Opera omnia, I: Missa Alleluia; Missa Almana; Missa Assumpta est Maria; Missa Ave Maria;Missa Ave sanctissima Maria by Pierre de la Rue; Nigel St. John Davison; J. Evan Kreider; T.Herman Keahey; Opera omnia, II: Missa Conceptio tua; Missa Cum jucunditate; Missa de BeataVirgine; Missa de Feria; Missa de Sancta Anna by Pierre de la Rue; Nigel St. John Davison; J.Evan Kreider; T. Herman Keahey; Opera omnia, III: Missa de ...Review by: M. Jennifer BloxamNotes, Second Series, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Sep., 1994), pp. 407-410Published by: Music Library AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/899272 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 20:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Music Library Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.136 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:59:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Music Reviews

Pierre de la Rue. Opera omnia, I: Missa Alleluia; Missa Almana; Missa Assumpta est Maria; Missa Ave Maria; Missa Ave sanctissima Maria. Edited by Nigel St. John Davison, J. Evan Kreider, T. Herman Keahey. (Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 97.) Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hanssler Ver- lag, 1989 by American Institute of Musicology. [Facsims., pp. x-xi; pref- ace and critical notes, pp. xiii-lxxviii; score, 197 p.; paper. Order No. 67.971/10; ISBN 3-7751-1480-7.]

Pierre de la Rue. Opera omnia, II: Missa Conceptio tua; Missa Cum jucunditate; Missa de Beata Virgine; Missa de Feria; Missa de Sancta Anna. Edited by Nigel St. John Davison, J. Evan Kreider, T. Herman Keahey. (Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 97.) Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hanssler Verlag, 1992 by American Institute of Musicology. [Preface and critical notes, pp. xi-lxxii; score, 217 p.; paper. Order No. 67.971/ 20; ISBN 3-7751-1796-2.]

Pierre de la Rue. Opera omnia, III: Missa de Sancta Cruce; Missa de Sancto Antonio; Missa de Sancto Job; Missa de Septem doloribus; Missa de Virginibus. Edited by Nigel St. John Davison, J. Evan Kreider, T. Herman Keahey. (Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 97.) Neuhausen- Stuttgart: Hanssler Verlag, 1992 by American Institute of Musicology. [Preface and critical notes, pp. xi-lix; score, 236 p.; paper. Order No. 67.971/30; ISBN 3-7751-1805-5.]

During his lifetime Pierre de la Rue en- joyed a prominence in European musical culture approaching that of his older con- temporary Josquin des Prez. As the musical luminary at the Habsburg-Burgundian court for almost a quarter of a century, he composed for Archduke Maximilian, Philip the Fair, Marguerite of Austria, and Arch- duke Karl before his death in 1518 (for the most recent work on La Rue's biography, see Honey Meconi, "Free from the Crime of Venus: The Biography of Pierre de la Rue," Report of the Fifteenth Congress of the International Musicological Society [Madrid 1992] [forthcoming]). La Rue's music dom- inates the repertory disseminated from Spain to Germany by the Netherlands court scriptorium of Petrus Alamire, and Petrucci singled out La Rue's music for one of his first publications devoted to the works of one composer (Misse Petri de la Rue [Venice, 1503] [RISM L 718]).

It is nothing short of astonishing, there- fore, that while the complete works of myr- iad minor composers have seen publication over the last few decades, the music of one of the period's most renowned composers has languished in obscurity. A major piece in the picture of late fifteenth- and early

sixteenth-century music has been missing, and our full understanding and appreci- ation of that picture has suffered for its absence. Although La Rue composed Mag- nificats, motets, and chansons, his most im- portant contributions to the repertory were settings of the Mass Ordinary, of which thirty-one survive in their entirety (almost double in number Josquin's surviving Mass cycles). Yet only fourteen have been pub- lished in their entirety, most in old, un- reliable, and hard-to-obtain editions. The long-awaited appearance of the first three volumes of La Rue's new Opera omnia, ded- icated to the first fifteen Masses (ordered alphabetically), is therefore welcome in- deed.

As expected from the venerable Corpus mensurabilis musicae series, this is a schol- arly edition; at least twenty-five percent of each volume is given over to critical notes. This Opera omnia is a team effort by an international trio of editors; each Mass has been edited and an introduction supplied by a single individual following certain mu- tually agreed upon guidelines. Techniques of textual criticism inform the reading of each Mass in the edition: the musical text of each work is based on a "principal

407

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.136 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:59:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES, September 1994

source" determined by means of the fili- ation of sources and comparison of vari- ants, the object being to use as the basis for the modern edition the source judged clos- est to the archetype. Certainly one of the most valuable aspects of the critical com- mentary is the stemma of sources accom- panying each Mass and the lucidly pre- sented "criteria for filiation" that explain each stemma. The tabular presentation of variants is also commendable for its clarity.

The quality of the presentation of the musical score is high, with spacious layout and clear type. Two irregularities caught this reviewer's eye: the opening staff of the Missa Ave Maria in volume 1 is buried at the bottom of a page directly following the conclusion of the preceding Mass rather than appearing at the top of a new page, as is the case with all other Masses; and the Missa Cum jucunditate in volume 2 is inex- plicably printed in a different musical type and lacks all "grand staff" brackets after the first page. Each Mass opens with the ex- pected incipits showing clef, mensuration, key signature, initial rests, and first note as given in the principal source, after which the range of each voice part is helpfully indicated. All note values are halved, Men- surstrich is used throughout, and changes of mensuration sign during the course of a piece are indicated above the staff.

Sources of La Rue's Masses, most of which derive from the Netherlands Court scriptorium of Petrus Alamire, often sup- ply the original text of the cantus firmus in the tenor, sometimes to the exclusion of the Ordinary text of the Mass. The poly- textual performance thus implied has am- ple precedent in the repertory of fifteenth- century, northern Mass polyphony (see Alejandro Enrique Planchart, "Parts with Words and without Words: The Evidence for Multiple Texts in Fifteenth-Century Masses," in Studies in the Performance of Late Medieval Music, ed. Stanley Boorman [Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983], 227-51; and Barton Hudson, "On the Tex- ting of Obrecht's Masses," Musica disciplina 42 [1988]: 101-27). It is therefore curious that the editors chose to provide all Or- dinary text, whether or not included in the source, "on the assumption that normal li- turgical performances of the time utilized that text only" (vol. 1, p. xv), and to give only approximate placement of the cantus

firmus texts present in principal sources. This policy has unfortunate consequences. First, the original cantus firmus texts that do appear in the edition are presented in such a way that they are not readily usable, even in cases where the source provides the chant text in its entirety and where un- derlay of that text is no more problematic than the placement of Ordinary text, such as in the Kyrie of the Missa Assumpta est Maria. And second, restricting the inclu- sion of extra-Ordinary to that found in the chosen principal source can be misleading, if presenting a reading closest to the ar- chetype in every regard is the goal. The most reliable musical reading of the Missa de Sancto Job, for example, is found in a manuscript that transmits an obviously truncated version of the original and ex- tensive extra-Ordinary text preserved only in the mutilated manuscript MontsM 773; the musical score provides only the trun- cated version found in the principal source.

With three different editorial hands at work, certain inconsistencies are bound to appear. Thus, for example, J. Evan Krei- der's edition of the Missa Alleluia (vol. 1) correctly supplies different time signatures and Mensurstrich for passages in which dif- ferent mensuration signs operate simulta- neously, while T. Herman Keahey's edition of the Missa Almana (vol. 1) obscures the simultaneous mensurations in the Credo and Sanctus by incorrectly transcribing both ¢ and 0 in i . The application of musica ficta is the one arena in which these three editors confess to being unable to agree on any guidelines, and so different solutions to similar contrapuntal situations are not uncommon; unfortunately lacking is any explanation by individual editors for the rationale behind their individual ap- proaches. Such explanation is imperative, especially for the canonic Masses, and could easily have been included in the in- troduction to each Mass.

It is in the critical notes that the most serious shortcomings of this important new edition are found. First, a production error in this reviewer's copy has duplicated one page of the critical notes for the Missa de Beata Virgine (vol. 2, p. lii) within the critical notes for the Missa Cum jucunditate (vol. 2, p. xxvi), with the result that eleven foot- notes for the stemma and the first twelve Criteria for Filiation for the Missa Cum

408

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.136 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:59:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Music Reviews

jucunditate are missing (subscribers should be aware that the publisher intends to pro- vide the missing page). Of greater concern, however, are certain flaws in the critical notes themselves.

Recent scholarly editions of medieval and Renaissance sacred music customarily provide the music of the model upon which a Mass or motet is based as an aid to un- derstanding a composer's treatment of pre- existent material. Of the eight Masses here published whose plainsong models are known, only one, the Missa de Sancto An- tonio, includes the musical text of a possible model in its introduction. The other seven simply refer the reader either to a modern publication of chant (such as the Liber usu- alis) or to facsimile editions of chant from the rite of Sarum or the rite of Passau, only the last of which has any possible connec- tion to La Rue's experience of liturgy and chant.

Over the last three decades, many schol- ars of medieval and Renaissance music have demonstrated the necessity of return- ing to contemporaneous sources of chant and liturgy for information about the orig- inal liturgical context and melodic and textual content of cantus firmi, and some recent editions of music from this period have made an effort to use relevant sources of chant and liturgy (a good example is the New Obrecht Edition, gen. ed. Chris Maas [Utrecht: Vereniging voor Neder- landse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1983- ]). While a full investigation into the origins of La Rue's plainsong cantus firmi is clearly beyond the scope of an edition's critical notes, it is lamentable that the editors pay so little attention to this critical question; only Kreider has delved into the origins of some of La Rue's preexistent materials. The obvious place to begin such an inquiry would be with the usage of Paris, which governed the performance of the daily rit- ual in the domestic chapel of the Burgun- dian and Habsburg-Burgundian courts of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries (see M. Jennifer Bloxam, "A Survey of Late Medieval Service Books from the Low Countries: Implications for Sacred Polyph- ony, 1460-1520" [Ph.D. diss., Yale Uni- versity, 1987], 1: 67-73). Indeed, the usage of Paris may have furnished La Rue with the model for the Missa de Sancta Anna, which carries the incipit "Felix Anna"

(identified as "unknown" in the critical notes to this Mass): in the early fourteenth century notated breviary F-Pn lat. 10482, f.466, the antiphon to the Magnificat on the feast of St. Anna is "Felix Anna quidam matrona legit" and begins with a melodic contour similar to La Rue's cantus firmus. The liturgical rites and plainsong traditions of the Flemish centers in which the Habs- burg-Burgundian rulers maintained resi- dences also invite investigation.

With rare exceptions, the secondary lit- erature cited does not venture beyond work done since the first half of the 1970s. For example, a useful analytic study is not mentioned (Walter H. Rubsamen, "Unify- ing Techniques in Selected Masses of Jos- quin and La Rue: A Stylistic Comparison," in Josquin des Prez: Proceedings of the Inter- national Josquin Festival-Conference, ed. Ed- ward E. Lowinsky and Bonnie J. Black- burn [London: Oxford University Press, 1976], 369-400); Thomas Noblitt's work on the motetti missales is cited in connection with the motet Te decet laus, appended to one source of the Missa Ave sanctissima Maria as a motet loco deo Gracias, but Lynn Halpern Ward's important recent revision to Noblitt's thesis is overlooked ("The Motetti Missales Repertory Reconsidered," Journal of the American Musicological Society 34 [1986]: 491-523); this writer's obser- vations on the Missa de Septem doloribus ("A Survey," 1: 81-84) are not cited; this writ- er's reflections on the Missa de Sancto An- tonio ("A Survey," 1: 197-204) are men- tioned in a footnote (without providing pagination) but not included in the liter- ature list; and rather than referring the reader to recent research on the complex- ities of mensuration and proportion signs in this period for guidance in decisions re- garding tempo (such as Eunice Schroeder, "The Stroke Comes Full Circle; 6 and ( in Writings on Music, ca. 1450-1540," Mu- sica disciplina 36 [1982]: 119-66), the ed- itors offer nebulous justification for their equivalent transcription of 0 and $, and C and (, "on the basis of internal evidence" (vol. 1, p. xiv).

Although the creation of stemmae for the sources of these Masses is a valuable un- dertaking, the inconsistent reporting of the dates of some sources is confusing and potentially misleading. The manu- script VienNB 1783 is a case in point: in

409

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.136 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:59:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES, September 1994 NOTES, September 1994

volume 1, page xxxii, Keahey gives the date of this source as 1500-1505 (based on re- search by Herbert Kellman); in the same volume, page xlii, Nigel St. John Davison reports the date as 1500-1505, probably circa 1500, also on the basis of Kellman's research; in volume 2, page li, Keahey notes the date as 1500-1505, probably 1500 (following Kellman), or 1504-1506, referring to private correspondence from Flynn Warmington in 1983; and Kreider, in volume 3, page xxvi, gives "1500-1505 [1500]" (following Kellman), or 1504-1506, citing a paper delivered by Warmington at the national meeting of the American Mu- sicological Society in 1982. Such inconsis- tencies derive in part from conflicting and largely unpublished opinions about the dates, scribes, and destinations of the com- plex of manuscripts deriving from the Netherlands Court scriptorium of Petrus Alamire, to which VienNB 1783 belongs, but it should be incumbent on the editors

volume 1, page xxxii, Keahey gives the date of this source as 1500-1505 (based on re- search by Herbert Kellman); in the same volume, page xlii, Nigel St. John Davison reports the date as 1500-1505, probably circa 1500, also on the basis of Kellman's research; in volume 2, page li, Keahey notes the date as 1500-1505, probably 1500 (following Kellman), or 1504-1506, referring to private correspondence from Flynn Warmington in 1983; and Kreider, in volume 3, page xxvi, gives "1500-1505 [1500]" (following Kellman), or 1504-1506, citing a paper delivered by Warmington at the national meeting of the American Mu- sicological Society in 1982. Such inconsis- tencies derive in part from conflicting and largely unpublished opinions about the dates, scribes, and destinations of the com- plex of manuscripts deriving from the Netherlands Court scriptorium of Petrus Alamire, to which VienNB 1783 belongs, but it should be incumbent on the editors

to decide what opinion will be reported and to be consistent in that reporting.

One question of attribution must be ad- dressed. La Rue's authorship of the fifteen Masses included in these volumes is not at issue, but the authenticity of the motet Te decet laus, appended without ascription to one copy of the Missa Ave sanctissima Maria, is seriously challenged by Kreider in his introduction to this Mass (vol. 1, p. lxxiii- lxxiv). The piece properly belongs among the opera dubia and should not be included in this volume.

These first volumes of La Rue's new Op- era omnia make accessible a large body of excellent music by a composer of great skill and imagination, and for this reason alone they belong on the shelves of every music library. Readers would be well advised, however, to use the critical notes with cau- tion.

M. JENNIFER BLOXAM Williams College

to decide what opinion will be reported and to be consistent in that reporting.

One question of attribution must be ad- dressed. La Rue's authorship of the fifteen Masses included in these volumes is not at issue, but the authenticity of the motet Te decet laus, appended without ascription to one copy of the Missa Ave sanctissima Maria, is seriously challenged by Kreider in his introduction to this Mass (vol. 1, p. lxxiii- lxxiv). The piece properly belongs among the opera dubia and should not be included in this volume.

These first volumes of La Rue's new Op- era omnia make accessible a large body of excellent music by a composer of great skill and imagination, and for this reason alone they belong on the shelves of every music library. Readers would be well advised, however, to use the critical notes with cau- tion.

M. JENNIFER BLOXAM Williams College

Ockeghem's "Missa cuiusvis toni" in Its Original Notation and Edited in All the Modes. With an introduction by George Houle. (Publications of the Early Music Institute.) Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992. [Intro., pp. 1-33; score in Phrygian, Mixolydian, Lydian, and Dorian modes, pp. 34-145 and four bound parts; acid-free paper. ISBN 0-253-32854-3.]

Ockeghem's "Missa cuiusvis toni" in Its Original Notation and Edited in All the Modes. With an introduction by George Houle. (Publications of the Early Music Institute.) Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992. [Intro., pp. 1-33; score in Phrygian, Mixolydian, Lydian, and Dorian modes, pp. 34-145 and four bound parts; acid-free paper. ISBN 0-253-32854-3.]

The sixteenth-century music theorist Heinrich Glarean referred to Johannes Ockeghem's Missa cuiusvis toni as an exam- ple of catholica in music-those works writ- ten ". . . so that they would be sung in many ways, almost according to the will of the singers, yet so that the relationship of the harmony and consonances would be ob- served no less" (Dodecachordon, trans. Clem- ent A. Miller [Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1965], 2: 277). This "Mass in any mode" was known to late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century musicians as an ex- ample of Ockeghem's compositional sub- tlety, and for us, it stands as one of the most ingenious monuments of fifteenth-century composition. It is a four-voice setting of the Ordinary, freely composed (i.e., without the use of a cantus firmus or preexisting compositional material) and presented in a unique clefless notation. The combination of clefs selected by the performers deter-

The sixteenth-century music theorist Heinrich Glarean referred to Johannes Ockeghem's Missa cuiusvis toni as an exam- ple of catholica in music-those works writ- ten ". . . so that they would be sung in many ways, almost according to the will of the singers, yet so that the relationship of the harmony and consonances would be ob- served no less" (Dodecachordon, trans. Clem- ent A. Miller [Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1965], 2: 277). This "Mass in any mode" was known to late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century musicians as an ex- ample of Ockeghem's compositional sub- tlety, and for us, it stands as one of the most ingenious monuments of fifteenth-century composition. It is a four-voice setting of the Ordinary, freely composed (i.e., without the use of a cantus firmus or preexisting compositional material) and presented in a unique clefless notation. The combination of clefs selected by the performers deter-

mines the pitch level and which of the four church modes will be applied to the Mass's counterpoint.

Until now, the primary modern edition of the Missa cuiusvis toni has been that of Dragan Plamenac (Johannes Ockeghem, Collected Works, 2d corrected ed. [Philadel- phia, Pa.: American Musicological Society, 1959], 1: 44-56); see also Johannes Ock- eghem, Missa cuiusvis toni for four voices, ed. David Fallows, Mappa Mundi Renaissance Performing Scores, Ser. B, No. 17 (Lon- don: Vanderbeek & Imrie, 1989). In por- traying the performance alternatives for this Mass, the Plamenac edition presented the work in more or less the same format as did the original sources: on clefless staves, with each of four modal possibilities represented by a combination of clefs ap- plied to the voice parts. This is a bona fide editorial solution, but the format of this transcription remains a daunting challenge

mines the pitch level and which of the four church modes will be applied to the Mass's counterpoint.

Until now, the primary modern edition of the Missa cuiusvis toni has been that of Dragan Plamenac (Johannes Ockeghem, Collected Works, 2d corrected ed. [Philadel- phia, Pa.: American Musicological Society, 1959], 1: 44-56); see also Johannes Ock- eghem, Missa cuiusvis toni for four voices, ed. David Fallows, Mappa Mundi Renaissance Performing Scores, Ser. B, No. 17 (Lon- don: Vanderbeek & Imrie, 1989). In por- traying the performance alternatives for this Mass, the Plamenac edition presented the work in more or less the same format as did the original sources: on clefless staves, with each of four modal possibilities represented by a combination of clefs ap- plied to the voice parts. This is a bona fide editorial solution, but the format of this transcription remains a daunting challenge

410 410

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.136 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:59:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions