. 165–6). A cadence on A in m. 167 on “sasso” is fol-

lowed by a drawn-out ornamented double cadence on E and A on the word

“dolci” (mm. 168–70). The second half of this cadence, on A, however, is

also used to bridge the enjambment to the next line (“waters cool and

sweet / Came gushing, murmuring delightfully”). An evaded cadence on C

closes line 3. We see here in the beginning of the strophe a tendency to

deflect importance away from cadences on the final, E, and to emphasize A

as well as modally irregular tones. Cadences on C and G in line 4 further

move the tonal palette away from E and into other modal territory.

The sirima begins peacefully enough (“There I sat down; as I / Most

sweetness took from such a melody – / And from such a view”). Lasso sets

these words in a primarily syllabic polyphony,but cadences most unusually

on a B on the word “concento” (mm. 194–5). The quintus and bassus initi-

ate the description (mm. 196–8) of the opening of the chasm (“aprir vidi

uno speco”). The narrative style is then invoked, with syllabic and homo-

phonic declaration, “e portarsene seco” (m. 199). The four declaiming

voices cadence on E almost simultaneously (mm. 199–200), and dramatic

rests in the canto and alto leave the listener balanced, as it were, on the edge

of the chasm, while at the same time the music carries across the enjamb-

ment with the beginning of line 11 to tell us that both “the fountain and the

place” have been carried away. The chilling news is greeted by silence in all

voices in m. 201, before the four lower voices intone, “still I feel pain,”

closing with a long, drawn-out phrygian cadence on A in mm. 203–4 on the

word “sento.” This cadence is the first modally irregular one we have heard

since the D cadence at the beginning of the stanza, unless we count the

cadence on B in m. 195, a pitch that Lasso has so far avoided treating as a

repercussion or even a common cadential pitch.

mary s . lewis

110

Lasso ends the strophe ambiguously as canto and quinto form a phry-

gian cadence on B that is supported by an A–E leap of a fifth in the basso

(mm. 215–17). Thus, while the final triad is E major, the canto and quinto

have suggested B as the cadential pitch instead, perhaps recalling the B

cadence on “concento” in m. 195 in the same voices, as the harmony of that

moment has indeed been transformed into fear.

Stanza 5

The next vision is of a phoenix who vanishes after viewing the destruction

of the laurel and the fountain. The imitative and affective opening makes

use of wide leaps to introduce us to the appearance of the phoenix. In line 3,

at the words “vedendo per la selva,” Lasso introduces a chromatic passage –

undoubtedly inspired by Petrarch’s choice of“selva”now instead of“bosco”

– in which we find an E major and D major triad juxtaposed (m. 228), fol-

lowed by a B � in the tenore, a C � in the quinto, and an F � in the canto (mm.

228–9).

In line 9, the canto’s statement of “rotto” is emphasized by an F–F �cross-relation between the canto and alto. Only the three upper voices sing

the text of line 10 – “upon herself her beak she turned.” In this short phrase

(less than two measures) Lasso varies the rhythmic motion, and introduces


111



21 223 AB E22 227 AQ C23 231 TB C Cadence formed 6–8/2–124 235 CT A25 238 AT B/E26 240 CT D!/G27 243 (C)Q B/E28 245 ST E/A29 247 (A)Q G10 249 CA D! “becco”11 251 ST G12 256 AT C

258 AQ A-mi! (through ficta)/D!261 TB A-mi! “d’amor m’arse”

within a few beats of each other the chromatic tones B �, C �, and F � (mm.

248–9). Perhaps we could read such a passage as an example of the mode,

like the phoenix, turning against itself.

A startling contrast ensues between the patter-like minims of line 11,

which illustrate the speed with which the phoenix vanished, and the slow,

descending opening of line 12. The final line of the stanza is first intoned in

long notes in the four upper voices (“onde ‘l cor”); that brief phrase is set

apart by a cadence on G in m. 253 before the gradually intensifying setting

of the rest of the line – “di pietate et d’amor m’arse.”Lasso repeats the words

of the last line, leading up to a cadence on A which is followed by a coda that

ends with a pathetic cadence on A-mi.

Stanza 6

Stanza 6 presents the final, climactic vision of Petrarch’s apocalyptic poem.

We readily recognize Laura as the “bella donna” of this vision. Like

mary s . lewis

112



1 268 CQ A2 274 QB G3 276 AQ E

277 TB A-mi! “treme”4 283 AT G5–6 292 CT A7 294 CT G8 297 CA D! “oscura”9 301 AQ G

10–11 309 CQ G12 315 TB A-mi! “dura”

321 CA A322 AT D! “dura”

I 324 AB G326 CB A-mi! “dire”

II 331 QB CIII 334 CA D! “desio”

338 AQ C342 AT E/A, then E

Eurydice, this beautiful lady is taken from life by the bite of a snake, and

follows the deer, the ship, the laurel tree, the fountain, and the phoenix into

oblivion, leaving the poet with “nothing, save for tears.” In the commiato,

Petrarch addresses the poem itself, stating that the six visions have made

him also wish for death.

Lasso’s setting begins solemnly, and with a cross-relation G–G �between basso and canto on “fin.” In line 2 – “[I saw] a pensive lady go, so

graceful, fair” – we hear first a D major to C major triad juxtaposition and

then a brief melisma,both pointing up the words “leggiadra et bella.”

There is no overlap with the beginning of line 3 – “That just to think of

her I burn and quake.” The note values gradually increase to mirror the

trembling of the text as “ch’i’ non arda et treme” is repeated, with a biting

C–C � cross-relation and C �–B � juxtaposition in m. 277. The line closes on

an A-phrygian cadence, stressing the emotional intensity of the moment.

The first brief phrase of line 4 ends with a cadence on E, the second with a

phrygian cadence on A, at the repeat of the text “humile in sé,” while the

fronte ends with a clear cadence on A (m.292).

The short span of line 8 is marked first by a C–C � cross-relation in

m. 292, and a more agitated, scattered dotted-rhythm texture as the five

voices all intone the changing mood at different times. Line 8 completes the

ominous thought begun in line 7 – “But yet her crowning parts / Were all

enfolded in a mist obscure.”Lasso continues through this line (mm. 293–7)

in a markedly affective style; upward leaps are followed by long descents,

and the phrase closes with a modally irregular cadence on D on the word

“oscura.”

At the beginning of line 12, first the upper four voices, and then all

five, join in a deeply affective statement – “Woe! Nothing, save for tears, in

this world lasts.” The use of irregular cadences now increases. The passage

begins with a homophonic exclamation of “Ahi” on an F major chord, in

startling juxtaposition to the G major chord that ended the previous

phrase. The music continues to a B � chord – B � having been heard through-

out the piece in phrygian relationship to A – and the phrase is liberally

sprinkled with B �s as it passes through a modally irregular cadence forma-

tion on D in m. 314 on its way to a phrygian cadence on A. Here, Lasso

brings together, at the emotional climax of the piece, pitches that have

served affective goals all along – the B � of the A-mi cadences, an A-mi


113

cadence itself, the C � so often used in cross-relations,and a hint at a modally

irregular D cadence.The text is repeated,with greater intensity,as the music

moves toward the sharp side, introducing a G � in the canto’s slow descend-

ing line (m. 316). Here Lasso turns to the language of the madrigal lament,

with outcries, chromaticism, octave leaps (tenor m. 315), and thoroughly

polyphonic texture. There are abrupt minim melismas on the words

“mondo”and “dura,”leading to a cadence on A followed by an irregular one

on D which overlaps the beginning of the commiato.

In the commiato, Petrarch addresses his own song. “Song, you may

surely say: / All these six visions of my master have / Produced in him a sweet

desire for death.” Here the poem reaches new pathos. The music, launched

from the irregular D cadence in m. 322, sings the first line twice (mm.

321–7). The first statement closes simply on a G cadence (m. 324); the

second, moving into a higher range and dropping the basso, increases in

intensity and introduces a B � in the canto (m. 325) which is repeated in the

quinto as part of the phrygian A cadence in m. 326. That cadence is

extended to an implied D cadence in m. 327, just as the basso rejoins the

other voices at the beginning of the commiato’s second line, the first part of

the quotation. In m. 333 B � is heard, but this time the cadence is another

modally irregular one on D (m. 334). The full text of the line is sung three

times, with additional repeats of the phrase “di morir desio” to the end of

the piece.B � continues to be heard as the canto falls silent in mm.335–7.The

third statement of the line introduces a brief but expressive melisma after

an upward leap in the canto on the word “morir” (m. 339). That melisma is

followed by a weak G cadence (m. 341) and then a stronger one on E that

essentially acts as the final cadence of the work. Three measures of coda

follow, repeating the last phrase and ending on an E major triad (a tradi-

tional two-voice cadence having appeared in m. 342 in the alto and tenore).

Stanza 6 ends in much the same way that stanza 1 did, with a similar har-

monic framework and the same tentative, expectant unwinding in the coda

and with the same G � in the superius of the last chord.

To summarize, then, Lasso maintains a consistent tonal plan

throughout the six strophes of the canzone, a tonal plan that unifies the

work both structurally and expressively. Tension between the final, E, and

the secondary cadential pitch A is introduced early in the work and under-

lies the structure. This can be seen in the use of these two pitches for final

mary s . lewis

114

cadences in the various strophes, in the scheme E–E–A–B/E–A-mi–E. The

relationship of pitch structure to text is evident in the fact that the first two

stanzas, which end on E, deal with visions from the window, and the next

three, ending on A, B/E, and A-mi, are concerned with events in the grove,

while the last stanza, which ends on E, turns to a vision of Laura. The A–E

tension is intensified by the frequent introduction of phrygian cadences on

A. The importance of the B � of the A-mi cadence is stressed by its use at par-

ticularly intense moments, as in its appearance as the root of a triad when

the poet cries out that nothing in the world lasts except our tears (m. 311).

Within the frame of stanzas 1 and 2, and then 6, with their E endings, Lasso

placed two strophes, 3 and 5, with endings on A and A-mi, and between

those, stanza 4 whose ambiguous E–B final cadence reinforces our uncer-

tainty about the actual modal identity of the work – modes 3 or 4.

Throughout the entire work, Lasso makes telling use of cadences

irregular to the mode, especially those on D, of major triads whose roots lie

a whole step apart, and of cross-relations, especially involving C and C �, to

underscore semantically significant words and phrases. Thus, these pitch

configurations become encoded in the listener’s ear to correspond to the

dark side of the canzone.

Lasso clearly perceived all six stanzas as being in a mode 3/4 tonal

matrix. Indeed, it is the overall E-mode foundation that permits the play of

irregular pitches against it to make an affective impact. He appears to have

viewed the work as a large unity with six “movements,”bound together now

by modal treatment and expressive devices, rather than by any kind of

melodic or motivic unifying device.

Only further study of the multi-movement madrigal repertory will

reveal whether other composers adopted the same approach. That

endeavor is beyond the scope of this study, which should none the less help

us to understand the compositional solutions adopted by sixteenth-

century composers in writing these large-scale works.


115

6 Lasso’s “Fertur in conviviis”: on the history ofits text and transmission

bernhold schmid

The Oxford contratenor partbook of the Meslanges d’Orlande de

Lassus1 contains deletions in the texts of several pieces. In a few cases,

though not always, the canceled words are replaced by others in a contem-

porary hand. This is true in “Fertur in conviviis,”a piece whose text was also

replaced by a contrafactum in a number of other sources. In the Oxford

source a passage in the fourth strophe,“. . .Angelorum chori, / Deus . . .,”was

changed to “. . . Bacchantium chori, / Bacchus. . . .” The question arises

whether this can be traced to an existent source,so that a previous version of

the text served as a model, or whether the scribe introduced his own vari-

ants. In order to provide an answer the following discussion provides an

edition of the original text with indication of all known variants in the exis-

tent printed sources,2 which are then considered in relation to the manu-

script alterations in Oxford.

To begin, the sources for the original text, grouped according to

related editions, are listed in Table 6.1.3 The table shows that the piece with

its original text was included both in chanson and motet prints. French

chanson prints in particular regularly include pieces with Latin texts, so

116

1 Paris: Le Roy and Ballard, RISM 1576i; Bodleian Library, Douce L subt.29.2 The only known manuscript source (Ulm, Sammlung Schermar, Ms. Mus.

without shelf mark, c. 1590; see Boetticher, Lasso, p. 835) will not be considered.The composition is printed in SW, vol. 3, p. 99.

3 Regarding the Septiesme livre of 1564, see Henri Vanhulst, Catalogue des éditionsde musique publiées à Louvain par Pierre Phalèse et ses fils 1545–1578 (Brussels:Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des beaux-arts, 1990), pp. 114–16. TheSeptiesme livre appeared in a large number of editions over a long period oftime (see Henri Vanhulst, “Un succès de l’édition musicale: Le Septiesme livre deschansons a quatre parties [1560–1661/3],” Revue Belge de Musicologie, 32–3[1978–9], pp. 97–120), but only the edition of 1564 contains pieces by Lasso.

Table 6.1 Sources for the original text of “Fertur in conviviis”

Sigla used in this study RISM sigla and number in the print Brief title

A 1564d, no. 9 Quatriesme livre des chansons, Phalèse (in both reprints,1567c and 1570g, “Fertur in conviviis” is not included).

B RISM deest, 1564, no. 38 Septiesme livre des chansons, Phalèse (in all later editions “Fertur in conviviis” is not included).

C1 15658, no. 1 Sesieme livre de chansons, Le Roy & Ballard (“Fertur in conviviis” is included in all later editions).

C2 15679, no. 1 Sesieme livre de chansons, LR&BC3 157011, no. 1 Sesieme livre de chansons, LR&BC4 157311, no. 1 Sesieme livre de chansons, LR&BC5 157510, no. 1 Sesieme livre de chansons, LR&BC6 15791, no. 1 Sesieme livre de chansons, LR&BC7 15843, no. 1 Sesieme livre de chansons, LR&BC8 15915, no. 1 Sesieme livre de chansons, LR&BC9 RISM deest, 1599, no. 1 Sesieme livre de chansons, BallardD 15698, no. 7 Liber secundus sacrarum cantionum, Phalèse (the only

known edition)E1 1570d, no. 39 Mellange d’Orlande de Lassus, LR&BE2 1576i, no. 57 Meslanges d’Orlande de Lassus, LR&BE3 1586g, no. 50 Meslanges de la musique d’Orlande de Lassus, LR&BF1 1579b, no. 67 Altera pars selectissimarum cantionum, Gerlach (“Fertur

in conviviis” is not included in the first edition, 1568b)F2 1587f, no. 67 Altera pars selectiss. cant., Gerlach

that an unequivocal distinction of genres is not possible on the basis of the

prints.4 The limited resonance in Phalèse’s output is striking; to be sure, he

published the piece in three different prints, with chansons as well as

motets,but he excluded it from the later editions of his Quatriesme livre and

Septiesme livre, perhaps because he had taken it up in a motet book (D). Le

Roy and Ballard on the other hand printed “Fertur in conviviis” exclusively

in chanson books.

The text follows the version of C1, which is the most widespread, with

orthography normalized.5 In source B, Phalèse’s 1564 Septiesme livre of

chansons, of which only the contratenor survives as a unicum in the

Bibliothèque Royale of Brussels, the text is deleted. However, the upper and

lower extensions of the letters are still visible, so the source can none the less

be considered here. Characteristic variants (see note 6) can thus be seen

that establish this text transmission as identical with that of source A.

(1) Fertur in conviviis vinus vina vinum.

Masculinum displicet, placet femininum;

et in neutro genere vinum est divinum,

loqui facit clericum optimum latinum.

(2) Volo inter omnia vinum pertransire:

Vinum facit vetulas leviter salire

et ditescit pauperes, claudos facit ire,

mutis dat eloquium, et surdis audire.

(3) Potatores incliti semper sunt benigni

tam senes quam juvenes; in aeterno igni

cruciantur rustici, qui non sunt tam digni,

ut gustare noverint bonum haustum vini.

(4) Meum est propositum in taberna mori

et vinum apponere sitiente ori;

ut dicant cum venerint angelorum chori:

“Deus sit propitius huic potatori.”

bernhold schmid

118

4 Bernhold Schmid, “Kontrafaktur und musikalische Gattung bei Orlando diLasso,” Orlando di Lasso in der Musikgeschichte. Bericht über das Symposion derBayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften München, 4.–6. Juli 1994, ed. BernholdSchmid (Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996),especially pp. 253–40.

5 I am most grateful to Daniela Sadgorski for her help in preparing the editions ofall the texts in this paper.

(5) Et plus quam ecclesiam diligam tabernam:

illam nullo tempore sprevi neque spernam,

donec sanctos angelos venientes cernam,

cantantes pro ebriis: “Requiem eternam.”6

In the Oxford partbook a few words are changed, while others are

only deleted and not replaced by another text. The variant “Bacchus” for

“Deus,”known from D and F1/F2, is also found in Oxford; the other Oxford

variants are unique. The version of the text in Le Roy and Ballard, found in

all the sources listed under C and E, is constant. The Phalèse prints, A/B and

D, have characteristic variants, and both versions differ from each other. In

D, the motet print of 1569, in which the title specifically mentions sacrae

cantiones, are found exactly those variants that sharpen the text, “potat-

orum”for “angelorum”(4,3),“Bacchus” for “Deus”(4,4), and “iustos pota-

tores” for “sanctos angelos” (5,3), while the texts as a rule are purified

instead. The agreement of the variants “surdisque” for “et surdis” (2,4) in

A/B, D, and F1/F2, and “Bacchus”for “Deus”in D and F1/F2 is also striking.

This leads to the conclusion that Leonhard Lechner, who saw to the editing

of the 1579 Selectissimae cantiones for Gerlach, drew on source D. However,

Lechner’s version of the text is not identical to that of D, but rather agrees in

some places with the most widely distributed version, that of sources C and

E. He may have known other sources besides D, and perhaps the text was

lasso ’s “fertur in conviviis”

119

6 Variants among the sources in Table 6.1:1,2 placet] atque A, B, D; “atque” corresponds to the reading of the texttransmission that is otherwise usual.1,3 et] sed A, B; “sed” corresponds to the reading of the otherwise usual texttransmission; see below.1,3 est] & E1.2,4 et surdis] surdisque A, B, D, F1, F2.3,1 benigni] beni deleted E2 Oxford.3,4 noverint] valeant A, B; bonum] boni A, B.4,3 angelorum] potatorum D; deleted E2 Oxford, replaced with Bacchantium.4,4 Deus] Bacchus D, F1, F2; deleted E2 Oxford, replaced with Bacchus.5,1 ecclesiam] deleted E2 Oxford, replaced with mulierem.5,3 sanctos angelos] iustos potatores D.5,3 sanctos] deleted E2 Oxford.5,4 pro ebriis: “Requiem eternam.”] deleted E2 Oxford.

already familiar to him as well, so that he was able to make changes to the

version of source D from memory.7

A few quotations contained in the text of the poem should be briefly

mentioned.“Requiem aeternam” needs no explanation; it is the beginning

of the introit of the Mass for the Dead. The source of “Deus sit propitius

huic potatori”in Lasso’s fourth strophe is not so immediately obvious. It is a

parodistic allusion to Luke 18:13, “Deus, propitius esto mihi peccatori”

(God be merciful to me,a sinner).8

A variety of contrafacta of “Fertur in conviviis” are known to have

been made. In the Magnum opus Musicum (RISM 1604a), the collected

edition of Lasso’s motets prepared by his sons, the content of the text was

turned upside down. Somewhat earlier a poem in memory of Clemens non

Papa,“Tristis ut Euridicen,” was underlaid to the music. The sources of the

contrafacta are listed in Table 6.2.

Two versions of the contrafactum “Tristis ut Euridicen” are known.

Source E2 in Table 6.1 has the original text underlaid, but “Tristis ut

Euridicen” appears at the end of the piece as an alternate text with the

inscription “Calliope loquitur. Epitaphium Clementis non Papae.” This is

lacking in E1, E3, and E4, which contain only the original text. In E3 and E4

the index contains an indication of the connection with “Tristis ut

Euridicen,”since the text incipit “Fertur in conviviis”in those two sources is

headed by the senseless inscription “Epitaphium Clementis non Papae.” In

sources H1–3 the poem is underlaid to the music in a slightly different

bernhold schmid

120

7 Further variants can be found in parallel settings by other composers. Prof.Ignace Bossuyt called the following variants in the composition of Jean deCastro to my attention: 3,4, “haustum bonum vini” rather than “bonumhaustum vini”; 5,1, “rem medicam” rather than “ecclesiam”; 5,3, “istospotatores” rather than “iustos potatores,” as in source D. Because here and alsoin 4,3 “potatores” or “potatorum” appear rather than “angelos” or “angelorum,”and in 4,4 “Bacchus” rather than “Deus,” de Castro, whose compositionaccording to Bossuyt is modeled on Lasso’s piece, must have gone back to sourceD for his text. Further on de Castro’s setting, see Bossuyt, “Orlando di Lasso as aModel for Composition as Seen in the Three-Voice Motets of Jean de Castro,” inthe present volume. I am grateful to Prof. Bossuyt for supplying thisinformation before the publication of his paper.

8 Carmina Burana. Texte und Übersetzungen, ed. Benedikt Konrad Vollmann,Bibliothek des Mittelalters, 13 (Frankfurt: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1987),p. 1218.

version. It is not designated “Epitaphium” in these sources. The fifth

strophe remarkably is absent in H2 and H3.

In the following reproduction of the contrafactum from Magnum

opus musicum the variants from the version established above from C1 are

printed in italics:

(1) Fertur in conviviis vinus vina vinum.

Masculinum displicet, nocet femininum;

et in neutro genere vinum est nocivum,

loqui facit homines pessimum latinum.

(2) Volo nunquam igitur vinum pertransire:

quia facit homines leviter salire

et jubet pauperibus, divites praeire,

tecta pandit omnia, facitque perire.

(3) Potatores nequeunt fieri beati

tam senes quam juvenes daemone sunt sati,

nam sunt ad coelestia jussa non parati,

edunt, bibunt et ludunt, hinc erunt damnati.

(4) Horum est propositum in taberna mori

et vinum apponere sitienti ori;

ut dicant cum venerint inferorum chori:

“Bacchus sit propitius huic potatori.”

(5) Hi plus quam ecclesiam diligam tabernam:

hanc nec ullo tempore ducunt condemnendam,

donec malos angelos venientes cernant,

cantantes his non fore: “Requiem eternam”

121

Table 6.2 Sources of contrafacta of “Fertur in conviviis”

RISM sigla and numberSigla used in this study in the print Brief title

G 1604a, no. 141 Magnum opus Musicum,Nicholas Heinrich

H1 1576l, no. 41 Thresor de musique [Geneva, S. Goulart]

H2 1582h, no. 61 Le thresor de musique [Goulart]

H3 1594b, no. 61 Le thresor de musique[Cologny, Paul Marceau]


A comparison with the various versions of the original text shows that

one of the F sources probably served as the source for this version.One indi-

cator is in the fourth line of the second strophe, where “surdisque” (F

among others) becomes “facitque” in the contrafactum, while in other

sources the “-que” is replaced by a preceding “et.” This is made even more

likely by “Bacchus”in line 4,strophe 4,which in sources other than F and the

contrafacta appears as “Deus.” The changes compared to the model are

sometimes very economical.Basically the content is simply changed into its

opposite. This is one of the contrafacta that are found only in MOM and

possibly made specifically for that edition. Besides “Fertur in conviviis,”the

group also includes “Nunc gaudere licet,”“Bestia stultus homo,” and “Jam

lucis orto sidere”; additional pieces could be listed.9

The reproduction of “Tristis ut Euridicen”follows source E2, because

its version of the text is closer to the original in two details than that of

source H. The original poem in strophe 2, verse 2 has “leviter salire,” which

is taken over into strophe 4, verse 4 of E2; H on the other hand has “ludendo

gaudere.”In E2 strophe 5, line 4 begins “cantare pro mortuo,”which is closer

to the original “cantantes pro ebriis” than the “cantare Clemens habet” in

source H.

(1) Tristis ut Euridicen Orpheus ab orco

revocaret coniugem resonante plectro

lyrae nervos tetigit dulciter canendo.

Fecit et idem David Deo iubilando.

(2) Mens mea desiderat musicam probare

et eam prae ceteris artis laudare:

moerentes laetificat, graves mitigare,

poenas novit cordium et deos placare.

(3) O cantores incliti, Musicae clientes,

bernhold schmid

122

9 Modern editions of “Nunc gaudere licet” in CM, vol. 6, pp. 87–90 (original text),and SW, vol. 19, p. 66 (contrafactum); “Bestia stultus homo” in SW, vol. 11, p. 95(contrafactum), and SWNR, vol. 1, p. 67 (original text, which begins “Bestiacurvafia”); “Jam lucis orto sidere” in CM, vol. 7, and SW, vol. 21, p. 84. In SW,vol. 21, edited by Adolf Sandberger, the original texts were printed, not thecontrafacta that appear in MOM, contrary to the practice of the other motetvolumes in SW. On “Nunc gaudere licet” see further Bernhold Schmid, “‘Nuncgaudere licet’ – Zur Geschichte einer Kontrafaktur,” Compositionswissenschaft:Festschrift für Reinhold und Roswitha Schlötterer, ed. Bernd Edelmann andSabine Kurth (Augsburg: Verlag Dr. Bernd Wissner, 1999), pp. 47–56.

videte Pierides Phociden colentes,

iam Clementis non Papae eunt celebrantes

(heu) tristes exequias lachrimis madentes.

(4) En Apollo respuit Cirrha personare

et Euterpe calamos flatibus urgere,

Terpsichore citharam digitis movere

et Erato pedibus leviter salire.

(5) Phoebus ipsi dederat Musices coronam,

nec eum Calliope sprevit, neque spernam.

Nunc adeste sedulo musici, fas est nam

cantare pro mortuo “Requiem aeternam.”10

The dependence of “Tristis ut Euridicen” on “Fertur in conviviis” can

already be seen in the variants discussed preceding the reproduction of the

text. Several passages show how strongly the poet of the contrafactum ori-

ented himself to the original in spite of the completely different content.

The encomium of music (“moerentes laetificat . . .”) in strophe 2, verses 3–4

of the contrafactum corresponds to the encomium of wine in strophe 2,

verses 2–4 of the model.The model’s “Potatores incliti”in strophe 3,verse 1,

becomes “O cantores incliti”at the same place in the contrafactum.“Sprevi

neque spernam”in strophe 5, verse 2 of the model is taken up in the contra-

factum as “sprevit,neque spernam.”Finally,both the model and the contra-

factum end with “Requiem aeternam.”

After all the text variants have been discussed, a fairly reliable stemma

of the sources may be constructed, in which it cannot be unequivocally

decided whether A or B is the first edition:11


123

10 Variants from E2:1,4 et idem] melius H.2,4 poenas] curas H.2,4 deos] iras H.3,2 Phociden] Parnassum H.3,3 iam] deest H.4,1 Cirrha] plectro H.4,4 leviter salire] ludendo gaudere H.5,1–4] deest H2, H3.5,4 pro mortuo] Clemens habet H1.

11 In the Septiesme livre a semibrevis a’ is lacking for the syllable “foe-” of“foemininum” in strophe 1, which is added in the Quatriesme livre. If oneconcludes from this that an error in the first printing was corrected in thesecond edition, then the Septiesme livre is the first edition.

All together we have twenty-two surviving sources, which can be grouped

into eight publications, most of which were reprinted several times. The

piece was published in chanson as well as motet books with three different

texts over a span of fifty-five years. The popularity of Lasso’s “Fertur in con-

viviis”could hardly be demonstrated more convincingly.

But let us return to the original text. It is based on a medieval drinking

song that in turn goes back to a text by the Archpoet, namely the so-called

“Confession of Golias,” which is included in the Carmina Burana as no. 191.

Bernhard Bischoff gives the following four late medieval sources for the

song:12

K = Copenhagen, AM 622 4o, c. 1550, from Iceland, p. 12.

Sl = London, British Library, Sloane 2593, 15th century, fol. 31r–v (old

numeration 78r–v).

bernhold schmid

124

12 Otto Schumann and Bernhard Bischoff, Carmina Burana, I. Band: Text, 3. DieTrink- und Spielerlieder. Die geistlichen Dramen, Nachträge (Heidelberg: CarlWinter – Universitätsverlag, 1970), pp. 19–21 (“Text des jüngeren Trinklieds,Quellenverzeichnis und Lesarten”). Carmen Buranum 191, the “Confession ofGolias,” is printed ibid., pp. 6–8. The following discussion is based on Bischoff

except where Lasso is the subject. In the presentation of the poem on p. 125Bischoff’s remarks appear in italics.

A (1564) / B (1564)

C1 (1565)

C2 (1567)

D (1569)

C3 (1570) E1 (1570)

C4 (1573)

C5 (1575)

E2 (1576) H1 (1576)

F1 (1579) C6 (1579)

H2 (1582)

C7 (1584)

E3 (1586)

F2 (1587)

C8 (1591)

H3 (1594)

C9 (1599)

G (1604)

E4 (1619)

Vo = Volterra, Biblioteca Guarnacci 8653, 14th century, fols. 13v–14r.

Pa = Rome, Vatican Library, Pal. Lat. 719, 15th century, fol. 24r.

For strophe 5 he cites additional sources,one of which is the following:

M1 = Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 10751, written 1575 in

Westphalia, fol. 61.

On the basis of these sources Bischoff establishes the following text:

(1) Meum est propositum . . . as in “Confession,” strophe 12.

[That text is reproduced by Bischoff as follows on p.7:

Meum est propositum in taberna mori,

ut sint vina proxima morientis ori;

tunc cantabunt letius angelorum chori:

“Sit Deus propitius huic potatori.”]

(2) Potatores singuli sunt omnes benigni

tam senes quam iuvenes; in eterno igni

cruciantur rustici, qui non sunt tam digni,

qui bibisse noverint vinum boni ligni.

(3) Vinum super omnia bonum diligamus!

nam purgantur vitia, dum vinum potamus.

Cum nobis sit copia vini, tunc clamamus:

“qui vivis in secula, te deum laudamus.”

(4) After the greatly varied line 1, continuing as in “Confession,” strophe 11.

[The first line is given here following the version Lasso set, as shown above;

this corresponds closely to one of the variants Bischoff cites on p.17.

Et plusquam Ecclesiam diligo tabernam.]

illam nullo tempore sprevi neque spernam,

donec sanctos angelos venientes cernam,

cantantes pro mortuis “Requiem aeternam.”

(5) Fertur in convivio vinus vina vinum.

Masculinum displicet atque femininum;

sed in neutro genere vinum est divinum,

loqui facit socios optimum Latinum.


125

Strophes 1 and 4 are taken directly from the “Confession of Golias,”in

which they appear as strophes 12 and 11. The other three strophes are not

found in the Archpoet. Strophes 1, 2, 4, and 5 appear also in Lasso’s text, in

the order 4, 3, 5, and 1. Strophe 3 of the drinking song is absent in Lasso. The

sources Vo and Pa, however, each include a strophe 3a, which is reproduced

from Bischoff,p.21:

(3a)Vini mirabilia volo pertransire:

vinum facit hominem leviter salire

et ditescit pauperem claudos facit ire,

mutis dat facundiam, surdis dat audire.

Here we have Lasso’s strophe 2 before us, apart from the first half line and a

few other small variants.

If one proceeds exclusively from Bernhard Bischoff’s edition of the

text of the drinking song, one might reach the conclusion that Lasso’s text

reorders the strophes and makes a few other alterations in the text of an

older poem that existed in a firmly fixed state. This is not correct, for

Bischoff’s edition shows the existence of a highly unstable textual tradition

in this drinking song. This unstable tradition is our starting point, not

a firmly established text. The number and order of strophes are also

unstable.13

When we examine Bischoff’s rather extensive list of variant readings

(pp. 19–20), the instability of our text emerges even more strongly.A few of

the readings he gives may also be found in the Lasso prints: “conviviis”

rather than “convivio” and “clericum” rather than “socios” in Lasso’s

strophe 1 appear also in the above-mentioned source M1. Lasso’s strophe 4

has “et vinum apponere”rather than “ut sint vina proxima,”and Bischoff (p.

17) mentions “Vinum sit appositum” and “vinum est apponere.” In the

same strophe are to be found “sitienti ori” (Lasso) rather than “morientis

ori” and “ut dicant cum venerint” (Lasso) rather than “tunc cantabunt

letius.” It was already mentioned above that “Et plus quam ecclesiam diligo

bernhold schmid

126

13 The succession of five strophes given above is found in the source Sl. Source K isquite similar in its ordering; it has six stanzas: after 1, 2, 3, and 5 above followsstrophe i from Carmen Buranum 219, and strophe 4 from source Sl serves as itsfinal strophe. Sources Vo and Pa have still other numbers and orders of strophes,though Vo begins with strophe 1.

tabernam” (Lasso, strophe 5) rather than “Tertio capitulo memoro taber-

nam”is to be found among Bischoff’s variant readings.

Lasso’s text and its variants thus fit completely into the picture of the

unstable transmission of the drinking song, with its varying number and

order of strophes and its most diverse textual versions: in it we have one of

the numerous versions within the entire text transmission before us. Since

the sources listed by Bischoff fall in part within the sixteenth century (M1:

1575, K: 1550; the latter stems from Iceland, and the geographic distribu-

tion was also extraordinary), the poem’s further appearance in Lasso’s work

is not surprising. Ludwig van Beethoven also took up our text in his

Ritterballet (WoO1): in the autograph “Mihi est propositum” is written at

the beginning of No. 6, the “Trinklied.” However, it must have been

intended only as a motto or citation, not as a continuously sung text, since

Beethoven’s musical declamation corresponds to only the first three lines of

every half-strophe. Beethoven probably came to know the poem through

his teacher in Bonn, Christof Gottlob Neefe, who produced in 1780 and

1783 two versions of a melody that set a German translation by G.A. Bürger

(1777).The Latin text was sung to the melody of“Gaudeamus igitur,”found

in the collections of student songs (the so-called Kommersbücher, 1788 and

1818).14

With a composer like Lasso, whose strong involvement with the text

was observed and discussed very early,15 it is reasonable to ask how far it is

possible to interchange texts without thereby destroying the relationship of

text and music.16 The contrafactum of “Fertur in conviviis” in MOM turns

the sense of the original text into its opposite. However, grotesque tensions

result in some measure from the moralizing warning against wine; it strug-


127

14 The information about Beethoven from Kurt E. Schürman, ed., Ludwig vanBeethoven. Alle vertonten und musikalisch bearbeiteten Texte (Münster:Aschendorff, 1980), pp. 631–2.

15 See for example Joachim Burmeister, Musica poetica (Rostock, 1606), whoanalyzed Lasso’s “In me transierunt” in accordance with his theory of musicalfigures. See Gottfried Scholz, “Zur rhetorischen Grundlage von JoachimBurmeisters Lassus-Analyse. Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Musikanalytik,”Zur Geschichte der musikalischen Analyse. Bericht über die Tagung München 1993,ed. Gernot Gruber (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 1996), pp. 25–43.

16 See for example Richard Freedman, “Divin Accords: The Lassus Chansons andtheir Protestant Readers of the Late Sixteenth Century,” Orlandus Lassus and hisTime, pp. 273–94.

gles too much against the original, since it can agree only in part with the

playful character of the composition. To replace the original drinking song

with a serious text, an epitaphium for Clemens non Papa, seems far-

fetched,17 though it can work in specific places. The chant citation of

“Requiem aeternam” in the drinking song has a parodistic character, and

the citation can be taken over into the memorial motet for Clemens without

damage, since it takes on a serious character corresponding to the text,

although Lasso repeatedly introduces chant quoted in a parodistic sense

into less serious compositions.18 The passage in the original, “cantantes

(pro ebriis),”so strongly expressive of the text, is completely unproblematic

in “cantare (pro mortuo)” in the epitaphium, and thus the text expression

in the original continues to be valid. These however are exceptions in our

piece, since its compositional style on the whole cannot serve for a lament-

ing text. Boetticher not unreasonably brings the original into relationship

with “Lucescit jam o socii”and the four-voice villanescas “through strophic

construction, songlike caesuras, and dancelike meter.”19 Songlike caesuras

come about in connection with the extensive declamation of the text in

block chords, dancelike meter through the frequent rhythmic patterns in

three beats. The piece is in tempus imperfectum diminutum, but several

passages in tempus perfectum diminutum are introduced (“loqui facit

clericum,”“Potatores incliti,”“ut gustare noverint bonum haustum vini”).

In addition, the hidden three-beat patterns brought about by syncopations

within the duple meter are striking (see Ex. 6.1). (See also for example

“vinus vina vinum,” mm. 4–6,“et in neutro genere,” mm. 13–15, and “inter

omnia,” mm. 25–6, as well as the subsequent cadence on “vinum pertran-

sire,” mm. 26–8.) Finally, unexpectedly short note values, which are none

the less underlaid with text, leap to the eyes (see Ex. 6.2). All this seems to

bernhold schmid

128

17 See also Ludwig Finscher and Annegrit Laubenthal, “‘Cantiones quae vulgomotectae vocantur.’ Arten der Motette im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert,” in LudwigFinscher, ed., Die Musik des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts, Teil 2, Neues Handbuchder Musikwissenschaft vol. 3,2 (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 1990), p. 348.

18 On the citation of the Gregorian “Requiem aeternam” and similar chantcitations see Bernhard Meier, “Melodiezitate in der Musik des 16. Jahrhunderts,”Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 20 (1964–5),p. 3; he refers to the contrafactum text from MOM found in SW, without notingthat SW, vol. 3, p. viii, prints the original text.

19 Boetticher, Lasso, p. 595 (“Lucescit jam o socii”, SW2, vol. 16, p. 174, and SWNR,vol. 1, p. 121) and p. 230 (comparison with the villanescas).

have been done so as to make the meter stagger, which corresponds to the

parodistic character of the original text, perhaps even to connect it very

directly with the staggering of a drunken person. In any case it does not

match in the least the character of a lament.

If one considers the text-expressive passages in the original in com-

parison with the epitaphium, the impression is then reinforced that the

lamenting text and the music that was not originally written for it do not

belong together. The succession of semiminims at “leviter salire” in the

original text is clearly to be understood as expressive of the text, while

“artibus laudare” in the epitaphium cannot be connected convincingly

with the semiminims (see Ex. 6.3). On the other hand, when “leviter salire”

appears in the epitaphium (the original had “huic potatori” at that point,

mm. 77–9), longer note values appear. In strophe 4, verse 4 of the original

text “Deus” is emphasized with two breves, which can be understood as a


129

Example 6.1: “Fertur in conviviis,” mm. 64–6, original text

&&V?

24

24

24

24

˙in

˙in

-

˙tum

-

˙tum

˙ ˙ wta - ber -

˙ ˙ wbta - ber -˙ ˙ w

in ta - ber -˙ ˙ wbin ta - ber -

˙ wb ˙na mo - ri

˙ w ˙#na mo - ri˙ w ˙na mo - ri˙ w ˙na mo - ri

Example 6.2: “Fertur in conviviis,” mm. 67–8, original text

&&V?

Ó ˙ wet vi -

Ó ˙ wet vi -Ó ˙ wet vi -

Ó ˙ wet vi -

˙ ˙ œ œ ˙num ap - po - ne - re

˙ ˙ œ œ ˙num ap - po - ne - re˙ ˙ œ œ ˙num ap - po - ne - re˙ ˙ œ œ ˙num ap - po - ne - re

Example 6.2

noëma. When the epitaphium places “Et E(rato)” under these long notes,

they lose their meaning. Finally, the underlay “(heu) tristes exequias lachri-

mis madentes” under a rhythm of long–short–long–short in tempus per-

fectum (originally set to “ut gustare noverint bonum haustum vini”) is

completely inappropriate. In short, the epitaphium must be considered a

failure.

In summary it may be said that the dependence of the various sources

on one another is clarified by the variants in the text.Which sources Lasso’s

sons used for MOM has not yet been explored sufficiently.20 Specific text

variants make it probable, though, that Lechner’s Selectissimae cantiones

(source F) is the basis for “Fertur in conviviis” in MOM. The large number

of previously unknown text variants is itself an indication of the need for

the revision of the motet volumes of the collected edition. The source of

Lasso’s text can be established. Finally, it can be shown once again that in a

contrafactum problems of the relationship between text and music often,

though not inevitably,arise.

*

Let us return to our starting point, the Oxford contratenor partbook of the

Meslanges d’Orlande de Lassus of 1576 (E2). It was remarked at the begin-

ning that in this source changes and cancellations in the text were found not

only in “Fertur in conviviis” but also in other compositions. They can be

mentioned briefly in closing:“Vous qui aymez”(fol. 41v): in the last line “in

bernhold schmid

130

20 See Horst Leuchtmann, “Zum Ordnungsprinzip in Lassos Magnum OpusMusicum,” Musik in Bayern, 40 (1990), pp. 46–72, especially pp. 47–9.

Example 6.3: “Fertur in conviviis,” mm. 31–2, original text above,

epitaphium text below

&&V?

--

˙ œ œ œ œ ˙lasis

le -ar -

vi -ti -

terbus

sa -lau -

li -da -

--

˙ œ œ œ œ ˙islas le -

ar -vi -ti -

terbus

sa -lau -

li -da -

--


le -ar -

vi -ti -

terbus

sa -lau -

li -da -

--


le -ar -

vi -ti -

terbus

sa -lau -

li -da -

wre,re,wre,re,wre,re,wre,re,

nomine Domine” is crossed out. “Deus qui bonum vinum” (fol. 35r): the

first “Deus” is crossed out but still can be read; the second line also begins

with “Deus,” which is crossed out and completely unreadable. “Vinum

bonum et suave” (fol. 84v, Contra; fol. 85r, secundus Bassus): text variants

are introduced at two points:

Original text Variants

Christus vinum semel fecit Bacchus vinum semper nobis inf

ex aqua, quod non defecit ex aqua, quod non defecit

. . . . . .

Ergo Christum invocemus Ergo Bacchum invocemus

In the contra the line “Christus vinum semel fecit” is crossed out, and the

cancellation has led to the ink eating away the paper. “Christum” in the

second passage is also crossed out, and here too the paper has deteriorated.

In the bassus the same cancellations and erosion of the paper are found, but

the variants are written above the original text. The meaning of the syllable

“inf ”is unclear; possibly a more extensive emendation of the text following

“Bacchus” was planned but not carried out, which would also apply to the

following verse. It is significant that both times “Christus” was replaced by

“Bacchus,” which leads to the conclusion that in “Deus qui bonum vinum”

the same change would have been undertaken.

When one considers the diverse manuscript alterations in the Oxford

copy of the Meslanges as well as the variants in the original text of “Fertur in

conviviis” listed above in its reprints, it may be seen that all of the changes

that have to do with the subject of drinking lend a more caustic character to

the text. This is unusual and should be especially noted at the end of this

study, since alterations in texts are usually for the purpose of purification

and are more likely to soften than to intensify the original.

Translated by Peter Bergquist


131

7 Orlando di Lasso and Rome: personal contactsand musical influences

noel o’regan

The common use of the Italian version of his name serves to under-

line the important part played by Italy and Italian music in the life and

work of Orlando di Lasso. His earliest adult musical experiences took place

there in the 1550s and he paid frequent visits thereafter; he composed mad-

rigals and villanelle to Italian texts and his music attained considerable

popularity in Italy. This essay examines Lasso’s relations with one impor-

tant Italian center, Rome. Personal and musical contacts between the com-

poser and the city occurred during three main periods: the early 1550s

when, as a young man, he lived and worked there; the early 1560s when his

compositions played a major part in an exchange of music between Rome

and Munich; and the year 1574 when he revisited the papal city while on a

tour of Italy looking for singers.1 The 1550s and 1574 provided opportu-

nities for personal contacts with Roman musicians; as well as the 1560s

exchange, evidence of musical contact also comes from Roman manu-

scripts and from contemporary inventories of music held at the city’s insti-

tutions.

Of particular interest is the possibility of musical cross-fertilization

between Lasso and Palestrina, the two major musical figures in their respec-

tive cities, who also coincidentally died in the same year. While there is no

direct evidence of personal contact between them, these two composers

must surely have known each other when they simultaneously held posi-

tions as maestri di cappella at Rome’s two most important basilicas during

the early 1550s. In a city with as small a population as Rome then had

(around 80,000) it is inconceivable that they should not have had some

contact. We do not know exactly how long Lasso spent at S. Giovanni in

132

1 Leuchtmann, Leben, p. 170.

Laterano: the only known reference to him in the basilica’s archives is to the

granting of a cotta to “il maestro cappella Orlando” on 21 May 1553.2

Evidence from another archival source (see below) establishes that he was

already in the post on 31 March of that year3 and may have taken up the

position as early as 1552: he had definitely left by December 1554, and

Samuel Quickelberg, writing in 1566, said that he served a “biennium”at S.

Giovanni.4 So a tenure from late 1552 to late 1554 seems most likely.

Palestrina was maestro at the Cappella Giulia in S.Pietro from 1551 to 1555.

At that stage there would have been quite a contrast between the two men:

the slightly younger Lasso was already a cosmopolitan musician, having

seen the court of Charles V in Flanders as well as service in Mantua, Milan,

and Naples; Palestrina, on the other hand, had been plucked from the rela-

tive obscurity of an organist’s post in the town of Palestrina to become

maestro di cappella at St. Peter’s, and had no experience beyond the Roman

hinterland.

The archconfraternity of Santissimo Crocefisso in San MarcelloOne institution which could have provided a point of contact

between the two musicians was the Arciconfraternità del Santissimo

Crocefisso attached to the church of S. Marcello, for which both organized

musicians during those years (Lasso in 1553 and Palestrina in 1552, 1558,

and 1570). In particular, Palestrina and Lasso organized singers in succes-

sive years (1552 and 1553) for the Holy Thursday/Good Friday procession

which had been pioneered by that body and in which all the confraternities

of Rome took part.5 This was the only major Roman institution, apart from

S. Giovanni in Laterano, for which Lasso is known to have organized music.

Table 7.1 gives all surviving payments which either mention one of the two

composers by name, or which remunerate singers from the institutions for

orland o di l asso and rome

133

2 Raffaele Casimiri, Orlando di Lasso, maestro di cappella al Laterano (Rome:Edizione del “Psalterium”, 1920). 3 See below, Table 7.1.

4 Quoted in Leuchtmann, Leben, p. 89.5 For information on this and other Roman processions see Noel O’Regan,

“Processions and their Music in Post-Tridentine Rome,” Recercare, 4 (1992),pp. 45–80.

noel o ’regan

134

Table 7.1 Documented payments by the Arciconfraternità del

Santissimo Crocefisso to Lasso or Palestrinaa

scudi

LASSO8 Aprile 1553. A M. Orlanno maestro di cappella di Sancto Giovanni scudi quattro et baiocchi quaranta e sonno per il Venerdi Santo in processione a Sancto Pietro. 4.40(Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Arciconfraternità del SS. Crocefisso, A-XI-20,Libro entrate-uscite 1552–53, fol. 25v)

16 Giugno 1553 (Processione del Corpus Domini). Alli cantori di S.Giovanni 2Pifari de Castello 2Pifari de Campidoglio 1.50Trombetti de Campidoglio 1.50(A-XI-15, Libro entrate-uscite 1550–54, fol. 73v)

23 Giugno 1553. Per la festa di Santa Croce alli cantori di S. Giovanni in Laterano 1.50(A-XI-15, fol. 74)

PALESTRINA22 Aprile 1552. Mandato del maestro de capella de Sancto Pietro per la procesione de la Venerdi Santo scuti cinque e mezo 5.50Mandato alli trombeti per fare lo bando del Venerdi Santo duo scuti 2Mandato de Frate Agostino per aconcare lorgano 1Mandato al maestro de capella de Santo Aluisci per la processione de lo Venerdi Santo 1(A-XI-18, Libro entrate-uscite 1551–52, fol. 4)

22 Aprile 1552. Pagar al maestro di cappella di S. Pietro per haver accompagnato la sera del Venerdi Santo la nostra processione scudi cinque de oro 5.50Pagar ad lo trombetta che ha bandito in li luoghi ordinarii et extraordinarii le indulgentie et processione del Venerdi Santo 1(A-XI-15, fol. 37)

7 Aprile 1558. A maestro Rubino [Mallapert] cantor per una cappella di cantori che viene a la processione del Jovedi Santo alli 7 de Aprile 4Ali cantori di San Joanni per esser venuti alla processione del Giovedi Santo paghai al Signor Jo:Batta Salviati 6(A-XI-27, Libro entrate-uscite 1557–58 (included with non-foliated mandati), fol. xv)

15 Giugno 1558. Mandato di scudi dodici de moneta da pagar alli cantori che venirno al processione del Corpus Domini Mercordi 15 de Junio 1558 vz. scuti quattuor alli cantori di S. Jovanni quattro a quelli di S.Maria Magior et quattro a quelli di S. Loisi 12

which they were working. This updates and extends the information given

by Domenico Alaleona.6

In the case of Lasso, only the first payment (for the Good Friday pro-

cession which fell on 31 March in 1553) mentions him by name and calls

him “maestro di cappella di S. Giovanni di Laterano.” The other payments

(for the feast of the Discovery of the Holy Cross and the Corpus Christi pro-

cession) simply mention the singers of S. Giovanni (this has to be S.

Giovanni in Laterano: S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini did not have any singers at

this period,nor did any other church dedicated to a S.Giovanni).The inclu-

sion or not of a named maestro di cappella in such records of payment for


135

6 Domenico Alaleona, Storia dell’oratorio musicale in Italia (Milan: Fratelli Bocca,1945), pp. 327–32.

Table 7.1 (cont.)

On the reverse:Io Firmino maestro di capella di Santo Ludovico ho riceputo [...] Ita est Firmin Lebel. Io Adriano Valent maestro di capella di Santa Maria Maggiore [...] Ita est Adriano Valent. Ho pagato li quattro scudi alli cantori di San Giovanni li quali porto M. Giovanni de Alatre adi 27 di Luglio(A-XI-27, Mandati 1557–58, non-foliated)

Mandato de scudi dodici de moneta da pagar alli cantori per venirno alla processione del Corpus Domini Mercordi 15 de Jugnio 1558 vz. scudi 4 alli cantori di S. Jovanni in Laterano, 4 di S. Maria Maggiore e 4 di S.Loysi. 12(A-XII-98, Mandati 1557–61, fol. 13v)

[...] scudi 1.20 per colatione delli trombetti di castello per accompagnornosonando la processione del Corpus Domini 1.20(A-XII-98, fol. 15)

21 Aprile 1570. Pagar ad M. Marcello Tortora [singer at S. Maria Maggiore] scudi quattro a bon conto della musicha del Giovedi Santo 4Pagar ad M. Jovanni Pietro Luisio scudi dieci per la musica del Giovedi Santo questo di 21 di Aprile 1570 10(A-XII-100, Mandati, 1564–77, fol. 75)

Note:a Where two versions of a payment survive, these are both given. Any payments toother musicians for the same occasions are also included. Original spelling hasbeen retained but abbreviated words are written out in full and moderncapitalization is used.

special occasions by Roman institutions was arbitrary: his non-appearance

in the payment does not rule out his participation (in a number of cases

different versions of the same payment can include or omit the name of the

person in charge). Since Lasso is not thought to have left Rome until 1554 it

seems reasonable to assume that he was also in charge of the singers from S.

Giovanni on these other two occasions in 1553 – though we will probably

never be absolutely sure of this. If this was the case, it trebles the known

occasions for which Lasso provided the confraternity with music and

means that he was effectively its chosen musician-in-charge in 1553.

Palestrina’s involvement was on a more extended scale: while only

one payment actually mentions him by name (the Holy Thursday proces-

sion in 1570), that for the same procession in 1552 was made to the maestro

di cappella of S. Pietro, a post known to have been held by him in that year.

The two payments for 1558,by which time Palestrina had taken over Lasso’s

old position as maestro di cappella at S. Giovanni in Laterano, are more

problematic: for Holy Thursday, with singers hired both from that basilica

and from the then freelance Rubino Mallapert, payment was made, not to

Palestrina, but to one of the singers of S. Giovanni. The same thing hap-

pened for the Corpus Christi procession when three choirs were hired, from

S. Maria Maggiore, S. Luigi dei Francesi, and S. Giovanni in Laterano. The

maestri of the first two signed for the money due to their singers, but

Palestrina did not; instead it was signed for over a month later by one of his

singers. This was not uncommon and, as stated above, does not rule out

Palestrina’s involvement.The sums of money involved imply that the major

part of the choir was involved, and it is reasonable to assume that Palestrina

was also present. His final known provision of music for SS. Crocefisso

(upgraded to the rank of archconfraternity since 1564) was in 1570, again

for the Holy Thursday procession. Although still only providing one of the

choirs, he was now paid ten scudi, which would indicate that he provided a

greater number of singers.

As well as singers, the archives also record payments to piffari (cor-

netts and trombones) and trumpeters. These were always found at Roman

processions, though there is no evidence that they accompanied the

singers. Groups of singers and instrumentalists were spaced out along the

procession’s length, particularly at the head and tail. The great Holy Week

procession started on the evening of Holy Thursday and continued

noel o ’regan

136

through the night into Good Friday, with members of all Roman confrater-

nities (in habits and hoods) making their way from their individual church

or oratory to St.Peter’s Basilica,where they were shown relics of the Passion

(veil of Veronica, spear of Longinus etc.) before making their way back to

their bases. Many of the confraternities included flagellants among their

number. Of note is the payment to a trumpeter in 1552 for broadcasting

news of the special indulgences to be gained by those taking part in this pro-

cession, a common method of advertising in those days. The Corpus

Domini procession was a more local affair, held by each confraternity

within its own locality.

There is no evidence that either composer was a member of the arch-

confraternity of SS. Crocefisso: neither name appears in a register of

members from 1550 to 1557.7 Palestrina’s grandmother had left four

barrels of wine to the archconfraternity in her will of 1527 and she may have

been affiliated.8 Among its members were the piffari di castello (i.e. the

papal windband) and many of the papal singers, who normally belonged to

this confraternity: Palestrina would thus have participated in corporate

membership during his period of service in the papal choir

(January–September 1555). Although he also seems not to have been a

member, the exiled Florentine Archbishop Antonio Altoviti left fifty scudi

to the archconfraternity in his will on his death in 1573.9 Now Lasso was a

member of Altoviti’s circle while in Rome in the 1550s and was a guest at the

Altoviti palace.10 Another member of that circle was the Tuscan composer

Giovanni Animuccia, who was to succeed Palestrina as maestro di cappella

at the Cappella Giulia in 1555, and who dedicated his Primo libro de motetti

of 1552 to the archbishop. Another member of the Altoviti circle at that

time was Filippo Neri,who was already embarked on his apostolate with the

young people of Rome and was shortly to start including the singing of

laude spirituali in his gatherings, many composed by Animuccia. Lasso was

thus in personal contact with two of the most important figures in Roman

musical and devotional life during his early years in the city.


137

7 Rome, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Fondo SS. Crocefisso, Z-I-48.8 Lino Bianchi and Giancarlo Rostirolla, Iconografia palestriniana (Lucca: Libraria

musicale italiana, 1994), p. 51.9 Rome, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Fondo SS. Crocefisso, F-XIX-23, non-foliated.

10 Donna Cardamone Jackson, “Orlando di Lasso and Pro-French Factions inRome,” Orlandus Lassus and his Time, pp. 23–44.

What music might Lasso have provided for the confraternity’s pro-

cessions? We can only speculate, with little to go on at this period. Later in

the century we know that motets for four and five voices, litanies and psalms

were sung in processions such as these.11 A number of motets in Lasso’s Il

primo libro de motetti a cinque e a sei voce of 1556 have texts suitable for Holy

Week, with themes of penitence and conversion (for example, “Peccavi

quid faciam,” “Domine, non est exaltatum cor meum,” and “Domine pro-

basti me”). Another of those pieces, “Gustate et videte,” has a text which is

normally associated with the Eucharist; Wolfgang Boetticher reported

Edward Lowinsky’s speculation that it might have been written for the

Corpus Christi procession at S. Giovanni in Laterano in 1553.12 The piece

appears in both a Roman manuscript and print (see below,Table 7.2); while

both date from well after Lasso’s time in Rome, it is possible that the motet

(which is in a style more consistent with the 1550s than later) was composed

by him in 1553, when it could have been used for either the Holy Thursday

or Corpus Christi processions, or both (since the former feast is also cen-

tered on the Eucharist).

A musical exchange between Rome and MunichIt was to be nearly ten years before there was any further explicit

musical contact between Lasso and the city. In 1561–2 an exchange of music

was organized between Munich and Rome, with the influential Cardinal

Otto, Truchsess von Waldburg, acting as intermediary.13 This exchange

may have been motivated by contemporary discussions about the suitabil-

ity of polyphonic styles of sacred music, though there is no specific evi-

dence of this. It might simply have been an act of homage by one court to

another at a time when Cardinal Otto would have been keen to cement rela-

tionships between Rome and Munich. The retention of Bavaria within the

Catholic fold was of crucial importance to Truchsess who, as well as being

Bishop of Augsburg, also represented the Holy Roman Emperor at the

papal court. His personal interest in music and his enthusiasm for Lasso’s

noel o ’regan

138

11 See O’Regan, “Processions.” 12 Boetticher, Lasso, p. 127.13 Lewis Lockwood, The Counter-Reformation and the Masses of Vincenzo Ruffo

(Vienna: Universal, 1970), p. 82.

music in particular are well documented.14 It was exactly at this time too

that he formed his own cappella,with Jacobus de Kerle as maestro.15

Music from Munich was sent to Rome first, all of it seemingly com-

posed by Lasso (although he was not yet maestro di cappella at the Munich

court), but there is no record of what exactly it was. On 28 February 1561

Cardinal Otto reported from Rome that Lasso’s music, particularly the

masses,“has pleased not only [Cardinal] Vitelli in particular, and everyone

here, but especially Cardinal Borromeo, who has had them copied and

wishes to have them performed in the Papal Chapel.” Unfortunately, no

manuscript copies of masses by Lasso survive in the Cappella Sistina

library, or in any other Roman collection (though printed copies do – see

below). On the other hand, the cardinal’s statement implies that works

other than masses were also sent: a number of motets by Lasso are found in

Roman manuscripts, and it is perhaps among them that we must look for

tangible evidence of the music by Lasso known in the city. We do know that

Palestrina’s “Missa Benedicta es” was sent to Munich.16 Lasso was subse-

quently to base a Magnificat on the model for Palestrina’s mass (Josquin’s

“Benedicta es caelorum Regina”), a clear acknowledgment that he had

taken the Roman work seriously.

Lasso’s 1574 visit to RomeAnother opportunity for personal contact between Lasso and Roman

composers came in 1574 when Lasso is known to have visited the city and

presented Pope Gregory XIII with the second book of his Patrocinium

Musices, the Missae Aliquot, dedicated to the pope, receiving in return the


139

14 Truchsess asked Duke Albrecht of Bavaria to bring his singers (led by Lasso)with him when he visited the cardinal at Dillingen for Christmas 1566. SeeAdolf Layer, “Musikpflege am Hofe der Fürstbischöfe von Augsburg in derRenaissancezeit,”Jahrbuch des Vereins für Augsburger bistumsgeschichte, 10(1986), p. 204.

15 See Otto Ursprung, Jacobus de Kerle (Munich: J. Heldwein, 1913).16 Palestrina’s mass was copied into Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus.

Ms. 46, about 1565. It was accompanied by the “Missa Ultimi miei sospiri” inMus. Ms. 45, said to have been composed by F. Roussel/Rosselli (SeeLockwood, Vincenzo Ruffo, p. 82), but KBM 5/1, p. 170, has now clarified itsauthorship as being by the north Italian composer Giovanni Maria de Rossi(“Il Rosso”).

Order of the Golden Spur from Pope Gregory XIII. Lasso was in Rome from

15 to 20 March and again around 6 April, visiting Naples in between. It is

difficult to imagine him not seeking out Palestrina,since the two would have

had so much to discuss about developments in sacred music in the years fol-

lowing the Council of Trent. The 6th of April was the Tuesday of Holy Week

and it is possible, even likely, that Lasso managed to attend some Holy Week

services in the city, for example at the Cappella Giulia, and the Holy

Thursdayprocessionof confraternities.Sincehewasonarecruitingmission

hewouldhavebeenkeentohearasmanysingersandmusiciansaspossible.It

can hardly be just a coincidence that later in the same year, on 9 October

1574, the German organist at St.Peter’s,Mark Houtermann,was given a rise

in salary from three scudi a month to four because he had threatened to leave

to work for the Duke of Bavaria, and the authorities at St. Peter’s wanted to

keep him since he had given excellent service for thirteen years.17 If Lasso

heard and met Houtermann,he must also have met Palestrina, the Cappella

Giulia’smaestro.It isalsohighly likelythatLassovisitedtheGermanCollege,

wherehewouldhavemet theyoungVictoria,thenModeratorMusicae.

Music by Lasso known in RomeSeven four-voice motets by Lasso were included in an anthology of

1563, compiled by Antonio Barrè, the Rome-based printer and editor who

had been a member of the Cappella Giulia in 1552–3, while Lasso was in

Rome.18 Five of these had already appeared in Lasso’s own first publication,

his Il primo libro dovesi contengono madrigali, villanesche, canzoni francesi,

et motetti a quattro voci (Antwerp, Susato, 1555);19 for the other two,“Quia

noel o ’regan

140

17 Giancarlo Rostirolla, “La Cappella Giulia in S. Pietro negli anni del magistero diGiovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina,” Atti del convegno di studi Palestriniani, 28settembre–2 ottobre 1975, ed. Francesco Luisi (Palestrina: [s.n.], 1977), p. 246.

18 Liber primvs mvsarvm cvm qvattvor vocibus sacrarvm cantionvm qve vvlgo motettavocantvr ab Orlando di Lassvs, Cipriano Rore, et aliis ecclesiasticis avthoribvscompositarum, ab Antonio Barrè collectarum & in lucem nunc primum editarum(Venice: Gardano, RISM 15633).

19 There were two editions of this publication printed in Antwerp in 1555, onewith the Italian title given here and the other with the French title, Lequatoirsiesme livre à quatre parties contenant dixhuyct chansons italiennes, sixchansons françoises, et six motetz...par Rolando di Lassus (RISM 1555b and 1555arespectively).

vidisti me Thoma” and “Scio enim quod redemptor meus vivit,” Barrè’s

anthology is the earliest known source. Though printed in Venice as part of

a series edited by Barrè for Gardano (the other volumes concentrated on

secular music) the anthology gives a good indication of the music available

and sung in Rome at this time. As well as the seven pieces by Lasso (the

largest number by a single composer) there were three by Cipriano de Rore,

two each by Palestrina, Adrian Valent, and Hernando Lerma (all of whom

had musical positions in Roman churches), and one each by Paolo

Animuccia, Josquin Baston, Jacob Clemens, Johannes Lupi, Jean Maillard,

and the Italian, Annibale Zoilo, Palestrina’s earliest protégé. One further

early Lasso motet is found in both a Roman manuscript and printed source

dating from the 1590s: the five-voice “Gustate et videte,”mentioned earlier,

which first appeared in Lasso’s Il primo libro de motetti a cinque & a sei voci

of 1556 (Antwerp, Laet). It is possible that these Lasso motets were among

the pieces sent to Rome in 1562, though it seems more probable that Lasso

would have sent more up-to-date music. All of the motets in Barrè’s 1563

anthology are stylistically similar, examples of standard mid-century

Franco-Flemish imitative polyphony, characterized in particular by long

melismatic lines.

Table 7.2 lists individual pieces by Lasso found in Roman manu-

scripts (dates of first publication are given in brackets). Printed music by

the composer is also included in a number of surviving Roman inventories

dating from the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries: Table 7.3

lists particular prints which can be identified, together with the institutions

where they appear.Publications of Lasso’s sacred music feature particularly

strongly in an inventory from the Chiesa Nuova (perhaps reflecting Lasso’s

acquaintance with Filippo Neri in the early 1550s). They are also included

in sixteenth-century lists from San Luigi dei Francesi and San Rocco.20 The

Cappella Pontificia has only his 1574 masses, presumably the copy pre-

sented by the composer to Pope Gregory XIII in that same year. Evidence of

Roman performances of specific pieces is confined to his setting of “Deus

misereatur nostri,” sung at the Collegio Germanico on 17 January 1583


141

20 On the other hand, there are significant Roman institutions for whichinventories of printed music survive which do not include Lasso; these includethe Cappella Giulia, S. Giovanni in Laterano, S. Maria Maggiore, S. Lorenzo inDamaso, S. Giacomo degli Spagnoli, and S. Maria di Monserrato.

noel o ’regan

142

Table 7.2 Pieces by Lasso found in Roman manuscripts

(Rn=Biblioteca Nazionale; Rsc=Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Santa Cecilia;Rvat=Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana)

5vv Gustate et videte (1st ed. 1556) Rsc G 796–804a

Benedicam Dominum (1562) Rn Mss. Mus. 77–88Confitemini Domino (1562) Rn Mss. Mus. 77–88In me transierunt (1562) Rvat Cappella Sistina 484Surrexit pastor bonus (1562) Rsc G 796–804a

6vv Quare tristis es, anima mea (1564) Rn Mss. Mus. 77–88Locutus sum in lingua mea (1568) Rn Mss. Mus. 77–88

8vv In convertendo Dominus (1565) All three 8vv pieces are found in:Deus misereatur nostri (1566) Rn Mss. Mus. 77–88 (revised)Levavi oculos meos in montes (1566) Rvat Cappella Giulia XIII 24

(revised)Rsc G 792–795/Rn Mss. Mus.117–121 (revised)

Note:a These pieces are also found in Jean Matelart, Responsoria, antiphonae et hymni inprocessionibus per annum (Rome: Nicolo Mutii, 1596).

Table 7.3 Publications by Lasso listed in inventories from Roman

churches

Motettorum 5,6vv (1561) (Chiesa Nuova)Sacrae Cantiones 5vv (Nuremberg, 1562) (San Rocco)Sacrae lectiones novem (Venice, 1565) (San Luigi dei Francesi)Sacrae cantiones liber secundus 5,6vv (Venice, 1566) (Chiesa Nuova)Sacrae cantiones liber tertius 5,6vv (Venice, 1566) (Chiesa Nuova)Motettorum 6,7vv (1569) (Chiesa Nuova)Patrocinium Musices...missae aliquot, secunda pars, 5vv (Munich, 1574) (Cappella

Sistina)Patrocinium Musices...Magnificat aliquot, quinta pars, 4–6, 8vv (Munich, 1576)

(Chiesa Nuova)The Chiesa Nuova inventory (1608) lists two further books of motets by Lasso

without sufficient information to identify them exactly.

after Compline as part of a special Forty-Hours Devotion to pray that the

Archbishop of Cologne would not turn Lutheran.21 Particularly significant

evidence of his continued popularity in Rome is the fact that the maestro at

S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, Felice Anerio, caused six unspecified pieces by

Lasso to be copied from a print in 1590.22 Two of the pieces in Table 7.2,

“Gustate et videte” and “Surrexit pastor bonus,” are found in sources con-

nected with both S. Spirito in Sassia (the Rsc partbooks) and S. Lorenzo in

Damaso (Matelart’s 1596 publication).23 The three eight-voice pieces are

found in manuscripts connected with the Cappella Giulia, Chiesa Nuova,

and SS. Trinità dei Pellegrini. All of this represents a considerable number

of Roman institutions with experience of Lasso’s music. Further evidence

of interest is provided by an inventory of the goods found in the room of the

rector of the Collegio Capranica on 5 September 1590: included was an

unspecified bundle of books by Orlando di Lasso, the only named com-

poser in the list. These may, however, have been madrigals, since the inven-

tory also lists a set of five viols and a cittern.24 An inventory of the books

found in the shop of a bookseller called Giacomo Verrecchio in the Via del

Pellegrino, at his death on 1 July 1591 included copies of Lasso’s first and

third books of madrigals a4, his first, second and fifth books of madrigals

a5,and fifteen copies of an unspecified book of motets.25

Perhaps the most significant thing to emerge from the two tables is the

predominance of individual pieces and publications dating from the 1560s.


143

21 Archives of the Germano-Hungarian College in Rome, Diario del Padre MicheleLauretano 1582–3, 51. Quoted as Document 60 in Thomas D. Culley, Jesuits andMusic, i: A Study of the Musicians Connected with the German College in Romeduring the 17th Century and of their Activities in Northern Europe (Rome: JesuitHistorical Institute, 1970).

22 Rome, Archive of S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, 197, unfoliated.23 O’Regan, “Processions.”24 Vera Vita Spagnuolo, “Gli atti notarili dell’Archivio di Stato di Roma. Saggio di

spoglio sistematico: l’anno 1590,” La musica a Roma attraverso le fonti d’archivio:Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 4–7 giugno 1992, ed. Bianca MariaAntolini, Arnaldo Morelli, and Vera Vita Spagnuolo (Lucca: Libreria musicaleitaliana, 1994), p. 63.

25 Ibid., pp. 57–8. Only one book of four-voice madrigals by Lasso is known toexist. It is not clear whether the reference to a third book is in error or evidenceof a madrigal book that has not survived. If the latter, it would follow that asecond book has also been lost. Further on this see Boetticher, Lasso, pp. 751and 754, s.v. 1563ε and 1565µ.

This implies either a strong interest in Lasso’s music during this decade in

Rome, or a continued interest in the music which Lasso published in the

1560s, or most likely both. Now it was precisely during this decade that

Roman church music, undergoing radical change in the aftermath of the

Council of Trent, would have been most open to influence by Lasso’s music.

If this were the case it is likely to have been felt mostly in the areas of texture

and sonority, since melodically there remained significant differences

between Lasso and Roman composers.

It was in the matter of texture, in particular, that a fundamental

change took place in Roman church music during the 1560s. It is, however,

difficult to pinpoint this precisely in the published works of Palestrina and

Giovanni Animuccia, the only composers publishing in the city during that

decade; the unresolved debate over the dating of the “Missa Papae Marcelli”

is a witness to this. It is compounded by the fact that Palestrina’s severely

imitative and contrapuntal 1563 Motecta festorum totius anni are for four

voices only, and would thus be less likely to exhibit newer textural tenden-

cies; his next book of motets, the Primo libro dei mottetti a cinque, sei e sette

voci of 1569, shows a pronounced move to more layered homophony, at

least some of which is the result of the greater number of voices employed.

Palestrina published no masses between the strongly Franco-Flemish first

book of 1554 and those of 1567 which were written, as he himself said in the

dedication, in a “new manner.” Animuccia’s only published masses are

those of his Missarum liber primus of 1567 in which he endeavored that the

music “might disturb the hearing of the text as little as possible.”These, and

his Magnificats of 1568, show a significant break from the style of his earlier

works,but he had not published any sacred music since 1552.

All but two of the Lasso pieces in Table 7.2 (“Benedicam Dominum”

and “Gustate et videte”) have the sort of antiphonal dialogue between sub-

groups of voices which became a feature of both Palestrina’s and

Animuccia’s style from their 1567 masses onwards. For instance, Example

7.1, taken from “In me transierunt,” found in the manuscript, Cappella

Sistina 484 (and published in 1562), and Example 7.2, taken from “Locutus

sum in lingua mea” in the Biblioteca Nazionale partbooks (and published

in 1568), are clear examples of the sort of pseudo-polyphonic writing

which was seen to satisfy the requirements of the Council of Trent, while

showing a keen sensitivity to the words. These can be compared to Example

noel o ’regan

144

7.3, from Palestrina’s “Crucem sanctam subiit” from 1569, or Example 7.4,

from Animuccia’s “Missa Christe Redemptor” of 1567. Another feature of

all these examples is the stronger harmonic sense, reinforced by a bass line

which moves a lot in fourths and fifths.

Now, it would be simplistic to claim that Lasso’s was the only

influence which led to Animuccia and Palestrina adopting this new style.

There were other models to hand for Roman composers: some of these tex-

tural features are already found in the music of Morales and, in particular,

in that of Jacobus de Kerle, such as his Preces Speciales or his Sex Missae,both

from 1562. Kerle was regularly in Rome between 1562 and 1565 in the


145

Example 7.1: Orlando di Lasso, “In me transierunt” (1562), mm. 26–39

(CM, vol. 2)

Cantus

Altus

Tenor 1

Tenor 2

Bassus

&VVV?

26 w wi> con -.w ˙i> con -w wi> con -

w wtu - i>

›i>

˙ ˙ ˙ Itur - ba - ve- runt.˙ œ ˙ ˙tur - ba- ve- runt.˙ œ ˙ ˙tur - ba- ve- runt

∑ Ó ˙con -

„

w ∑me,w ∑me,

˙ ˙ .˙ œme, <con- tur- ba -˙ w ˙

tur - ba -

Ó ˙ .˙ œcon - tur- ba -

Ó w ˙<con - tur -

∑ w<con -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ve-runt me,> con -

˙ I wve-runt me,

˙ ˙ wve-runt me,

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙#ba - ve - runtw w

tur - ba - - -.˙ œ ˙ ˙tur - ba- ve - runt

∑ Ó ˙<con -

∑ Ó ˙<con -

˙ ˙ œ œ ˙me,> con- tur- ba- ve -w ˙ I

ve - runt

w ∑me:.˙ œ ˙ ˙tur - ba- ve - runt.˙ œ ˙ ˙tur - ba- ve - runt

&VVV?

32

-

˙ ˙ wrunt me:w ∑

me:>∑ wcor

w wme:> cor

w wme:> cor

„›

cor

w w#me -w wme -

w wme -

∑ wcor›

me -

w wum,

w wum,w wum

w w#me -›

umw .˙ œ<cor me -

w wcor me -

w ∑

w wumw wcon -w ˙ ˙um> con -

w .˙ œum con -

∑ Ó ˙con -

„˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

tur- ba- tum˙ ˙ ˙ ˙tur- ba- tum

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙tur- ba- tum˙ ˙ ˙ ˙tur- ba- tum

.w ˙con - tur -˙ w ˙est, <con- tur -˙ w ˙est, <cor me -

˙ w ˙est, <con- tur -

w ∑est,

˙ ˙ wba-tum est,˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ba-tum est,> con -.˙ œ ˙ ˙um con -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ba-tum est,> con -

∑ Ó ˙<con-

noel o ’regan

146

Example 7.2: Orlando di Lasso, “Locutus sum in lingua mea” (1568), mm.

57–66 (CM, vol. 6, pp. 52–3)

Cantus

Altus 1

Altus 2

Tenor

Bassus 1

Bassus 2

&VVV??

24

24

24

24

24

24

57

-

˙ I wnum,

-

w wnum,>

-

w wnum,

w wnum,> ut

„∑ Ó ˙

ut

w ∑Ó ˙ ˙ ˙

ut vi - de -w ˙ ˙ut vi - de -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙vi - de - ant qui

„˙ ˙ œ œ œ œvi - de - ant

„˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

ant qui o - de -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ant qui o - de -˙ .˙ œ ˙o - de - - - -

„

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙qui o - de -

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ut vi - de -

w ˙ ˙runt me, utw wrunt me,

-

œ Iœ

Iœ

I˙ w

runt

∑ Ó ˙utw w

runt me,

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ant quiœ œ œ œ ˙ ˙vi - - - de -Ó ˙ ˙ ˙

ut vi - de -

w ∑me,˙ ˙ œ œ œ œvi - de - ant

w ∑

&VVV??

62 ˙ .˙ œ ˙o - de - - -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

ant qui o - de -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ant qui o - de -

„

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ qui o - de -

„

˙ I wrunt me,w w#

runt me,w wrunt me,

∑ Ó ˙et

w ˙ ˙runt me, et

∑ Ó ˙et

∑ Ó ˙et

Ó .˙ œ# œ ˙et∑ Ó ˙

et

œ œ ˙ wcon- fun - dan-tur,

œ œ ˙b wcon- fun - dan-tur,œ œ ˙ wcon- fun - dan-tur,

œ œ ˙ ˙ Œ œcon- fun - dan - tur, etœ œ ˙b ˙ ˙con- fun - dan - tur, etœ œ ˙ ˙ ˙con- fun - dan - tur, <et

Ó .˙ Iœœ Iet

∑ Ó ˙et

∑ Ó ˙<et

œ œ ˙# ˙ ˙con- fun - dan - tur, quo-œ œ ˙ wcon- fun - dan - tur,

˙ ˙ w#con - fun - dan -œ œ ˙ wcon- fun - dan - tur,

œ œ ˙ wcon- fun - dan - tur,

œ œ ˙ wcon- fun - dan- tur,>

employ of Cardinal Truchsess who, as we have seen, was a key mover in

musical traffic.26 The most that can be said is that newer stylistic features of

texture and harmony are found widely in Lasso’s publications from the

early 1560s; some of this music was known and used in Rome and could well

have helped show the way forward during those crucial few years immedi-

ately after the end of the Council of Trent. The esteem in which Lasso was


147

26 Ferdinand Siebert, Zwischen Kaiser und Papst: Kardinal Truchsess von Waldburgund die Anfänge der Gegenreformation in Deutschland (Berlin: Junker undDünnhaupt Verlag, 1943), pp. 354–5. Truchsess had earlier accepted thededication of Glarean’s controversial Dodecachordon in 1547 and was later to bethe patron of Victoria and the dedicatee of his first book of motets in 1572.

Example 7.3: Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, “Crucem Sanctam subiit”

(1569), mm. 33–42

Cantus

Altus

Tenor 1

Tenor 2

Bassus

&&VV?

bbbb

b

33 „

.˙ œ ˙ ˙ten - - - ti -.˙ œ ˙ ˙po - - ten -

Ó ˙ wpo - ten -

.˙ œ œ œ ˙ten - - - -

∑ Ó ˙sur -

w Ó ˙a, sur -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ti - a, sur -

w wti - a,˙ ˙ w

ti - a,

w ˙ ˙re - xit di -

w ˙ ˙re - xit di -w ˙ ˙re - xit di -

„„

˙ ˙ .˙ œe ter - ti -

˙ ˙ .˙# œe ter - ti -

˙ ˙ .˙ œe ter - ti -

„„

w ∑a,

w ∑a,

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙a, sur - re - xit

Ó ˙ wsur - re -

Ó ˙ wsur - re -

&&VV?

bbbb

b

38 „„˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ di - e ter -

˙ w ˙xit di - e˙ w ˙xit di - e

„„˙ ˙ w

ti - a,

.˙ œ wter - ti - a,.˙b œ wter - ti - a,

w wsur - re -

w wsur - re -w wsur - re -

Ó ˙ wsur - re -w w

sur - re -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙xit di - e ter -

˙ w ˙xit di - e˙ w ˙xit di - e

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙xit di - e ter -˙ w ˙xit di - e

˙ I˙ wti - a.

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ter - ti - a.

.˙ œ wter - ti - a.˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ

ti - a..˙ œ wter - ti - a.

already widely held, together with the memory of personal contact in the

1550s, would have added weight to any examples of his up-to-date music

which might have reached Rome.

Polychoral musicIn the area of polychoral music the evidence for Lasso’s influence on

Roman composers is more direct. In particular, three eight-voice pieces by

Lasso are found, in a revised form, in the three related sets of Roman part-

books listed in Table 7.2. It appears that these pieces, together with others by

noel o ’regan

148

Example 7.4: Giovanni Animuccia, “Gloria” from “Missa Christe

Redemptor” (1567), mm. 83–93

Cantus

Altus

Tenor 1

Tenor 2

Bassus

&&VV?

bbbb

b

83˙ w ˙tris, mi - se -

˙ w ˙tris, mi - se -˙ w ˙tris, mi - se -w ∑tris,w ∑tris,

˙ ˙ wre - re no -

˙ ˙ w#re - re no -b ˙ wre - re no -

„„

˙ w ˙bis. Quo - ni -

w ∑bis.

˙ w ˙bis. Quo - ni -.w ˙Quo - ni -.w ˙Quo - ni -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙am tu so - lus

„˙ ˙# ˙ ˙

am tu so - lus˙ ˙ ˙ ˙am tu so - lus˙ ˙ ˙ ˙am tu so - lus

w ˙ ˙san - ctus, tu

∑ Ó ˙tuw ˙ ˙

san - ctus, tuw ˙ ˙san - ctus, tuw wsan - ctus,

&&VV?

bbbb

b

88˙ ˙ .˙ œso - lus Do - mi -˙ ˙ .˙ œso - lus Do - mi -˙ ˙ .˙ œso - lus Do - mi -˙ ˙ .˙ œso - lus Do - mi -

„

.˙ œ wnus,

w Ó ˙nus, tu.˙# œ ˙ ˙Nnus, tuw Ó ˙nus, tu

∑ Ó ˙tu

„

˙ ˙ .˙ œso - lus Do - mi -˙ ˙ .˙ œso - lus Do - mi -˙ ˙ .˙ œso - lus Do - mi -˙ ˙ .˙ œso - lus Do - mi -

Ó ˙ wtu so -

w Ó ˙nus, tuw Ó ˙nus, tu

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙nus, tuw Ó ˙nus, tu

.w ˙lus al -

w ˙ ˙so - lus al -w .˙ œso - lusw ˙ ˙so - lus al -w ˙ ˙so - lus al -

.w ˙tis - si -

.˙ œ ˙ ˙tis - si -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

al - tis - si -

œ œ œ œ .˙ œtis - - - si -.w ˙tis - si -

Palestrina and Marenzio, were rewritten in order that they could be per-

formed by separated choirs.27 Clearly these pieces were known and

admired in Roman circles. As stated above, “Deus misereatur nostri” is

mentioned in the German College diaries in connection with the Forty-

Hours Devotion – though we do not know which version was used. The

presence of the revised versions in the Cappella Giulia partbooks is particu-

larly significant. The first layer of these partbooks, which include the Lasso

reworkings, was certainly compiled during Palestrina’s second period as

maestro – most likely in 158428 – making it clear that the revisions were

carried out with his approval. While he could have carried them out

himself, the case for his student and colleague in the revision of plainsong,

Annibale Zoilo, is stronger. Rn 77–88 has two of the three pieces written in a

handwriting which has been identified as Zoilo’s;29 it is clear that the origi-

nal Lasso versions were first written in and then altered by rubbing out and

correcting over; some of the original notes can still be read. The same part-

books have two versions of Palestrina’s “Laudate Dominum omnes gentes”

and Animuccia’s “Pater noster,”both the published versions from 1572 and

1570, respectively, and revised versions along the same lines as the Lasso

pieces. The revision of Palestrina’s “Laudate Dominum” could surely only

have been done with the composer’s sanction, if it was not actually carried

out by himself.

Such revisions for performance purposes by one composer of

another’s music are certainly unusual (as opposed to the adding of an extra

part, or parodying – both of which imply an act of homage or imitatio). The

rewriting cannot be said to have improved these pieces: indeed, Wolfgang

Boetticher was misled by this into thinking that the revised versions were in

fact Lasso’s own earlier attempts.30 Why did Zoilo not simply write new set-


149

27 Noel O’Regan, “The Early Polychoral Music of Orlando di Lasso: New Lightfrom Roman Sources,” Acta Musicologica, 56 (1984), p. 234. The paper includesexamples of the alterations.

28 There is a payment in the archives of the Cappella Giulia for the binding oftwelve books of the chapel on 31 January 1584 which may well refer to this set,since no other set of twelve partbooks is known to have been in the chapel atthis time. See Rostirolla, “La Cappella Giulia,” p. 273.

29 The handwriting was identified by Lucia Navarrini. See her La musica diAnnibale Zoilo (Florence: Tesi di laurea, Universita degli studi di Firenze, 1984).

30 Wolfgang Boetticher, “Eine Frühfassung doppelchöriger Motetten Orlando diLassos,” Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 12 (1955), p. 206.

tings of these texts? The revision process suggests homage of a different

kind, a desire to keep highly regarded pieces in the repertory by bringing

them up to date for the needs of the 1580s for full cori spezzati pieces. It also

makes clear that these Lasso pieces were known in Rome in their original

form and highly regarded – in particular by Zoilo and Palestrina. The

motets were published in Paris and Venice in 1565 and 1566, respectively;

we do not know when they first arrived in Rome.

The most crucial stage of development for Roman polychoral music

occurred between 1572 and 1575.31 Eight-voice pieces had been published

by Giovanni Animuccia, Palestrina, and Victoria in 1570 and 1572; these

were not properly polychoral since there was no consistent division into

two choirs, but they had many of the features of that idiom. In 1575

Palestrina published the first Roman music for two harmonically indepen-

dent choirs; Victoria partly adopted the new style in 1576 and composers

such as Zoilo, Giovanni da Macque, and Annibale Stabile began to write in

the new idiom shortly thereafter. This change could have been entirely

indigenous, but it is natural to look for any antecedents from outside Rome

which might have helped the process. The only non-Roman polychoral

music found in Roman manuscripts which was composed before 1572 are

the three pieces by Lasso listed above and two by Domenico Phinot,32

“Incipit oratio” and “Tanto tempore.” The Phinot pieces were first pub-

lished in 1547, but are more likely to have reached Rome in the anthology

RISM 15641.They do have some features which were to characterize Roman

polychoral music, particularly in their use of antiphonal repetition by two

largely independent choral groups, but they are still very much in the

experimental stage. The original versions of the three Lasso pieces, on the

other hand, do present many elements which could have influenced

Palestrina in 1572 and 1575.

Firstly, all three are psalm-motets, as were Palestrina’s four 1572

pieces and “Jubilate Deo” from the 1575 set (the other 1575 pieces also use

sectionalized texts such as sequences or Marian antiphons). In the 1572

pieces Palestrina did not try to mark the divisions of his psalm-derived texts

noel o ’regan

150

31 See Noel O’Regan, “Sacred Polychoral Music in Rome 1575–1621,” unpublishedD. Phil. diss., University of Oxford (1988).

32 These are found in Rsc 792–5/Rn 117–121, which also contains the revised Lassopieces.

into verses by musical means; his concern was more with the individual

phrase or word, and with setting that as effectively as possible. He used his

eight voices as a flexible palette, continually changing vocal grouping in

response to the text. In 1575, on the other hand, he made his task easier by

his use of distinct choirs on the Lasso model. From this point on, like Lasso

(and the earlier salmi spezzati of Willaert and Jachet), he does observe the

verse divisions and half-divisions by alternating choirs or by changing from

single choir to tutti. Palestrina also invariably begins with an extended

opening phrase for Choir I, something found in each of the three Lasso

pieces, and a practice which was to continue in use by Roman composers of

polychoral music up to the late 1580s.

In one of the 1572 pieces, “Confitebor tibi,” Palestrina sets different

syllables to consecutive semiminims, something very exceptional in his

sacred music, though it was becoming widely used for text declamation in

secular music (see Ex. 7.5). This can be seen in Lasso’s “Locutus sum in

lingua mea” (see Ex. 7.2) and is common in his double-choir pieces, as in

Example 7.6 from “In convertendo.” Younger Roman composers were

much quicker to take up this sort of text declamation, as in Annibale Zoilo’s

“Nunc dimittis” from the Cappella Giulia XIII 24 partbooks (see Ex. 7.7).

The antiphonal fragmentation of the text seen in Example 7.6 is exactly

what became common in Roman polychoral music from the 1580s

onwards. On the more general stylistic level, in his eight-voice pieces from

1572, and even more so those from 1575, Palestrina moved closer to Lasso

in using shorter melodic phrases with repeated notes and more harmonic

bass lines, with more frequent cadences. These features occur even more

prominently in the music of Zoilo, Giovanni da Macque and other Rome-

based composers of the late 1570s.

Lasso’s brief visit to Rome in 1574 came right in the middle of this

period of stylistic change in Roman polychoral music. While one can only

speculate on what might have passed between the two composers, assum-

ing that they met, the time would certainly have been right for an in-depth

discussion of cori spezzati. Could this have centered around the three Lasso

pieces with, perhaps, the composer even being consulted about their revi-

sion? Conditions in the old St. Peter’s Basilica were quite different from

those at the Munich court chapel, and it was presumably this which forced

the change to writing for independent choirs which could be separated by a


151

considerable distance. Apart from the harmonically independent bass

lines, however, the Munich and Roman versions of the polychoral idiom

have more in common than either has with the Venetian one – and this

despite the known prolonged periods of residence in Munich by both

Andrea and Giovanni Gabrieli.

In the area of musical imitation or parody there are a number of links

between Lasso and Roman composers. Mention has already been made of

the imitation Magnificat which he based on the model used by Palestrina in

the mass sent from Rome to Munich in 1562. In 1589 he published a mass

based on Palestrina’s madrigal “Io son ferito” (published in 1561 and also

used by Palestrina himself as the basis of his “Missa Petra sancta”); Lasso

also composed a Magnificat (published posthumously in 1619) on

noel o ’regan

152

Example 7.5: Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, “Confitebor tibi” (1572),

mm. 1–11

Cantus 1

Altus 1

Tenor 1

Bassus 1

Cantus 2

Altus 2

Tenor 2

Bassus 2

&

&

V

?

&

&

V

?

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

1

›Con -

„

∑ wCon -

∑ wCon -

„

„

„

„

w wfi - te -

›Con -

w wfi -

w wfi -

„

„

„

„

›bor

w wfi - te -

w ˙ ˙te - bor ti - - - -

w œ œ œ œte - bor

„

„

„

„

.w ˙ti - - - bi

˙ œ œ œ œ ˙bor ti - - -


˙ w ˙ti - bi

„

„

„

„

.w ˙Do - mi -

w ˙ ˙bi Do - mi -

˙ œ œ œ œ ˙bi Do - - -

.˙ œ ˙ b

Do - mi -

„

„

„

„

›ne

w ∑ne

˙ ˙# wmi - ne›

ne

„

∑ .˙ œquo - ni -

„

∑ .˙ œquo - ni -

Giovanni Maria Nanino’s “Erano capei d’oro” (published in 1579). These

show his familiarity with at least some secular music emanating from

Rome. On the other hand, there are no reciprocal examples of Roman com-

posers using works by Lasso as the basis of their compositions. Palestrina’s

motet “Susanna ab improbis” uses the same opening material as Lasso’s

“Susanne un jour” (the tenor of Didier Lupi Second’s eponymous chanson

which was used for the very large corpus of settings of this text33) but there

are no other obvious connections between the two pieces. In the absence of


153

33 See Kenneth J. Levy, “Susanne un jour: the History of a Sixteenth-CenturyChanson,” Annales Musicologiques, 1 (1953), pp. 375–408, and David Crook,Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats for Counter-Reformation Munich(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 177.


&

&

V

?

&

&

V

?

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

7 ›

„›

„

„

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙am i - ra - tus es

.˙ œ œ œ ˙quo - ni- am i - ra -

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙am i - ra - tus es

„

„

„

„.˙ œ œ œ ˙

quo - ni- am i - ra -

w wmi - hi,

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙tus es mi - hi,

›bmi - - -

„

„

∑ .˙ œquo - ni -.˙ œ œ œ ˙

quo - ni- am i - ra -

˙ ˙ wtus es mi -

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙i - ra - tus

˙ œ œ w

›hi,

„

.˙ œ œ œ ˙quo - ni- am i - ra -œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙am i - ra - tus es˙ ˙ wtus es mi -

›hi,

.˙ œ œ œ ˙es mi - - -

w ∑

„

›con - - -

˙ ˙ wtus es mi -

w wmi - hi,

›hi,

∑ wcon -

˙ ˙ Ó ˙hi, con -

∑ Ó ˙con -

∑ wcon -

Roman imitation masses or other works based on models by Lasso which

might make a stronger case, the evidence for the Munich composer’s

influence on Roman music is largely circumstantial. Yet, Lasso was

undoubtedly the European composer of the 1560s and 1570s, and was seen

as such throughout Europe; his esteem was underlined by the huge number

of contemporary publications which included his works, by his decora-

tions from both the emperor and the pope, and by his being awarded the

first prize in the composers’ competition at Evreux on two occasions (1575

and 1583).34 More particularly, the evidence that his music was regularly

noel o ’regan

154

34 Leuchtmann, Leben, pp. 52, 55.

Example 7.6: Orlando di Lasso, “In convertendo” (1565), mm. 19–25 (CM,

vol. 4, pp. 194–5)

Cantus 1

Altus 1

Tenor 1

Bassus 1

Cantus 2

Altus 2

Tenor 2

Bassus 2

&

&

V

?

&

&

V

?

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

19 ˙et

˙et

˙et

˙et

œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œlin - gua no - stra ex - sul -

œ œ ˙ ˙ œ# œlin - gua no - stra ex - sul -

œ œ ˙ ˙# œ œlin - gua no - stra ex - sul -


„

„

„

„

œ œ ˙# wta - ti - o - ne,

œ œ ˙ wta - ti - o - ne,

œ œ ˙ w#ta - ti - o - ne,


∑ Óet

∑ Óet

∑ Ó ˙et

∑ Ó ˙et

„

„

„

„

œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œlin- gua no - stra ex - sul -

œ œ ˙ ˙ œn œlin- gua no - stra ex - sul -

œ œ ˙ ˙# œ œlin- gua no - stra ex - sul -

œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œlin- gua no - stra ex - sul -

being sung, copied, reworked, and bought in Rome up to the 1590s testifies

to a continued lively interest which must, in turn, have had at least some

part in forming the newly developing styles of Roman composers in the

decades after the Council of Trent.


155


&

&

V

?

&

&

V

?

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

23

∑ Ó ˙<et

∑ Óet

∑ Ó ˙et

∑ Ó ˙et

œ œ ˙# wta - ti - o - ne,

œ œ ˙ wnta - ti - o - ne,


œ œb ˙ wta - ti - o - ne,

œ# œ ˙ ˙n œN œlin - gua no - stra ex - sul -

œ œ ˙# ˙ œ œlin - gua no - stra ex - sul -


œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ<lin - gua no - stra ex - sul -

„

„

„

„

œ œ ˙ wnta - ti - o - ne,>


œ œ I wta - ti - o - ne,

œ œ ˙ wta - ti - o - ne,>

∑ Ó ˙<et

∑ Ó<et

∑ Ó ˙net

∑ Ó ˙et

noel o ’regan

156

Example 7.7: Annibale Zoilo, “Nunc dimittis” (Rvat Giul. XIII, 24), mm.

56–61

Cantus 1

Altus 1

Tenor 1

Bassus 1

Cantus 2

Altus 2

Tenor 2

Bassus 2

&

&

V

V

&

&

V

V

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

56 ˙ œ œ ˙# ˙Glo - ri - a Pa - tri,

˙ œ œ ˙ ˙Glo - ri - a Pa - tri,˙ œ œ ˙ ˙Glo - ri - a Pa - tri,

˙ œ œ ˙ ˙Glo - ri - a Pa - tri,

„

„

„

„

„

„

„

„

˙ œ œ .˙# œGlo - ri - a Pa - tri,

˙ œ œ ˙ œ œGlo - ri - a Pa - tri, et˙ œ œ .˙ œGlo - ri - a Pa - tri,

˙ œ œ ˙ œ œGlo - ri - a Pa - tri, et

∑ ˙ œ œglo - ri - a




œ ˙ œ ˙ Óet Fi - li - o,

.˙ œ ˙ ÓFi - li - o,

œ œ .œ Jœ ˙et Fi - li - o,

˙ ˙ ˙ ÓFi - li - o,


157


&

&

V

V

&

&

V

V

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

59 .˙# œ œ ˙ œPa - tri, et Fi - li -

˙ œ œ .œ Jœ œ œPa - tri, et Fi - li - o, et

.˙ œ œ œ .œ JœPa - tri, et Fi - li -

˙ œ œ ˙ ˙Pa - tri, et Fi - li -

„

„

„

„

.˙ œ œ œ œ œo, et Spi - ri - tu - i

œ œ œ œ œ .˙ œSpi - ri - tu - - - - i

w Œ œ œ œo, et Spi - ri -

œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙o, et Spi - ri - tu - i San - - - -

„

„

„

„

œ ˙ œ# ˙ ÓSan - cto,

˙ ˙ ˙ ÓSan - cto,

œ œ ˙ ˙ Ótu - i San - cto,

˙ ˙ ˙ Ócto,





8 Orlando di Lasso as a model for composition asseen in the three-voice motets of Jean de Castro

ignace bossuyt

Orlando di Lasso may without a doubt be considered the most illustri-

ouscomposerof thesecondhalf of thesixteenthcentury.Thankstothe inter-

nationalization of music publishing, his music enjoyed a degree of

distribution previously unknown.It was,however,not so much the quantity

and variety of his music that was praised by composers, theoreticians, and

poets of the day, but rather its quality and especially its expressivity and

humanity.1 It comes then as no surprise to find that innumerable composers

held up“le plus que divin Orlande”(Pierre de Ronsard) as the ideal example

to be emulated. The degree of intensity of this imitatio is astonishing, per-

meating the most diverse lands and all aspects of the compositional process.

Some composers borrowed texts from Lasso’s motets. This is clear from the

many cases where only one setting of a text exists other than his original. For

example, Alexander Utendal (c. 1543/5–81), singer and Vice-Kapellmeister

at the court of Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol at Innsbruck, appropriated

Lasso texts for two lighthearted secular motets,“Hispanum ad coenam” and

“Deusquibonumvinumcreasti.”2SomecomposersdrewfromspecificLasso

collections for theirowneditions,either in imitationof theadmiredexample

or in competition with the master, or perhaps a bit of both. Utendal again

provides a clear example: at the insistence of his patron,Ferdinand,the com-

poser presented his Septem Psalmi poenitentiales (1570) as a kind of artistic

158

1 Leuchtmann, Leben, pp. 264–96, notes more than fifty poems in Lasso’s honor.See also Bernhard Meier, “Orlandus Lassus im Urteil der Mit- und Nachwelt,”Orlandus Lassus 1532–1594, ed. Ignace Bossuyt, exhibition catalogue (Leuven:Fakulteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte K. U. Leuven, 1982), pp. 61–6.

2 Ignace Bossuyt, De componist Alexander Utendal (ca. 1543/45–1581). Eenbijdrage tot de studie van de Nederlandse polyfonie in de tweede helft van dezestiende eeuw (Brussels: Koninklijke Academie van België, Klasse der SchoneKunsten, 1983), p. 92.

counterpart tothe“secret”PenitentialPsalmscomposedbyLassoabout1559

for Duke Albrecht of Munich. Utendal “outdid” his model by applying the

new theory of the twelve modes, propagated by Henricus Glareanus

(Dodecachordon, 1547), while Lasso had held to the old system of eight

modes.3 Utendal’s second book of motets (1573) was also clearly inspired by

Lasso’s 1566 Venetian collection (RISM 1566e), which was reprinted two

years later within the Selectissimae Cantiones issued in Nuremberg by

Theodor Gerlach,the publishing house for all of Utendal’s works.It is partic-

ularly striking that the 1566 and 1573 collections each begin with a setting of

the opening words from the Gospel according to John, “In principio erat

Verbum.”4 Another collection from that same year (1573), by Ivo de Vento,

organistat theBavariancourt,alsostartswithamotetonthis text.5

One of the most common examples of imitatio is the contrafactum

technique. Besides the publication in Germany of German contrafacta

based on Lasso’s French chansons,6 in France itself Lasso’s chansons were

the preferred models for religious contrafacta made by the Huguenots.

Their admiration for the musical qualities of his work was such that they

chose to recast his dubious texts in order to adopt his music, rather than

turn to other composers who had not lowered themselves to such scandal-

ous ditties capable of sullying Christian ears and inciting youth to moral

depravity.7

lasso as a model for comp osition

159

3 Ignace Bossuyt, “Die ‘Psalmi Poenitentiales’ (1570) des Alexander Utendal. Einkünstlerisches Gegenstück der Busspsalmen von O. Lassus und eine praktischeAnwendung von Glareans Theorie der zwölf Modi,” Archiv fürMusikwissenschaft, 38 (1981), pp. 279–95. Concerning Lasso and the eightmodes, see Georg Reichert, “Martin Crusius und die Musik in Tübingen um1590,” Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 10 (1953), pp. 210–12, and Bernhard Meier,The Modes of Classical Vocal Polyphony Described According to the Sources, trans.Ellen Beebe (New York: Broude, 1988), pp. 30–1.

4 Bossuyt, Alexander Utendal, pp. 97–8.5 August de Groote, “Ivo De Vento (ca. 1543/45–1575). Organist en componist in

de kapel van Orlandus Lassus,” Orlandus Lassus and his Time, p. 303.6 The collection Orlando di Lasso etliche ausserlessne/kurtze/gute geistliche und

weltliche Liedlein mit 4 Stimmen/so zuvor in Frantzösischer Sprach aussgangen,compiled by the singer Johann Pühler and published in 1582 by Adam Berg inMunich (RISM 1582l).

7 Bossuyt, “Orlandus Lassus (1532–1594) en het contrafact,” De zeventiende eeuw(1989), pp. 190–7, and Richard Freedman, “Divins accords: The LassusChansons and their Protestant Readers of the Late Sixteenth Century,” OrlandusLassus and his Time, pp. 273–94.

The most current imitatio practice was that of the so-called parody, in

which a secular or a sacred composition served as the point of departure for

the composition of a mass. Here again Lasso’s multifaceted oeuvre was an

almost inexhaustible sourceof inspiration.At leasteightymasseswerecom-

posed on Lasso’s models.8 Less common was the process of “reworking,” in

which a composition originally written for four or more voices was

“arranged” for three. This imitatio technique seems to have enjoyed a

remarkable vogue amongst the nobility and the well-off bourgeoisie in

Antwerp. A crucial year in the history of the tricinium was 1569, when in a

single burst of activity the Leuven publisher Pierre Phalèse published no

fewer than seven collections of Latin motets and French chansons for three

voices. One of these editions was devoted solely to the motets and chansons

of GérardVanTurnhout,masterof themusicat theCathedralof OurBlessed

Lady in Antwerp; the collection is dedicated to Adriaen Dyck, chief clerk of

the city (Sacrarum ac aliarum cantionum trium vocum . . . Liber unus).9 The

six other collections consist of two series of anthologies, each comprising

three books: three with motets (Selectissimarum Sacrarum Cantionum

(quas vulgo motetas vocant) flores, trium vocum) and three with chansons

(Recueil des Fleurs produictes de la divine musicque a trois parties, par

Clemens non Papa,Thomas Cricquillon, et aultres excellens musiciens).10 The

firstmotet fromthefirstpartof theanthology,“Adte levavioculos,” isbyJean

de Castro. With six of the eighteen works to his name, he is the best-repre-

sented composer and, surprisingly, the least famous, surrounded by such

renowned figures as Thomas Crequillon, Hubert Waelrant, and Cornelius

ignace bossuyt

160

8 Stefan Coninx, “De parodiemissen op composities van Orlandus Lassus(1532–1594),” unpublished licentiate thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven(1984). Around twenty-two to twenty-five of these masses (a few are “doubtful”)are by Lasso himself.

9 Available in a modern edition in Recent Researches in the Music of theRenaissance, 9–10 (Madison: A-R Editions, 1970), ed. Lavern J. Wagner.

10 For the complete contents, see Henri Vanhulst, Catalogue des Editions demusique publiées à Louvain par Pierre Phalèse et ses fils 1545–1578 (Brussels:Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Beaux Arts, 1990), pp. 142–9. The“Premier Livre” of the anthology of French chansons is a partial and slightlyreworked reprint of an edition of three-part chansons and motets from 1562(Premier Livre du Recueil des Fleurs produictes de la divine musicque a troisparties par Clemens non Papa Thomas Cricquillon & aultres excellens Musichiens).However, no sequel appeared in the following years. Cf. ibid., pp. 80–1.

Canis, each of whom has but one work, and Clemens non Papa with only

two. De Castro does not appear in the second part, while the third includes

one of his motets. The first part of the chanson anthology is almost com-

pletely dominated by the names of Clemens and Crequillon, but in the two

following parts de Castro does reappear with two and six works respectively.

By placing the newcomer Castro among the more established names,

Phalèseclearlyreducedhisfinancialrisk,althoughthepublisherdidventure

togiveCastrotheplaceof honor inthefirstpartof themotetanthology.

He did not,however, risk putting Castro’s first complete collection on

the market; this appeared later in that same year (1569) in Antwerp under

the title, Di Iean Castro Il primo libro di madrigali, canzoni & motetti a tre

voci. At that moment there happened to be no publisher of renown active in

Antwerp. Tielman Susato had left the city in 1561; his son Jacob was able to

produce only one edition, in 1564, before he died later that same year.

Christopher Plantin had not yet ventured to print polyphony; only in 1578

did he see such repertory as a moneymaker. Jean de Laet, who had started

publishing music together with Hubertus Waelrant in 1554, had died in

1566. When in 1569 Jean de Castro wanted to create a name for himself as a

composer in Antwerp, his only available recourse was to Laet’s widow,

Elisabeth Saen, who published a further ten books after the death of her

husband,only three of which were given over to music.One of the latter was

Castro’s debut.11 The fact that this work was not published by Phalèse,at the

time the leading music publisher in the Low Countries, may have had

several causes. In the first place, it would appear that Phalèse was not overly

keen on untried talent. He was more likely to build on the fame of well-

known composers whose work had already appeared in Antwerp or abroad.

He left the discovery of new faces to others.12 Secondly, until then Phalèse

had yet to publish a single madrigal; he seems to have resisted the genre,

fearing his clientele was not familiar enough with Italian.13 Thirdly, it was

fitting that the collection should appear in Antwerp, since the dedicatee,

Giovanni Giacomo Fiesco,had been active there as a trader representing the


161

11 See the introduction by Saskia Willaert and Katrien Derde to Jean de Castro,Opera Omnia, vol. 3, Il primo libro di madrigali, canzoni e motetti a tre voci(1569), ed. Ignace Bossuyt, Henri Vanhulst et al. (Leuven: Leuven UniversityPress, 1995), p. 10. 12 Vanhulst,Catalogue, p. xxxvii.

13 Ibid., p. xxxi.

Genoese Nation, an influential commercial and financial presence in the

city since 1530. Together with the south German merchants and bankers –

especially the Fugger family from Augsburg – the Genoese were the main

financiers (the so-called asentistas) to the Spanish crown, supporting the

power of both Charles V and Philip II in the Low Countries, especially by

bankrolling the Spanish troops stationed in the region.14

Castro’s first product shows remarkable parallels with another

Antwerp debut fourteen years previously, Susato’s edition of Le quatoir-

siesme livre a quatre parties contenant dixhuyct chansons italiennes, six

chanson francoises, & six motetz . . . par Rolando di Lassus (RISM 1555a),

which was reissued in that same year as D’Orlando di Lassus il Primo Libro

dovesi contengono Madrigali, Vilanesche, Canzoni francesi e Motetti a

quattro voci (RISM 1555b).Like Castro’s collection, Lasso’s includes a dedi-

cation in Italian addressed to a leading member of the Genoese Nation, the

nobleman-merchant Stefano Gentile. The contents are also similar: Italian

works (Lasso included villanesche along with madrigals) are followed in

both collections by French chansons and then Latin motets. Around this

same period Philippe de Monte was also able to count on the protection of a

Genoese figure of stature,Giovanni Grimaldi, to whom the composer dedi-

cated his third book of six-voice madrigals in 1576.15 The names of Gentile,

Fiesco, and Grimaldi are regularly found mentioned together in official

documents.16 Both Gentile and Grimaldi were praised by their contempo-

raries for more than their purely commercial activities: literature and

music were also close to their heart. These and other Italian merchants and

traders clearly played more than a marginal role in the spread of

Renaissance culture in the Low Countries.17

Castro’s three-voice debut comprised twelve madrigals, thirteen

chansons, and eight motets.All the motets in the collection and eight of the

ignace bossuyt

162

14 Willaert and Derde, Castro, Opera Omnia, vol. 3, p. 11. See also Willaert andDerde, “Het mecenaat van de Genuese natie in Antwerpen in de tweede helft vande 16de eeuw,” Orlandus Lassus en Antwerpen 1554–1556, exhibition catalogue(Antwerp: Stad Antwerp, 1994), pp. 47–56.

15 Cf. Brian Mann, The Secular Madrigals of Filippo di Monte 1521–1603 (AnnArbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1983), pp. 4–5. The dedication to Grimaldiis reproduced on p. 426.

16 Willaert and Derde, Castro, Opera Omnia, vol. 3, p. 11.17 Karel Bostoen, Dichterschap en Koopmanschap in de zestiende eeuw. Omtrent de

dichters Guillaume de Poetou en Jan vander Noot, Deventer Studiën 1 (Deventer:Sub Rosa Deventer, 1987), pp. 163–5.

thirteen chansons (but none of the madrigals) also appeared shortly there-

after in the same year (1569) in the Phalèse anthology mentioned above.

Castro’s work, including the madrigals, must have made more than a

passing impression on Phalèse, for a year later, in 1570, he devoted a com-

plete edition to Castro, this time complementing the chansons with madri-

gals, even placing them first in the collection – although he cautiously gave

the chansons top billing in the title (Chansons et madrigales a quatre parties

. . . par Maistre Iean de Castro). It was at the same time Castro’s first collec-

tion of four-voice works. The collaboration with Phalèse seems to have

proceeded smoothly, for one year later a collection of five-voice motets

made its appearance (with an eight-voice motet at its close): Sacrarum can-

tionum quinque et octo vocum . . . Liber unus. Ioanne de Castro Autore. A new

set of tricinia, this time all motets, appeared in 1574 (Ioannis a Castro

Musici Celeberrimi Triciniorum Sacrorum . . . Liber unus). Phalèse even

turned to Castro when putting together two extensive collections of chan-

sons, one for three voices (a form which had become something of a Castro

speciality), and one for four voices. These collections appeared respec-

tively in 1574 and 1575 as La Fleur des Chansons a trois parties, contenant un

recueil, produit de la divine musique de Iean Castro, Severin Cornet, Noë

Faignient, & autres excellens Aucteurs and Livre de Meslanges contenant un

recueil de chansons a quatre parties, choisy des plus excellens aucteurs de

nostre temps, par Iean Castro Musicien. In La Fleur no fewer than forty of

the ninety-one works are by Castro; in Livre de Meslanges Castro accounts

for nineteen of the seventy-three works.18 The highlight of Castro’s Leuven

editions was without a doubt the 1576 collection of four-, five-, and eight-

voice chansons on texts by Pierre de Ronsard (Chansons, odes et sonetz de

Pierre Ronsard, mises en musique a quatre, a cinq et huit parties, par Iean de

Castro),19 with which Castro joined the Ronsard vogue of the 1570s.20


163

18 For a complete table of contents, see Vanhulst, Catalogue, pp. 206–8 and 214–16.Both collections also include a number of madrigals.

19 Modern edition by Jeanice Brooks in Recent Researches in the Music of theRenaissance, 97 (Madison: A-R Editions, 1994). Cf. Ignace Bossuyt, “Jean deCastro: Chansons, odes et sonetz de Pierre Ronsard,” Revue de musicologie, 74(1988), pp. 173–88. Phalèse approached Castro to reorganize the contents of the1576 edition of the Septiesme livre des chansons, according to Rudolf Rasch, “The‘Livre septiesme’,” Atti del XIV Congresso della Società Internazionale diMusicologia, Bologna 27. Aug.–1. Sept.1987, ed. Angelo Pompilio et al. (Turin:Edizioni di Torino, 1990), vol. 1, pp. 306–18.

20 In the previous year, 1575, Phalèse had published the Sonetz de Pierre de Ronsard

The year 1576 was also to mark the end of Castro’s first Antwerp

period. He had been attracted to the international economic metropolis in

the 1560s because of the presence of wealthy, art-loving patrons. These

seem to have seen him as a promising composer worthy of generous

support, if we consider that (like Lasso) he made his debut with a complete

collection rather than merely a few compositions in an anthology. Like

Lasso in 1554–6, Castro did not hold a permanent position while in

Antwerp (editions mention him simply as “musicien”or “musicus celeber-

rimus”), although he likely aspired to one. In September 1556 Lasso had

acquired a steady job as a tenor at the Bavarian court in Munich, thanks to

the mediation of Johann Jakob Fugger and Bishop Antoine Perrenot de

Granvelle, to whom he had dedicated his first collection of motets, the so-

called Antwerp Motet Book, earlier that same year.21 Although Lasso’s ulti-

mate success probably resulted from his much greater ambition, this

appointment in Munich was a crucial turn of events in launching a brilliant

international career as a composer. Castro was less fortunate, probably in

part as a result of the difficult political and religious circumstances: in 1576,

ten years after the infamous iconoclastic fury, Antwerp was violently

shaken by the plundering of the Spanish soldiers (the so-called Spanish

Fury), which caused an immediate and massive flight of the city’s popula-

tion.

Castro fled via Germany to Lyons, where he had friends. One of these

was Justinien Pense,a wealthy carpet-merchant, for whom in 1570–1,while

Pense was visiting Antwerp, Castro had composed a set of four- and five-

voice chansons on texts by Pense himself.22 It is worth noting that the luxu-

rious manuscript, of which unfortunately only the soprano and bass

partbooks survive, was copied by Jean Pollet, once Lasso’s copyist, who

among other things had succeeded in smuggling to the Low Countries a

ignace bossuyt

164

by Philippe de Monte, a reprint of Le Roy and Ballard’s Paris edition of the sameyear. See Vanhulst, Catalogue, pp. 212–14.

21 Ignace Bossuyt, “Lassos erste Jahre in München (1556–1559): eine ‘cosa nonriuscita’? Neue Materialen aufgrund unveröffentlichter Briefe von Johann JakobFugger, Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle und Orlando di Lasso,” Festschrift fürHorst Leuchtmann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Stephan Hörner and BernholdSchmid (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1993), pp. 55–67.

22 Jeanice Brooks, “Jean de Castro, the Pense Partbooks and Musical Culture inSixteenth-Century Lyons,” Early Music History, 11 (1992), pp. 91–149.

copy of Lasso’s “secret” Penitential Psalms.23 On the death (premature, it

would seem) of Pollet’s wife, the Delft native Sara, Castro composed a

three-voice elegy, “Uxor Joannis Pollet Sara,” which appeared in the 1574

collection of Latin tricinia. The circumstances of this composition suggest

that Lasso’s motet,“Praesidium Sara,” may well have been an epithalamium

for the marriage of his copyist, Jean Pollet; this would seem to draw further

together the lives of the two composers, even if they in fact never met.24 In

any case, as composers they were very alike, chiefly because Castro’s tricinia

were so often inspired by Lasso’s models. The three-voice reworkings of

Lasso’s compositions,written during his Antwerp period,may be seen as an

indication of Lasso’s popularity. First in influence were the chansons, fol-

lowed by the motets and then the madrigals. Between 1569 and 1575 Castro

composed no fewer than thirty-one chansons on the basis of Lasso’s

models. Of the thirteen chansons in his 1569 debut collection, nine are

based on Lasso. The others appeared in the 1574 anthology cited above, La

Fleur des chansons à trois parties, and in the Livre de chansons nouvellement

composé, à troys parties, Castro’s Paris debut in 1575, an edition prepared by

Le Roy and Ballard. In each collection, eleven of the chansons are adapta-

tions of compositions by Lasso.25

Although Castro’s three-voice chansons continued to appear regu-

larly after 1575, there were to be no more arrangements. For the three-voice

madrigals precisely the opposite is true: from the earliest works in 1569

right up to his last collection in 1591, a Venetian edition published by

Amadino,Castro held fast to the technique of reworking.Here Lasso hardly

makes an appearance; in the initial Antwerp edition of 1569, not one of the

twelve madrigals originates with Lasso,as is also the case with the Madrigali


165

23 Ignace Bossuyt, “The Copyist Jan Pollet and the Theft in 1563 of OrlandusLassus’ ‘Secret’ Penitential Psalms,” From Ciconia to Sweelinck. DonumNatalicium Willem Elders, ed. A. Clement and E. Jas (Amsterdam and Atlanta:Rodopi, 1994), pp. 261–7.

24 Ignace Bossuyt, “Lassos Motette ‘Praesidium Sara.’ Ein epithalamium für seinenKopisten Jean Pollet?” Musik in Bayern 54 (1997), pp. 107–12.

25 Ignace Bossuyt, “Jean de Castro and his Three-part Chansons Modelled onFour- and Five-Part Chansons by Orlando di Lasso. A Comparison,” Orlando diLasso in der Musikgeschichte. Bericht über das Symposion der BayerischenAkademie der Wissenschaften München, 4–6 July 1994, ed. Bernhold Schmid(Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), pp.25–67.

. . . a tre voci of 1588 (Antwerp, P. Phalèse and J. Bellère), and Rose fresche . . .

madrigali novi . . . a tre voci of 1591 (Venice, R. Amadino). Lasso provided

the model for only two of Castro’s three-voice madrigals, the lone Castro

madrigal in the anthology La Fleur des Chansons of 1574 (“Voi ch’as-

coltate”) and one of the four madrigals from his Second livre de chansons

madrigals et motetz à trois parties of 1580 (Paris, Le Roy and Ballard), where

he harks back to the sestina “Standomi un giorno.” For his madrigals,

Castro seems to have preferred as models Rore (for his 1569 debut), the

three famed Antwerp madrigal anthologies of 1583 and 1585 (Harmonia

celeste, Musica divina, and Symphonica angelica, all reflected in Castro’s

Madrigali . . . a tre voci of 1588),and Luca Marenzio (in Rose fresche of 1591).

Very likely the personal preference of the dedicatees might also have played

a deciding role in these choices.26

As with the French chansons, Castro’s borrowing of Lasso’s motets

was limited to the first few collections. In his first edition, two of the eight

motets are based on Lasso models: “Veni in hortum meum” and “In te,

Domine, speravi.” Here Castro tended to borrow compositions from an

earlier generation, with a preference for Clemens non Papa (four motets),

while Crequillon and Rore are each the source for one motet.27 Lasso does

hold the place of honor in Castro’s first collection devoted completely to

three-voice motets, the Triciniorum sacrorum . . . liber unus, a Phalèse

edition of 1574. Lasso’s works are the models for twelve of the twenty-three

motets:28“BenedicamDominum in omni tempore,” “Ubi est Abel,” “Tribus

miraculis,” “Surgens Jesus,” “Surrexit pastor bonus,” “Confundantur

superbi,” “Fertur in conviviis,” “Exaudi Domine,” “Angelus ad pastores,”

“Fulgebunt justi,” “Verba mea auribus percipe,” and “Legem pone mihi.”

Clemens remains clearly in evidence with three motets, and even Josquin

ignace bossuyt

166

26 J. Lanssens,”De driestemmige madrigalen van Jean de Castro,” unpublishedlicentiate thesis, Leuven (1997), pp. 15–17.

27 From Clemens non Papa: “Venit vox de caelo,” “Qui consolabatur me,” “Paterpeccavi,” and “Maria Magdalena”; from Crequillon: “Nigra sum”; from Rore:“Ad te levavi.” See Ignace Bossuyt and Saskia Willaert, “Jean de Castro’s Il PrimoLibro di Madrigali, Canzoni e Motetti,” in Eugeèn Schreurs and Henri Vanhulst,eds., Music Fragments and Manuscripts in the Low Countries. Alta Capella. MusicPrinting in Antwerp and Europe in the 16th Century. Yearbook of the AlamireFoundation 2 (Leuven-Peer: Alamire, 1997), pp. 333–51.

28 A modern edition with an extensive introduction by Saskia Willaert and KatrienDerde forms vol. 4 of Jean de Castro, Opera omnia. The tricinia are followed bytwo four-part motets.

Desprez makes an appearance.29 As in the later French chansons, the tech-

nique of borrowing is no longer used in the later collections of three-part

motets, the Second livre de chansons madrigals et motetz a trois parties of

1580 and the two late editions from the 1590s (Cantiones aliquot sacrae

trium vocum of 1593 and Trium vocum cantiones aliquot sacrae of 1596).

At first it might seem surprising that Lasso emerges as the central

figure only in 1574 and not in 1569, when he had already achieved interna-

tional fame. The Castro editions suggest that Lasso’s motets began to enjoy

renown in the Low Countries only at the beginning of the 1570s,mainly due

to the Leuven editions of Pierre Phalèse.The following offers an overview of

the editions of Lasso’s motets published by Phalèse, the most authoritative

music publisher in the southern Netherlands from the 1560s on:

(1) In 1564 the chanson collection Quatriesme livre des chansons . . .

par Orlando di Lassus (RISM 1564d) was supplemented with four madri-

gals and three motets (the drinking song “Fertur in conviviis,” the moraliz-

ing “Quid prodest stulto,” and “Pater peccavi,” taken from the parable of the

Prodigal Son). Two of Lasso’s works were incorporated into the second

edition of the highly successful anthology Septiesme livre des chansons à

quatre parties: the chanson “Soyons joyeux” and the motet “Fertur in convi-

viis.” The motets “Fertur in conviviis” and “Pater peccavi” were dropped

from the modified reprints of the Quatriesme livre, RISM 1567c and 1570g.

Neither piece would again be included in the many reprints of the Septiesme

livre which were to follow.30

(2) In 1566 the liturgical cycle Sacrae Lectiones novem ex Propheta Job

quatuor vocum . . . autore Orlando Lasso (RISM 1566f) was published, sup-

plemented by five motets.31

(3) In 1569 the interest in Lasso clearly increased with the publication


167

29 From Josquin: “Benedicta es”; from Clemens: “Videns Jacob,” “Rex autemDavid,” and “Verbum iniquum.” In a few sources “Verbum iniquum” isattributed to Thomas Crequillon; cf. H. Lowen Marshall, The Four-Voice Motetsof Thomas Crecquillon, vol. 1, The Motets – A Critical Study (Brooklyn: Instituteof Medieval Music, 1970), p. 19.

30 The first edition of the Septiesme livre (1560) includes no pieces by Lasso. SeeVanhulst, Catalogue, pp. 82–4, 114–16, and passim, and idem, “Un succès del’édition musicale: le Septiesme livre des chansons a quatre parties(1560–1661/63),” Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Muziekwetenschap/Revue Belge deMusicologie, 32–3 (1978–9), pp. 97–120.

31 These Sacrae Lectiones had been published the previous year in Venice byGardano and in Paris by Le Roy and Ballard.

of two collections of four-part motets (none the less shared with Cypriano

de Rore): Liber primus . . . and Liber secundus sacrarum cantionum quatuor

vocum . . . Auctoribus Orlando di Lassus. Cypriano de Rore (RISM 15697 and

15698). Book 1 includes seven motets by Lasso and four by Rore,while Book

2 has nine by Lasso and five by Rore.

(4) The definitive breakthrough came only in 1571–2, when Phalèse

published three collections devoted exclusively to Lasso, all of which were

reprints of editions which had appeared in Paris in 1571: Primus liber mod-

ulorum quinis vocibus, Moduli quinis vocibus, and Secundus liber modul-

orum quinis vocibus (RISM 1571d, 1571b, and 1572e). These were also

Phalèse’s first editions of Lasso’s five-voice motets.

(5) Starting in 1574, the year of Castro’s Latin tricinia, there followed

reprints of various parts of the Patrocinium Musices and an edition of

Lasso’s only book of three-voice motets (RISM 1575c).32 These publica-

tions would no longer influence Castro’s work.

We may conclude from this overview that before his debut in 1569 it

would have been difficult for Castro to get his hands on Lasso’s motets in an

edition from the Low Countries. By 1574 the situation had changed com-

pletely: Castro could draw freely from the three Phalèse editions issued in

1571 and 1572 (ten of the twelve motets based on Lasso appear in these

Leuven editions; for one of the motets, “Verba mea auribus percipe,”

Moduli quinis vocibus is in fact the earliest source). It is very likely that these

editions were his main source, even if it is impossible to rule out his aware-

ness of other foreign editions.33 None the less, the relatively modest pres-

ence of Lasso’s works as models in Castro’s 1569 debut suggests that the

promising composer was not yet familiar with Lasso’s motets. The intense

ignace bossuyt

168

32 See Vanhulst, Catalogue, passim.33 Possibly the Primus liber concentuum sacrorum, a 1564 Paris edition from Le Roy

and Ballard, which was sold through Christopher Plantin in Antwerp. Plantinsold only one of a very few copies which had been ordered for certaincustomers. See Henri Vanhulst, “Suppliers and Clients of Christopher Plantin,Distributor of Polyphonic Music in Antwerp (1566–1578),” Musicology andArchival Research. Musicologie et recherches en archives. Musicologie enarchiefonderzoek, ed. Barbara Haggh, F. Daelemans, and A. Vanrie. Archives etBibliothèques de Belgique. Archief- en Bibliotheekwezen in België.Extranummer – Numéro special 46 (Brussels: Algemeen Rijksarchief Brussel/Archives Générales du Royaume, Brussels, 1994), pp. 558–604.

interest in Lasso in 1574 may actually have been stimulated by Castro’s col-

laboration with Lasso’s former copyist, Jean Pollet (see above).

The motet “Fertur in conviviis” deserves special mention.Castro may

already have known the work from Phalèse’s Quatriesme livre and Septiesme

livre, both from 1564. It would seem, however, that for this work too, Castro

consulted a later source: Phalèse’s Liber secundus from 1569, one of the col-

lections with four-voice motets by Lasso and Rore.A number of textual var-

iants not found in the 1564 version but which show up in Castro seem

clearly to point to the 1569 edition.34 It is striking that this is the only com-

position that Castro borrowed from the two 1569 Lasso–Rore editions. It is

also the only four-voice Lasso motet that he adapted; all the rest have five or

six voices. Moreover, he introduced his own rather major text variant into

this drinking song; the verse “Et plus quam ecclesiam diligam tabernam”

(And more than the church do I love the tavern) is modified to “Et plus

quam rem medicam diligam tabernam”(And more than healing medicines

do I love the tavern). This could be intended as an inside joke shared with

the nobleman and military figure, Charles de Melun, to whom the 1574

Latin tricinia were dedicated and who, according to a number of sources,

fell ill often and suffered from gout.35

Castro’s three-part adaptations of Lasso’s four- to six-voice motets

are no mere reductions of the originals, but intriguing works in their own

right, in which he shows evidence of a strong personal engagement as com-

poser. Generally speaking, the reworked pieces correspond to the originals

in three ways:

(1) The clefs of the tricinia match the three highest clefs from the

model; the combinations are either c1–c3–c4, or g2–c2–c3. The exceptions

are two motets in the 1569 edition, “Veni in hortum meum” (Lasso

c1–c3–c4–c4–f4,Castro g2–c2–c3) and “In te, Domine, speravi” (Lasso g2–

g2–c2–c3–c3–f3,Castro g2–c1–c3).

(2) The division into partes is identical, except in “Fertur in conviviis”

(Lasso uses only double barlines,with no indication of partes).

(3) The mode is maintained, with the exception of “Veni in hortum


169

34 See Bernhold Schmid, “Lasso’s ‘Fertur in conviviis’: On the History of its Textand Transmission” in the present volume. My thanks to Dr. Schmid forpermitting me to consult his work prior to publication.

35 See the Introduction to Jean de Castro, Opera omnia, vol. 4, pp. 10–12.

meum,” which is transposed from the second to the first mode as a result of

its higher clef combination. While Castro’s chansons and madrigals some-

times end on a note other than the finalis (usually the fifth), this is not the

case in the motets. The only deviation is the conclusion of the prima pars of

“In te,Domine, speravi” (G in Lasso,C in Castro). (See Table 8.1.)

The essentials of Castro’s working methods can best be shown by a few

representative examples. Literal borrowing from the model, in the form of

“vertical citations” – the basic procedure in parody masses – occurs rarely.

Castro takes as his point of departure a theme similar if not identical to

ignace bossuyt

170

Table 8.1 Comparison of mode and final in Lasso motets and

Castro motets based on them

Finalis:Lasso Castro Mode

1569Veni in hortum meum G G Lasso: mode 2 (b-flat)

Castro: mode 1 (b-flat)In te, Domine, speravi G C mode 6 (b-natural)

2a p. Quoniam fortitudo C C

1574Benedicam Dominum in omni tempore D D mode 8

2a p. In Domino laudabitur G GGustate et videte G D mode 8

2a p. Divites eguerunt G GUbi est Abel G G mode 7Tribus miraculis C C mode 6 (b-natural)Surgens Jesus C C mode 6 (b-natural)Surrexit pastor bonus C C mode 6 (b-natural)Confundantur superbi D D mode 7

2a p. Fiat cor meum G GFertur in conviviis C

2a p. Potatores incliti G3a p. Et plus quam rem C C mode 6 (b-natural)

Exaudi, Domine, vocem meam D D mode 2 (b-flat)2a p. Ne avertas faciem tuam G G

Angelus ad pastores ait G G mode 2 (b-flat)Verba mea auribus percipe D D

2a p. Quoniam ad te orabo G G mode 1 (b-flat)Legem pone mihi C C mode 5

2a p. Da mihi intellectum F F

Lasso’s original, and then proceeds to construct a new musical argument.

Generally speaking, the model is clearly recognizable in the exordium,

although he sometimes withholds an explicit reference until a few measures

have passed. In the initial entries of “Surgens Jesus” (Ex. 8.1), “Surrexit

pastor bonus” (Ex. 8.2), and“Angelus ad pastores ait” (Ex. 8.3), the melodic

borrowing is abundantly clear. In contrast, the motets “Gustate et videte”

(Ex.8.4) and“Tribus miraculis” (Ex.8.5) begin without a particularly strik-

ing relationship to the model, but similarities soon enough make them-

selves evident. The descending three-note motive (g�–e�–d� in the cantus)

on the word “Gustate” is borrowed directly from the cantus in mm. 6–7 of

Lasso’s motet; only in the second half of m. 4 does Castro take up Lasso’s

opening motive (g�–a�–b�–g�–b�–d� with the cadence). The similarity to

the original at the beginningof“Tribus miraculis”is again less than obvious,

until the entry of Lasso’s cantus appears in mm.7–9 (c�–e�–f�–d�–c�).

A comparison of a few clearly similar fragments, such as the openings

of “Surgens Jesus,” “Surrexit pastor bonus,” and “Angelus ad pastores ait,”

immediately reveals a number of striking differences which also show up in

the other works. Castro’s melismatic lines are generally more jagged and

less flowing than Lasso’s. These somewhat angular contours are partially

the result of frequent octave leaps (Ex.8.1b,cantus,mm.1–2),making these

melismas – which tend to be designed to function as text expression – more

exuberant and emphatic than Lasso’s, even if perhaps less expansive (as on

the word “Surgens”). Castro’s desire for a mode of expression even stronger

and more direct than Lasso’s is also evident in his transformation of syllabic

delivery into melisma (as in “Surrexit pastor bonus,”Ex.8.2b).

A second striking difference is the frequent use of accidentals in

Castro’s work, which often leads to cross-relations and rapid alternation

between chords with major and minor thirds. A typical example is the

opening of “Angelus ad pastores ait” (Ex. 8.3). In Lasso’s exordium the only

accidental, apart from the b � in the key signature, is the f � in the final chord;

Castro uses both b � and b, as well as f and f � (the latter not only in the final

chord).

Thirdly, Castro strives more than Lasso for simultaneous rhythmic

contrasts through the layering of extremely different note values, as on the

word “stans” in “Surgens Jesus” (Ex. 8.1b; compare with Lasso, Ex. 8.6).

Castro will often combine a long note and a melismatic passage. Examples


171

ignace bossuyt

172

Example 8.1: (a) Lasso, “Surgens Jesus,” mm. 1–9; (b) Castro, “Surgens

Jesus,” mm. 1–14

&&

&V?

24

24

24

24

24

1 .˙ œ œ œ œ œSur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

∑

∑∑∑

œ œ .˙ œ œ œ

∑

∑ .˙ œSur - - - - - - - - -

∑∑

.˙ œ œ œ œ œ∑


∑∑

w ˙ œ œgens, sur - - -

.˙ œ œ œ œ œSur - - - - - - - - -

œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œgens Je - - - - - -

∑∑

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙gens Je -œ œ .˙ œ ˙

œ œ œ œ w∑∑

&&

&V?

6œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ - - - sus, sur - - - -˙ w œ œ

gens Je - - - - - - - - - -

.˙ œ œ ˙ œ œsus, sur - - - - -

.˙ œ œ œ œ œSur - - - - - - - - - - - -

∑

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙gens Je - - - - - - -œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙gensœ œ .˙ œ œ œ

∑ .˙ œSur - - - - - - - -

œ œ .˙ œ ˙w Ó œ œ

sus, sur - - - - -

˙ œ œ œ œ ˙Je - - - - -

˙ .˙ œ œ œgens


˙ œ œ œ œ ˙sus, sur - - - -

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙gens

.œ jœ ˙ wsus,˙ ˙ w

Je - sus,˙ ˙ wgens Je - sus,

&

&

V

24

24

24

1 Ó ˙ œ œ œ œSur - - - - - - - -

.˙ œ œ œ ˙Sur - - - - - - -

∑

.˙ œ ˙ ˙

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙gens,.˙ œ œ œ ˙

Sur - - - - - - - - -

˙ .˙ œ ˙gens, sur - - -

.˙ œ œ œ ˙sur - - - - - -œ œ œ œ w

˙ œ œ œ œ ˙gens, sur - - -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙gens, sur -

w .˙ œgens, sur - -

˙ .˙ œ œ ˙ - - - - -

œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ - - - - -

œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ - - - - -

&

&

V

6 ˙ w ˙gens Ie - sus

˙ w ˙gens Ie sus

w wgens Ie -

˙ .˙ œ ˙Do - mi - nus,

Ó .˙ œ ˙Do - mi - nus

w wsus Do - - -

Ó w ˙Do - mi -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙no - - - - - - - -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙mi - nus no -

˙ ˙ wnus no - ster,

œ œ w ˙œ œ ˙ w

Wstans

˙ œ œ œ œ œ œster, stans,

w Ó ˙ster, stans

&

&

V

11 W

w Ó ˙ stansœ œ œ œ œ œ ˙

W

œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œin me - di -


Win

˙ w ˙o, stans in˙# w n

in me - di -

.˙ œ wme - di - o

œ œ .˙ œ# œ ˙me - di - o˙ ˙ ˙ ˙o dis - ci - pu -

(a)

(b)

8.7a (Lasso) and 8.7b (Castro) from the same motet provide a further illus-

tration of this process: in the lowest voice, Castro cites the bass from Lasso’s

motet on the words “Pax vobis,” but in contrast to his exemplar, he has the

other voices run on in melismas rather than according them similarly

drawn-out notes. Such simultaneous contrast does occur in Lasso, but on a

more modest scale,as for example on “ut salvum me fac”(in “In te,Domine,

speravi,” Ex. 8.8a). Castro (Ex. 8.8b) picks up Lasso’s descending third on

“ut salvum,” but augments the semibreves into breves and accompanies

them with an extensive melisma with octave leaps in the cantus. Similarly,

Castro will often exceed Lasso in highlighting the rhythmic contrasts

between successive fragments through diminution (Ex.8.9,on “accelera”in


173

Example 8.2: (a) Lasso, “Surrexit pastor bonus,” mm. 1–7; (b) Castro,

“Surrexit pastor bonus,” mm. 1–12

&

&

&V?

24

24

24

24

24

1 w wSur - re - -

∑ Ó ˙Sur -

∑ wSur -

∑∑

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙xit pas - tor

.w ˙re - xit

.w ˙re - xit

∑∑

w wbo - - -

˙ ˙ œ œ ˙pas - tor bo - - -

˙ ˙ wpas - tor bo -

∑∑

˙ ˙ wnus, sur - re -

˙ ˙ wnus,

Wnus,

Ó ˙ wSur - re - -

∑ Ó ˙Sur -

˙ w ˙xit pas - tor

w ∑

w ˙ ˙sur - re - xit

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙xit pas - tor.w ˙

re - xit

˙ .˙ œ ˙bo - - - -

∑˙ œ œ ˙ ˙

pas - torw wbo - - -˙ ˙ wpas - tor bo -

˙ ˙ .˙ œ œnus,

w ∑sur - - -

.˙ œ œ œ ˙bo - - -w w

nus,w Ó ˙nus, sur -

&

&

V

24

24

24

1 „

w .˙ œSur - re - - - -

„

∑ wSur -

œ œ w ˙xit

„

.˙ œ œ œ ˙re - - - - -

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙pas - - - tor

„


w wbo - nus,

∑ Ó ˙Sur -

.w ˙bo - - - nus,

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙sur - re - xit

.˙ œ œ œ ˙re - - - - -

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙sur - re - xit

w ˙ œ œpas - tor bo -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

xit pas - tor

&

&

V

7 ˙ w #

pas - tor bo -

-

.˙-

œ œ œ-

˙w wbo - - - -

˙ w ˙nus, sur - re -

-

w ˙ ˙nus, sur -

˙ ˙ wnus, sur - re - - -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙xit pas - tor bo - - - - - - -

˙ ˙ ˙# ˙re - xit pas - tor


˙ œ œ ˙ ˙

.˙ œ œ ˙ ˙bo - - - - - -w wbo - nus,

w wnus,

˙ ˙# wnus,w Ó ˙

qui

w ∑

Ó ˙ .˙ œqui a - ni -.˙ œ ˙ œ œ

a - ni- mam su -

(a)

(b)

“In te, Domine, speravi”) or augmentation (Ex. 8.10,“quia natus est vobis,”

in “Angelus ad pastores ait”).

Finally,Castro exceeds Lasso in his preference for short motivic units,

especially on single words.Although Lasso does often employ rhythmically

succinct syllabic motives, he tends, at least in the motets, to show a prefer-

ence for longer,more delicately balanced melodic phrases.This is evident in

the initial entry of “Confundantur superbi” (Ex. 8.11) and the second part

of “Exaudi, Domine, vocem meam” on the words “Ne avertas faciem tuam a

me” (Ex. 8.12). Lasso sets “Confundantur superbi” to a melismatic, evenly

designed theme; Castro begins by focusing all attention on the word

“Confundantur,”eventually followed by “superbi.”The approach is similar

for “Ne avertas faciem tuam a me”: instead of one overarching theme,

ignace bossuyt

174

Example 8.3: (a) Lasso, “Angelus ad pastores ait,” mm. 1–8; (b) Castro,

“Angelus ad pastores ait,” mm. 1–10

&

&

VV?

b

b

bb

b

24

24

24

24

24

1 ∑ wAn -

∑ ÓAn -

.w ˙An - ge -

∑∑

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ge - lus ad

˙ ˙ wge - lus

.˙ œ wlus

.w ˙An - ge -

∑ wAn -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙pas - to - res

w wad

w Ó ˙ad

.˙ œ ˙ ˙lus ad˙ ˙ w

ge - lus

.˙ œ wa - - -

˙ w ˙pas - to - res

˙ ˙ wpas - to -

˙ w ˙pas - to - res,

w wad pas -

˙ w ˙it, ad pas -

w ˙ ˙a - it, ad

w w - res

Ó ˙ œ œ œ œad pas - - -.˙ œ w

to - - -

w ˙ ˙to - res a - - - -

˙ .˙ œ œ œpas - to - - -

Wa - - - - - -

˙ w ˙to - res

Wres

˙ œ œ w

˙ ˙ wres a -

WWa - - -

Wa - - -

U

U

U

U

U

Wit:

W#it:

Wit:Wit:

Wit:

&

V

V

b

b

b

24

24

24

1 „

∑ wAn - - -

.w ˙An - ge -

„˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

ge - lus ad

.˙n œ ˙ ˙lus ad

.w ˙An - - - ge -˙ ˙ .˙ œpas - to - res,

˙ ˙n wpas - to - res,

.˙n œ wlus,w Ó ˙

an - - -

Ó w ˙an - ge -

Ó w ˙an - ge -

˙ ˙ .˙ œge - lus,

.˙ œ ˙ ˙lus, an -

&

V

V

b

b

b

6

.˙# œ wlus

˙ w ˙ an - ge -

˙ ˙ .˙# œ - ge - lus

Ó w ˙ad pas -

˙ w ˙lus ad pas -

˙ w ˙ad pas -

˙ ˙ wto - res a - - -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙to - res a - it :

˙ ˙ wto - res a - - -

Wit :˙ œ# œ w

Wit :

U

U

U

WW

W

(a)

(b)

Castro splits the text into three separate fragments (“Ne avertas – faciem

tuam – a me”),clearly delineated by the text repetitions.

The result of these differences is a more nervous and very dynamic

musical narrative,which adds a Baroque flavor to Lasso’s models and which

clearly accords with some contemporary madrigal writing (for example,

the generous use of accidentals recalls Rore). Castro was unquestionably

attempting to overcome and in a sense leave behind the limitations, both

harmonic and contrapuntal, dictated by a three-voiced texture.At the same

time, we may characterize Castro as developing to the full Lasso’s composi-

tional processes (melodic progression, rhythm, harmony, etc.) in order to

surpass the original, since imitatio went hand-in-hand with emulatio:

admiration for the imitated model was matched by a certain urge to

compete. This was without a doubt a major challenge for Castro, consider-

ing that he was only at the beginning of his career and, moreover, was

becoming a specialist in the tricinium. He seems to have seen the Antwerp

period of 1569–76 as a sort of apprenticeship, affording him the chance

to master French, Italian, and Latin tricinia as arrangements of more


175

Example 8.4: (a) Lasso, “Gustate et videte,” mm. 1–7; (b) Castro, “Gustate et

videte,” mm. 1–8

&

&

VV?

24

24

24

24

24

1 „

WGus -

„„„

∑ wGus - - -

w ˙ ˙ta - te et

„„„

w wta - -

˙ ˙ œ œ#

œ ˙#

vi - de - - -

„„„

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙te et vi - de - - -

w wte, et

„

WGus - - -

„

œ œ# œ # œ œn œ œte,

w wvi - de - - -

∑ wGus - - - -

w ˙ ˙ta - te et

„

˙ ˙ wgus - ta -

˙ ˙ ∑te,

w wta -

˙ ˙ œ œ# œ #

vi - de - - -

„

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œte et vi -

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙et vi - de -

˙ w ˙te et vi -˙ ˙ wte, gus - ta -

∑ wGus -

&

V

V

24

24

24

1 „W

Gus -

„

∑ wGus - - -

w wta - te

„

w wta -

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙et vi - de - - - - - - -

„

w wte, gus - - -

˙ œ œ .˙ œ

WGus - - -

w wta -

˙ .˙ œ# œ ˙

w wta - te,

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙te et vi - de - - -˙ ˙ .˙ œte, gus - ta - - - -

Wgus - - -

œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œte,œ œ ˙ wte,

w ˙ ˙ta - te et

˙ ˙ wgus - ta -

∑ wgus -

w wvi - de -

(a)

(b)

ignace bossuyt

176

Example 8.5: (a) Lasso, “Tribus miraculis,” mm. 1–6; (b) Castro, “Tribus

miraculis,” mm. 1–9

&

&

&V?

24

24

24

24

24

1 WTri -

∑ wTri - -

∑ wTri - -

„„

.w ˙bus mi -

w wbus

w wbus

„„

˙ .˙ œ œ œra - - - - - - -

w .˙ œ œmi - ra - - - - - - - - -

w wbmi - ra - - - - - - - - -

„„

.˙ œ œ ˙ ˙cu -

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙

„„

w wlis or -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙cu - lis or -

˙ ˙ wcu - lis

∑ Ó ˙or -

∑ wor -

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œna - tum di - -

œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œna - tum

∑ Óor -

˙ ˙ wna - tum di - -˙ ˙ .˙ œ œna - tum di - -

&

&

V

24

24

24

1 Ó w ˙Tri - bus

∑ wTri - - -

WTri - - - - - -

˙ .˙ œ ˙mi - ra - cu - lis,

˙ w ˙bus mi -

w wbus

Ó w ˙tri - bus

˙ ˙ wra - cu - lis˙ ˙ w

mi - ra - - -

˙ w ˙mi - ra - cu -

w wor - na -

˙ ˙ wcu - lis

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙lis or - na - tum

.˙b œ ˙ ˙tum di -

wb ˙ ˙or - - na - tum

&

&

V

6 .˙ œ wdi - - - - - - -

œ œ œ ˙ w - - - em,

w œ œ œ œdi - - - em,

w Ó ˙em, tri -

Ó w ˙tri - bus

W

.w ˙bus mi -

˙ w ˙mi - - - ra - - -

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙tri - bus mi -

.˙ œ wra - cu - lis

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙cu - lis or -

.˙b œ ˙ ˙ra - cu - lis or -

(a)

(b)

Example 8.6: Lasso, “Surgens Jesus,” mm. 22–6

&

&

&V?

24

24

24

24

24

22 Wstans

Wster,

Wster,

w wster, stans

w ∑ster,

∑ ˙ ˙in me - - -

w ˙ ˙stans in me - - -

Wstans

w ∑W

stans

˙ ˙ wdi - o

˙ ˙ wdi - o

Win

˙ w ˙in me - di -˙ w ˙in me - di -

w ˙ ˙dis - - - ci - pu -

w ˙ ˙dis - - - ci - pu -

.˙ œ ˙ ˙me - di - o dis -

˙ w ˙o dis - - - ci - - -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙o dis - ci - pu -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙lo - rum su - o -

˙ ˙# wlo - rum su - -

.w ˙ci - - - pu -˙ ˙ w

pu - lo - -

˙ ˙ ˙# ˙lo - rum su - o -


Example 8.7: (a) Lasso, “Surgens Jesus,” mm. 31–4; (b) Castro, “Surgens

Jesus,” mm. 21–4

&

&

&V?

24

24

24

24

24

31 ∑ wPax

WPax

WPaxWPaxWPax

w wvo - - - - - -

W

W.w ˙

vo - - - bis,Wvo - - - - - - - - - -

w wbis,

w wvo - - - - - - - - - - - -

w wvo - - - - -

Ó ˙ wpax vo - -W

∑ wal - - -

˙ œ œ w

Wbis,w Ó ˙bis al -Wbis,

&

&

V

24

24

24

21 Ó .˙ œ œ œPax

Ó .˙ œ œ œPax,

WPax

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙vo - - - - - - - -

w Ópax

Wvo - - - - - - - - - - -

˙# .˙ œ# œ ˙

.˙ œ œ wvo - - - - - -

W

˙ Œ œ œ œ œ œbis, al - le - - -

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œbis, al - le - - -

w ∑bis,

(a)

(b)

Example 8.8: (a) Lasso, “In te, Domine, speravi,” mm. 66–9; (b) Castro, “In

te, Domine, speravi,” mm. 45–50

&

&

&VV?

24

24

24

24

24

24

66 ∑w wut sal - - -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙mum re - fu - gi -w ˙ ˙

re - - - fu - gi -

w ˙ ˙re - - - fu - gi -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙mum re - fu - gi -

w wut sal - - -˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ

vum me fa - - - - -

˙ ˙ wi, ut sal - - -

w wi, ut

w ∑i,

w ∑i,

œ œ œ œ wvum,

˙ ˙ ˙ Óci - as,

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙vum me fa - ci -

w wsal - - - vum

∑ Ó ˙ut

∑ wut

∑ wut

∑

w ∑as,

w ˙ ˙me fa - ci -˙ w ˙

sal - vumw wsal - vum

&

&

V

24

24

24

45

-

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ci - as, ut

-

˙ ˙# ˙ ˙ci - as, ut.˙ œ w

fa - ci- as,

˙# w œ œsal - vum me

˙ œ œ œ œ œ œsal - vum

∑ wut

œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙

me fa - ci- as,w wsal - - - -


œ œ ˙ ww w

vum

˙ ˙ .˙ œfa - ci -

Ó w ˙ut sal -˙ ˙ .˙ œme fa - ci -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙as, ut sal - vum,

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙vum, ut sal - vum,

w Ó ˙as, ut

(a)

(b)

extensive settings. In his later collections, he ceased to apply imitatio in his

chansons and motets and started to compose original works, thereby

hoping to lend a higher status to the tricinium. This is apparent from the

monumental character of his later tricinia. Most of the motets from the

Cantiones aliquot sacrae trium vocum of 1593 comprise at least three sec-

ignace bossuyt

178

Example 8.9: (a) Lasso, “In te, Domine, speravi,” mm. 44–53; (b) Castro, “In

te, Domine, speravi,” mm. 26–31

&

&

&VV?

24

24

24

24

24

24

44 Ó ˙ ˙ ˙in - cli - na

∑

œ œ ˙# ˙ Œ œ - am, in -

˙ w ˙ad me au -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ad me au - rem

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙au - rem tu - am

˙# ˙ ˙ ˙ad me au - rem

∑ win - -

˙ ˙ wcli - na ad˙ w ˙

rem tu - am,

w ˙ œ œtu - am, ad

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙in - cli - na

Wtu - - - -˙ ˙ ˙# ˙cli - na ad me

w ˙ ˙me au -

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ad me au -

œ œ w ˙mew ˙ ˙

ad me au -

Wam

˙ ˙ wau - rem tu - - - -

˙ ˙ wrem tu - - - -˙ ˙ œ œ ˙

rem tu - - - - -

˙ ˙ wau - rem tu - - - -˙ ˙ .˙ œ

rem tu - - - -

∑ wac -w ˙ ˙

am, ac -

w ˙ ˙am, ac -˙ # wam,

w wam,

w wam,

&

&

&VV?

49 .˙ œ ˙ œ œce - le - ra ut

.˙ œ ˙ ˙ce - le - ra ut

.˙ œ ˙ ˙ce - le - ra ut

∑∑∑

œ œ œ œ .˙ œ œ

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙e - - - - ru -

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œe - - - - -

∑∑∑

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙e - ru - as

œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙as

˙ ˙ wru - as

∑∑ Ó ˙

ac -

∑

w Ó ˙me, ac -

w Ó ˙me, ac -

w Ó ˙me, ac -

Ó ˙ .˙ œac - ce - le -

.˙ œ wce - le - ra

Ó ˙ .˙ œac - ce - le -

.˙ œ wce - le- ra:

.˙ œ wce - le- ra:

.˙ œ ˙ ˙ce - le- ra: utw wra ut

Ó w ˙ut e -

w wra ut

&

&

V

24

24

24

26 ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙rem tu - am, in -

˙ ˙ wrem tu - am,

∑ Ó ˙in -

w ˙ ˙cli - na ad

Ó ˙ win - cli -

w ˙ ˙cli - na ad

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙me au - rem tu - - -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙na ad me au -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙me au - rem tu -

˙ ˙ ˙ Œ œam, ac -

˙ ˙ wrem tu - am,

w Œ œ .œ jœam, ac - ce - le -

.œ Jœœ œ .œ Jœ ˙

ce - le- ra, ac - ce - le- ra

Œ œ .œ jœ ˙ ˙ac - ce - le - ra ut

˙ Œ œ .œ Jœ˙

ra, ac - ce - le- ra

œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ut e - ru - as me.

.˙ œ ˙ ˙e - ru - as me.

œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ut e - ru - as me.

(a)

(b)

tions, some having four or six parts, and one no fewer than ten (“Cum sero

esset”). The 1596 tricinia (Trium vocum cantiones aliquot sacrae) are again

almost all sizeable compositions in four to six parts. The same evolution

towards monumentality may be seen in the French chanson. Moreover,

Castro confirmed his very original contribution to the French tricinium by

the fact that he himself probably supplied texts for some of the works.36 It


179

36 See Hubert Daschner, “Die gedruckten mehrstimmigen Chansons von1500–1600. Literarische Quellen und Bibliographie,” Ph.D. dissertation,Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Philosophische Fakultät, Bonn(1962), pp. lxvii–lxviii.

Example 8.10: (a) Lasso, “Angelus ad pastores ait,” mm. 23–9; (b) Castro,

“Angelus ad pastores ait,” mm. 23–30

&

&

VV?

b

b

bb

b

24

24

24

24

24

23 w ∑num,

Wmag - - -

w ˙ ˙qui - a na -

w ∑num,

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙qui - a na -

∑ wqui -

w ∑num,

˙ ˙ œb œ œ œ œtus est

∑˙ ˙ w

tus est

˙ w ˙a na - tus

Wqui - - -

˙ ˙ wno - bis

∑˙ ˙ .˙ œno - bis ho - di -

˙ ˙ west no - bis

˙ w ˙a na - tus

.w ˙ho - di -

∑ wqui -

We,

.w ˙ho - di -

˙ ˙ .˙ œest no - bis,

We,

˙n w ˙n

a na - tus

∑

.˙ œ we

w ∑

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙qui - a na -

˙ ˙ west no - bisw ˙ ˙qui - a na -

w ∑

Ó ˙ ˙# ˙qui - a na -

˙ ˙ ˙ œ œtus est no -

w ˙ ˙bho - di -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

tus est no -

&

V

V

b

b

b

24

24

24

23 w# Ó ˙

est, qui -

Wqui - - - - - - -

w Ó ˙qui -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙a na - tus est

w wa

˙# ˙ ˙ ˙n

a na - tus est

œ œ ˙ .˙ œvo - - -

w wna - - -

œ œ œ œ .˙ œ œ

œ œ .˙ œ ˙ - - - - -

˙ ˙ w - tus est

w wvo - - -

&

V

V

b

b

b

27 ˙ ˙##

w - bis,

w œ œ œn œvo - bis,

w Ó ˙bis, qui -

Wqui - - - - - -

w Ó ˙qui - - -

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙a na -

w wa na - - - -˙ ˙# .˙ œ

a na - tus

˙ ˙ Ó ˙tus est, qui - - -

˙ ˙ wtus est,

˙ w ˙est, qui - - - a

˙ ˙# ˙ ˙a na - tus

(a)

(b)

ignace bossuyt

180

Example 8.11: (a) Lasso, “Confundantur superbi,” mm. 1–10; (b) Castro,

“Confundantur superbi,” mm. 1–7

&

&

&V?

24

24

24

24

24

1 w ˙ œ œCon - fun - dan - - -

∑

∑∑∑

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙tur su -

w ˙ œ œCon - fun - dan - - -

∑∑∑

œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙per - - - - - - - - - - -

œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œtur su - - - - -

∑∑∑


œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œper - - - - -

∑∑∑

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙bi, su -


∑ wCon -

∑∑

&

&

&V?

6

-

˙ w ˙per - bi,

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ - - - - - - - -

˙ œ œ œ œ ˙fun - dan - - - - - - -

∑∑

Ó w ˙con - fun -

.˙ œ ˙ ˙bi,

˙ œ# œ ˙ ˙turw ˙ œ œ

Con - fun - dan - - -

∑

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙dan - - - tur

∑ Ó ˙con -

˙ ˙ œ œ ˙su - per - - - - - - - -

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙tur su -w ˙ œ œ

Con - fun - dan - - -

w .˙ œsu - per - - - - -

˙ ˙ œ œ œ œfun - dan - - - - -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙

per - - - bi,


œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙bi, con -


w Ó ˙bi, con -

Ó w ˙con - fun -

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙per - - - bi,

&

&

V

24

24

24

1 „

Ó w ˙Con - - - fun -w ˙ œ œ

Con - - - fun - dan - - - -

w ˙ œ œCon - - - fun - dan - - - -

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙dan - - - - tur,œ œ ˙ w

tur,

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙tur, con - - -

Ó ˙ œ œ œ œcon - fun - - - - - - -

w Ó ˙con -

˙ w ˙fun - - - dan -

˙ w ˙#dan -

˙ œ œ œ œ ˙fun - dan - - - -

&

&

V

5 ˙ Ó ∑tur

œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œtur su - per - - - - - - - - -

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œtur su - per - - - - - - - - - -

Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œsu - per - - - - - - - - -

œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œbi, con - fun - dan -

œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œbi, con - fun - dan -

œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙bi, con - fun -

œ# œ ˙# wtur su - per - bi,

œ œ ˙ ˙ Œ œtur su - per - bi, con -

(a)

(b)

may be that in the madrigal he felt less need to be original, since at the end of

the century the three-part madrigal continued to hold an established place

in the repertory and required no further legitimation. This might explain

his tendency to remain true to the process of arrangement in this genre,

whereby compositions by masters such as Luca Marenzio could become

available in lively and highly idiosyncratic versions for three voices. In this

sense, Castro’s tricinia, which were clearly intended as intimate household

music for the bourgeoisie and nobility (especially in Antwerp), functioned

as a kind of publicity for the composers on whose compositions they were

based. One would expect that in this context it would be next to impossible

to ignore Lasso. And yet Castro’s oeuvre seems to suggest that in the


181

Example 8.12: (a) Lasso, “Exaudi, Domine, vocem meam,” mm. 67–73; (b)

Castro, “Exaudi, Domine, vocem meam,” mm. 42–55

&

&

VV?

b

b

bb

b

24

24

24

24

24

67 .w ˙Ne a -

„

„„„

w wver - tas

∑ ÓNe

„„„

.˙ œ ˙ ˙fa - ci - em tu - - - - - - -

˙ ˙ wa - ver -

„„„

œ œ œ œ œ w

.˙ œ œ œ œ œtas

„w ˙ ˙

Ne a -

„

w .˙ œam

œ œ œ œ œ ˙fa -

„

w wver - tas

∑ ÓNe

˙ w ˙a

˙ ˙ wci - em

„w ˙ ˙fa - ci - em

˙ ˙ wa - ver -

Wme

˙ ˙ wtu - am a

Ó w ˙Ne a -.˙ œ œ .˙ œ

tu - - -

˙ .˙ œ ˙tas fa - ci - em

&

V

V

b

b

b

24

24

24

42 „.w ˙

Ne a -

„

„w .˙ œ œ

ver - tas,

∑ wNe

„˙ w ˙

ne a -

˙ ˙ wa - ver -

Ó w ˙Ne a -˙ ˙# ˙ ˙ver - tas, ne

w ∑tas,

Wver - - -.w ˙a - ver -

Ó w ˙ne a -

w Ó ˙tas, ne

œ œ œ ˙ w - tas,

w ˙ ˙ver - tas, ne

˙ ˙ wa - ver -

∑ wne

˙ ˙ wa - ver -

&

V

V

b

b

b

49 ˙ .˙ œ ˙tas fa - ci- em

˙ ˙ w a - ver -

w ∑tas,

˙ ˙ Ó ˙tu - am, new .˙ œtas fa - ci -

Ó w ˙ne a -

˙ ˙ wa - ver -˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

em tu - am, ne

w wver - tas

w ∑tas˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

a - ver - tas

.˙ œ ˙ ˙fa - ci- em tu -

.˙ œ ˙ ˙fa - ci- em tu -

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙fa - ci - em

˙ ˙ wam a

˙ .˙ œ œ ˙am a

˙ ˙ wtu - am a

W

w Ó ˙me, ne

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙#me, ne de - cli -

w ∑me,

(a)

(b)

southern Netherlands, with Antwerp as the economic and cultural center

and Leuven as the music publishing center, Lasso enjoyed his greatest fame

as a composer of chansons, and that his motets began to be noticed only

starting in the 1570s, while almost no attention was paid to his madrigals.

Castro’s tricinia thus turn out to be not unimportant puzzle pieces in the

documentation of the reception of the work by the most celebrated com-

poser of the late Renaissance, while they are also fascinating music in their

own right, the intrinsic musical qualities of which deserve, in my opinion,

greater attention.

Translated by Stratton Bull

ignace bossuyt

182

9 The madrigal book of Jean Turnhout (1589) andits relationship to Lasso

james haar

In the course of preparing a study of Lasso’s Libro Quarto of five-voice

madrigals (1567),1 my attention was drawn to the Libro Primo de Madrigali

a 6 voci of Giovan [Jean, Jan] Turnhout, published in Antwerp in 1589, in

which a large number of pieces – half the contents of the book – are settings

of texts used by Lasso. One Netherlandish composer turning to the work of

an older and more famous compatriot, to be sure.That is easily said; but six-

teenth-century musicians did not have access to the resources of modern

libraries, and the whole question of how madrigalists came upon the texts

they set is a far from simple one. Turnhout was not, to judge from this

volume, a serious student of Lasso’s music; his madrigals are far closer in

style to the canzonetta of the 1570s and 1580s than they are to Lasso. A few

fleeting allusions tell us none the less that he did see not only the texts but

the music of the older composer, and indeed music prints must have been

an important source for composers in search of texts to set, even if their

purpose was not musical parody. Is there some reason for Turnhout to have

seen volumes of Lasso madrigals and to have chosen,or have recommended

to him, the texts he set?

An inventory (see the Appendix) of Turnhout’s volume shows that he

chose for the most part texts appearing in Lasso’s Libro Terzo (1563) and

Libro Quarto (1567); he did not know or was not attracted by the early

books or by Lasso’s later madrigal collections. The inventory also points

toward acquaintance with the work of Monte and Rore, again illustrious

Netherlanders, as well as Palestrina (in a relatively obscure early collection)

and, understandably for the period, Marenzio. For some of Turnhout’s

madrigals his precise source is not easy to pin down, and there are a few

183

1 “Le Muse in Germania: Lasso’s Fourth Book of Madrigals,” Orlandus Lassus andhis Time, pp. 49–72.

pieces for which no other setting is known.That Lasso’s works were a source

for Turnhout is clear; the reasons behind Turnhout’s choice are the subject

of this inquiry.2

Jean, or Jan, Turnhout is an example of a Netherlandish composer

who apparently never left his native land. He held positions of importance

in Malines and Brussels,but he seems during a long life to have been a singer

and chapelmaster first, a composer only secondarily.His life is not well doc-

umented; information about him gathered by Van der Straeten and inter-

preted by Van Doorslaer is repeated without change in modern lexicons.3

His name appears to have been Jan Jacobs; he and his brother Gérard, also a

composer, were natives of Turnhout, a town some twenty-five miles north-

east of Antwerp. He would seem to have been born c. 1545–1550 and was

still alive in 1618. Nothing is known of his musical training, but Antwerp

seems the most logical place for it (later, in all probability, than Lasso’s

Antwerp stay of 1554–6). His older brother Gérard became choirmaster at

the Church of Our Lady (Ons-Lieve-Vrouw; from 1559 the cathedral) in

Antwerp in 1562, making it likely that Jean Turnhout would have been

there as a singer. If he was in Antwerp he may also have known Séverin

Cornet, who succeeded Gérard Turnhout as cathedral choirmaster in

1572.4

In 1577 Jean Turnhout, said to be “bruxellensis, clericus conjugatus,”

was named choirmaster at the Cathedral of St. Rombaut in Malines; if he

had been a singer in Antwerp he had evidently moved at some point to

james haar

184

2 Lasso’s Libro Terzo, published by Antonio Barrè in Rome in 1563, was reprintedin Venice in that year and in editions of 1564, 1566, 1567, 1570, 1573, and 1586;Libro Quarto (Venice, 1567) was reissued in 1570, 1584, and 1593. For reasonsthat this study should make clear I assume that the two books reached theNetherlands in the 1560s. One text used by Turnhout, “Occhi piangete,” was inLasso’s Primo Libro a 4 of 1560; it had already appeared in his ‘op. 1’ Antwerpprint of 1555.

3 Edmond van der Straeten, La Musique aux Pays-Bas avant le xixe siècle, 8 vols.(Brussels, 1867–88; repr. New York, 1969), vol. 1, pp. 237–48 et passim; G. vanDoorslaer, “Jean van Turnhout, compositeur, maître de chapelle, à Malines et àBruxelles, 1545? après 1618,” Musica Sacra, 42 (1935), pp. 218–49. Thebiographical information on Turnhout given here is taken from those twosources unless otherwise specified.

4 See Kristine K. Forney, “Music, Ritual and Patronage at the Church of Our Lady,Antwerp,” Early Music History, 7 (1987), p. 38. Jean Turnhout could have been inAntwerp before 1562 as a boy singer.

Brussels, perhaps as a member of the chapel of Margaret of Austria, regent

of the Netherlands from 1559 to 1567, or her successors the Duke of Alva

(1567–73), Don Luis Requesens (1573–6), and Don Juan of Austria

(1576–8).5 Malines, though newly created as a diocese, was now the prima-

tial see of the Netherlands; its archbishop was Antoine Perrenot de

Granvelle, a powerful diplomat and art patron to whom we will return.

Turnhout had evidently acquired a reputation, especially if it is true that

Granvelle took the appointment of a choirmaster as seriously as that of a

suffragan bishop.6

Ferocious religious war disrupted life at Malines completely;

Turnhout probably left the city about 1580.Once again his whereabouts are

unknown for a time,until 1586 when he became choirmaster at the Brussels

chapel of Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma and governor-general of the

Netherlands, son of Ottavio Farnese and Margaret of Austria. Here he

remained until his death, sometime after 1618.

Turnhout’s surviving music consists of the six-voice madrigal book

of 1589, a volume of motets published in 1594, and a few scattered individ-

ual pieces, including a six-voice madrigal published in the Antwerp anthol-

ogy Melodia Olympica (RISM 159110).7 A volume of five-voice madrigals,

cited by Gerber and nineteenth-century scholars as published in Douai in

1559 [=1595], is not extant though its existence does not seem improb-

able.8 Turnhout remained as chapelmaster in Brussels after the death of

the madrigal bo ok of jean turnhout ⁽1589⁾

185

5 It is worth noting that Séverin Cornet was a choirmaster at Malines from 1564to 1572. See New Grove s.v., “Cornet,” by Donna Cardamone.

6 This is said by Maurice Piquard in “Le Cardinal de Granvelle, les artistes et lesécrivains,” Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, 17 (1947–8), pp. 138–9.No source is given, but Piquard’s article is based on study of Granvelle papersand letters in the municipal library of Besançon.

7 The madrigal, “Vorria parlare e dire,” uses a text set by Marenzio (Libro Primodelle villanelle a 3, Venice, 1584). See the Appendix, no. 9.

8 E. L. Gerber, Historisch-Biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler (1812–1814), ed.Othmar Wesseley [along with the earlier version of the work], 4 vols. (Graz:Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1966–79), vol. 2, p. 119. F.-J. Fétis,Biographie universelle des musiciens et bibliographie générale de la musique, 2nded., 8 vols. (Paris, 1873–80; repr. Brussels, 1972), vol. 8, p. 275, corrects Gerber’sdate for the five-voice book and says it is to be found in Munich; AlphonseGoovaerts, Histoire et bibliographie de la typographie musicale dans les Pays-Bas(Antwerp, 1880), p. 225, follows Fétis. The volume is apparently not to be foundtoday at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

Alessandro Farnese (1592); he wrote a mass for the entry of Archduke Ernst

into Antwerp in 1594, and was still in the chapel, sharing duties (because of

advanced age?) with Géry Ghersem in his later years.9

Our cast of characters, Jean Turnhout and several of his patrons, has

now been assembled. A closer look at these patrons and at Lasso’s relation-

ship to them is now in order. Most prominent in the list is Antoine Perrenot

de Granvelle (1517–86), Archdeacon of Besançon, Bishop of Arras (1538),

Cardinal-Archbishop of Malines (1561–82), and a lifelong servant of the

Habsburgs, first Charles V and then Philip II.10 Granvelle, whose father was

a trusted counsellor of Charles V, began his ecclesiastical career early,

becoming a bishop at the age of twenty-one; throughout his life he sought

ecclesiastic preferment as a means of furthering a career hampered by his

lack of noble birth.11 Students of his career differ about his personality and

sometimes about his motives, but his very considerable intelligence and

diplomatic talents are universally admired. He served Charles V more or

less in his father’s place; by the time of Charles’s abdication in 1555

Granvelle had become the leading representative, regent in all but name, of

the Habsburgs in the Netherlands.

With increasing power came increasing wealth. Granvelle built a

splendid house in Brussels and acquired villas outside that city and near

Antwerp.12 He commissioned paintings and other works of art, and it is

said that at least a hundred literary works were dedicated to him. He was

james haar

186

9 Van Doorslaer, “Jean van Turnhout,” pp. 227–8. On Ghersem, a prolificcomposer most of whose music is lost, see New Grove s.v. “Ghersem,” by Mary A.Ferrard.

10 The fullest treatment of Granvelle’s career is Maurice van Durme, AntoonPerrenot, Bisschop van Atrecht, Kardinaal van Granvelle, Minister van Karel V envan Filips II (1517–1586) (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1953), whichunfortunately pays scant attention to Granvelle’s patronage of artists. The articleof Alphonse Wauters on Granvelle in Académie royale des sciences, des lettres etdes beaux-arts de Belgique. Biographie nationale, 27 vols. (Brussels, 1866–1938),vol. 7, cols. 197–237, is still informative. See also the study of Piquard citedabove, note 6. Boetticher, Lasso, pp. 37, 125, et passim, speaks of some ofGranvelle’s connections with Lasso. Boetticher mentions some of Turnhout’spieces on Lasso texts (pp. 92, 309) but appears to confuse Gérard and JeanTurnhout.

11 His father having bought the castle of Granvelle (near Besançon), the familyadopted this name; but Antoine Perrenot was never truly accepted as anobleman. 12 Piquard, “Le Cardinal de Granvelle,” pp. 136–7.

clearly interested in music as well.13 Tielman Susato dedicated his motet

series Liber . . . ecclesiasticarum cantionum of 1553 to Granvelle;

Manchicourt’s Liber Quintus (1554) of motets is also dedicated to him.

Even at the end of his career music prints were still addressed to him; an

example is Conversi’s Libro primo de madrigali a 6 (1584). For us the most

significant volume of music addressed to Granvelle is Lasso’s Primo libro de

motetti, published in Antwerp in 1556. Lasso’s dedicatory letter, in Italian

like the title of the book, says that he is emboldened to write because the

“gravissime orecchie”of Granvelle “dilettino de la mia musica”; he is grate-

ful for the “molti beneficij, e segnalati favori” that he has received “tutto il

giorno” from his patron. After allowances are made for the flowery (and

hopeful?) dedicatory prose, it would seem that this letter is evidence of a

more than casual relationship.14 A suggestion of something like real friend-

ship is the report that Granvelle learned of the theft of a manuscript of

Lasso’s music and concerned himself with its recovery.15

At the end of his letter Lasso asks Granvelle to read the Latin text of the

opening motet, written in his honor. The motet text contains the phrase

“musarum famulum ne despice, sustine Lassum,” a punning reference to

the composer’s name heightened in the music by a single occurrence of the

la-sol solmization figure.16 Lasso probably knew that Manchicourt’s motet

volume of 1554 also begins with a text, “O decus o patriae lux,” honoring

Granvelle.Other composers wrote pieces for him; both Adrian Willaert and

Cipriano de Rore composed motets, on the same text, “O socii neque

enim/Per varios casus,” in praise of Granvelle and referring in the cantus


187

13 See above, and note 6.14 The letter is given in Lasso, SW, vol. 3, p. vi. A facsimile of it may be seen in

Orlandus Lassus en Antwerpen, 1554–1556, exhibition catalogue (Antwerp: StadAntwerpen, 1994), p. 58, in CM, vol. 1, plate 2 (with English translation), and inthe facsimile edition of the entire motet book (Peer: Alamire, 1992).

15 Piquard, “Le Cardinal de Granvelle,” p. 139. It would be interesting to knowmore about this anecdote.

16 The motet is printed in SW, vol. 11, p. 81, and in CM, vol. 1, p. 3. On this motetvolume see Edward E. Lowinsky, Die Antwerpener Motettenbuch Orlando diLasso’s und seine Beziehungen zum Motettenschaffen der niederländischenZeitgenossen (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1937), reprinted in English translation inLowinsky, Music in the Culture of the Renaissance and Other Essays, ed. Bonnie J.Blackburn, 2 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), vol. 1, pp.385–431.

firmus to his Vergilian motto “Durate.” Though not published until 1566

(after both composers’ deaths) the works were clearly written earlier,

perhaps at the time of Granvelle’s appointment to the see of Malines and

elevation to the cardinalate (1561).17

EvidencepresentedbyIgnaceBossuytshowsthatGranvelledidindeed

take more than a passing interest in Lasso.18 He may, in conjunction with

Hans Jakob Fugger, have been instrumental in getting Lasso appointed as

singer at the Bavarian ducal court in the fall of 1556; two letters from Fugger

to Granvelle speak of Lasso’s journey to and arrival in Munich.19 In March of

1558 Granvelle wrote to Lasso, acknowledging receipt of some music and

asking for more from the composer.A newly discovered letter from Lasso to

Granvelle (April1559),inwhichseveralpiecesof musicwereenclosed,hints

strongly that Lasso would consider moving to a new place. Granvelle’s reply

(May1559)counselsprudence–thecomposer,hesays,hadagoodpost,after

all.20 If Lasso was interested in the newly available position at the Spanish

court in Madrid it was too late; the job went to Manchicourt.And in October

1559, Pierre du Hotz was named director of the chapel of Margaret of

Austria, the new regent of the Netherlands; this is another position Lasso

might well have considered.21 Granvelle had many people to please. In 1560

Lasso made a trip to the Netherlands looking for singers to engage for the

chapel inMunich.WhetherhesawGranvellewedonotknow,butheheardby

letter fromtheregent(withGranvellebehindher?)thatLassowastoremem-

ber that the interests of Philip II in Flemish musicians must be served first.22

ThecomposerreturnedtoMunichwithouthavingrecruitedanysingers.

james haar

188

17 The cantus-firmus text, the single word “Durate,” is taken from a device ofGranvelle. Rore’s motet has the subtitle “Illustrissimi et ReverendissimiCardinalis Granvellani Emblema.” It uses as cantus firmus the soggetto cavato ut-fa-re. Both Rore’s and Willaert’s motets were published in Rore’s Libro Quinto of1566 (RISM 156617); that of Rore may be found in Rore’s Opera Omnia, ed.Bernhard Meier ([Rome]: American Institute of Musicology, 1959–77), vol. 5,pp. 110.

18 Ignace Bossuyt, “Lassos erste Jahre in München (1556–1559): eine ‘cosa nonriuscita’? Neue Materiale aufgrund unveröffentlicher Briefe von Johann JakobFugger, Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle und Orlando di Lasso,” Festschrift fürHorst Leuchtmann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Stephan Hörner and BernholdSchmid (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1993), pp. 55–67.

19 Ibid., pp. 56–8. 20 Ibid., pp. 61–5.21 Van der Straeten, La Musique aux Pays-Bas, vol. 7, p. 503. On Hotz see ibid., vol.

3, pp. 307–25. 22 Leuchtmann, Leben, p. 117.

One other connection,possibly an important one,between Granvelle

and Lasso may be mentioned. In his letter of May 1559 to the composer

Granvelle mentions a “Signor Polites” as if he were a friend of Lasso.

Joachim Polites [=Burgher] (d. 1569) was a Fleming who studied at Padua

(as did Granvelle); he later turned up in Antwerp, where with the active

support of Granvelle he was appointed to head the chancery, a position he

held from 1541 until 1565.23Polites looked out for Granvelle’s interests,and

had a room at his disposal in the latter’s Brussels house. He himself lived

lavishly in Antwerp,and was an amateur poet and musician who patronized

many local artists.24 Polites could well have been a useful friend to Lasso

during the composer’s Antwerp years, and could have made him known to

Granvelle. Both must subsequently have received copies of Lasso’s music in

manuscript and in print.

In the spring of 1564 Granvelle,who had incurred much enmity in the

Netherlands and who had Philip II’s support but not that of his Spanish

advisors, was asked by the king to leave Brussels; he did so, never to return

despite his never-ending wishes to do so (he left most of his valuable

belongings, including his library, behind in his Brussels house when he

departed25). This should mean that there could be no connection between

Granvelle and Jean Turnhout. But Granvelle surely knew of Gérard

Turnhout, choirmaster at Antwerp Cathedral from 1562 to 1572 and then

director of Philip II’s chapel in Madrid. And though he could not visit his

episcopal seat in Malines (indeed he rarely did so even before 1564) he was

kept apprised of all that went on there by his friend the Vicar General of the

diocese, Maximilian Morillon.26 Granvelle remained in name Archbishop


189

23 See Biographie nationale, s.v. “Joachim Polites,” by Fernand Donnet; Piquard, “LeCardinal de Granvelle,” p. 141; Bossuyt, “Lassos erste Jahre,” pp. 64–6.

24 Biographie nationale, vol. 17, col. 910, where it is said that “plusieurs artistes,”not specified, dedicated compositions to Polites. An instance of Polites dealingwith the printer Plantin on Granvelle’s behalf is cited by van Durme, AntoonPerrenot, p. 254.

25 Biographie nationale, vol. 7, col. 223. The house was later looted and itsremaining contents then sold at auction in 1578, Granvelle and his brothers andfriends being considered at the time as “ennemys du pays.” See Maurice Piquard,“Le Cardinal de Granvelle, amateur de tapisseries,” Revue belge d’archéologie etd’histoire d’art, 19 (1950), p. 126. But at least part of Granvelle’s library survivedand is still extant; see the illustrations in van Durme, Antoon Perrenot.

26 Piquard, “Le Cardinal de Granvelle, les artistes,” p. 134.

of Malines until 1582.27 He must therefore have approved Jean Turnhout’s

appointment as choirmaster in 1577, and must have learned something

about him then if he had not known him earlier. Turnhout was styled

“bruxellensis” at the time of his appointment; if he had been in Brussels

before 1564 he could have met Granvelle there, perhaps even have been

engaged by him.

The other figures of interest to us as patrons of musicians are Ottavio

Farnese, Duke of Parma; his wife Margaret of Austria (natural daughter of

Charles V) and their son Alessandro. Margaret (1522–86) had a Flemish

mother and spent her childhood at the Habsburg court in the Netherlands.

She was accustomed to musical tributes from an early age; a madrigal in

Arcadelt’s Primo libro (1538/9) addresses her, probably at the time of her

betrothal (1533) or marriage (1536) to Alessandro de’Medici.28 Another, in

Arcadelt’s Quinto libro of 1544, mentions her and Ottavio, presumably in

celebration of her second marriage in 1538.29

Cipriano de Rore is the most illustrious composer to have been con-

nected with the Farnese couple. On his departure from Ferrara in the

summer of 1559 Rore returned to the Netherlands, where Margaret had

become regent. A madrigal in her honor, “Alma real se come fide stella,”

published in 1565, may date from this period.30 It is a birthday piece, refer-

ring to the approach of the Three Kings (Margaret’s birthday was celebrated

on 28 December); the end of the text,“preso non sdegno / Mio stato humile

poi che vostro sono / E per elettione e per destino,” suggests that Rore may

have been asking directly for a position in Margaret’s service. If so the piece

could be dated December 1559.31

james haar

190

27 Biographie nationale, vol. 7, col. 226.28 Iain Fenlon and James Haar, The Italian Madrigal in the Early Sixteenth Century:

Sources and Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988),p. 65. The madrigal is “Giovanetta regal pur innocente.”

29 Ibid., p. 65.30 See Alfred Einstein, The Italian Madrigal, 3 vols. (Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1949), vol. 1, p. 356. The madrigal is published in Rore, Operaomnia, vol. 5, pp. 83ff.

31 Meier (Rore, Opera omnia, vol. 5, p. xiii) thinks that the text also refers to Rore’sbeginnings as a musician and some contact with Margaret at that point. Thisseems unlikely to me. Margaret did stop in Malines, Rore’s probable home, in1533 as she prepared to leave for Italy. But at the time she was eleven years old,Rore seventeen. When Rore left the Netherlands for Parma late in 1560 his

Rore’s motet addressed to Granvelle, mentioned above, was probably

written at this time or shortly after his departure for Parma to assume his

new duties as ducal choirmaster there (November 1560). Another dedica-

tory piece, “Mentre lumi maggior del secol nostro,” its extravagant text

lavish in praise of Ottavio and Margarita (addressed as Apollo and Delia

[Diana]), was written at this time, probably for Ottavio’s visit to Brussels in

August–September 1560, by or at which time Rore was surely engaged for

Parma.32 This work appeared in Rore’s posthumous Quinto libro of 1566,

dedicated by the printer Antonio Gardano to Ottavio in a letter famous for

its claim that Rore’s music unites all that is best in the music of Josquin,

Mouton,and Willaert.33

The last work of Rore to celebrate the Farnese is the five-voice madri-

gal “Vieni dolce Hymeneo,”addressed to Alessandro and his bride, Maria of

Portugal, who were married in November 1565. The marriage had been

decided upon in late 1564, by which time Rore had returned from Venice to

Parma. Rore died in September 1565; Duke Ottavio was then on his way

from Parma to Brussels for the wedding, perhaps with the commissioned

piece,clearly one of Rore’s last works, in his possession.34

Here Lasso re-enters the picture, for he also wrote a setting of “Vieni

dolce Hymeneo.”35 Rore’s madrigal was doubtless commissioned by

Ottavio Farnese. It seems unlikely that another setting of the same text

would have been wanted for the wedding ceremonies; yet the poem seems


191

expenses were paid by a Farnese agent in Antwerp, suggesting that the composermay have been there rather than at the court in Brussels. See Jessie Ann Owens,“Cipriano de Rore a Parma (1560–1565). Nuovi documenti,” Rivista italiana dimusicologia, 11 (1976), p. 10.

32 See Louis Nuernberger, “The Five-Voice Madrigals of Cipriano de Rore,” 2 vols.,Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan (1963) vol. 1, p. 28.

33 The dedication is reproduced in facsimile in Rore, Opera omnia, vol. 5, p. xix.34 On Rore’s death date see Owens, “Cipriano de Rore,” p. 18. “Vieni dolce

Hymeneo” is published in Rore, Opera omnia, vol. 5, pp. 123ff. On p. xvi of thatvolume Meier suggests convincingly, given its peculiar text, that the madrigal“Ne l’aria in questi dì” (published posthumously in RISM 156813, reprinted in157515) was written to accompany a fireworks display mounted as part ofAlessandro Farnese’s wedding festivities.

35 Printed in SW, vol. 8, pp. 69ff. It first appeared in RISM 15706, Second livre deschansons a 4 et 5 parties composées par Orlando di Lassus, Cyprian de Rore, &Philippe de Mons, published by Phalèse in Louvain. Rore’s setting was printed in15705, the Premier livre of the same series.

too explicit to have been useful for anything else.36 Granvelle, who had left

Brussels early in 1564, does not seem a probable source for a commission,

nor is there any apparent reason for Rore to have communicated the text to

Lasso. The latter may have received it from friends in the Netherlands.37 He

appears to have known Rore’s music as well; although there is no percepti-

ble common material in the two settings, they are similar in style and Lasso

like Rore repeats the opening three lines of the poem at the end, using as

does Rore the music with which he opened the piece. Lasso’s setting is

divided into two parts and is a bit longer than Rore’s, but it is scored for four

voices instead of Rore’s five (a gesture of modesty on the part of the younger

composer?).Both pieces were published in Louvain/Antwerp in 1570; curi-

ously, one is in each of a pair of matched volumes devoted to chansons and

madrigals by the two composers.38 Lasso’s version was, then, known in the

Netherlands.

If both settings were used at the wedding of 1565, there is no mystery

here. If Lasso’s was not, could it have been written after the fact? The

obvious reason for this would be Lasso’s desire to remind the Farnese of his

existence and just possibly of his availability for the position in Parma

vacated by Rore’s death. Some appointments for the chapel in Parma were

quickly made, among them that of the organist Jean Terrier d’Arras (once a

client of Granvelle).39 It is not clear to me, however, who Rore’s successor as

maestro di cappella was.40 Lasso may no longer have been actively interested

in moving, but his Libro Quarto of 1567, dedicated to Alfonso II of Ferrara,

james haar

192

36 Boetticher, Lasso, p. 305, Sandberger in SW, vol. 8, p. xi, and Meier in Rore,Opera omnia, vol. 5, p. xv, all assume that Lasso’s piece was written for thewedding. Sandberger also suggests that Lasso’s “Quando fia mai quel giorno,”which mentions a “Maria” in its text, may have been intended for the wedding;but the verbal context hardly seems appropriate.

37 The suggestion that Lasso visited the Netherlands in 1564 (Boetticher, Lasso,p. 166) has no factual basis; see Leuchtmann, Leben, p. 136.

38 See note 35 above.39 On Jean d’Arras see New Grove s.v. “Arras,” by Lavern Wagner. For his

connection to Granvelle see Piquard, “Le Cardinal de Granvelle, les artistes,”p. 135.

40 The detailed study of N. Pelicelli, “Musicisti in Parma nei secoli xv-xvi,” Noted’archivio per la storia musicale, 8 (1931), pp. 130–42, 196–215, 278–90; 9(1932), pp. 41–52, 112–29, does not list Rore’s successor at the ducal chapel. In1566 P. P. Ragazzoni became choirmaster at the Cathedral (ibid., vol. 8, p. 201).

shows evidence both external and internal that he wanted to be reckoned in

Italy as among the leading madrigalists of the day.41

Other musicians were certainly interested in Parma. G. F. Alcarotto’s

Secondo Libro di Madrigali a 5 et a 6 (1569) is dedicated to Margarita

(perhaps written upon her return to Parma in 1567) and contains madri-

gals in honor of her,of the ducal pair, and a third,“A la man vincitrice a l’alte

e sole,”referring to Alessandro as well. Its seconda parte sets this text:

Queste de le celesti anime duono

Che cedon vinte a vostri eterni lumi

Humil servo con sacro lumi e di note

Volgete a lor quelle superne ruote

Mentre in aur’ a voi beati sono

Ottavio et Alessandro invitti numi.42

To this list of madrigals honoring the Farnese, doubtless not com-

plete, may be added the sonnet opening Turnhout’s madrigal book of 1589.

The volume, described as the composer’s “primo frutto,” is dedicated to

Alessandro (1545–92), governor of the Netherlands since 1578 and (absen-

tee) Duke of Parma since 1586, the year Turnhout joined his service in

Brussels. The dedication is dated 20 December 1588. It could hardly have

come at a worse time. Alessandro was indeed one of the greatest military

commanders of his day; he managed to reconquer for Philip II all of the

southern Netherlands (essentially present-day Belgium).43 But during the

ill-fated Armada expedition of 1588 his role was an ambiguous one. He

assembled an army at Dunkirk, planning an invasion of England; but a

combination of factors prevented him from disembarking from the port

made so famous in our century for a successful evacuation.44 There was


193

41 See the article referred to above, note 1.42 For this print see Emil Vogel, Alfred Einstein, François Lesure, and Claudio

Sartori, Bibliografia della musica italiana vocale profana dal 1500 al 1700, 3 vols.(Pomezia: Staderini-Minkoff, 1977) [= Il Nuovo Vogel], vol. 1, p. 29. OnAlcarotto see New Grove s.v.”Alcarotto,” by Glenn Watkins.

43 See Léon van der Essen, Alexandre Farnèse, Prince de Parme, Gouverneur généraledes Pays-Bas (1545–1592), 5 vols. (Brussels: Librairie nationale d’art etd’histoire, 1933–7), passim. Van der Essen’s magisterial biography is almostexclusively concerned with Alessandro’s military campaigns.

44 Garrett Mattingly, The Armada (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1959; reprint 1987),pp. 314–25.

plenty of blame to be shared for the failure of the Armada; but Alessandro

received a great deal of personal criticism, and was forced to defend himself

to Philip II and others through the fall – even to December – of 1588.45 If he

heard Turnhout’s opening madrigal, or read the dedicatory sonnet it sets,

he must have had mixed feelings:

Sotto l’insegno in van de’ Duci suoi

Contra il Belga l’Iberia armò le schiere

Che genti debellar tante e si fiere

Palma è fatal sol de’ Romani Heroi.

Tal pria Cesar le vinse, e Druso puoi.

Hor tu Signor le domi e de l’altere

Città, Provincie, e squadre lor’ guerriere

Ergi al ciel trionfante I Gigli tuoi.

O famoso Alessandro o de la gloria

De tuoi forti Quiriti emula prole

O Magno piu di lui donde t’appelli

Vinse e gli anzi fugò popoli imbelli

Ai trofei non avezzi hai tu vittoria

Di chi vincer talhor pugnando suole.

Alessandro, who patronized artists and literary men for propaganda

purposes if for no other reason,was used to being hailed as a new Alexander,

a new Hercules; Turnhout was simply unlucky in his timing.46 Alessandro

had retained his mother’s choirmaster, Pierre du Hotz; it is not clear

whether Turnhout, who may have returned to Brussels during the early

1580s when his post at Malines became impossible because of religious

strife, succeeded him directly, but in a document of 1596 he says that he had

been in his post for ten years.47 He was certainly not well known as a com-

poser, but he must have had a reputation for competence. There is little to

suggest that Alessandro, almost constantly with his army, had time or incli-

nation for music.During his youthful years in Spain (1559–65) Alessandro,

who is said never to have been interested in studious pursuits, was none the

james haar

194

45 Colin Martin and Geoffrey Parker, The Spanish Armada (London: Norton,1988), pp. 265–6, 290.

46 Felipe Fernández-Armesto, The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 84, 100.

47 Van der Straeten, La Musique aux Pays-Bas, vol. 3, p. 322.

less put on a regime of study, together with Don Juan of Austria and the ill-

fated Don Carlos of Spain (what a bundle for a tutor to handle!), which

included one hour a day for a “leçon de chant et de musique.”48 Whether

this was enough to make him a discerning musical patron may be doubted,

but like all educated aristocrats of the time he knew something of the art.

The contents of Turnhout’s volume are described in the Appendix to

this study. Enough has been said to show that the music of Lasso must have

been readily accessible to him; but did the name of Lasso have special

meaning in the Brussels of the 1580s? Surely it must have. Lasso was by then

the most famous musician of his day,as Rore had been of his.And both were

from the south,Catholic Netherlands; both had had close connections with

figures of power and eminence in the region. It seems pardonable exaggera-

tion to say that they may have formed part of a pantheon of local composers,

just as they were to do for Fétis and Kiesewetter nearly three centuries later.

Of the twenty madrigals in the volume, ten set texts used by Lasso,

several chosen by him alone or by a very small number of composers.

Turnhout, by inclination a composer of canzonetta-madrigals, did not

attempt an approach to Lasso’s style; but here and there he acknowledged

his debt to Lasso by a quick allusion to the latter’s music, as Examples 9.1–4

show. Turnhout begins several of his pieces with reference to Lasso’s

exordia. In Example 9.1 Lasso’s altus, which starts alone, is echoed by

Turnhout’s sexta, starting by itself and continuing with a melody aping the

contours of Lasso’s line.Example 9.2 shows Turnhout reproducing not only

the signature la-sol but the solmization of the whole of Lasso’s opening

phrase. Turnhout’s imitation of Lasso in Example 9.3 is less exact, but he

recognizes and rather ineffectively copies the older composer’s vivid setting

of the opening words, in which the melodic line seems to peer into the dis-

tance (“Ben veggio di lontano”). In Example 9.4 Lasso’s majestic voicing of

the opening words of Petrarch’s Canzoniere is clearly imitated by Turnhout,

who nevertheless lowers the tone of simple grandeur in his model by con-

tinuing in Marenzio-ish chromatic fashion, here rather out of place. Only a

musician of the time (or an allusion-happy twentieth-century musicolo-

gist?) would recognize these, but they may have meaning all the same, a

modest bow to the “divin Orlande.” One wonders if Lasso was given a copy

of this volume.


195

48 Van der Essen, Alexandre Farnèse, vol. 1, pp. 25, 69.

james haar

196

Example 9.1: “O beltà rara” (a) Turnhout; (b) Lasso

6

C

A

&&V

1 w ˙ ˙O bel - ta

Ó ˙ ˙ œ œO bel - ta ra - - - - - -

Ó ˙ œ œ œ œO bel - - - - - -

.œ Jœ ˙ œra - - - - - raœ œ .œ œ œ œ œ

ra

œ œ ˙ œta ra - - - ra

(T, 5, B tacent)

C

A

5

T

&&&V

CCCC

∑ wO

w wO bel - - -∑ w

O

∑ wO

˙ ˙ wbel - ta ra -

˙ ˙ wta ra -



wra

wra

wra

wra

(B tacet)

(a)

(b)

Example 9.2: “Questi son lasso, questi” (a) Turnhout, sexta vox;

(b) Lasso, cantus

& c Ó Œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œQue - sti son

œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œlas - so, que - sti,

& b C .˙ œ ˙ ˙Que - sti son las -

˙ ˙ wso, que -

wsti,

Ex. 9.2b

(a)

(b)

Example 9.3: “Ben veggio di lontano” (a) Turnhout, cantus;

(b) Lasso, cantus

& ˙ .œ Jœ œ œ ˙Ben veg - gio di lon - tan'

Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œil dol - ce lu - me

& ∑ wBen

˙ ˙ œ œ ˙veg - gio di lon - ta -

w Ó ˙no il

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙dol - ce lu - me

Ex. 9.3a

Ex. 9.3b

(a)

(b)

For the remainder of the volume Turnhout’s sources are less clear.

Philippe de Monte, another Flemish composer of international fame and

one in Habsburg service, set “Dolce mio caro e pretioso albergo,”a sonnet of

which Turnhout composed the octet (no. 20). Rore is less well represented

than one might expect, and there is some overlap of texts set by him and by

Lasso.But the surprising appearance of an ottava stanza,“Misero stato degli

amanti in queste”(no. 19), of which there is only one other setting, part of a

cycle by Palestrina, called in its printed source “Giannetto” – whom

Turnhout may not have recognized as the famous Roman composer – can

be explained by the fact that this cycle, Da fuoco sì bella nasce il mio ardore,

appeared in Rore’s Secondo libro a 4 (1557,1569,1571).49


197

49 Il Nuovo Vogel, vol. 2, pp. 1504–06, nos. 2429–31. On Palestrina’s cycle see JamesHaar, “Pace non trovo: A Study in Literary and Musical Parody,” MusicaDisciplina, 10 (1966), pp. 95–149.

Example 9.4: “Voi ch’ascoltate in rime sparse il suono” (a) Turnhout;

(b) Lasso

Cantus

6a

Altus

&&&

ccc

1 ˙ Ó ˙ ˙Voi, voi ch'a - - -

Ó ˙# Œ ˙ œVoi, voi ch'a - -

Ó ˙ Œ ˙ œVoi, voi ch'a - -

œ œ ˙ ˙#scol - tat' in

œ œ# ˙# ˙scol - tat' in

œ œ ˙ ˙scol - tat' in

(T, 5a, B tacent)

Cantus

Altus

5a

Tenor

Bassus

&&&V?

CCCCC

„∑ w

Voi∑ wVoi

wVoi

∑ wVoi

›Voi

w wch'a - - - -

w wch'a - - - -

Ó w ˙ch'a - scol -

w Ó ˙ch'a - - -

Ó wch'a - - - -

˙ ˙ ˙scol - ta - - -

˙ ˙ ˙scol - ta - - -

w wta - - - te

˙ ˙ wscol - ta - - -

(a)

(b)

Given Marenzio’s popularity in the Netherlands in the 1580s,

Turnhout’s choice of three texts (nos. 9, 13, and a piece appearing in an

Antwerp anthology of 1591) is not surprising. If Guglielmo Textoris was a

Flemish musician (resident in Italy) Turnhout’s selection of a sonnet (no.

18) set by him may be explainable. Textoris’s Libro primo a 5 (1566) is dedi-

cated to Jacopo Pinsonio A Steinhueisen, probably a member of a well-

known and Habsburg-connected Flemish family.50 There remain four

pieces to be accounted for, other than the opening dedicatory piece, clearly

of local origin. No. 2, a Petrarch sonnet popular with composers from

Verdelot through the late sixteenth century, could also have been available

from Petrarch’s Canzoniere, a copy of which was surely ready at hand to any

madrigalist. There are three unica, nos. 11, 16, and 17. These may have been

set in madrigal volumes no longer extant, or have been the work, like the

opening dedicatory sonnet, of someone active as a madrigal poet in circles

close to Turnhout.

In sum, Turnhout’s madrigal book stands as evidence of a kind of

“national” cultural awareness in late sixteenth-century Franco-Flemish

society, something that must have been very precious during this turbulent

period in Netherlandish history. And chief among the musical heroes in

this society was Orlando di Lasso, or Roland de Lassus, of Mons and

Antwerp.

james haar

198

50 A Guillaume de Steenhuys (1558–1638), son of a prominent official, was alawyer and councillor in Malines and Brussels. See Biographie nationale, vol. 23,cols. 756–8.

Appendix

Giovan Turnhout, Il Primo Libro de Madrigali a Sei Voci (Antwerp: Pietro

Phalesio and Giovanni Bellero,1589)

No. Capoverso Poet Remarks

1, fol. 2 Sotto l’ingegno in anon. sonnet Dedicatory sonnet addressed

van de Duci suoi; 2a: to Alessandro Farnese

O famoso Alessandro

2, fol. 3 Quando Amor i begl’ Petrarch, octet Frequently set by composers

occhi a terra inchina of sonnet beginning with Verdelot

(CLXVII) (1533) and including

Fogliano (1547), Micheli

(1564), Vinci (1567), and

Corona (1574).

3, fol. 3v O beltà rara o santi anon. madrigal Only Lasso (1567) and

modi adorni Andrea Gabrieli (1566) are

known to have set this text.

Their settings, of which

Lasso’s is probably the

earlier, are related.

Turnhout’s sexta, which

opens the piece, seems drawn

from Lasso’s altus, which also

begins alone.

4, fol. 4 Questi son lasso, anon. madrigal Lasso’s five-voice setting

questi (1563) is the only other use

of this text known to me.

Boetticher’s reference to a

setting by F. Viola (Lasso,

309) is in error. Once again

Turnhout seems to refer to

Lasso’s opening gesture in his

sexta vox.

5, fol. 4v Amor che vedi ogni Petrarch, octet Five-voice settings exist by

pensieri aperti of sonnet Lasso (1563) as well as by

(CXLIII) Monte (1570, 1574) and

Rore (1542). Turnhout’s

version seems unrelated to

any of these.


199


6, fol. 5 Ben veggio di lontan Petrarch, sestet Turnhout does not indicate

il dolce lume of preceding this as a seconda parte;

sonnet neither do Lasso (1563) or

Monte (1570); in Rore it is so

marked. Lasso’s opening

gesture seems to be imitated

by Turnhout.

7, fol. 5v Bella guerriera mia Bembo, sonnet, Set for five voices by Lasso

perche sì spesso octet [Bembo’s (1563), by Perissone Cambio

authorship is for four (1554). Turnhout

pointed out by uses the same cleffing as

Leuchtmann, Lasso but the settings seem

SW2, vol. 4, unrelated. Boetticher, Lasso,

p. xxx.] 309, sees a “weak” imitation

of Lasso by Turnhout in the

closing phrase of the piece.

8, fol. 6 Come va’l mondo Petrarch, octet Not an especially popular

hor mi dilett’ e of sonnet text among musicians, this

piace (CCXC) sonnet was set by Lasso

(1567); there are also settings

by Rossetti (1566), Merlo

(1567), and Balbi (1570), all

of the complete sonnet in

two parts.

9, fol. 6v Lasso quand’havran anon. A setting of this text is in

fin tanti sospiri canzonetta Marenzio’s Libro primo delle

villanelle a 3 (1584), a source

used twice in Turnhout’s

book (see no. 13) and again

for the six-voice “Vorria

parlare e dire” printed in

Phalèse’s Melodia Olympica

(RISM 159110). Whether

Turnhout cites Marenzio’s

opening, or both composers

used the la-sol figure as a

matter of course is hard to

determine.

james haar

200


10, fol. 7 Quel dolce suon per anon. sonnet Set by C. Ameyden in Lasso’s

cui chiaro s’intende octet Terzo Libro of 1563; no other

settings are known to me.

Could Lasso have known

Ameyden, a papal singer who

studied in Antwerp about the

time of Lasso’s residence

there? On Ameyden see New

Grove s.v. “Ameyden,” by

Lavern J. Wagner.

11, fol. 7v Udite i miei lamenti anon. No other setting of this text

canzonetta is known to me. Madrigals,

by Guarini and others,

beginning “Udite amanti”

were popular in the late

sixteenth century.

12, fol. 8 Il tempo passa e Petrarch, Set by Rampollini as part of

l’hore son sì pronte canzone stanza a cycle. Otherwise Lasso’s

(second stanza version (1567) is the only

of XXXVII, one known.

Si è debile il filo)

13, fol. 8v Se il dolce sguardo anon. Not the Petrarchan sonnet

del divin tuo volto canzonetta (CLXXXIII) popular with

several generations of

madrigalists. Other settings

of the text used by Turnhout

include one by Castro

(1594), Ferretti (1567), and

Marenzio (1584), the latter

Turnhout’s most likely

source.

14, fol. 9 Voi ch’ascoltate in Petrarch, octet Set by a number of

rime spars’ il suono of sonnet (I) composers. Lasso’s version

(1567) seems to be echoed by

Turnhout at the beginning of

his setting.


201


15, fol. 9v Occhi piangete Petrarch, octet A text popular with

accompagnate il core of sonnet madrigalists throughout the

(LXXIV) century. Lasso’s four-voice

setting (1555) opens with a

falling motive, as does that of

Turnhout; but the latter’s

three-voice beginning is

much closer in spirit to the

villanella. The setting of S.

Cornet (1581), which I have

not seen, might be relevant

here.

16, fol. 10 O fortuna crudel di anon. ottava No other settings of this text

me ti satia stanza are known to me.

17, fol. 10v Poi che madonn’ il anon. sonnet Another unicum.

mio martir non crede octet

18, fol. 11 Dove fuggi crudele anon. sonnet This text was set by

ahi che fuggendo octet G. Textoris (1566). He may

have been a Fleming; his

print (Libro primo a 5) is

dedicated to Jacopo Pinsonio

A Steinhueisen and some of

its contents are said to have

been written for him.

19, fol. 11v Misero stato degli Virginia Salvi, The only other setting of this

amanti in quante ottava stanza text, of which no printed

(the twelfth in sixteenth-century edition is

a fourteen- known, is that of Palestrina,

stanza cycle) part of his cycle Da fuoco così

bel nasce il mio ardore,

published in RISM 155724.

20, fol. 12 Dolce mio caro D. Veniero, This sonnet is set entire in

e pretioso albergo sonnet octet Monte’s Quarto libro a 4

(1581), a copy of which is

today in the Bibl. Royale in

Brussels.

james haar

202

10 Modal ordering within Orlando di Lasso’spublications

peter bergquist

In recent years a number of scholars have devoted increasing atten-

tion to the structure of music prints in the sixteenth century. The reasons

why composers or publishers decided on the order of the individual items

in a collection are not always obvious. A set of Magnificats would of course

appear in the order of the eight reciting tones that served as their cantus

firmi,and some collections of motets were organized according to liturgical

considerations, but the texts themselves, either Latin or vernacular, did not

often imply a specific order when they were grouped in a publication.

Harold Powers has articulated most clearly how traits of the music itself

came to be used as an organizing factor.1 He observed that early sixteenth-

century collections such as those of Petrucci have “no discernible musical

basis for their arrangement,” while later in the century compositions came

to be grouped according to three criteria: (1) whether cantus durus or

cantus mollis governed, that is, whether the signature contained no flat or

one; (2) whether the range was relatively lower or higher as shown by one of

the two standard combinations of clefs, the so-called chiavette or “high”

clefs and the normal or “low”clefs; (3) the final, expressed as the lowest note

in the last sonority (or in modern terms, the root of the closing triad).2 A

203

1 Harold Powers, “Tonal Types and Modal Categories in Renaissance Polyphony,”Journal of the American Musicological Society, 34 (1981), pp. 428–70, is his mostfundamental study that bears on the subject of this paper. His other works thattreat the same material include “Modal Representation in PolyphonicOffertories,” Early Music History, 2 (1982), pp. 43–86; “Is Mode Real? PietroAron, the Octenary System, and Polyphony,” Basler Jahrbuch für historischeMusikpraxis, 16 (1992), pp. 9–52; and “Anomalous Modalities,” Orlando di Lassoin der Musikgeschichte. Bericht über das Symposion der Bayerischen Akademie derWissenschaften, München, 4.–6. July 1994 (Munich: Verlag der BayerischenAkademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), pp. 221–42.

2 Powers, “Tonal Types,” pp. 436–7.

collection might group its contents according to any of these criteria, singly

or in combination.

The three criteria of clef, signature, and final in their various combi-

nations were taken by Siegfried Hermelink to distinguish Tonartentypen or

as Powers puts it, “tonal types.”3 Since the finals were in practice almost

always confined to the six pitches of the natural hexachord, a total of

twenty-four tonal types could in principle exist, of which the two with a flat

signature and E as final were never used. Hermelink attempted to show that

musical behavior of the individual tonal types was so diverse that they

could not be subsumed under a system of either eight or twelve modes.

Powers demonstrated, however, that composers and publishers in the later

sixteenth century increasingly used the tonal types to represent eight or

twelve modes in numerical order within a publication or other group of

compositions. This is not to say that the pieces were composed “in a mode,”

but that they can represent a mode when placed in a suitable context. How a

polyphonic composition may “be in” or express a mode is a completely

different subject than how it may represent a mode. The latter can be

accomplished simply through the combination of clef, signature, and final,

whereas the musical behavior that might cause a piece to express a mode is a

larger issue. The possibility of modal representation does not mean that

every piece of sixteenth-century polyphony is in or represents or was com-

posed in a mode.4

It is well known that Lasso held to the traditional system of eight

modes rather than adapting the twelve-mode system propounded by

Glareanus and Zarlino. Powers described several publications of Lasso that

are modally ordered, assigning the tonal types to represent members of the

eight-mode system;5 this study follows his lead and explores contemporary

publications of Lasso’s music as thoroughly as possible. The emphasis is on

publications over which Lasso had some control, that is, those by publishers

with whom he dealt directly. Only motets and settings of vernacular texts

are considered, since a collection of masses would not usually include

enough pieces to be modally ordered (the necessary minimum would be

peter bergquist

204

3 Siegfried Hermelink, Dispositiones modorum (Tutzing: Schneider, 1960); Powers,“Tonal Types,” p. 439.

4 See especially Powers, “Anomalous Modalities,” p. 226, on this point.5 “Tonal Types,” passim, and “Anomalous Modalities,” passim.

around sixteen), and Magnificats and other liturgical music would be

ordered on different principles.

Table 10.1 lists the tonal types used by Lasso in modally ordered col-

lections and the modes that they represent. The table is based on the

findings of Powers and Bernhard Meier, which are taken as axiomatic for

this study.6 Lasso’s usage is essentially similar to that of his contemporaries,

differing mainly in how he treats pieces with C or A as final. He does not use

every possible tonal type in his modally ordered collections, though some

others appear elsewhere in his output. The two clef combinations referred

to in Table 10.1 are standard for the period,with the low or “normal”clefs of

c1 c3 c4 f4 for the basic SATB group and the high clefs or chiavette of g2 c2 c3

f3 (or c4). When there are more than four voices, the added parts normally

duplicate the range and clef of one of the basic four. The high and low clefs

typically distinguish authentic from plagal modes respectively, based in the

first place on the ambitus of the tenor,which continued to be considered the

leading voice for purposes of determining the mode.A signature of one flat

was sometimes used to cause a “transposition”of one of the normal finals of

modal theory, e.g., mode 1 or 2 transposed from final on D to final on G, a

perfect fourth higher.

Mode 1 then may be represented both by a final on D and no flat in the

signature (though occasionally the flat is used) and by a final on G with one

flat. Mode 2 was almost never used untransposed, since it would have to be

notated lower than normal singing ranges. It frequently appeared trans-

posed to G with one flat,distinguished from mode 1 by the low clefs.Mode 2

might also be notated in high clefs and no flat with final on D (hereafter rep-

resented as H/0/D).Since mode 1 in D used the low clefs, this led to the para-

doxical result that the authentic mode used the low clefs and the plagal

mode the high, which is contrary to the normal expectation. Modes 3 and 4

were rarely distinguished from each other in polyphony, either in theory or

practice, and Lasso used the combination L/0/E to represent this composite

mode 3/4, which could also be represented transposed as H/1/A. A few

examples represent mode 4 by unusually low clefs, c2 c4 f3 f5. For Lasso as

for most other sixteenth-century composers, pieces in F almost by

modal ordering within l asso ’s publications

205

6 Powers, “Tonal Types” and other works cited above; Bernhard Meier, The Modesof Classical Vocal Polyphony, trans. Ellen Beebe (New York: Broude, 1988;original German edition, Utrecht: Oosthoek, Scheltema & Holkema, 1974).

definition used a flat in the signature, and he like many others used them to

represent modes 5 and 6. His system included no “ionian” modes. Mode 6

was also represented transposed a fifth higher by H/0/C.Modes 7 and 8 were

represented at their standard pitch levels by H/0/G and L/0/G respectively.

Mode 8 was also transposed a fourth higher to H/1/C. Some theorists

classed H/0/C and L/0/C as mode 7 and 8 respectively, but Lasso usually

associated such pieces with mode 6; they never represent mode 7 or 8 in his

modally ordered publications.

Pieces in H/0/A or L/0/A are included in a number of Lasso’s modally

ordered publications. In sixteenth-century theory and practice these pieces

were sometimes classed as mode 3 (especially L/0/A) or mode 1 or 2 (espe-

cially H/0/A). Powers showed that although Palestrina at least once used

peter bergquist

206

Table 10.1 “Tonal types” used by Lasso in modally ordered

collections and the modes they represent, based on Harold Powers,

“Tonal Types”

Final: LowestClefs: High=g2 tone of the last Mode: The mode thatc2 c3 f3 (or c4); Signature: 1=one chord in a given each combinationLow=c1 c3 c4 f4 flat; 0=no flats composition represents

Low 0 (occasionally 1) D 1High 1 G 1 transposed a 4th upLow 1 G 2 transposed a 4th upHigh 0 D 2 transposed an 8ve upLow 0 E 3/4 (authentic–plagal

distinction not often made)

c2 c4 f3 f5 0 E 4 (rare)High (or Low – 1 A 3/4 transposed a 4th up

infrequent)High 1 (rarely 0) F 5Low 1 (rarely 0) F 6High 0 C 6 transposed a 5th upHigh 0 G 7Low (only one ex.) 0 C 7 transposed a 5th downLow 0 G 8High 1 C 8 transposed a 4th upHigh 0 A A (authentic?)Low 0 A A (plagal?)

H/0/A to represent mode 1 in a modally ordered collection, Lasso’s usage in

such collections is anomalous.7 Powers cited only two Lasso collections in

which H/0/A was used, but the present study has uncovered several more,

and this more complete information fills out the picture considerably. At

the end of this paper I will summarize the information and place it in con-

junction with my recent study of all of Lasso’s pieces in H/0/A and L/0/A.8

Another basic question that the present study must address is Lasso’s inten-

tions regarding modal collections. How much does modal ordering reflect

his own wishes as distinct from decisions made by his publisher or editor?

The best approach is to consider both place and time, to examine the prac-

tice of Lasso’s publishers in various parts of Europe and how that practice

changed in time if at all.

ItalyWe know of no Italian publications devoted exclusively to Lasso’s

music that are modally ordered. Powers mentions several Italian prints that

show such ordering, but none of them is of Lasso’s music. His madrigal

books published in Italy do not consider clef, signature, and final all

together as factors in their organization. Some of them show a tendency to

group by clef, with all the pieces in low clefs separated from those in high

clefs, as in Lasso’s earliest Italian publication, his first book of five-voice

madrigals (Venice: Gardano, RISM 1555c). In this book the first fifteen

pieces are in low clefs, nos. 16–20 are in high clefs, and nos. 21–2 in low

clefs.9 Perhaps the two final pieces were given their position so as to group

them with nos. 19–20, with which they share the final of F and signature of

one flat. The collection is clearly ordered on the basis of musical character-

istics rather than the texts, with each tonal type segregated from the others.

Another option was to group all the pieces in cantus durus separately from

those in cantus mollis, as in the third book of five-voice madrigals (Rome:

Barrè, RISM 1563c). Ordering is once again on the basis of musical traits,


207

7 Powers, “Tonal Types,” pp. 449–50.8 Peter Bergquist, “The Modality of Orlando di Lasso’s Compositions in ‘A

Minor’,” Orlando di Lasso in der Musikgeschichte, pp. 7–18.9 The ordering of all of Lasso’s madrigal books may easily be observed in SW and

SW2, vols. 2, 4, and 6, which publish the madrigal books in their original orders.

with each of the two major groups further subdivided on the basis of clefs

and finals. No modal ordering results, in part because the modes that could

be represented are confined to modes 1–4.10

Lasso’s Italian motet publications follow similar patterns. Powers

noted that none of the Lasso motet books of Antonio Gardano, Lasso’s

principal Italian publisher, is modally ordered.11 They may be grouped in

other ways, as he observes of Gardano’s 1562 re-edition of the motets first

published by Montanus and Neuber in Nuremberg in the same year (RISM

1562c and 1562a respectively). The Nuremberg edition is modally ordered,

but Gardano rearranges the pieces in a way that only partially retains the

original grouping and removes the pieces from any possible modal order-

ing. Powers notes that Gardano’s Book IV (RISM 1566e) seems to be

ordered primarily by final, subdivided by cleffing;12 liturgical order may

also play a role at the beginning of the book.13

NetherlandsLasso’s principal publishers in the Netherlands were Jean Laet and

Tielman Susato in Antwerp and Pierre Phalèse in Louvain (later Antwerp).

Laet’s most notable publication of Lasso’s music was his first motet book

(RISM 1556a), in which the individual tonal types are grouped together but

not ordered throughout by clef, signature, nor final. Susato published a

large number of anthologies from 1544 on that Powers showed to be

modally ordered, some within a single publication, others in a series of

publications in which all pieces within a book were stated to be in a single

mode.14 Most of Susato’s publications were anthologies,and his only publi-

cation exclusively devoted to Lasso was a collection of chansons, RISM

1564c (see Table 10.2).The contents of this book are in perfect modal order,

except for two pieces in mode 3/4 that are separated from their fellows, as is

the final chanson in mode 8. The single chanson in L/0/A follows the main

peter bergquist

208

10 Book V (SW and SW2, vol. 6; RISM 1585e), published in Germany, holds to thesame principle, with all the pieces in cantus mollis at its head, followed by allthose in cantus durus. The publisher of Book V, Katharina Gerlach inNuremberg, issued a number of modally ordered Lasso prints in other genres;these are discussed below. 11 Powers, “Tonal Types,” p. 461.

12 Ibid. 13 CM, vol. 5, p. xiii.14 Powers, “Tonal Types,” pp. 443–5, 468–9.

group of pieces in mode 8, in other words,after the completion of the modal

cycle.

Pierre Phalèse the elder published many collections of Lasso’s music,

and his son Pierre the younger continued to do so, sometimes in association

with Jean Bellère in Antwerp, to which city the Phalèse press eventually

moved. Most of Phalèse’s Lasso publications are reprints of collections pre-

viously published in France and Germany, so any modal ordering they may

present is of no significance in determining Lasso’s own intentions, except

as it duplicates modal ordering that Lasso may have established in the first

edition. The only other Phalèse collection that appears to be modally

ordered proclaims itself as such in its title: La Fleur des chansons d’Orlande

de Lassus . . . toutes mises en ordre convenable selon leur tons (Antwerp: Pierre

Phalèse & Jean Bellère, RISM 1592b). It is a publisher’s compilation, dedi-

cated to the master of ceremonies of Mecheln Cathedral,and for that reason

the original texts of several chansons were replaced by bowdlerized contra-

facta.15 In this publication the four- and five-voice chansons appear in suc-

cession,and each group is modally ordered (see Table 10.3).The ordering of

the five-voice chansons is not perfect, since representatives of mode 5 are


209

15 Helmut Hell and Horst Leuchtmann, Orlando di Lasso: Musik der Renaissanceam Münchner Fürstenhof. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Ausstellungskataloge 26(Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1982), p. 216.

Table 10.2 RISM 1564c, Le premier livre de chansons à quatre

parties (Antwerp, Susato)

Number Clefs/Signature/Final Mode represented

21–5 H/1/G 1 tr21–6 L/1/G 2 tr27–8 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve29–12 L/0/E 3/413–15 H/1/F 516–17 H/0/C 6 tr18–21 H/0/G 722 L/0/E 3/423–4, 27 L/0/G 825 L/0/A A26 L/0/E 3/4

lacking altogether (only two examples of the tonal type H/1/F exist among

all of Lasso’s five-voice chansons), and the chansons that represent mode 8

appear among those in mode 6.

FranceThe firm of Adrian Le Roy and Robert Ballard in Paris was one of

Lasso’s most important publishers through his lifetime and even after-

wards. Lasso had a close personal relationship with Le Roy, with whom he

stayed during his 1571 visit to Paris.Le Roy’s letter of 14 January 1574 trans-

mitted the offer of Charles IX to Lasso to become the royal court com-

peter bergquist

210

Table 10.3 RISM 1592b, La Fleur des chansons d’Orlande de Lassus

. . .toutes mises en ordre convenable selon leur tons (Antwerp, Phalèse

& Bellère)


Chansons a421–8 H/1/G 1 tr29 L/0/D 110–12 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve13–16 L/1/G 2 tr[17–22 – Moresche first printed in 1555]23–5 L/0/E 3/426–31 H/1/F 532–5 H/0/C 6 tr36–9 H/0/G 740–1 L/0/G 842–3 L/0/A A

Chansons a544–50 H/1/G 1 tr51–2 L/0/D 153–7 L/1/G 2 tr58–60 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve61–2 L/0/E 3/463–5 L/1/F 666–8 L/0/G 869 H/0/C 6 tr70 H/0/G 7

poser.16 Le Roy and Ballard published numerous editions of Lasso’s music

in all genres except the polyphonic lied, many of them first editions or

authorized reprints, sometimes in large retrospective compilations. Many

of the chansons first appeared in the publisher’s numbered series of

chanson books, which were small collections of sixteen folios each; Lasso’s

music first appears in these books in 1559. Most of the books were origi-

nally anthologies containing works by several composers, but as they were

reissued over and over again in the course of as many as twenty or thirty

years, their contents gradually changed in order to reflect the publisher’s

sense of what was most popular and salable. In this way many of the books

became devoted exclusively to Lasso.17 Each of the books would contain

from sixteen to twenty chansons, which were not always sufficient for

modal ordering, especially when several composers were represented. But

when Book XVII, for instance, turned into an exclusively Lasso print in

1576, its four-voice chansons were placed in modal order, although the

series is incomplete (see Table 10.4).

Le Roy and Ballard’s larger collections of Lasso’s chansons are almost

invariably modally ordered. Their first such collection was the Mellange

(RISM 1570d), a retrospective compilation of almost all of Lasso’s previ-

ously published chansons with quite a number of new works added. The

collection also included madrigals as well as several Latin motets with

secular texts.RISM 1570d is substantially modally ordered (see Table 10.5).

The four-voice chansons show some disorder at the beginning of the series,

with modes 1 and 2 intermixed and one piece in mode 3/4 transposed

included among them. The five-voice chansons are largely in modal order

at first, though with no representatives of mode 7, since its tonal type

(H/0/G) is rare among the five-voice chansons.When the Latin pieces begin

to appear, however, the ordering largely breaks down. The four-voice chan-

sons in L/0/A appear at the beginning of the book, the one for five voices in

H/0/A between pieces in mode 2 and modes 3/4.

In 1576 an expanded reissue appeared under the title Les meslanges


211

16 The letter is reproduced in facsimile and diplomatic transcription in F. Lesureand G. Thibault, Bibliographie des éditions d’Adrian le Roy et Robert Ballard(1551–1598) (Paris: Heugel et cie, 1955), pp. 36–7. A diplomatic transcriptionalso appears in Leuchtmann, Leben, pp. 311–12.

17 This process is documented in detail in Leuchtmann’s preface to SW2, vol. 12.

(RISM 1576i); the title indicates that Lasso supervised this edition. The

four- and five-voice chansons are both completely modally ordered, with

only one exception, and the Latin and Italian pieces are separated from the

chansons (see Table 10.6). The anomalously positioned chanson is no. 73,

“Un mesnagier viellard,”which is in L/I/F but is placed among the represen-

tatives of mode 2 rather than mode 6.18 Mode 7 is again unrepresented in

the five-voice pieces, and a single representative of mode 4 with its charac-

teristic unusually low clefs appears as no. 91. The four-voice pieces in L/0/A

precede mode 1, while nos. 92–3 in H/0/A follow the five-voice chansons

that represent mode 8. The Latin settings in five voices, nos. 100–14,

observe modal order only imperfectly. Ten years later Le Roy and Ballard

reissued Les meslanges (RISM 1586g) with the same contents but with a

slightly changed ordering. The largest difference is that in the four-voice

chansons the pieces in L/0/E and H/1/A that represent mode 3/4 are

inserted between the pieces in L/0/A and the representatives of mode 1.

Apart from this, the modal ordering of RISM 1576i is retained in RISM

1586g,despite a few other small adjustments.

Le Roy and Ballard’s Livre de chansons nouvelles for five and eight

voices (RISM 1571f) was never incorporated into either printing of Les

meslanges. Though it contains only sixteen five-voice chansons, they are in

perfect modal order, with the single chanson in H/0/A at the end of the

series following mode 8 (see Table 10.7). The Continvation du meslanges

peter bergquist

212

18 This chanson had been placed among the Latin pieces in RISM 1570d. Perhapsin the process of reorganizing the chansons for RISM 1576i it was inadvertentlymoved to the wrong position.

Table 10.4 RISM 1576n, Dixsetieme livre de chansons à quatre &

cinq parties (Paris, Le Roy & Ballard)


Chansons a421–3 H/1/G 1 tr24–5 L/1/G 2 tr26–11 L/0/E 3/412 H/1/F 513–16 – Chansons a5

(RISM 1584f) includes more settings of Italian than French texts, many of

the former reprinted. Only the five-voice madrigals are numerous enough

to be modally ordered,and they do not clearly exhibit any such ordering.

Le Roy and Ballard seemingly found Lasso’s motets to be as popular as

his chansons, and they frequently put out motet books devoted exclusively

to Lasso, beginning in 1564. Many of these books closely followed similar

publications of the same motets in Germany, probably with Lasso’s


213

Table 10.5 RISM 1570d, Mellange d’Orlande de Lassus (Le Roy &

Ballard)

Number Clefs/Signature/Final Mode

Chansons a421–3 L/0/A A24 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve25 H/1/A 3/4 tr26–7 H/1/G 1 tr28 L/0/D 129–10 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve11–15 (15=L) L/1/G 2 tr16–21 H/1/G 1 tr22–8 L/0/E 3/429–35 H/1/F 536–7, 39L H/0/C 6 tr38, 40–2 H/0/G 743–4 L/0/G 8

Chansons a545–8 H/1/G 1 tr49–50 L/0/D 151, 53–5 L/1/G 2 tr52 H/1/G 1 tr56–7 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve58 H/0/A A59–61 L/0/E 3/462 H/1/A 3/4 tr63 H/1/F 564–6 L/1/F 667 H/0/C 6 tr68–70, 71L L/0/G 8

Note:72–91 – mostly L, a few I and Fr; modal ordering not maintained(L = Latin text; I = Italian text)

consent.With few exceptions Le Roy and Ballard’s motet books are modally

ordered.The earliest of their collections,Primus liber concentuum sacrorum

for five and six voices (RISM 1564b), gathered together the contents of

Lasso’s two earliest motet books, RISM 1556a and 1562a, the latter modally

ordered in its original edition.All the five-voice motets in RISM 1564b were

put into modal order, with one piece in H/0/A at the end of the series. The

peter bergquist

214

Table 10.6 RISM 1576i, Les meslanges...revevz par lvy, et avgmentez

(Le Roy & Ballard)


Chansons a4 (SW, vol. 12)21–5 L/0/A A26–14 H/1/G 1 tr15–16 L/0/D 117–20 L/1/G 2 tr21–4 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve25, 27–36 L/0/E 3/426 H/1/A 3/4 tr37–43 H/1/F 544–8 H/0/C 6 tr49–52 H/0/G 753–6 L/0/G 857–9 – Vers latins a4

Chansons a5 (SW, vol. 14)60–1 L/0/D 162–7 H/1/G 1 tr68–72 L/1/G 2 tr73 [ending out L/1/F 6? 2?of mode?]74–5 L/1/G 276–7 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve78–80 L/0/E 3/481 H/1/A 3/4 tr82 H/1/F 583–4, 86 L/1/F 685, 87 H/0/C 6 tr88–90 L/0/G 891 c2–f5/0/E 492–3 H/0/A A

Note:94–9 – Vers italiens a5; 100–14 – Vers latins a5; 115–17 – Vers latins a6;120–6 – Dialogues a8; 127 – Dialogue a10

six-voice motets were too few to put in modal order, and this was perhaps

true throughout Le Roy and Ballard’s next book of Lasso’s motets,

Modulorum secundum volumen (RISM 1565a) for four to ten voices, in

which no group is modally ordered.19

Between 1571 and 1573 Le Roy and Ballard published six books of

Lasso motets. They include a significant number of new pieces that Lasso

may have composed during and after his visit to Paris, as well as motets that

had been published in Italy and Germany but not yet in France.All six are in

almost perfect modal ordering. The one book that consisted entirely of first

editions, Moduli quinis vocibus (RISM 1571a),may serve as an example (see

Table 10.8). The only motet apparently out of modal order is no. 7,“Si bona

suscepimus,” which according to its tonal type should represent mode 3/4,

but is placed within the mode 2 group. In the six motet books of 1571–3 two

pieces in H/0/A appear, following the representatives of mode 3/4 and

mode 8 respectively.

In a large motet book a few years later, Moduli quatuor 5.6.7.8. et

novem vocum (RISM 1577e), eleven of its fifty-five pieces are first editions.

Only the six-voice motets (nos. 21–50) are sufficiently numerous to be

modally ordered, though somewhat imperfectly (see Table 10.9). Four rep-


215

19 Further on these collections see CM, vol. 4, which includes all the motets fromthese two books that were first editions. The contents of both books are listedibid., pp. xii–xiii.

Table 10.7 RISM 1571f, Livre de chansons nouvelles a5 & a8 (Le

Roy & Ballard)


Chansons a521–4 H/1/G 1 tr25–6 L/1/G 2 tr25–7 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve28–9 L/0/E 3/410–11 H/1/F 512–13 L/1/F 614 H/0/G 715 L/0/G 816 H/0/A A17–18 – Chansons a8

resentatives of mode 8 begin the group, which then continues with only

minor disorder within modes 1 and 2 and no representatives of mode 7.No.

41, in H/0/A,appears between the representatives of modes 2 and 3/4.

Le Roy and Ballard published four more large books of Lasso motets

in 1587–8, which are modally ordered to a degree, though less strictly than

peter bergquist

216

Table 10.8 RISM 1571a, Moduli quinis vocibus (Le Roy & Ballard)


21–4 H/1/G 1 tr25–6 L/1/G 2 tr25–7 L/1/A 3/4 tr25–8 L/1/G 2 tr29–11 L/0/E 3/412–13 H/1/F 514–15 L/1/F 616–17 H/0/G 718–19 L/0/G 8

Table 10.9 RISM 1577e, Moduli quatuor 5.6.7.8. et novem vocum

(Le Roy & Ballard)


1–12 – Motets a4; 13–20 – Motets a5Motets a621–4 L/0/G 825, 28 H/1/G 1 tr26, 27, 29 L/0/D 130 L/1/G 2 tr31 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve32 L/0/D 133–40 L/1/G 2 tr41 H/0/A A42, 44 L/0/E 3/443 H/1/A 3/4 tr45–6 H/1/F 547 L/1/F 648 L/0/F 649–50 L/0/G 851–3 a7; 54 a8; 55 a9

those of 1571–3. The Sacrarum cantionum moduli for four voices (RISM

1587d) is an especially interesting example, since much of it had previously

appeared two times with different methods of organization.20 The earliest

source for most of these motets is Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek,

Mus. Ms. 2744, which contains a cycle of Lasso’s four- and five-voice set-

tings of offertories for Advent and Lent, arranged in calendrical order. The

manuscript bears dates between 1581 and 1583. In 1585 Lasso published

many of the four-voice offertories and a few other motets in Sacrae can-

tiones quatuor vocum (Munich: Adam Berg, RISM 1585a); in this collection

the pieces were grouped by tonal type, with signature and cleffing as the

primary factors. Only the subgroups of these categories were sorted

according to final, so that modal ordering did not result. Le Roy and Ballard

in RISM 1587d placed the motets in modal order, also adding a few more

four-voice settings of offertory texts that had not appeared in RISM 1585a

(see Table 10.10). The ordering was not perfect, since mode 6 preceded

mode 5 and mode 8 preceded mode 7.Two pieces in H/0/A follow the repre-


217

20 A more detailed account of these sources and their relationships may be foundin Powers, “Modal Representation.” See also David Crook’s preface to CM, vol.14, which publishes the contents of RISM 1585a.

Table 10.10 RISM 1587d, Sacrarum cantionum moduli a4 (Le Roy

& Ballard)


21–3 H/0/G 1 tr24–5 L/0/D 126–9, 12 L/1/G 2 tr10–11 H/0/A A13–17 L/0/E 3/418 L/1/A 3/419–22, 24–5 L/1/F 623, 26 H/0/C 6 tr27–9 H/1/F 530–8, 41 L/0/C 839–40 H/0/G 742 L/1/G 243 (a8 alternatim)

sentatives of mode 2.21 The three motet books of 1588 (RISM 1588c, d, and

e) are in similarly imperfect modal order, with the plagal representatives

several times preceding the authentic. In the four-voice motets of 1588c one

in H/0/A appears following mode 8 and preceding mode 3/4,which is out of

sequence; in 1588d three in H/0/A follow mode 2 and precede mode 1; and

in 1588e three in H/0/A follow those in mode 6 and precede mode 3/4,

which is out of sequence.

It is clear that modal ordering was a fundamental principle in Le Roy

and Ballard’s publications of Lasso’s music. To what extent this is true in

their other publications is a question that merits further investigation.

GermanyIn the German realms Lasso had two principal publishers,Adam Berg

in Munich and the firm of Montanus and Neuber, with its successors

Theodor Gerlach and his widow Katharina Gerlach, in Nuremberg. Both

houses issued a number of modally ordered publications by Lasso, though

this principle was by no means so pervasive as with Le Roy and Ballard in

Paris.

Even before any of his music was printed in Germany, Lasso around

1560 composed his earliest modally ordered collection of any sort, the

famous Seven Penitential Psalms with the psalm-motet “Laudate

Dominum de caelis.” Many other modally ordered collections were prob-

ably assembled in that order after composition, but in this case modal

ordering was clearly a pre-compositional decision on Lasso’s part.He chose

to represent modes 1–7 in the Seven Penitential Psalms, which had existed

for centuries as a liturgical unit, then added the psalm-motet to them to

represent mode 8. In this cycle modes 3 and 4 are clearly differentiated,con-

trary to the usual practice, with mode 4 represented by an unusually low

combination of clefs.22

Powers has discussed several of Lasso’s German motet books that are

peter bergquist

218

21 Powers, “Modal Representation,” p. 57, Table 4, indicates that these piecesrepresent mode 3, while pieces in L/0/E represent mode 4. This is contrary toLasso’s usual practice and to that of Le Roy and Ballard.

22 Powers discusses this cycle in “Tonal Types,” pp. 446–8, and “AnomalousModalities,” passim.

modally ordered, notably the five-voice Sacrae cantiones of RISM 1562a

(Nuremberg: Montanus & Neuber), two complementary books from Berg

in 1569 and 1570 (Cantiones aliquot quinque vocum [RISM 1569a] and

Cantionum sacrarum sex vocum fasciculus [RISM 1570c]), the Cantiones ad

duas vocum (Berg, RISM 1577c), a large collection of reprints from Gerlach

(RISM 1582c), and Lasso’s last motet book, Cantiones sacrae sex vocum

(Graz: Georg Widmanstetter, RISM 1594a).23 His last composition,

Lagrime di San Pietro (Berg, RISM 1595a), a cycle of spiritual madrigals, is

also modally ordered. This cycle corresponds to the Penitential Psalms at

the beginning of Lasso’s career in that both set a pre-existing cycle of texts,

thus the modal ordering was a compositional choice. Lasso selected twenty

poems from the larger poetic cycle by Luigi Tansillo, leaving the poems in

the order established by Tansillo, then set successive groups so as to repre-

sent modes 1–7.24 Where mode 8 would be expected to appear, the final

piece in the cycle, the Latin motet “Vide homo,” is rather in H/0/A. Powers

argues persuasively that the modal cycle is broken for reasons of religious

symbolism, to do both with the poems and Lasso’s own impending death.25

In the Graz motet book, RISM 1594a, the position of mode 7 is filled by two

motets in H/0/A.David Crook suggests that this tonal type that had a “long-

standing association . . . with tone-seven Magnificats”was used to represent

mode 7 in the Graz motet book.26 These are the only appearances of the

tonal type H/0/A in German modally ordered collections of Lasso’s motets.

Some editions of Lasso’s lieder for five voices were also modally

ordered. Book I (Munich: Adam Berg, RISM 1567l) is in perfect modal

order, with one piece, “Frölich zu sein,” seemingly in L/0/A appearing

between the representatives of modes 7 and 8 (see Table 10.11). However, it

has been argued that this piece ends “out of mode”for expressive purposes,

and that it should be understood as a representative of mode 8.27 Book II of


219

23 Powers, “Tonal Types,” pp. 451–2, 462–5; “Anomalous Modalities,” pp. 238–42.Further on these collections see the appropriate volumes of CM.

24 On Lasso’s sources for the text of this cycle, see Fritz Jensch, “Orlando di LassosLagrime di San Pietro und ihr Text,” Musik in Bayern, 32 (1986), pp. 43–62, andthe introduction to his edition of the Lagrime in SWNR, vol. 20.

25 Powers, “Tonal Types,” p. 449.26 David Crook, Orlando di Lasso’s Imitation Magnificats for Counter-Reformation

Munich (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 142–4.27 Bergquist, “Compositions in ‘A Minor’,” p. 14 (with further references).

the lieder (Berg, RISM 1572g) is not modally ordered, and Book III (Berg,

RISM 1576r) is only partially so. However, Katharina Gerlach’s

Gesamtausgabe of all of the five-voice lieder in RISM 1583b, published

“with the author’s consent,”rearranges the three earlier books substantially

in modal order (see Table 10.12).The nine pieces with religious texts appear

first and include no representatives of modes 7 and 8. The thirty-two set-

tings of secular texts are in precise modal order, except for two pieces that

seem to end out of mode, Nos. 22 (“Meine Fraw Hilgart”) and 39 (“Frölich

zu sein”).The two pieces in H/0/A are placed between modes 2 and 3/4.

One German publication remains to be discussed, the posthumous

collected edition of Lasso’s motets, Magnum Opus Musicum (Munich:

Nicholas Heinrich, RISM 1604a). In this collection Lasso’s sons Ferdinand

and Rudolph published all of their father’s motets known to them, a total of

516.Only eleven motets escaped their notice, the authenticity of at least two

of which is debatable.28 In MOM the basic organizing principle was the

number of voice-parts; the collection begins with two-voice motets and

continues in ascending order of voices until it ends with two motets for

twelve voices each. Only recently has Horst Leuchtmann shown the next

level of organization.29 Each group of motets for a given number of voices is

peter bergquist

220

28 These eleven motets are published in SWNR, vol. 1, including the 1989supplement. In CM, vol. 5, pp. xvi–xix, I detail the reasons why I believe thatLasso did not compose “Zachaee, festinans descende” and “Gloria Patri.”

29 Leuchtmann, “Zum Ordnungsprinzip in Lassos Magnum Opus Musicum,”Musik in Bayern, 40 (1990), pp. 46–72.

Table 10.11 RISM 1567l, Neue Teütsche Liedlein mit Fünff Stimmen

(Munich, Berg; SW vol. 18, 1ff.)


21, 2, 4–6 H/1/G 1 tr23 L/0/D 127–8 L/1/G 2 tr29–10 L/0/E 3/411 H/1/F 512 L/1/F 613 H/0/G 714 [ending “out of mode”?] L/0/A A? 8?15 L/0/G 8

subdivided into four categories that appear in the following order: (1) cele-

bratory motets, for the Bavarian rulers and other individuals and families;

(2) sacred texts in the order of the church year; (3) motets on texts from the

book of Psalms; (4) religious and secular poetry. This division does not

apply to the two-voice motets of RISM 1577c,which appear in their original

order in MOM, and small groups such as the motets for seven, nine, and ten

voices do not include representatives of each of the four categories.

Leuchtmann observed that consecutive motets, sometimes in substantial

numbers, were in the same mode (he spoke only of dorian, phrygian,

lydian, and mixolydian), but that no systematic ordering according to

mode seemed to govern the collection. Whenever a series might seem to

appear, foreign elements intervened.30


221

30 Ibid., pp. 46–7.

Table 10.12 RISM 1583b, Teutsche Lieder mit fünff Stimmen, zuvor

unterschiedlich, jetzund aber mit des Herrn Authoris bewilligung inn

ein Opus zusammen getruckt (Nuremberg, Gerlach)


Religious texts1–2 H/1/G 1 tr3 L/1/G 2 tr4 H/1/G 1 tr5 L/0/E 3/46 H/1/F 57–8 L/1/F 69 H/0/C 6 tr

Secular texts10, 12–16 H/1/G 1 tr11 L/0/D 117–21 L/1/G 2 tr22 [ending “out of mode”?] L/1/A 3/4? 2?23 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve24–5 H/0/A A26–30 L/0/E 3/431–2 H/1/F 533–4 L/1/F 635–8 H/0/G 739 [ending “out of mode”?] L/0/A A? 8?40 L/0/G 841 H/1/C 8 tr

However, Leuchtmann’s establishment of the four fundamental cate-

gories within the motets for each number of voices, in conjunction with

Lasso’s usage of tonal types to represent modes, allows us to see that large

segments of MOM, namely the settings of psalms and psalm verses, are

modally ordered. As shown in Table 10.13, the psalm-motets for four, five,

and six voices in MOM are modally ordered, most perfectly so in the five-

voice group, nearly so in the four-voice group, and somewhat less clearly in

the six-voice group. Motets in other subject categories sometimes show an

incipient modal ordering that is not pursued consistently. The five-voice

psalm-motets have only two pieces out of order, no. 271,“Si bona suscepi-

mus,” in L/1/A, which should represent mode 3/4 transposed and be placed

near the L/0/E motets that represent mode 3/4 untransposed, and no. 282,

in H/0/A, which appears between modes 7 and 8 rather than with its com-

panion, no. 265. In the four-voice psalm-motets the pieces in H/0/A

separate the representatives of mode 3/4 transposed and untransposed

respectively, pieces in modes 5 and 6 are intermixed, and nos. 125–6 separ-

ate the representatives of mode 8 transposed and untransposed. In the six-

voice psalm-motets modal ordering seems to be present, but it is frequently

interrupted, not only by motets in H/0/A but other tonal types displaced

from what would be their proper place in a modally ordered collection.

These observations about MOM appear significant in that they suggest that

modal ordering was a principle known to Lasso’s sons and that they most

probably learned it from their father, whether by direct instruction or

simply by observation. It is true that the ordering in MOM could have been

decided by the publisher, who was Adam Berg’s successor; in that case

modal ordering would appear to have been derived from Lasso through

Berg to Heinrich, even though that principle was by no means applied uni-

versally in Berg’s publications.

ConclusionsModal ordering clearly prevailed in a large number of publications of

Orlando di Lasso’s music, including many with which he was closely asso-

ciated. One of the most fundamental questions about this phenomenon is,

was the modal ordering Lasso’s intention or that of his publishers? It

appears that many of these publications do indeed represent Lasso’s own

peter bergquist

222


Table 10.13 Psalm-motets and psalm verse settings in MOM


Settings a482–5 L/0/D 186–92 H/1/G 1 tr93–100 L/1/G 2 tr101 L/1/A 3/4 tr102–4 H/0/A A105–9 L/0/E 3/4110–11 H/1/F 5112–18 L/1/F 6119 H/1/F 5120–1 H/0/C 6 tr122–3 H/0/G 7124 H/1/C 8 tr125 H/1/F 5126 H/0/A A127–37 L/0/G 8

Settings a5239–44 H/1/G 1 tr245–54 L/1/G 2 tr255 H/0/D 2 tr 8ve256–64 L/0/E 3/4265 H/0/A A266–70 H/1/F 5271 (Si bona suscepimus) L/1/A 3/4 tr272–80 L/1/F 6281, 283–4 H/0/G 7282 H/0/A A285–7 L/0/G 8

Settings a6416 H/0/G (7)417–20 H/1/G 1 tr421–4 L/0/D 1425–30 L/1/G 2 tr431–6 L/0/E 3/4437 H/1/C (8 tr)438 L/0/F 6439, 442 H/1/F 5440–1 H/0/C 6 tr443, 446–7 L/1/F 6448, 450, 452 H/0/A (A)449 H/0/C 6 tr451 H/0/G 7453 H/0/D (2 tr 8ve)454 H/0/G 7455 H/0/C (6 tr)456 H/0/A (A)457–9, 461–2 L/0/G 8460 L/0/E (3/4)

preference.A first observation would be that at the beginning and end of his

time in Munich the Penitential Psalms and the Lagrime di San Pietro were

composed to texts that had a predetermined order.Lasso’s settings are in the

order of the modes and undoubtedly composed with the intention of repre-

senting the modes. The uniformity of affect through both of these collec-

tions also casts strong doubt on any possibility that the individual modes

had specific and invariable expressive connotations. Lasso may more than

once have used a given tonal type to convey a specific affect,but it can hardly

be elevated to a consistent practice.

Most of the collections discussed in this study were probably put in

order for publication after the individual pieces were composed and assem-

bled. Since the texts themselves were too varied to provide a basis for order-

ing their settings, musical criteria would be the logical alternative. This

would be especially true of the large collected editions like the various

Meslanges, the lieder of RISM 1583b,and the motets of RISM 1582c.Lasso is

said to have consented to or overseen all of these publications, and it is

difficult to escape the conclusion that the ordering also represents his inten-

tions. Boetticher’s statement that Lasso could hardly have authorized the

reorderings in the 1583 lieder is without foundation.31 The original edi-

tions were already modally ordered in part, and the collected edition

retained and extended that ordering when the three books were combined.

The three issues of the Meslanges are especially instructive about Lasso’s

intentions. The first edition, RISM 1570d, was fairly well modally ordered,

and 1576d, issued after Lasso’s visit to Paris and with his own supervision

and revision, is almost perfectly ordered. RISM 1586g, issued after Lasso

had given up any thought of moving to Paris and was perhaps less directly

involved with the details of the edition, disturbs the clear ordering of

1576d. The modal ordering seems to have been most rigorous when Lasso

was in most direct contact with Le Roy and Ballard and in closest control of

their issues of his music. The same comparison seems to be true of the

peter bergquist

224

31 Boetticher, Lasso, p. 323. His suggestion that the phrase “mit des Herrn Authorisbewilligung” in the title of RISM 1583b is not to be taken at face value issupported only by reference to his comments on Gerlach’s large motetcompilation, the Selectissimae cantiones of RISM 1568a and b. The validity ofBoetticher’s comments on 1568a and b is debatable, and their application toanother collection fifteen years later even more so.

motet books of 1571–3 as against those of 1587 and 1588. It appears that

Lasso’s control was tightest near the time of his Paris visit, and that the

earlier books with their careful modal ordering represent his intentions

most fully.

It is also reasonable to assume that the German prints usually repre-

sent Lasso’s own intentions. Several of them cite his participation or

approval on their title pages, and many of the others contain his own dedi-

catory prefaces. Modal ordering is found in quite a number of these prints,

as has been seen, though by no means did Berg and Gerlach order each of

their Lasso publications on that basis. In the 1580s, in fact, Berg ordered

several motet books primarily on the basis of clef and signature, as was

noted with regard to RISM 1585a. Berg’s Sacrae cantiones quinque vocum

(RISM 1582d), Motetta sex vocum (RISM 1582e), and Cantica sacra sex et

octo vocum (RISM 1585b) all group the motets in cantus mollis first, fol-

lowed by those in cantus durus.32 Within these two groups the compositions

in high clefs precede those in low clefs. In all three books different finals are

intermixed within the four subgroups, so that ordering by tonal type does

not result. This was clearly an alternate method of ordering for Berg and

presumably for Lasso also. It was not used simply because potential repre-

sentatives of all eight modes were not available. In these three books and

also in RISM 1585a,only RISM 1585b would be unable to represent all eight

modes, since it includes no motets that could stand for modes 5 and 8.

Another conclusion to be drawn from this investigation has to do

with pieces in H/0/A or L/0/A. How did Lasso regard them with respect to

the system of eight modes? Powers suggested that for Lasso they were

anomalous, and he mentioned only two modally ordered collections that

contain such pieces, the Graz motets (RISM 1594a) and the Lagrime di San

Pietro, in which pieces in A appear “in place of ” mode 7 or mode 8.33 With

more publications to consider, the picture is perhaps clearer. Table 10.14

summarizes the placement of pieces in H/0/A or L/0/A in Lasso’s modally

ordered publications. The most frequent placement of these pieces is after

mode 8, after the cycle has been completed. The next most frequent place-

ment is before mode 1, before the cycle begins. There is also some associa-

tion with mode 3/4, an association that had always been observed in theory


225

32 Powers, “Tonal Types,” Table 13, p. 465, shows the organization of RISM 1582dand 1582e. 33 Powers, “Tonal Types,” pp. 449 and 464 with Tables 4 and 14.

and practice. However, Lasso’s practice in his compositions in the H/0/A

and L/0/A tonal types tends to relate them more closely to modes 1/2 than to

3/4, thus placement before mode 3/4 might equally well be considered to be

placement after modes 1/2, to which the music itself more often bears some

affinity.34 Placement outside the modal system is by far most frequent,

however, and that seems to me to sum up Lasso’s attitude towards these

tonal types. Unlike their counterparts in C with no signature, which can be

used to represent one of the eight modes with relatively little difficulty, they

simply do not fit comfortably into his modal system.

peter bergquist

226

34 My study of Lasso’s pieces in A, “Compositions in ‘A minor’,” shows a variety ofbehaviors in the music itself, as exhibited in cadence points and melodicstructure. I concluded that “most of Lasso’s pieces in A fall somewhere on acontinuum from a clear and unequivocal A at one extreme through increasingemphasis on D, and finally to the other extreme, where D is stronger than A”(p. 9). A few use b-flat so often that they suggest mode 3/4.

Table 10.14 Placement of pieces in A in Lasso’s modally ordered

publications

French and Netherlandish publications German publications

Before mode 1–4Between mode 1 and 2–1Between 1/2 and 3/4–3 Between 1/2 and 3/4–1Between 2 and 5 (3/4 before 2)–1 After 3/4–2After 6 and before 3/4–1After 8–6 After 7 or 8–1No pieces in A–4 No pieces in A–7

11 Correct and incorrect accentuation in Lasso’smusic: on the implied dependence on the text inclassical vocal polyphony

horst leuchtmann

The title of this essay could awaken the impression that there are

“correct”and“incorrect”stresses on the words in the vocal polyphony of the

sixteenth century, including the works of Orlando di Lasso.This is of course

not so,otherwiseLassoand Palestrinaandmany otherswouldnothavebeen

elevated to the ranks of great masters in music. None the less there is some-

thing in that formulation. The“correct” text stresses are the usual ones that

are arranged in accordance with the musical meter. The so-called “incor-

rect” stresses are “incorrect” in their relationship to the meter and thus

achievemuchstrongereffects thanthe“correct”ones.Forthisreason,infact,

the metrically“incorrect”stresses are much less common than the“correct”

ones,buttheyarefoundinallkindsof worksfromeveryperiodandcontinue

to be reserved for special emphasis. If they were mistakes, one would expect

that the masters would gradually have improved them and removed them

from use.This is not the case.One who wishes to learn about this distinction

may discover it throughout Lasso’s work, from the Prophetiae Sibyllarum to

the Lagrime di San Pietro, and not in his music alone. That one generally

knows nothing of such a distinction,and that one is usually not aware of it, is

connected with the circumstance that our mass-music culture transfers its

preference for the soft, full, blended sound of the mixed chorus to all music,

even the old and the oldest,and the difficulties inherent in these refinements

gobythewayside.Butwemustexplore further.

The composition of sixteenth-century vocal polyphony is the art of

consonance, and is subject principally to four important rules, which

should not be ignored in theory or in practice:

(1) Simultaneities or chords consist largely of consonances.

Dissonances require special handling.

227

(2) Consonances consist of triads, whose roots are almost always the

lowest tones in any given chord.The period also knew what we call six-three

and six-four chords,but used them in insignificantly small numbers.

(3) Metric organization in duple mensurations calls for stress on

beats 1 and 3, in triple mensurations only on 1. The other beats are consid-

ered weaker.What we designate today as an accenting pulse,which we ques-

tionably brought into the performance practice of sixteenth-century

polyphony from later music, is in reality a rule also for that polyphony, a

rule that eventually came into appearance in the regulated use of dissonant

passing tones, of dissonance in general, and the suspension in particular.

With regard to interval successions Pietro Pontio (1532–95) spoke in 1588

of the difference between the metric positions nel principio and nel fine,

between depositione and elevatione;1 other theorists differentiate between

thesis and arsis,between “good”and “bad”time (beat or part of the measure,

as we say today). This phenomenon of the unequal parts of the measure is

clearly brought to light in the frequent rejoicing passages in triple propor-

tion,2 whose impetus pulls the texts along with it and sometimes actually

forces a “falsely accentuated” delivery. The cadences also – in any case the

discant clausulas – are metrically determined and sometimes develop a

similar pull.

(4) Vocal polyphony means texts sung by singers; texts are the occa-

sion for and content of vocal music and precede its composition. The deliv-

ery of words is the main purpose of vocal music.

horst leuchtmann

228

1 Pietro Pontio, Ragionamento di Musica (Parma, 1588; reprint Kassel:Bärenreiter, 1959).

2 Lucie Balmer, Orlando di Lassos Motetten (Bern and Leipzig: Paul Haupt, 1938),p. 68: “Melismas are especially rich in the Gregorian repertory, where forexample the Alleluia had been sung only melismatically from the beginning on.For Augustine such song freed from the word had an expression of greatest joy:‘Qui jubilat, non verba dicit, sed sonus quidem est laetitiae sine verbis: vox estenim animi diffusi laetitia, quantum potest exprimentis affectum non sensumcomprehendentis. Gaudens homo in exultatione sua ex verbis quibusdam, quaenon possunt dici et intelligi, erumpit in vocem quandam exultationis sineverbis; ita ut appareat, eum ipsa voce gaudere quidem, sed quasi repletum nimiogaudio, non posse verbis explicare quod gaudet’.” Cited from Peter Wagner,Einführung in die gregorianischen Melodien (Freiburg: Veith, 1895), vol. 1, p. 37,after Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina (Paris: Garnier,1844–1903), vol. 37, p. 1272.

The many manuscript and printed music treatises, especially those of

the sixteenth century, are not at all what we understand today as textbooks

and composition methods. They list many but not all of the important con-

siderations in composing, and basically they convey only the main outlines

of instruction that was traditionally conveyed in more detail orally. They

present the precepts of interval progressions, but they touch little if at all on

the relationships among the main conditions mentioned in the four points

above. On into the present century one has thus understood counterpoint

to be an abstract theory of intervals, forgetting the treatment of the text in

relation to the meter, since counterpoint,which was originally vocal,has for

a long time been comprehended and manipulated as purely instrumental.

Counterpoint is still understood as the system of several simultaneous and

above all equal, independent (!) lines. Reginald O. Morris (1886–1948) was

perhaps the first to bring back into recognition the insufficiency, indeed the

falsity, of such an outlook.3 It is especially striking that stresses derived

from the text, so important for composition as well as performance, have

received and continue to receive so little attention in writing as well as in

performance. Insecurity in connection with the musical stress on words

and the displacement of that musical stress may be seen very clearly in

Gustave Reese’s valuable book on Renaissance music.4 The precisely infor-

mative index notes almost two dozen passages that are concerned with

questions of accentuation of the words, and even so the questions are not

answered, but rather obscured through the enigmatic listing of “three

forms of dislocation of the stress.”5

On page 159 and elsewhere Reese ascribes “rhythmic nicety and

correct accentuation”to the frottolists.About Josquin on the other hand he

is obliged to say:“Latin accents are not infrequently mishandled,even in his

latest works, although, inconsistently, at other times great care seems to be

exercised in this matter” (p. 245).6 Even more clearly: “Humanistic

correct and incorrect accentuation in lasso ’s music

229

3 Reginald O. Morris, Contrapuntal Technique in the Sixteenth Century (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1922; 7th ed. 1958).

4 Gustave Reese, Music in the Renaissance (New York: Norton, 1954; rev. ed. 1959).5 Ibid., p. 354. All page references are the same in the revised edition of 1959.6 In the revised edition this sentence reads: “When one examines his treatment of

Latin texts, one quite often finds this French composer influenced by his nativelanguage rather than by the humanistic concept of the proper handling of Latinaccent.”

influence, however, does not induce the composer [Josquin] to observe syl-

labic quantities [!] strictly, though he and his contemporaries offend less in

the handling of Latin quantity than had their predecessors” (p. 253). Here

we see the mixture and confusion of accentual “stress” and syllabic “quan-

tity”that often appears elsewhere and results only in confusion.Willaert by

contrast is praised without reservation: “Willaert’s three main contribu-

tions to sacred polyphony in Italy – the last two apparently made solely . . .

through his motets, etc. – were (1) the establishment of Franco-

Netherlandish technique as a part of the musical language of church music

there; (2) the development of choral antiphony; and (3) the cultivation of a

‘modern’ style emphasizing faultless declamation of the text” (p. 372).

Indeed, “his concern for correct declamation extends to voices that treat

words free of dramatic import” (p. 374).“In view of the strict regulation in

Palestrina style of what may or may not be done on the first and third beats

or on the second and fourth, one tends to feel that those investigators take

an exaggerated position who claim that there was no regular accentuation

in Renaissance polyphony”(p. 461). That is certainly correct, although in a

broader sense than Reese may have realized. To be sure, he mentions the

phenomenon of a stress contrary to the metrical pattern (p. 461), but he

says nothing about its musical justification or meaning or the practicalities

of how it should be performed. As we intend to show, it is not only a long or

high note standing on a weak beat that displaces the regular stress for a short

time, and mainly in one voice only. The question arises whether such occa-

sional offenses against the accentual flow are acceptable or intended and, if

the latter,why.

The extent to which counterpoint instruction has lost sight of its

original subject, a subject that found its strongest development in the six-

teenth century, and has indeed denied it expressis verbis, is shown not only

in instructional works that no longer know about text setting but also in the

instructions that actually lead students away from the subject. I cite at

random a representative text long famous in its time, Luigi Cherubini’s

Cours de contrepoint et de fugue.7 The book already shows in its

horst leuchtmann

230

7 Luigi Cherubini, Cours de contrepoint et de fugue (Paris, 1835), cited fromTheorie des Kontrapunktes und der Fuge in neuer Übersetzung. Bearbeitet, mitAnmerkungen und einem Anhang über die Alten Kirchentonarten versehen vonGustav Jensen (Cologne and Leipzig: vom Ende, 1896), p. 3. The foreword to the

“Introductory Fundamental Principles” that counterpoint is now to be

understood ideally as instrumental counterpoint:

In all the species of counterpoint that we will encounter, as well as in fugue,

the student should take to heart that he is writing for voices and not for

instruments. He must therefore conform to the natural range of the voices

in their various registers. In that way he will learn, not to his disadvantage,

to produce beautiful tonal effects with voices alone. To be sure, this is a not

entirely easy discipline and one also that is all too neglected, but later on

the student will less often encounter difficulties when he composes for

instruments and is no longer obliged to subject himself to the constraints

that the limited range of the voices impose.

From this perspective only vocal music is limited to the range of the voices

alone,which cannot do full justice to the art of counterpoint.

The framework of individual sonorities in free composition can be

quickly set out. The foundation is the lowest tone at any given moment, the

upper voice is the most important in the sonorous realm (the tenor has

already lost its primacy, as is well known), and the middle voices, alto and

tenor,“fill in”the sonority.They may sometimes distinguish between major

and minor, but otherwise have only a single, narrowly proscribed freedom,

that of rhythm.Morris states it in more detail:

For three hundred years or so we have been slaves of the bar line, and our

conception of rhythm has become purely metrical. We learn, probably, to

distinguish between “secondary” rhythm, which places a strong accent at the

beginning of each bar and admits a certain variety of figure in between those

accents, and “primary” rhythm which measures out the bars themselves into

neat regular groups, usually of two, four, and eight. . . . Of the wider

implications of the term “rhythm” and of its true nature, we have suffered

ourselves to remain in complacent ignorance. . . . In that period [the

sixteenth century] there is no confusion between rhythm and metre. The

rhythmical accentuation of each part is free, but, independently of the actual

rhythmic accents, there is an imaginary metrical accentuation which imposes

a regular alternation of strong and weak beats to which the harmony of the


231

German edition states on p. iii that “the musical examples are for the most partby Cherubini himself, partly by Johann Josef Fux [1660–1741] and FriedrichWilhelm Marpurg [1718–1795]. The text is not by Cherubini but probably byJacques Halévy.”

composition has to conform, although the melody of each voice pursues its

own way untrammelled. As soon as a student begins the study of sixteenth-

century music, this is the first fact to force itself on his notice; he finds out

that in order to write in the idiom of Morley or Orlando Lasso or Vittoria, he

has to slough all his old preconceptions, and ask himself, perhaps for the first

time, what rhythm really is. This, as was said, is by far the most valuable

lesson a composer has to learn, at the moment, from a study of this period.

One might add, too, that it is possible to search diligently through all the

text-books, English and foreign, of the last three hundred years, and never

find so much as a hint of it, to put the student on the right track . . . the

rhythmic principle – the only principle that really matters.8

Thus meter – within the tactus – acts as a principle of order behind all

that is done and becomes perceptible through its manifestations: conso-

nance, dissonance, suspension, passing tone, stress, and absence of stress.

The individual (melodic) voices move against this (sonorous) background

within the bounds of their compositional possibilities.Morris states that

the rhythmical accentuation of each individual part is free, that is to say, the

accents do not occur at strictly regular intervals, whereas the composition

as a whole does conform to a fixed metrical scheme in which strong and

weak accents succeed one another in a pre-determined order. . . . In the

rhythm of poetry there is a precisely similar duality, as any one may quickly

convince himself. . . . Too much coincidence means monotony; too much

at-oddness means chaos.9

Regarding Example 38 of his book10 (see Ex. 11.1), Morris explains

that the performer finds his stresses according to the length of the notes, for

which he gives the following rules:

(1) Accents should be neither too many nor too few. There must be enough

of them to hold the melody firmly together and prevent it, so to speak, from

sagging, but they should not be so close together as to detract from each

other’s importance.

(2) The rhythm of a phrase is frequently (some would say “always”)

anacrusic; that is to say, the accented note is not necessarily the first note of

the phrase, but may be preceded by an unaccented note or series of notes –

an “up-beat” as we should call it today.

horst leuchtmann

232

8 Morris, Contrapuntal Technique, pp. 3–4.9 Ibid., p. 17. 10 Ibid., Appendix, p. 6

Morris’s Example 38 is written without barlines and provides for

stresses with longer or shorter note values. Here it emerges that Morris

means something altogether different from the present essay. Morris seem-

ingly proceeds from the debatable hypothesis that the composer adds a text


233

Example 11.1: Reginald O. Morris, Contrapuntal Technique in the Sixteenth

Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922; 7th ed. 1958), Examples, pp. 6–7,

nos. 38–41

& Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ .˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ .˙ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w ˙# ›

&?

C

C

w ww wSta - batw# ww w

>w ˙ ˙w ˙ ˙ma - ter do -w ˙ ˙w ˙ ˙

˙ ˙ >wb˙ ˙ wlo - ro -˙ ˙ w˙ ˙ w

w ww wsa, jux -˙ ˙# ww w

wN >ww wta cru -w ww w

˙ w ˙˙ w ˙cem la - cri -˙ w ˙˙ w ˙

>wb &c.ww wmo - sa.w ˙#w w

& 26 24 26 24w wSta - bat

w ˙ w ˙ma - ter do - lo -

wb wro - sa,

w wnjux - ta

w ˙ w ˙cru - cem la - cri -

wb&c.

wmo - sa

&?

13

13

w w ww w wFac ut te -

w# w ww w w

w .w ˙w .w# ˙cum lu - ge -

w .w ˙w .w ˙

w w ww w wam, fac utw# w ww w w

.w ˙ w.w ˙ war - de - at.w ˙ w.w ˙ w

w ›w ›cor me -w ›w ›

w# w ww w w#um, in a -w w ww w w

&?

.w ˙ w.w ˙ wman - do Chris -.w ˙ w.w ˙ w

w w ww ›tum De -w ›w ›

w w ww# w wum, ut si -w w# ww w w

w ›› wbi com -.w# ˙ w.w ˙ w

› wa› wpla - ce -w .w ˙w w w

› &c.›am›#

›

& 44 45 44 45 44 23œ œ œ œFac ut te- cum

.œ Jœ œ œ œlu - ge- am, fac ut

.œ Jœ œ œar - de- at cor

˙ œ# œ œme - um, in a -

.œ Jœ œ œman - do Chris- tum

& 23 45 24œ œ œ œ œ œDe - um, ut si - bi

˙ ˙ œ#com- pla - ce -

˙am

32w ˙ > 42˙ma - nus tu -

˙ ˙ ˙ > 32˙ae fe - ce -

˙ ˙ &c.wrunt me

Ex. 39. Palestrina, Stabat Mater

Ex. 40a (The note-values reduced for the purpose of illustration to their approximate modern equivalent).

Ex. 41 Morales, Officium Defunctorum, Lectio III

Ex. 38

Ex. 39a

Ex. 40. Ibidem.

to his already completed composition; in any case he refers in the later

course of his presentation to the compositional technique of the fifteenth

century,with its melismatic compositions that are provided only with hints

of the text. It also does not seem entirely correct to ignore completely the

influence of the mensuration:“It has already been said more than once that

the time-signature at the beginning of a sixteenth-century composition is

of purely metrical significance, exercising an important influence on the

harmonic structure of the composition, but having nothing to do with the

rhythmical structure of the parts taken individually.”11 His own Examples

39A, 40, and 40A contradict this conclusion, since a ternary mensuration

exercises such force that the word stresses are set aside as almost without

effect, a circumstance that may be observed in almost all triple time. Here

the “rhythm of the words” reflects only the meter and not the textual

stress.12 On the other hand, Morris’s comments about the stress marks in

his Example 41 are correct:“It must be remembered that the stress marks do

not indicate anything in the nature of a violent sforzando, but are there

merely to show that the rhythmic accents do not necessarily coincide with

the metrical accents.”13 The presumed “difficulties” – in fact there are none

– lie elsewhere. It is, to be sure, important for performance to caution

against Morris’s advice, which is based on modern conducting technique:

“A slight increase in dynamic stress – for which the choirmaster can be

trusted – is all that is needed to make its rhythmical importance unmistak-

able.” One must add that metric stress, contrary to Morris’s statement, is in

no way “imaginary.” Quite the contrary: all of the harmony is determined

by it, and only with this background is the rhythmic freedom of the individ-

ual voices possible, perceptible, and effective. Morris states correctly:

“Above all, they [the sixteenth-century composers] loved to make the

rhythmical accents of each part cross and clash with those of every other

part.” In this connection, however, a few more cautions are needed, as will

be shown.

Let us linger further with Morris. His Example 38 (only one voice!)

illustrates the breathtakingly complicated, on the whole unconductable,

polyrhythm, that with the help of language and its declamation is hidden

behind the simple notation. And yet such (polyphonic!) passages run their

horst leuchtmann

234

11 Ibid., pp. 20–1. 12 Ibid., p. 21. 13 Ibid.

course by themselves if only the tempo for all voices is held steady. What

seems very complicated or even confused in Morris when it is taken apart

rhythmically and interpreted, comes to pass of its own accord in a perfor-

mance with correct text declamation, provided that the singers understand

what they are singing.

The persistence with which the question of textual stress is continu-

ally brought up in theoretical writings should arouse attention. The ter-

minological uncertainty with which the claim is raised from time to time

that a “long” syllable must be made prominent with a long tone proves that

in this instance vestiges of classical versification must have been progeni-

tors. However, the classical meters had long since become only a play-

ground for humanists, who turned out their artful Latin verses following

refined metrical patterns whose vocabulary consisted of quantities, with

syllables either considered to be short or established as long. To form these

into structures that only the connoisseur could appreciate, not only by

counting syllables but also following artistic rules about syllables consid-

ered as short, made the composer into a master, whether he wrote the verse

or only set it. In any case, the number of antique odes and verses that were

composed mercilessly betrays that an archaic genre had been embraced

here. The list of Lasso’s works includes a handful of such antiquarian

affectations, which as is well known were awakened once again during

Lasso’s lifetime to a short artificial life in the works of the French school of

poets known as the “Pléiade.”14 Apart from this the poetic art of the modern

vernacular languages, which had worked for a long time with tonic accent

and/or syllable counting, prevailed. These new parameters do not play an

important role, so far as I can see, either in scholarly music literature or in

present-day performances of older music.

However, a tonic accent may very well be meant when careless

mention is made of “quantity.” All this is praised and marveled at in Lasso,

but also censured in part (for instance,his fondness for text expression); the

censure arises of course only in hindsight. But the coordination of accentu-

ation of pitch and word stress in his works has nowhere as yet been exam-

ined thoroughly. Musicology has little if any interest in these fundamental


235

14 For example, “Sidus ex claro,” “Nuptias claras,” “O decus celsi,” “Flemusextremos,” “Heu quis armorum,” “Nuntium vobis fero,” “Alma Venus,” “Unepuce,” and others.

questions, and in performance practice these subtleties are lost through

modern conducting technique. In this respect, which is significant for an

art that intends to translate words into tones, there is also no difference

between Lasso and his contemporaries. He too sometimes stresses “falsely,”

as a superficial examination may seem to demonstrate.15 In fact this “fault”

is an uncommonly refined possibility for creating liveliness and impres-

siveness in music through the simplest means.

One may compare these discussions with those in the collected

edition of Cipriano de Rore. In his discussion of ascriptions the editor lists

stylistic details that speak for or against Rore’s authorship. Among the neg-

ative indications he lists “Barbarismus.”

Other traits that speak against Rore’s authorship are the omission of the

subsemitonium of the cadence . . . and the occurrence of barbarisms like

virtuté, resúrrectionis, or verbúm [in the motet “Virtute magna – Repleti

quidem”]. These peculiarities, it is true, are frequent in masters like

Gombert or Clemens non Papa and those influenced by them; but it was

Willaert who turned away from these practices about 1540,16 and Rore,

horst leuchtmann

236

15 This is not the proper place to go into the reception of Lasso. It should be notednone the less how severely the great Lasso scholar Adolf Sandberger distortedmatters when he spoke unintentionally against presumed mistaken accents inLasso’s settings: “Orlando stresses mostly following the verbal accent, in themost frequent cases exactly as it must be stressed in accented verse, as may beseen similarly in Palestrina. But then we see the composer uncounted timesdisplace the tone on which he comes to rest, following neither the accent of theword nor the metric accent, a procedure hardly to be approved, and one whichis pursued to the distortion of word forms. On the other hand, the effort to dojustice to the penultimate syllable is unmistakable” (SW, vol. 2, p. xxiii). Balmer,Lassos Motetten, p. 100, is no different, and Horst-Willi Gross, KlanglicheStruktur und Klangverhältnis in Messen und lateinischen Motetten Orlando diLassos (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1977), p. 74, note 24, in his discussion ofLasso’s motet, “Memento peccati tui,” SW, vol. 7, p. 60, comments, “Note theunusual (!) stress in the musical structure on the words ‘ne despéres’.” FranzXaver Haberl, Sandberger’s collaborator in the so-called “old” Lasso collectededition (SW), even took up his pen now and then against unusual stresses andmade corrections according to his own judgment. See SW, vol. 5, pp. 131 and150, the latter a barbarism that Haberl should have let stand as typical of thetime.

16 This is not correct. One might consider – at random – even the first motet inWillaert’s Musica nova, “Domine quid multiplicati sunt – Ego dormivi.” Amongthe large number of lengthened stresses, a few stresses on weak beats, withoutlengthening, occur even so. The following list is not intended to be complete:

together with the other “Italianized” Netherlanders, faithfully followed his

example.17

Meier continues:“Already in the sixteenth century correct text declamation

was considered the main characteristic of the ‘new’ Netherlandish-Italian

style, clearly visible for the first time in the late works of Willaert. See E.

Lowinsky, ‘A treatise on text underlay by a German disciple of Francisco

Salinas,’ Festschrift Heinrich Besseler zum 60. Geburtstag (Leipzig: VEB

Deutscher Verlag für Musik, 1962, p. 231).”18 On the other hand, one might

note the same editor’s unquestioning ascription of “Expectans expectavi”

to Rore despite the following censured “barbarisms”: cantus, mm. 21–2,

“expectaví”; tenor, mm. 38 and 45,“precés”; Secunda pars: tenor, mm. 78–9,

“meúm”; altus, mm. 96–7,“carmén”; quintus, m. 97,“Deó”. These however

are not “peculiarities” but rather commonplaces, normal usages of the

time, the master’s employment of which showed his scorn for dilettantes.

And no singer would ever have sung “virtuté,” “resúrrectionis,” or

“verbúm,” “expectaví,” “precés,” “meúm,” or “carmén,” even if it had

appeared thus in the score, if he wished to retain his position as a profes-

sional. Moreover, one must naturally be aware of deviations in stress that

arose in the Middle Ages.19


237

Prima pars: altus, m. 10, múl-ti; m. 23, dí-cunt; tenor, m. 10, múl-ti; m. 14, múl-ti; bassus, m. 9, múl-ti. Secunda pars: altus, m. 119, circum-dán-tis; m. 136, sál-vum; bassus, m. 109, míl-lia.

17 Cipriano da Rore, Opera omnia, ed. Bernhard Meier (Rome: American Instituteof Musicology, 1959– ), vol. 14, p. xiii.

18 Ibid., note 18. This argumentation strongly recalls what Ambros reported aboutArtusi (Geschichte der Musik. Dritte verbesserte und mit Nachträgen verseheneAuflage von Otto Kade [Leipzig: F. E. C. Leuckart, 1893], vol. 3, p. 531): “Artusipraised in Cipriano his good, that is correctly, accented declamation of thewords: ‘il Signore Cipriano è stato il primo che havesse incominciato adaccomodare bene le parole e con bell’ ordine . . . essendo da suoi antecessori et leparole et nel medesimo tempo molti in uso il fare de’ barbarismi’ (della Imperf.Fol. 20), a praise that Baini (Vita ed op. die [!] Pierl. da Palestr. I: 108) properlywished to limit, in that he calls attention to the circumstance that careful textunderlay was found much earlier in motets and that in this perspective onlymasses were less carefully handled (and even here, we must add, primarily onlyin the Kyries, etc., but not in the Gloria and Credo).” Lowinsky’s essay has beenreprinted in his Music in the Culture of the Renaissance and Other Essays(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), vol. 2, pp. 868–83.

19 Such departures from the rules, which had already appeared in antiquity,continued in part in the Middle Ages. In English-speaking areas one may

Herbert K.Andrews (1904–65) adopts a great deal from Morris and in

part goes very much further, for example, in the question of barlines, which

he wishes to consider only as marks of orientation. He names five “factors

governing accent in the normal vocal line”: (1) the relative length of a tone

with respect to smaller values that precede or follow it; (2) a prominent high

pitch; (3) an approach to a note by a leap upward; (4) the position of a note

in a melodic phrase (the beginning tones of a melodic phrase tend to have

the character of an upbeat and thus are relatively unaccented); and (5) the

text underlay.20 Andrews then gives a musical example from Palestrina (see

Ex. 11.2), which he chooses at random. His rhythmic analysis proceeds

from the score and takes account of the five factors he names. Without a

doubt nothing may be adduced against the results of his efforts, but rather

against his methods, the rules for which do not hold water with their vexa-

tious imagination of stresses in, for example, unnecessary or unconvincing

melodic motions. Andrews prefers not to understand irregular word

accents as stresses but rather works to excuse them on compositional

grounds, for reasons of voice-leading: “Yet the effect of the whole gives an

unmistakable feeling of the four pulse metrical rhythm; there is at least one

stress rhythm accent on the first pulse of every measure and on the third

pulse of all save the second.”21 The present essay is concerned with the

mastery of the composers of Lasso’s time in breaking through the inflexible

meter by means of an abundance of unexpected, enlightening accents on

weak beats; it is not to place the meter in question, but to remove its special

privilege.Andrews defends (Palestrina); here we should admire (Lasso).

The rhythm of the individual voices against the background of the

meter may be perceived and recognized in a much simpler manner than

Andrews indicates. The hypothesis is the fundamental rule that in tempus

imperfectum the four minims are not equivalent in their metric quality,but

rather, as the rules of dissonance indicate, they are differentiated into

“strong”beats (1 and 3) and “weak”beats (2 and 4), as was discussed above.

horst leuchtmann

238

observe even today a general tendency to accent the penultimate syllable inLatin words, for example “carmína” instead of “cármina” and “quaerítis” ratherthan “quáeritis.” See Lexicon des Mittelalters, vols. 1–6 (Munich and Zürich:Artemis, 1980); vol. 7 – (Munich: Lexma Verlag, 1995–98), s.v. “Barbarismus.”

20 H[erbert] K. Andrews, An Introduction to the Technique of Palestrina (London:Novello, 1958), pp. 28–9. 21 Ibid., p. 31.

As Example 11.2 shows, the individual voices against this harmonic, accen-

tuated background can enliven the musical fabric remarkably strongly

through the stresses made possible by rhythm. Basically, three possibilities

of accentuation (according to verbal stress!) are available:

(1) The text accent agrees with the musical accent. This is the basic rule,

which one can observe without at the same time falling into Morris’s feared

“tedium.” The larger part of the music discussed here runs its course

according to this pattern.

(2) The word accent conflicts with this rule and stresses “weak” beats.

Lengthening of this beat helps to achieve this, through dotting or doubling


239

Example 11.2: H. K. Andrews, An Introduction to the Technique of Palestrina

(London: Novello, 1958), Example 10, pp. 29–30

Cantus

Altus

Tenor

Bassus

&

B

B

?

b

b

b

b

C

C

C

C

˙

˙

Ó˙In

1

w Ó ˙In

w ∑

Ó ˙ > ˙In glo - ri -> ˙ ˙ >

glo - ri - a De -

2> ˙ ˙ >glo - ri - a De -

„˙ .> œ >a De - i Pa - - -

˙ > ˙ ˙i Pa - tris,

3

˙ w> ˙i Pa - tris,

∑ wIn

˙ n ( )w>tris,

w> ˙ >A - men, A -

&

B

B

?

b

b

b

b

4 œ œ w> n

A -

> ˙ wglo - ri - a

∑ Ó ˙in

-

œ œ œ-

œ > ˙

5w ∑men,

w> ˙ ˙De - - i, in˙ .> œ ˙

glo - ri - a

˙ ˙ > ˙men, in glo - ri -

6Ó ˙ >(a)

˙in glo - ri -

˙ > ˙ ˙glo - ri - a> ˙ > ˙

De - i Pa - tris,

˙ > ˙(tris

>a De - i Pa -

of the duration, a seeming syncopation, or a dissolution into passagework.

This is the usual form of the consciously offending “off-beat” stresses con-

trary to the meter in the individual parts (indicated by v in Ex.11.3).

(3) The “real,” unvarnished offense against the metric rules, presumably in

awareness of the language:The verbal stress falls on the“weak”beats 2 and 4,

without lengthening within the context,without any graphic or contrapun-

tal stress (indicated by ▼ in Ex. 11.3). One depends on a singer who under-

stands languages. The word being delivered must remain understandable;

the word in its recognizable form has precedence over rhythmically flexible

delivery. If method no. 2 in performance practice misleads one to syncopa-

tion, as we still recognize today, similarly method no. 3 is for us an

“unheard” offense, because we are used to considering such undesignated

displaced accents as errors, as incompetence on the composer’s part, or –

mostly from a lack of knowledge of languages – we simply ignore them, that

is, withhold them in their rhythmic quality from the listener. Not so the

“ancients.”

This freedom of word stress and thereby musical stress, or, better yet,

rhythmicization of the individual parts, finds its limits however in two

contexts:

(A) The discant clausula (see above) does not tolerate this freedom.A com-

poser that transgresses against its domination usually gives no pleasure.

(B) Triple mensuration (see above) governs word stress irresistibly.

In both cases the meter must be complied with.

The stresses in an individual voice-part that result from situations

described under no. 2 above (voices may be combined together in such

“errors” if the composer wishes) – this method of incorrect stress contrary

to the meter is the only intrinsic one. Considered thus, Example 11.2 is

much simpler if we understand it only with regard to word stress:

Cantus: m. 1: The “In” is indeed placed on a weak beat, but it is the entrance

of the upper voice, which does not however encroach on the main

accent on beat 1 of m. 2. “De-” in m. 2, beat 4, is one such “intrinsic”

special rhythm of the voice-part, without preparation or support. In

m. 3 the shift of stress from beat 1 to beat 2 is so clear that it needs no

further discussion. In m. 4 the discant cadence governs the stress in

the usual manner. In m. 6 as in m. 1 the repetition receives a similar

subordinate stress through the entrance of the voice.

horst leuchtmann

240

Altus: In m. 3 the stress is normal, also in mm. 4 and 5. In m. 6 the so-called

“intrinsic”shift of stress occurs.

Tenor: In m. 2 the shift of stress to beat 2 is reinforced through lengthening

(in this case through a dot). The same occurs in mm. 2–3 on “Pa-”; a

discant clausula follows. In m. 4 a subordinate stress occurs with the

voice entry. In m.5 the stress on beat 2 is brought about in the simplest

manner through lengthening (in this case dotting). In m. 6 the

stresses are regularly metric.

Bassus: In m. 1, beat 4 has an “intrinsic”shift of stress.A similar shift occurs

on beat 2 of m. 2. The “intrinsic” shift in m. 3, beat 4, is further rein-

forced through the octave leap upwards (stress through a sudden rise

in pitch, often to the limits of the range of an individual part, which

calls attention to itself). M. 5, beat 2, is similarly made prominent by

the high note but causes no weakening of the metric stress on beat 3.

M. 6 contains an “intrinsic” shift to beats 2 and 4 (presumably, since

Andrews does not give the continuation).

For the sake of completeness it must be mentioned that unstressed

syllables or tones must naturally correspond to those that are stressed. It is

understandable that unstressed syllables on strong beats result from

stressed syllables on weak beats. A schematic representation of the stresses

in Andrews’s example (which is representative of many others) is as follows

(measure numbers are in italics, beats within each measure follow them;

stressed syllables are shown by +):

1 1 2 3 4 2 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 4

C + + + + + + +

A + + + +

T + + + + + + + +

B + + + + + + + + +

The result is a continuous onslaught of stresses in the individual voices,

through which a robust liveliness results that cannot be accommodated

into modern conducting patterns; one can understand why the old manner

of conducting only according to the tactus allowed the singers the necessary

freedom for verbal stresses.

In general criticism of Andrews one should observe that Palestrina


241

did not add the text after composing the music, but rather he also began by

setting a pre-existing text to music. The rhythm of the words was in princi-

ple fitted to the meter, and only where the composer wished to bring some-

thing out, music or text or both, or where he was unsatisfied with the

important word accents within the bounds of the 1–2–3–4 meter, did

something happen to the text declamation. The same is true here. The inge-

nuity of these possibilities of musical notation that have long since been

given up without a replacement, indeed on the contrary turned upside

down and scorned as “barbarisms,” lies in the fact that this method of shift-

ing metric stress needs no special indication or method for the singer to

perform it as a foregone conclusion.The notation of that time knew no sfor-

zato, only notes, nothing but notes and rests, without auxiliary symbols.

And in this the artfulness of the old notation can be seen: the singer has no

score before him, in contrast to present practice; he basically does not know

how his part fits into the whole. But the solution is as simple as it is surpris-

ing (for us): the singer must know the language in which he sings, and when

he has the words before him, that is sufficient to bring out the correct accent

in the musicalized speech, the music, in the most natural way.22 The leader

of the choir governs the tactus and thus the tempo and can perhaps – for less

well-trained singers – help here and there with entrance cues so far as pos-

sible and necessary. (With good choral groups that was certainly not neces-

sary, and in any case the director had no score.) Thus it is as awkward as it is

unnecessary to work individual voices with changes or shifts of beats in

specific places, as many modern choral conductors try to do. The effect

occurs of its own accord. It is exactly this simplicity, however, that brings us

difficulties, because we no longer have grown up with this departed musical

horst leuchtmann

242

22 This had already struck Johann Nicolaus Forkel (Allgemeine Geschichte derMusik [Leipzig: Schwickert, 1801, reprint 1967] vol. 2, p. 698), who found faultwith bad text underlay in older music that occurred even in the mother tongueof the composer: “Since this occurred in the native language, it is hardlysurprising that it happened far more often in compositions with Latin texts thatvery few composers understood. Johann Mouton in any case certainly did notunderstand the Latin language, for he had to communicate with Glareanthrough an interpreter. This incorrect and unnatural treatment of the text wasprobably a main reason why a few learned men of earlier centuries whounderstood the language well enough and heard it so often disfigured in themouths of singers ultimately found no pleasure in the new styles ofcomposition” (cited after Balmer, Lassos Motetten, pp. 100–1).

culture, and old music in misapprehension of its greatness is often enough

considered to be a deficient early form of our own music. Our conductors

paint and decorate the meter in the air instead of letting the singers quietly

unfold it. It is sufficient to organize the meter in relation to the tempo,

which should not remain stiff and unvarying, and bring the singers to the

point that they declaim their texts correctly. As stated, this presupposes in

any case a knowledge of languages – for Lasso Latin, French, Italian, and

German – that is rather uncommon today. Perhaps it would work wonders

if choral rehearsals were to begin with spoken mastery of the text to be sung.

It may be seen again that old instruments and costumes of the past are not

sufficient to bring old music to life again, but it is rather a matter of funda-

mental assumptions of verbal-musical performance. And it is exactly here

that one may see the great difficulty of coming from vocal music and simple

instrumental music (because it doubles the voices that lead) to the inde-

pendence of instrumental music. In the beginning instrumental music fun-

damentally could not exist without text (except for dance music).For a long

time it was confined only to a colla parte supporting role, exclusively deco-

rative, in the service of the great vocal art.

Thus far we have been speaking of Rore and Palestrina. It is hardly

thinkable that Lasso should escape unscathed from the “errors”which con-

temporary and later criticism – although cautiously – certainly harped on

(see note 6 above). For that reason I have cited in Example 11.3 a fourteen-

measure excerpt (mm. 30–43) from his eight-voice polychoral motet “Tui

sunt coeli,”23 which shows especially clearly with what mastery Lasso

managed the enlivening possibilities of stresses in the eight voices and how

he still required lively vigor in the structure of a setting for double chorus,

which would already be inherently stimulating. These verbal “off-beat”

structures which are our subject belong fundamentally to the category of

emphasis on portions of the text, comparable to repetition or to the

employment of extremely high or low registers. This is how they were

intended and this also is how they operate. No singer of that time would

have considered singing even once such a shift of stress as “sedís” or

“praeparatío,”which the metrically organized score would suggest only to a

thoroughly unmusical person. And to wish to reproach Lasso and all the


243

23 SW, vol. 21, p. 7 (MOM 494).

important composers of his time that they had set a great number of falsely

accented words and sent them into the world – such a crazy reproach would

itself be worthy of real “amusoi,” “ignoti,” or “vorächtern der music,” as

Joachim a Burck describes them.24 When Burck summarizes the style char-

acteristics of the idolized Lasso, his description seems coined for the imagi-

native involvement of Lasso (and others) with text accents: “. . . princeps in

hoc nostro seculo Orlandus Dilassus . . . vere scit affectus exprimere, . . . et

quod elegantissimum est, textum ita ordinare, ne accentibus iniuriam

faciat”(the prince of our age, Orlando di Lasso, truly knows how to express

the affect, and what is most elegant, to organize the text so that he does no

horst leuchtmann

244

24 Joachim [Johannes] a Burck, Decades IIII (Mühlhausen, 1567), as cited byAmbros, Geschichte der Musik, vol. 3, p. 369, and Boetticher, Lasso, p. 839.

Example 11.3: Orlando di Lasso, “Tui sunt coeli,” mm. 30–43, from SW,

vol. 21, p. 7

&

&

V

?

&

V

V

?

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

30 wn ∑a,

w ∑a,

w ∑a,

w ∑a,

Ó w ˙et ju -

w wbet ju -

Ó ˙ ˙ ∆et ju- di -

Ó ˙ ˙ ∆et ju- di -

∑ Ó ˙et

∑ wet

∑ Ó ˙et

∑ Ó ˙et

.˙ œ w#di - ci- um,

˙ ˙ wdi - ci - um,

˙ ˙ wci - um,

˙ ˙b wci - um,

˙ ˙ .˙ œju- di - ci -

w ˙ ˙ju - dici -

˙ ∆w ˙ju- di - ci -

˙ ∆w ˙ju- di - ci -

„

„

„

„

w# ∑um

w ∑um

w ∑um

w ∑um

Ó ˙ ˙∆

<et ju- di - - -

Ó ˙# ˙ ∆<et ju- di -

Ó w ˙<et ju -

Ó ˙ ˙ œ œ<et ju - - -

∑ .˙ œprae - pa -

„

∑ Ó ˙prae -

„

œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ci -

˙ ˙ wci - um>

.˙ œ ˙ ˙di - ci-um> prae -

w .˙ œdi - ci -

˙ ˙ wra - ti - o,

Ó .˙ œ ‡˙b

prae-pa - ra -

œ œ ‡ ˙ ˙pa-ra - ti - o

.˙ œ ˙b ˙prae - pa - ra - ti -

w Ó ˙um> prae -

w ∑

˙ ˙ ˙b ˙pa - ra - ti -

w ∑um>

∑ .˙ œ<prae-pa-

˙b ˙ ∑ti - o,

Ó ‡ wse- dis

w ∑o,

œ œ ‡˙b ˙ ˙

pa - ra - ti - o

Ó .˙ œ ‡bprae-pa-ra -

w Ó ∆o se -

.˙ œ ˙b ˙prae - pa - ra- ti -

injury to the accents). The fact that all composers of the sixteenth century

made use of these “natural” changes of stress can only strengthen the view

advocated here that an important means of contrapuntal writing has been

brought to light again and rehabilitated, in theory as in practice.

A final question really contains its own answer: what purpose does

this shift of accent serve, especially when it occurs in such large numbers?

The answer: it provides an additional solidification of the musical struc-

ture. In its effect and meaning it stands between the repetition and

intensification figures of counterpoint and is closely related to stretto – of

which it is in any case a virtuoso form – one might almost say a form of dra-

matic intensification of the musical statement. And it is thus an indispens-

able technique of vocal polyphony that later celebrated a meaningful


245


&

&

V

?

&

V

V

?

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

37 ˙b ˙ wra- ti - o,>

.˙ œ ˙ ˙<prae-pa-ra - ti -

w wtu - ae,

∑ Ó ˙<prae -

˙ ˙ œ œ ˙se-dis tu -

˙A ˙ Ó ‡ti - o se -

-

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙dis tu - ae,

w ∑o,

∑ .˙ œprae - pa -

›o>

Ó .˙ œ ‡prae - pa-ra -

œ œ ‡ ˙ ˙pa- ra- ti - o,>

w ∑ae,

œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙dis tu -

∑ Ó ˙prae -

.˙ œ ˙ ˙<prae - pa-ra - ti -

˙ ˙ wra - ti- o,

Ó ‡˙

‡˙

se-dis tu -

˙ ˙ ∑ti - o

Ó .˙ œ ‡prae-pa-ra -

.˙ œ ˙ ˙prae - pa-ra - ti -

w Ó ˙ae, prae -

œ œ ‡ ˙ ˙parati - o

w .˙ œo,> prae - pa -

.˙ œ ˙b ˙<prae- pa- ra- ti -

wb Ó ˙ae, <prae -

Ó ‡ ˙ ‡se- dis tu -

˙ ˙ wti - o se -

w .˙ œo, <prae-pa -

œ œ ‡b ˙ ˙pa- ra - ti- o,

˙ ˙ wse - dis tu -

˙b ˙ wra - ti - o,

w .˙ œo,> prae- pa -

œ œ ‡ ˙ ˙pa- ra- ti - o>

w Ó ˙ae, prae -

›dis

˙ ˙ wra - ti-o,>

Ó .˙ œ ‡<prae-pa-ra -

w wae,

.˙ œ ˙ ˙<prae-pa-ra - ti -

˙ ˙ wra - ti- o

Ó ‡ ˙ ‡se-dis tu -

œ œ ‡ ˙ ˙pa-ra-ti - o

w wtu - ae,

w Ó ˙prae -

˙ ˙ ∑ti - o,>

Ó .˙ œ ‡prae- pa-ra -

w .˙ œo,> prae- pa -

w ˙ ˙se- dis

˙ .˙ œ ‡ae, <prae-pa-ra -

œ œ ˙ ˙b ˙se- dis

∑ .˙ œ<prae - pa-

œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙pa-ra - ti - o

.˙ œ ˙ ˙prae - pa-ra - ti -

˙ ˙ Ó ∆ti - o se -

˙ ˙ wbra - ti - o

revival in instrumental music in the area of motivic work. To close with R.

O. Morris, who recognized this dramatic element very well: “This constant

rhythmical conflict is the most vital and suggestive feature in the whole of

the sixteenth-century technique.”25

Translated by Peter Bergquist

horst leuchtmann

246

25 Morris, Contrapuntal Technique, p. 23.

accentuationmetric and verbal compared, 233–4quantitative, 235three possibilities of, 239–40vocal lines, 238

Albrecht V, Duke of Bavaria, vii, 21, 43,47, 49–51, 69n.18

Alcarotto, Giovanni Francesco, 193Altoviti, Antonio, 137Ameyden, Christian, 201Andrews, Herbert K., 238–41 (Ex. 11.2)Anerio, Felice, 143Animuccia, Giovanni, 92, 93, 137, 144,

150Missa Christe redemptor, 148 (Ex. 7.4)Missarum liber primus (1567), 144Pater noster, 149

Animuccia, Paolo, 141Antwerp, vii, 64–7, 160–2, 164–6Arcadelt, Jacques, 93, 190Archpoet

Confession of Golias, 124–6Arie napolitane, 79d’Arras, Jean Terrier, 192Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek

Ms. 25, 41n.3

Balbi, Lodovico, 200Barrè, Antonio, 75, 78–9, 81–2, 87–9,

91–2, 93, 140–1, 207Baston, Josquin, 141Beethoven, Ludwig van

Ritterballet, WoO 1, 127Bente, Martin, 47Berchem, Jachet

A la dolc’ombra de la belle frondi, 92Berg, Adam, 218–19, 222Berg, Johann see Montanus

Bischoff, Bernhard, 124–7Boetticher, Wolfgang, viii, 41, 54–9, 128,

138, 149, 186n.10, 192n.36 and 37,199, 200

Bonagiunta, Giulio, 76Borren, Charles van den, viiiBossuyt, Ignace, 120n.7Breviarium Romanum (1568), 42–8Bruno, Giovanbattista, 74–6, 79Bruto, Gian Michele, 65Burck, Joachim a, 244Byrd, William, 14

Cambio, Perissone, 200Canis, Cornelius, 160canzone, 91–115

composers before 1560, 93musical structure, 94–5poets of musical settings, 93

Carafa da Stigliano, Giovan Francesco, 82Caro, Annibal, 71Castro, Jean de, 120n.7, 158–82, 201

Ad te levavi oculos meos, 160Angelus ad pastores ait, 171, 174

(Ex. 8.3), 179 (Ex. 8.10)Confundantur superbi, 174, 180

(Ex. 8.11)Exaudi, Domine, vocem meam, 174–5,

181 (Ex. 8.12)Gustate et videte, 171, 175 (Ex. 8.4)In te, Domine, speravi, 173–4, 177–8

(Exx. 8.8., 8.9)Surgens Jesus, 171–2 (Ex. 8.1), 173, 177

(Ex. 8.7)Surrexit pastor bonus, 171, 173

(Ex. 8.2)Tribus miraculis, 171, 176 (Ex. 8.5)Uxor Joannis Pollet Sara, 165

247

General index

Cherubini, LuigiCours de contrepoint et de fugue, 230–1

Clement, Jacob (Clemens non Papa), 141,161, 166

Epitaphium for, 120, 122–3, 128Magnificats, 6, 19masses, 20

composition, instruction in, 229consonance, 227–8contrafacta, 120–3, 127–30, 159Copenhagen Chansonnier, 89Cornet, Séverin, 184Corona, Giovanni, 199counterpoint

abstract or instrumental compared tovocal, 229, 230–1

instruction in, 230–1Crequillon, Thomas, 160–1Crook, David, 1, 5n.8, 13n.15, 47

Daser, Ludwigmasses, 20

Dentice, Don Luigi and Fabrizio, 80, 88Desprez, Josquin, 167

accentuation of text, 229–30Benedicta es caelorum Regina, 139,

167n.29Doni, Antonfrancesco, Dialogo della

musica, 92Dorico, Valerico, 67–8, 74, 78Dupérac, Etienne, 50–1

Erb, James, viiiEste, Alfonso II, Duke of Ferrara, 192Este, Ippolito II, Archbishop of Milan, 70Eton Choirbook, 14

Farnese, Alessandro, 185–6, 190–1, 193–5Farnese, Ottavio, 185, 190–1Ferrero, Pier Francesco, 75–6Ferretti, Giovanni, 201Fiesco, Giovanni Giacomo, 161Flori, Franz, 20–1Flori, Johannes, 20, 52–62Fogliano, Giacomo, 199Forkel, Johann Nicolaus, 242n.22

Freising, Diocese ofBreviarium Frisingense (1516), 44–47Scamnalia secundum ritum et ordinem

ecclesiae et diocesis Frisingensis(1520), 47

Fugger, Johann (Hans) Jakob, 164, 188

Gabrieli, Andrea, 20–3Missa super Pater peccavi, 29–39

(Exx. 2.8, 2.10–12)Missa super Vexilla regis prodeunt, 29Pater peccavi, 28–30, 33–4,

(Exx. 2.7, 2.9)Sacrae cantiones I (1565), 21

Gardano, Antonio, 76, 92, 207–8Gentile, Stefano, 64–5, 162Gerlach, Theodor and Katharina, 218,

220–1Gleason, Elizabeth G., 48–9Göllner, Marie Louise, 42Gombert, Nicolas, 6, 19Gosswin, Anton, 20Granvelle, see PerrenotGregory XIII, Pope, 139Grimaldi, Giovanni, 162Gross, Horst-Willi, 236n.15Guidobono, Giovan Francesco II, 68–72,

79–80Guise, Cardinal Louis I de, 77

Haar, James, viii, 5, 99Haberl, Franz Xaver, 5, 236n.15Heinrich, Nicholas, 220, 222Hermelink, Siegfried, 204Hotz, Pierre du, 188, 194Houtermann, Mark, 140

imitatio, 158–9, 175, 178see also parody

Josquin, see Desprez

Kerle, Jacobus de, 139, 145Kirsch, Winfried, 8

Laet, Jean, 161, 208

general index

248

Lasso, Rudolf di, 15Le Crec, Olivier, 88–90Le Roy, Adrian, and Robert Ballard, 118,

119, 165, 210–18Lechner, Leonhard, 119Lerma, Hernando, 141Leuchtmann, Horst, viiiLockenburg, Johannes, 20Lockwood, Lewis, 22Lowinsky, Edward, 138Lupacchino, Bernardino, 93Lupi, Johannes, 141Luther, Martin

Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu Dir, 24

Macque, Giovanni da, 151madrigal, multi-stanza, 92–5Magnificat tones, 1–3 (Ex. 1.1)Maier, Julius Joseph, 41Maillard, Jean, 141Maio, Giovan Thomaso di, 70Manchicourt, Pierre de, 187Marenzio, Luca, 149, 166, 183, 198, 200,

201Margaret of Austria, 185, 188, 190McGinness, Frederick J., 49, 51Meier, Bernhard, 190n.31, 191n.34, 205,

236–7Merlo, Alessandro, 200meter, compared to rhythm, 231–2Micheli, Domenico, 199modes

affect of individual, 95, 224expressive or structural function,

101–15representation of, 203–26

Mola, Francesco De La, 81–2Montanus [Berg], Johann, and Ulrich

Neuber, 218–19Monte, Philippe de, 74, 162, 183, 199, 202

Dolce mio caro e pretioso albergo, 197Morales, Cristóbal de, 6, 19moresche, 82–8

Tiche toche, 83–6 (Ex. 4.2)Morris, Reginald O., 229, 231–5,

(Ex. 11.1), 246

Munich, viiBayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. Mss.,

20–1, 23, 41, 45–8Dom zu Unserer lieben Frau: Mss.,

42n.5

Nanino, Giovanni Maria, 153Nasco, Jan, 93Neefe, Christof Gottlob, 127Nola, Gian Domenico da, 88

Palestrina, Giovanni Pierluigi da, vii,132–3, 141, 144, 150, 151, 183, 202,233 (Ex. 11.1)

Confitebor tibi, 152–3 (Ex. 7.5)Crucem sanctam subiit, 147 (Ex. 7.3)Da fuoco si bella nasce il mio ardore,

197Laudate Dominum omnes gentes, 149Magnificats, 5, 6, 19masses, 20Misero stato degli amanti in questi, 202Missa Benedicta es, 139Missa Papae Marcelli, 144Missa Petra sancta, 152Motecta festorum totius anni (1569),

144musicians provided for processions in

Rome, 133–6Primo libro dei mottetti a 5, 6, e 7 voci

(1569), 144Susanna ab improbiis, 153

Palmarts, Gottfried, 20parody (imitation), 20–40, 152–5, 160

Magnificats, 13, 17–18masses, choice of models, 22

Pense, Justinien, 164Perrenot de Granvelle, Antoine, 164, 185,

186–90Petrarch, Francesco

Standomi un giorno, 95–9Phalèse, Pierre, 117–19, 160–3, 166–9,

208–10Phinot, Domenico, 150Pius V, Pope, bull “Quod a nobis,” 43–4Plantin, Christopher, 161

general index

249

Polites, Joachim, 189Pollet, Jean, 164–5polychoral music in Rome, 148–52Pontio, Pietro, 12n.14, 228Porta, Costanzo, 93Portinaro, Francesco, 93Powers, Harold, 203–7, 225Pressauer, Franz, 21printing and editing of music, Rome,

75–9, 144psalm tone 4, 25 (Ex. 2.2)

Rampollini, Matteo, 92–3Rasmussen, Niels Krogh, 50–1Reese, Gustave, 8, 229–30Reggio, L’Hoste da

Io vo cangiar l’usato, 92Roche, Jerome, viiiRome, 66–7, 71, 74–90, 132–57Rore, Cipriano de, 93, 141, 166, 183,

190–2, 199, 236–7Alma real se come fide stella, 190Expectans exspectavi, 237masses, 20Mentre lume maggior del secolo

nostro, 191O socii neque enim, 187Vieni dolce Hymeneo, 191–2Virtute magna, 236

Rossetti [Rossetto], Stefano, 200Ruffo, Vincenzo, 93

Saen, Elisabeth, 161Salerno, Prince of 79–80, 89–90Sandberger, Adolf, viii, 236n.15Senfl, Ludwig

hymns, 42, 46–8Magnificats, 6, 19

Susato, Tielman, 64, 161, 187, 208–9

Textoris, Guglielmo, 198, 202tonal type, 203–26

Toraldo, Neapolitan family, 81–2Tracetti, Francesco, 76–8Trent, Council of, 42–4, 48–9, 140, 144,

147, 155Truchsess von Waldburg, Cardinal Otto,

138–9, 147Tumler, Walram, 62–3Turnhout, Gérard Van, 160, 184, 189Turnhout, Jean, 183–202

biography, 184–5, 189madrigals:

Ben veggio di lontano, 195–6(Ex. 9.3)O beltà rara, 195–6 (Ex. 9.1)Questi son lasso, questi, 195–6(Ex. 9.2)Voi ch’ascoltate in rime, 195–7(Ex. 9.4)Vorria parlare e dire, 185n.7

Utendal, Alexander, 158–9

Valent, Adrian, 141Vento, Ivo de, 20, 23, 27, 159Verdelot, Philippe, 199Victoria, Tomás Luis de, 140, 150Vigili, Cavalier Honofrio, 75–6, 78villanelle, 67–8, 70–4, 79, 89Vinci, Pietro, 199

Waelrant, Hubert, 160Wearing, Clive, 52Wilhelm V, Duke of Bavaria, 42–3, 48,

51–2, 62–3, 69n.18Willaert, Adrian

accentuation of text, 230Domine quid multiplicati sunt,

236n.16O socii neque enim, 187

Zoilo, Annibale, 141, 149–151Nunc dimittis, 151, 156–7 (Ex. 7.7)

general index

250

chansonsSusanne un jour, 153Une puce, 235n.14

hymns, 41–63dating, 52–62

Lectiones I, 167madrigals

Amor che vedi ogni pensieri aperti, 199Bella guerriera mia, 200Ben veggio di lontano, 195 (Ex. 9.3),

199Come va’l mondo, 200Lagrime di San Pietro, 219, 224, 225,

227O beltà rara, 195 (Ex. 9.1), 199Occhi piangete, 202Quando fia mai quel giorno, 192n.36Questi son lasso, questi, 195 (Ex. 9.2),

199Standomi un giorno, 91–115, 166Vieni dolce Hymeneo, 191Voi ch’ascoltate in rime, 195 (Ex. 9.4),

201Magnificats (numeration as in SWNR),

1–19performance practice, 3–57 (Septimi toni), 1016 (Octavi toni), 8, 15, 16, 1730 (Sexti toni), 1037 (Si par souhait), 1038 (Il est jour), 16, 1758 (Ultimi miei sospiri), 17–1862 (Octavi toni), 768 (Dies est laetitiae), 1069 (Benedicta es caelorum regina), 13980 (Vergine bella), 790 (Pange lingua), 1894 (Quinti toni), 7

97 (Erano capei d’oro), 152–3masses, 18–19

Missa super Io son ferito, 152Missa super Locutus sum in lingua

mea, 23–8 (Ex. 2.6)motets, 138, 140–1, 148, 166–9

Alma nemes, 66Alma Venus, 235n.14Angelus ad pastores ait, 166, 171–4

(Exx. 8.3, 8.10)Benedicam Dominum in omni

tempore, 142, 166Bestia curvafia [Bestia stultus homo],

122Confitemini Domino, 142Confundantur superbi, 166, 174

(Ex. 8.11)Deliciae Phoebi, 187Deus misereatur nostri, 141, 142, 149Exaudi, Domine, vocem meam, 166,

174–5 (Ex. 8.12)Fertur in conviviis, 116–31, 166–7, 169Flemus extremos, 235n.14Fulgebunt justi, 166Gustate et videte, 138, 141–3, 171

(Ex. 8.4)In convertendo Dominus, 142, 151In me transierunt, 142, 144–5 (Ex. 7.1)In te, Domine, speravi, 166, 170, 173–4

(Exx. 8.8–9)Jam lucis orto sidere, 122Legem pone mihi, 166Locutus sum in lingua mea, 23–6

(Exx. 2.1–5), 142, 144 (Ex. 7.2), 151Memento peccati tui, 236n.15Nunc gaudere licet, 122Nuntium vobis fero, 235n.14Nuptias claras, 235n.14

251

Index of Lasso compositions and printed sources

motets (cont.)O decus celsi, 235n.14Pater peccavi, 167Praesidium Sara, 165Quare tristis es, anima mea, 142Quia vidisti me, Thoma, 140Quid prodest stulto, 167Scio enim quod redemptor meus vivit,

141Sidus ex claro, 235n.14Surgens Jesus, 166, 171–2 (Exx. 8.1,

8.6–7)Surrexit pastor bonus, 142–3, 166, 171

(Ex. 8.2)Tribus miraculis, 166, 171 (Ex. 8.5)Tui sunt caeli, 243 (Ex. 11.3)Ubi est Abel, 166Veni in hortum meum, 166, 169Verba mea auribus percipe, 166, 168

Penitential Psalms, 159, 165, 218, 224Prophetiae Sibyllarum, 227villanella (ascribed to Lasso)

Voria che tu cantas’ una canzona, 72–4

*Printed sources of Lasso’s music (listed by

RISM number and brief title)1555a (14. livre), 64, 140, 1621555b (D’Orlando di Lassus il primo

libro), 64, 140, 1621555c (Madrigali I 5 v), 76, 207155530 (Villanelle II), 671555 RISM deest (Muse II 3 v), 81–21556a (Motetti I 5–6 v), 138, 164, 187,

2081557b (Muse II [Madrigali II] 5 v), 75,

91155712 (Muse II 3 v), 88–9155719 (Canzoni alla Napolitana I),

74n.24156014 (Villotte III), 88n.53156018 (Madrigali I 4 v), 771561 RISM deest (Motettorum 5, 6 v),

1421562a (Sacrae cantiones 5 v), 142, 208,

2191562c (Sacrae cantiones 5 v), 208

15627 (Muse III 4 v), 791563c (Madrigali III 5 v), 79, 183, 20715633 (Liber I musarum 4 v), 1401564b (Primus liber concentuum

sacrorum), 2141564c (Chansons I 4 v), 208–91564d (14. livre chansons 4–5 v),

117–18, 1671564 RISM deest (7. livre chansons),

117–18, 1671565a (Modulorum II vol. 4–10 v), 2151565c (Cantiones sacrae II 5–6 v), 761565e (Lectiones), 14215658 (7. livre chansons), 1171566c (Sacrae cantiones II 5–6 v), 1421566d (Sacrae cantiones III 5–6 v), 1421566e (Sacrae cantiones IV 6–8 v), 159,

2081566f (Lectiones), 1671567k (Madrigali IV 5 v), 1831567l (Lieder I 5v), 219–2015679 (7. livre chansons), 1171568a/b (Selectissimae cantiones), 1591569a (Cant. aliquot 5 v), 2191569f (Sacrae cantiones IV 6–8 v), 14215697 (Liber I sacr. cant. 4 v), 16815698 (Liber II sacr. cant. 4 v), 117, 119,

1681570c (Cant. sacr. 6–8 v), 2191570d (Mellange), 117, 211, 213, 22415706 (2. livre chansons 4–5 v), 191n.35157011 (7. livre chansons), 1171571d/b (Modulorum I 5 v, Moduli

quinis v), 168, 215–161571f (Chansons nouvelle 5 v), 212, 2151572e (Modulorum II 5 v), 1681572g (Lieder II 5 v), 219–20157311 (7. livre chansons), 1171574b (Patrocinium II, Missae), 1391575c (Motetti 3 v), 168157510 (7. livre chansons), 1171576c (Patrocinium V, Magnificat), 1421576i (Meslanges), 116, 117, 120,

211–12, 214, 224Oxford partbooks, 116, 130–1

1576l (Thrésor 4–6 v), 120–1

index of l asso comp ositions and printed sources

252

1576n (17. livre 4–5 v), 211–121576r (Lieder III 5 v), 2201577c (Cantiones 2 v), 219, 2211577e (Moduli 4–9 v), 215–161579b (Selectissimae cantiones 4–5 v),

117, 119–2015791 (7. livre chansons), 1171581g (Villanelle), 881582c (Fasciculus aliquot sacr. cant.),

219, 2241582d (Sacrae cantiones 5 v), 2251582e (Motetta 6 v), 2251582h (Thrésor), 120–11583b (Lieder I–II–III 5 v), 220–1, 2241584f (Continvation du meslanges),

212–13

15843 (7. livre chansons), 1171585a (Sacrae cantiones 4 v), 217, 2251585b (Cantiones sacrae 6–8 v), 2251586g (Meslanges), 212, 2241587d (Sacr. cant. moduli 4 v), 217–181588c/d/e (Moduli 4 & 8, 5, 6 v) 2181592b (Fleur des chansons), 209–101594a (Cantiones sacrae 6 v), 219, 2251594b (Thrésor), 120–11595a (Lagrime di San Pietro), 219, 225,

2271599 RISM deest (7. livre chansons), 1171604a (MOM), 120–1, 127, 220–31619a (Centum Magnificat), 15

index of l asso comp ositions and printed sources

253

bergquist peter_orlando di lasso studies

Documents