ABSTRACT ANONYMOUS MASSES IN THE ALAMIRE MANUSCRIPTS: TOWARD A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF A REPERTOIRE, AN ATELIER, AND A RENAISSANCE COURT Zoe Saunders, Doctor of Philosophy, 2010 Dissertation directed by:Professor Barbara Haggh-Huglo School of Music, Musicology Division This study examines eight anonymous masses preserved in the Alamire complex of fifty-one luxurious manuscripts prepared by scribes working at or near the courts of Burgundy-Habsburg between about 1498 and 1535. Chapter 1 introduces the problem of early Renaissance anonymity and situates this study within research on the Alamire complex and anonymous repertories. Chapters 2 through 5 provide analyses of eight anonymous masses that survive in the Alamire manuscripts. Where relevant, the history of their models and other polyphonic settings of these complement the analyses. Two canons are resolved, symbolism is explored, and the problem of incomplete or absent settings of the Agnus Dei is considered. The analyses allow for an evaluation of quality and reveal these composers as skilled and inventive. In Chapter 6, codicological and paleographic examinations of the Alamire manuscripts demonstrate that anonymity was largely the result of scribal initiative. Investigation of the use of exemplars by the scribes, however, confirms that they often copied from multiple exemplars, some probably lacking ascriptions, which produced anonymity. Using paleographic and codicological evidence to complement my conclusions regarding the use of exemplars, I identify a change in the manner of production of the Alamire codices occurring around 1518-1520. This separates the manuscripts into two distinct groups: the first encompasses mainly luxurious presentation manuscripts commissioned from Alamire by members of the Burgundian-Habsburg dynasty, while the second consists of plainer codices, probably ordered from Alamire directly by private patrons. In Chapter 7, I conclude that the contents of the Alamire manuscripts must not be considered a single repertory, and that the manuscripts, which were demonstrably prepared under varied circumstances, are not a homogenous group with a single context. Given that the lack of ascriptions in these sources was shown not to be a contemporary value judgment in Chapter 6, the quality of the eight unascribed masses is discussed here at length, as is their musicological significance. Appendices provide tables that detail codicological elements and scribal practices, and present the eight masses in modern notation, edited here for the first time. ANONYMOUS MASSES IN THE ALAMIRE MANUSCRIPTS: TOWARD A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF A REPERTOIRE, AN ATELIER, AND A RENAISSANCE COURT by Zoe Saunders Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2010 Advisory Committee: Professor Barbara Haggh-Huglo, Chair Professor Meredith Gill Professor Olga Haldey Professor Herbert Kellman Professor Richard Wexler ? Copyright by Zoe Whitman Saunders 2010 ii To my loving family, my mom, Margie, Steve, Pia, Paul, Jesse, and Hannah Saunders, and Vytas Maciunas, and in loving memory of my grandparents, George Albert Schultz, Jr. (? 9/8/2005) and Mary Lou Kane Schultz (? 6/15/1994) iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First among those whom I would like to thank is Barbara Haggh-Huglo, in whose seminar at the University of Maryland at College Park I first became interested in musicology, in early music in particular, and whose patience, guidance, and support have been invaluable to me. My dissertation is based primarily on research conducted in Belgium and France. My eighteen-month trip to Brussels, Belgium in 2005-2006 was made possible by grants from the Fulbright Association and the Belgian-American Educational Foundation, both of which also provided me with logistical and administrative assistance. A second trip abroad, to Tours, France in 2007-2008, for nine months, was funded by a Bourse Chateaubriand. In the United States, the University of Maryland at College Park awarded me a Mary Savage Snouffer Dissertation Fellowship in 2008-2009, which allowed me to complete my project. I would like to thank the institutions and people without whom I could not have completed this project. Henri Vanhulst, at the Universit? libre de Bruxelles, was most helpful during my stay in Belgium and since. At the Biblioth?que royale de Belgique, Veronique Verspeurt, then Marie Cornaz of the music department, and Bernard Bousmanne of the manuscript department, provided me with an office in the library and granted me full access to their collections. I am grateful that I was allowed to consult manuscripts in the following libraries and archives: in Belgium, the Archief en Stadsbibliotheek in Mechelen and the Museum Plantin-Moretus Bibliotheek in Antwerp; in Germany, the Th?ringer Universit?ts- und Landesbibliothek in Jena and the Bayerische iv Staatsbibliothek in Munich; in Austria, the ?sterreichische Nationalbibliothek; in Spain, the Biblioteca del Monestir in Montserrat; in Italy, the Biblioteca Capitolare in Verona and the Biblioteca Statale of the Abbazia di Santa Scolastica in Subiaco; and at the Vatican, the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. The Archives g?n?rales du royaume, in Brussels, the Stadsarchief Antwerpen, and the Archives d?partementales du Nord, in Lille, allowed me to read and photograph documents held in their collections. I would also like to extend my most sincere thanks to Philippe Vendrix of the Centre d??tudes Sup?rieures de la Renaissance, in Tours, France, who provided me complete access to the collections of and workspace at the CESR, and whose generosity and expertise have been most valuable to me. Discussions with and advice from many scholars have greatly improved my study: Herbert Kellman welcomed me to the Renaissance Archives at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has engaged me in many lengthy, stimulating, and fruitful discussions, he has generously shared with me the fruits of his own extensive research on and knowledge of the Alamire manuscripts, and has read and criticized my work; Henri Vanhulst offered me workspace at the Universit? libre de Bruxelles, and allowed me to audit his course on early music transcription; Camilla Cavicchi, Agostino Magro, Alejandro Planchart, Katelijne Schiltz, Philippe Vendrix, Rob Wegman, Richard Wexler, and Giovanni Zanovello have also been especially helpful and supportive. Finally, I extend my sincere thanks to the members of my dissertation committee not mentioned above: Professors Meredith Gill and Olga Haldey. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT DEDICATION ???????????????????????????. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ??????????????????????. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ???????????????????????. v EDITORIAL PROCEDURES ?????????????????????.. ix LIST OF EXAMPLES ????????..???????????????.. xii LIST OF TABLES ????????????????????????.?.. xvi LIST OF FIGURES ?????????????????????????.. xviii ABBREVIATIONS ?????????????????..??????.?? xix CHAPTER 1: The Alamire Manuscripts and Anonymity in the Renaissance ???. 1 The Alamire Manuscript Complex and its Anonymous Musical Repertory ?.. 1 Conspectus of Past Research ???.??????????????.?? 3 Prospectus for this Study???????..?????????????... 19 CHAPTER 2: The Anonymous Missa Alles regretz in VerBC 756 ???????. 24 Introduction ??????????????????????????.. 24 Missa Alles regretz ??????????????..?????????.. 25 Large-Scale Structure of the Missa Alles regretz: The Lack of an Agnus Dei ?? ????????????????????.. 25 Large-Scale Structure of the Missa Alles regretz: The Extant Movements . 28 The Missa Alles regretz and its Model ??????????????. 31 Types of Quotation in the Missa Alles regretz ???????????. 33 Plan of Quotation in the Missa Alles regretz ???????????? 35 Citations of Motivic Material in the Missa Alles regretz ???????. 55 The Alles regretz Tradition ??????????????????... 58 The Anonymous Missa Alles regretz in VerBC 756 ????????? 63 Conclusions ??????????????????????????. 64 vi CHAPTER 3: Two Anonymous Masses in Late Alamire Manuscripts, JenaU 21 and VienNB 4810, 1521-1525? ????????????????65 Introduction ??????????????????????????.. 65 Missa Sine nomine ????????????????????????65 The Anonymous Missa sine nomine in JenaU 21: Style and Ascription ??..... 65 Large-Scale Structure in the Missa sine nomine ??..????????.. 70 Text-Setting and Texture in the Missa sine nomine ?????????... 71 The Missa sine nomine: Historical Context and Composer ?????.?.. 80 Conclusions ????????????????????????.... 92 Missa supra Salve regina ?????????????????????. 93 The Missa Salve regina in VienNB 4810 ?????????????.. 93 Polyphonic Settings of the Salve regina ?????????????... 95 Large-Scale Structure, Mode, and Texture in the Missa Salve regina ?? 103 Borrowing in the Missa Salve regina ?????????????..?. 111 Polyphonic Borrowing in the Missa Salve regina ?????????... 125 Scoring and Texture in the Missa Salve regina ??????????... 129 Cadences in the Missa Salve regina ???????????????. 138 Conclusions ????????????????????????.. 144 CHAPTER 4: Two Anonymous Masses in MunBS 6, a Manuscript for Wilhelm IV of Bavaria ???????????????..??.. 146 Introduction ????????????????????????..?.. 146 Missa Du bon du cueur ?????????????????????.. 149 Missa Du bon du cueur: Model and Composer ?????????.?.. 149 Large-Scale Structure in the Missa Du bon du cueur ????????.. 152 Large-Scale Structure in the Missa Du bon du cueur: The Single Agnus Dei ??????????????????.... 154 Mensuration and Texture in the Missa Du bon du cueur ???????. 156 Mode in the Missa Du bon du cueur ??????????????? 157 The Missa Du bon du cueur and its Models: Borrowing and Texture ??. 158 The Agnus Dei of the Missa Du bon du cueur: Symbolism and Hisorical Context ?????????????..... 180 Conclusions ????????????????????????.. 183 Missa octo vocum supra Miserere michi Domine ???????????.. 185 Missa Miserere mihi Domine: its Manuscript and Model ?????.?.. 185 Other Settings of Miserere mihi Domine ?????????????. 188 Scoring and Voice Labelling in the Missa Miserere mihi Domine ???.. 189 Structure, Mode, and Borrowing in the Missa Miserere mihi Domine ???.. 194 Conclusions ????????????????????????.. 215 Conclusions ?????????????????????????.... 216 vii CHAPTER 5: The Anonymous Masses in MontsM 766, a Manuscript for Charles V 218 MontsM 766: Codicology, Contents, Dating ????????????? 218 Missa de Assumptione beata Marie ????????????????.. 225 The Missa de Assumptione beata Marie and its Model ???????.. 225 Structure, Mode, and Borrowing in the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie ??????????????????????? 231 Polytextuality in the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie ??????? 234 Cantus Firmus Treatment and Counterpoint in the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie ?????????????????.?????.. 237 The Single Statement of the Agnus Dei in the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie ??????????????????????... 244 Conclusions ????????????????????????. 244 Missa Cuier langoureulx ????????????????????? 245 The Missa Cueur langoureulx and its Model by Josquin ????...?? 245 Structure, Mode, and Borrowing in the Missa Cueur langoureulx ???. 250 Borrowing and Paraphrase in the Missa Cueur langoureulx?????.... 252 Codicological Evidence Pertaining to the Missa Cueur langoureulx ??. 262 Conclusions ????????????????????????. 266 Missa Memor esto ?????????????????????..?.... 268 The Missa Memor esto and its Model by Josquin ?????????... 268 The Missa Memor esto and other Compositions on Psalm 118 ????... 271 Large-Scale Structure and Mode in the Missa Memor esto ?????? 273 Borrowing, Texture, Text Setting, and Counterpoint in the Missa Memor esto ??????????????????.?? 278 Like Characteristics in the Missa Memor esto and the Missa Cueur langoureulx?????????????????.. 282 Imitators of Josquin ??????????????????????? 286 Conclusions ?????????????????????????? 286 CHAPTER 6: A New Interpretation of the Alamire Workshop: The Role of the Scribes as Creators of Anonymity ??????????????. 288 The Early and Late Periods of Alamire Manuscript Production ?????? 290 The Making of the Manuscripts ????????????????... 290 The Exemplars used by the Alamire Scribes ???????????.. 299 Continuity in Manuscript Production ??????????????. 309 Institutional and Biographical Evidence for the Early and Late Periods ?. 310 Scribal Initiative and Anonymity ?????..????????????. 313 Editorial Initiative ?????????????????????? 315 Inscriptions and Canons ???????????????????.. 321 Notational Choices ?????????????????????.. 323 Text Underlay ???????????????????????. 326 Ascription Practices ????????????????????? 329 Composer Names: Orthography and Presentation ?????????.. 340 Misascriptions and Corrections ????????????????? 345 viii Mass Titles ??????????????????..??????. 349 Conclusions ?????????????????????????? 353 CHAPTER 7: Conclusions ????????????????????..?? 356 A New Understanding of the Alamire Workshop ??????????..? 356 Quality and Musicological Value ??????????..??????? 357 Anonymity and Quality????????????????????...? 357 Borrowing and Quality ???????????????????? 358 Text Setting and Quality ???????????????????.. 365 Quality in Texture and Counterpoint ????????????...?? 369 Musicological Value ????????????????????? 373 Implications for Future Research ????????????...????? 376 1. Further Work on the Alamire Complex: Scribes, Repertories, Patrons, and Recipients ???...?????????...?????.. 376 2. The Study of Anonymity in Other Manuscripts ????????.?. 377 3. Critical Editions ????????????...????????? 378 4. The Performance of Anonymous Works ????????????. 378 5. A New Method for Naming and Identifying Anonymous Works ??... 379 6. The Inclusion of Anonymous Works in Music Encyclopedias, Textbooks, and in the Historiography of Music ??????????.. 379 Conclusions ????????????...?????????????. 380 APPENDICES ??????????????????????????...? 382 Appendix I: Models of the Masses in Modern Publications ???????. 383 Appendix II: Transcriptions of Masses Discussed in Chapters 2 ? 5 ???... 385 II.1Incipits of the Masses Transcribed in Appendix II ????? 386 II.2Missa Alles regretz ????????????...????.. 396 II.3Missa sine nomine ????????????...????... 423 II.4Missa Salve regina ????????????...????.. 446 II.5Missa Du bon du cueur ????????????...??... 473 II.6Missa Miserere mihi Domine ????????????.? 514 II.7Missa de Assumptione beata Marie ??????????.. 542 II.8Missa Cueur langoureulx ????????????...?? 585 II.9Missa Memor esto ????????????...????... 619 Appendix III: Tables to Chapter 6 ????????????...????. 652 III.1 Alamire Manuscripts Grouped by Paleographic and Codicological Elements ????????????...?? 653 III.2 Early Alamire Manuscripts: Dates and Scribes ????...? 656 III.3 Late Alamire Manuscripts: Dates and Scribes ??????. 658 III.4-34 Titles and Ascriptions in Selected Alamire Manuscripts ?.... 659 III.35 Indications of Composer Deaths in the Alamire Manuscripts . 673 BIBLIOGRAPHY ????????????????????????.?? 674 ix EDITORIAL PROCEDURES The musical examples presented in Chapters 2 through 6 of this dissertation are modern transcriptions of the original sources. The incipits of each mass section are given in original notation in a separate table preceding the transcriptions. The transcriptions use treble, octave treble, and bass clefs. Time signatures are given as 2/2 (Cut C or C in the original) or 3/2 (O or ? in the original). The rate of reduction of note values is 2:1, where the breve equals one whole note, or measure. Barlines correspond to the tactus, and are placed on the staves. Pitches and rhythms have been transcribed exactly as they appear in the manuscript, except in instances where errors occur in the original source. Errors have been corrected and marked with an asterisk (*), with a footnote describing the correction. Proportions and mensural anomalies are treated as follows: 1) Where C appears simultaneously with Cut C normally indicates augmentation by two, thus note values have been doubled for the appropriate voices and passages in the transcriptions. 2) Exceptions are instances in which C and Cut C have been used interchangeably. In these instances, all passages have been transcribed in 2/2 with no change in note values or tempo. 3) Passages in proportio sesquialtera are indicated in the manuscripts by 3, Cut C3, or O/3. All of these signs carry the same meaning, that three semibreves occur in the place of two semibreves during the marked passage, resulting in a perceived increase in tempo. These passages have been transcribed either as triplets or with a change in mensuration to 3/2 with semibreve equivalence, according to context. x Where present in the manuscript, key signatures have been transferred to the transcription. Accidentals that are in the manuscript appear to the left of the note to which they refer in the modern transcription. Where no accidentals occur in the original source, but are called for by the musical context, musica ficta has been added directly above the note in the modern transcription. Ligatures are indicated by closed square brackets above the appropriate notes. Minor color is indicated by open square brackets above the appropriate notes. Text is underlaid according to the underlay in the original source, where possible. When the original underlay was inadequate or unclear, editorial texting follows the rules of underlay outlined by Lanfranco, Zarlino, and Stoquerus. 1 Three of the eight masses present cantus firmus text among the Mass Ordinary text. Other problems affecting texting include the canonic or imitative passages and frequent changes of texture. Here, I have texted each situation individually, keeping in mind ease of performance. A full critical edition of the masses is planned. Nevertheless, in all cases, the utmost care has been taken to remain sensitive to the music, thus text phrases are aligned to musical phrases, new syllables of text are most often placed on the tactus or on longer notes, single syllables correspond to ligatures, and the same text is assigned to all voices at the same time, when possible. The same text has generally been underlaid to canonic statements of the same melody, although in some instances canonic voices must sing different words in order to complete the text. Likewise, in order to preserve musical 1 Giovanni Maria Lanfranco, Scintillo di musica (Brescia, 1533), transl. Barbara Lee, ?Giovanni Maria Lanfranco's ?Scintille di Musica? and its Relation to 16th-Century Music Theory? (PhD diss., Cornell University, 1961), 151-53; Gioseffo Zarlino, Le istitutioni harmoniche (Venice, 1558), trans. Oliver Strunk, Source Readings in Music History, The Renaissance (New York: Norton, 1965), 69-71; and Edward E. Lowinsky, ?A Treatise on Text Underlay by a German Disciple of Francisco de Salinas,? in Festschrift Henrich Besseler, ed. Eberhardt Klemm (Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag f?r Musik, 1961), 231-51. xi sense, it has not always been practical to maintain identical texting of imitative passages, although imitative passages have been texted identically where possible. Repetitions of text not in the manuscript are indicated in italics and are separated by commas, and additions to the text are in square brackets, except in instances where repetitions are standard, such as the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. The spelling of text represents the spelling in the manuscript, but capitalization and punctuation are standardized according to the Liber usualis. 2 2 Liber usualis (Tournai: Society of Saint John the Evangelist, 1954). xvi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Alles regretz ???.... 29 Table 2.2: Distribution and Description of Borrowed Material in the Missa Alles regretz ???.????????????????? 36-37 Table 2.3: Distribution of Borrowed Material in the Missa Alles regretz ???.?... 38 Table 2.4: Compositions Related to Hayne?s Alles regretz ???..??...??? 61-62 Table 3.1: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa sine nomine ??..?... 71 Table 3.2: Contents of JenaU 21????????????..???????..?. 85 Table 3.3: Codicological and Paleographic Properties of Five Related Alamire Manuscripts ?????.???????????..?????...??. 87 Table 3.4: Scribal Attributions for Five Related Alamire Manuscripts ??????. 87 Table 3.5: Contents of VienNB 4809??.???????????????...?. 88 Table 3.6: Contents of VienNB 4810????...??????????????.. 88 Table 3.7: Contents of VienNB 11778 ??????...???????????... 89 Table 3.8: Contents of SubA 248 ??????????..??????????. 89 Table 3.9: Sixteenth-century Masses on Salve regina ????????????. 101 Table 3.10: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Salve regina ??? 105 Table 3.11: Distribution of Borrowed Material in the Missa Salve regina ?...??... 115 Table 3.12: Cadential Formulas in Kyrie, Missa Salve regina, Kyrie ???..?. 142-43 Table 4.1: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Du bon du cueur ?... 153 Table 4.2: Codicological and Paleographic Characteristics of MontsM 766 and MunBS F ?.???.???????????.???????.. 154 Table 4.3: Form of Jean Mouton, Du bon du cueur ??.??...????...???.. 158 Table 4.4: Distribution of Borrowed Material in the Missa Du bon du cueur ..??... 161 xvii Table 4.5: Known Sources of Miserere mihi Domine ??????...??..??? 186 Table 4.6: Scoring of the Missa Miserere mihi Domine in MunBS 6 ?.....?? 189-190 Table 4.7: Divisi in the Missa Miserere mihi Domine in MunBS 6 ??????? 193 Table 4.8: Distribution of Borrowed Material in the Missa Miserere mihi Domine ... 196 Table 4.9: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Miserere mihi Domine ???????????????????????????. 196 Table 5.1: Contents of MontsM 766?????????????.??...???. 219 Table 5.2: Distribution of Compositions on Assumpta est Maria ??...??..?. 226-27 Table 5.3: Cantus firmus Distribution, Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa de Assumptione beate Maria ??..?????.???. 232-33 Table 5.4: Form of Poetic Text of Cueur langoureulx ???????????? 248 Table 5.5: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Cueur langoreulx ?.. 251 Table 5.6: Distribution of the Cantus firmus in the Missa Cueur langoureulx ...?? 253 Table 5.7: Distribution of Borrowed Material in the Missa Cueur langoureulx, Kyrie 255 Table 5.8: Sources of Josquin des Prez, Memor esto verbi tui ?????...?..?... 269 Table 5.9: Compositions on Memor esto verbi tui ??????????...??? 272 Table 5.10: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Memor esto ???. 274 Table 6.1: Alamire Manuscripts Grouped by Paleographic and Codicological Elements ?.???????????????????????? 653 Table 6.2: Early Alamire Manuscripts: Dates and Scribes ??????????.. 656 Table 6.3: Late Alamire Manuscripts: Dates and Scribes ?????...???..?... 658 Tables 6.4-6.34: Titles and Ascriptions in Selected Alamire Manuscripts ????.. 659 Table 6.35: Indications of Composer Deaths in the Alamire Manuscripts ????.. 673 Table 7.1: Anonymous Masses by Subject ?????????...???..???. 359 Table 7.2: Anonymous Masses by Compositional Technique ???????..?? 360 xviii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: JenaU 21, f. 101v ?????????????????.????? 67 Figure 3.2: JenaU 21, ff. 108v-109r ?????????????????..??. 76 Figure 3.3: VienNB 4810, f. 102v ????????????.???..???? 105 Figure 3.4: VienNB 4810, f. 121v ????.???????????????... 105 Figure 3.5: Voice Pairs and Structure of Josquin, Salve regina, mm. 130-136, and Anonymous, Missa Salve regina, Gloria, mm. 82-88 ??..????? 124 Figure 4.1.1: MunBS 6, f. 67v ?..??????????..???????..?... 148 Figure 4.1.2: MunBS 6, f. 78v ?????.?????????????...??. 148 Figure 4.2: ?s-HerAB 72A, f. 151v ???????????????????... 150 Figure 4.3.1: MunBS 6, ff. 81r ???????????????????.?? 178 Figure 4.3.2: MunBS 6, ff. 82r ?????????????????????. 178 Figure 5.1: MontsM 766, ff. 153v-154r ?????..????????????. 261 Figure 5.2: MontsM 766, ff. 152v-153r ??.?????..???????.??... 263 Figure 5.3: MontsM 766, ff. 150v-151r ???????..??????????. 265 Figure 5.4: MontsM 766, f. 170v ????.???????????????.... 277 Figure 5.5: MontsM 766, f. 171v ??????????..?????????... 277 Figure 6.1: VienNB 4810, f. 85r ????????????????????.. 332 Figure 6.2: The Symbol ?la? as Part of an Ascription to Pierre de la Rue ??...?... 341 Figure 6.3: The Symbol ?la-re? as Part of an Ascription to Mattheus Pipelare ?...... 342 Figure 6.4: BrusBR 215-216, f. 20v ??????????????????? 348 xii LIST OF EXAMPLES Example 2.1: Missa Alles regretz, Kyrie ?????????????????. 397 Example 2.2: Missa Alles regretz, Gloria ????????????????? 402 Example 2.3: Missa Alles regretz, Credo ?????????????????. 408 Example 2.4: Missa Alles regretz, Sanctus ???.?????????????. 417 Example 3.1.1: Missa sine nomine, Kyrie, mm. 1-8 ????????..?..???. 68 Example 3.1.2: Missa sine nomine, Gloria, mm. 1-6 ?????.????????. 68 Example 3.1.3: Missa sine nomine, Credo, mm. 1-9 ????.??????...??. 69 Example 3.1.4: Missa sine nomine, Sanctus, mm. 1-14 ??.????????..?. 69 Example 3.1.5: Missa sine nomine, Agnus Dei, mm. 1-8 ?..??.???????... 69 Example 3.2: Missa sine nomine, Kyrie ?????????????????.. 424 Example 3.3: Missa sine nomine, Gloria ?????????????????. 427 Example 3.4: Missa sine nomine, Credo ?????????????????.. 430 Example 3.5: Missa sine nomine, Sanctus ??????...?????????? 435 Example 3.6: Missa sine nomine, Agnus Dei ??????????...????... 440 Example 3.7: Clefs, Ranges, and Finals of the Missa Salve regina ???.?..??.. 108 Example 3.8: Missa Salve regina, Kyrie, mm. 1-24 ?????...???????.. 110 Example 3.9.1: Salve regina, Antiphonale Monasticum ??????...????... 112 Example 3.9.2: Salve regina, Milsom Reconstruction ???.???...?..??.?. 112 Example 3.10: Missa Salve regina, Kyrie ????????????....???... 447 Example 3.11.1: Missa Salve regina, Gloria, mm. 81-88 ?????.????..?. 119 Example 3.11.2: Josquin des Prez, Salve regina, mm. 130-136 ??..?????? 119 Example 3.12: Missa Salve regina, Gloria, mm. 1-24 ??????...?????.. 120 xiii Example 3.13: Missa Salve regina, Gloria ?????..??????...????. 450 Example 3.14: Missa Salve regina, Gloria, mm. 41-56 ??????...????? 122 Example 3.15: Missa Salve regina, Credo ??????..??????...???.. 457 Example 3.16.1: Missa Salve regina, Agnus Dei, mm. 55-58??????...??? 128 Example 3.16.2: Josquin des Prez, Memor esto, verbi tui, mm. 40-44??????.. 128 Example 3.17: Missa Salve regina, Credo, mm. 1-30 ??????...??...??? 133 Example 3.18: Missa Salve regina, Credo, mm. 65-96??????...??...??... 134 Example 3.19: Missa Salve regina, Sanctus, mm. 1-32 ??????.?????. 135 Example 3.20: Missa Salve regina, Sanctus ??????.?????????... 464 Example 3.21: Missa Salve regina, Agnus Dei ??????.??????...?... 469 Example 3.22: Missa Salve regina, Agnus Dei, mm. 1-45 ??????...??.?.. 137 Example 4.1: Missa Du bon du cueur, Gloria, contratenor, mm. 66-95 ???.??. 150 Example 4.2: Missa Du bon du cueur, Kyrie ???????.????...???... 474 Example 4.3: Missa Du bon du cueur, Gloria ?????????...?...???... 479 Example 4.4: Missa Du bon du cueur, Credo ???????????...???.. 490 Example 4.5: Missa Du bon du cueur, Sanctus ???????????...??? 505 Example 4.6: Missa Du bon du cueur, Agnus Dei ???????????.??. 512 Example 4.7.1: Miserere mihi Domine, Liber usualis ????????????. 187 Example 4.7.2: Miserere michi Domine, MunBS 6 ?????...???...???... 187 Example 4.8: Missa Miserere mihi Domine, Kyrie ????????...????.. 515 Example 4.9!: Missa Miserere mihi Domine, Gloria ????..???...????... 518 Example 4.10: Missa Miserere mihi Domine, Credo ????????...???? 522 Example 4.11: Missa Miserere mihi Domine, Sanctus ????????..???.. 534 xiv Example 4.12: Missa Miserere mihi Domine, Agnus Dei ???????.???.. 540 Example 5.1: Assumpta est Maria, Liber usualis ?????????????? 232 Example 5.2: Missa de Assumptione beate Marie, Kyrie ????..??????.. 545 Example 5.3.1: Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, Melody a ????????? 238 Example 5.3.2: Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, Melody b ????????... 238 Example 5.3.3: Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, Melody c ????????? 238 Example 5.4: Missa de Assumptione beate Marie, Gloria ???.?.???..??... 551 Example 5.5: Missa de Assumptione beate Marie, Credo ????????.??... 559 Example 5.6: Missa de Assumptione beate Marie, Sanctus ??????????.. 571 Example 5.7: Missa de Assumptione beate Marie, Agnus Dei ?????????. 582 Example 5.8: Missa Cueur langoureulx, Kyrie ??????????????? 588 Example 5.9: Missa Cueur langoureulx, Credo, mm. 129-163 ????????? 254 Example 5.10: Missa Cueur langoureulx, Gloria ??????????????. 593 Example 5.11: Missa Cueur langoureulx, Credo ??????????????. 599 Example 5.12: Distribution of the Mass Ordinary Text in Missa Cueur langoureulx, Et in terra pax ????????????????.. 256 Example 5.13: Distribution of Ordinary Text in Missa Cueur langoureulx, Et in Spiritum Sanctum ??????????????????. 257 Example 5.14: Distribution of the Ordinary text in the Missa Cueur langoureulx, Et in terra pax and Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Aligned with Melodic Phrases and the Accompanying Chanson Text ???????? 258-59 Example 5.15: Missa Cueur langoureulx, Sanctus ?????????????... 611 Example 5.16: Missa Cueur langoureulx, Agnus Dei ????????????.. 617 Example 5.17: Missa Memor esto, Kyrie ?????????????????. 620 Example 5.18: Missa Memor esto, Gloria ????????????????? 625 xv Example 5.19: Missa Memor esto, Credo ????????????????? 632 Example 5.20: Missa Memor esto, Sanctus ????????????????.. 642 Example 5.21: Missa Memor esto, Agnus Dei ???????????????. 650 Example 5.22: Missa Cueur langoureulx, Kyrie, mm. 1-14 ?????????? 283 Example 5.23: Missa Memor esto, Gloria, mm. 22-35 ????????????. 284 xix ABBREVIATIONS Manuscript abbreviations, throughout this dissertation, are those in Census- Catalogue of Manuscript Sources of Polyphonic Music, 1400-1550, 5 vols., vol. 1 ed. Charles Hamm and Herbert Kellman, vols. 2-5 ed Herbert Kellman, Renaissance Manuscript Studies 1 (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology/H?nssler- Verlag, 1979-88). Manuscripts that are not included in the Census Catalogue are abbreviated as in The New Grove, vol. 1, li-lxvii. Prints are identified by RISM numbers, as in R?pertoire international des sources musicales, Recueils imprimes, xvi e -xvii e siecles, vol. 1: Liste chronologique, ed. Fran?ois Lesure (Munich: G. Henle Verlag, 1960), or by title if no RISM number exists. CHAPTER 1 The Alamire Manuscripts and Anonymity in the Renaissance THE ALAMIRE MANUSCRIPT COMPLEX AND ITS ANONYMOUS MUSICAL REPERTORY 1 The Alamire complex consists of fifty-one manuscripts and eleven fragments prepared between about 1495 and 1535 in what we now think were the scribal workshops of a certain Scribe B (as he is commonly called), and of Petrus Alamire, who seems to have succeeded Scribe B. 2 Beautifully copied and exquisitely decorated, many of these manuscripts were prepared for the Burgundian-Habsburg courts of Philip the Fair, Margaret of Austria, Charles V, and, briefly, Mary of Hungary, or or disseminated by these to the most prominent European leaders in the early sixteenth century, including Pope Leo X, Frederick the Wise of Saxony, Duke Wilhelm IV of Bavaria, and Henry VIII of England, as well as to Burgundian-Habsburg noblemen. The repertory of the manuscripts, with a strong emphasis on sacred or devotional music, includes over six hundred polyphonic masses, motets, and secular songs, by three generations of leading Renaissance composers, most of whom were employed at the Burgundian-Habsburg or French courts. By far the most heavily represented of these is Pierre de la Rue, Margaret of Austria?s court composer. 1 The best bibliography on the Alamire complex is that given in Herbert Kellman, ed., The Treasury of Petrus Alamire: Music and Art in Flemish Court Manuscripts, 1500-1535 (Ghent, Amsterdam: Ludion, 1999). Many additional references, particularly to studies in contextual areas, can be found in Bruno Bouckaert and Eugeen Schreurs, eds., The Burgundian-Habsburg Court Complex of Music Manuscripts (1500-1535) and the Workshop of Petrus Alamire: Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Leuven, 25-28 November 1999, Yearbook of the Alamire Foundation, 5 (Leuven: Alamire Music Publishers, 2003).The best bibliography of the literature on the Alamire manuscripts is that in Kellman, ed., Treasury, 175-79. 2 The most important studies in the extensive literature on the complex are cited in the footnotes of this chapter. 2 Of these approximately 600 compositions, 206 are masses or mass sections, and of those, ninety-five are not ascribed to a composer and are thus anonymous within this complex. They are, broadly, the repertory with which this dissertation will be concerned. Of those ninety-five masses, however, seventy-three are ascribed to composers in other sources of the period, or have been attributed by modern scholars; 3 such masses will not be considered anonymous here. 4 This dissertation will be more narrowly concerned with the remaining twenty-two masses, all transmitted without ascription and also not attributed in modern scholarship, and whose composers are thus entirely unknown. Its sharpest focus will be on a representative sample of eight of these, which have never been described, edited, or analyzed. 5 They are the Missa Alles regretz in VerBC 756, the Missa sine nomine, in JenaU 21, the Missa supra Salve regina, in VienNB 4810, the Missa Du bon du cueur and Missa Miserere mihi Domine, both in MunBS 6, the Missa de Assumptione beate Marie, the Missa Cueur langoureulx, and the Missa Memor esto, all in MontsM 766. Detailed analyses of large-scale structure, modality, borrowed material, counterpoint, and text setting will be provided for these eight anonymous masses, all unica. Where possible, histories of their models and of other polyphonic settings of them complement the analyses. These anonymous masses were copied along with music ascribed to the most prominent composers of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Given that the anonymous compositions were important enough to contemporary musicians, scribes, 3 Most of these attributions were obtained from concordant sources and justified by style analysis. 4 In this dissertation, the term "attribution" refers to the secondary naming of an author, whether by an individual living in the past or by a modern scholar, while the term ?ascription? refers to the original writing of a composer?s name, correct or incorrect, by the scribe of the manuscript in question. 5 With the exception of the Missa Du bon du cueur in MunBS 6, the subject of an article by Bernadette Nelson: ?The Missa Du bon du cuer. An Unknown Mass by Noel Bauldeweyn?,? Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 51 (2001): 103-30. Cf. Chapter 4, pp. 149- 85. 3 and patrons to be written down in luxury manuscripts, one would expect them to be of interest to historians of Renaissance polyphony, yet mention of them is conspicuously absent in the abundant literature on the Alamire complex. CONSPECTUS OF PAST RESEARCH 6 A number of manuscripts in the Alamire complex and the music they transmit were first noticed and discussed by scholars in the early nineteenth century. 7 In the last four decades of the century, information concerning Alamire himself began to appear in catalogues and studies of archival documents. Two of the most important were J.S. Brewer's publication of documents from English state archives including letters from Alamire to King Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey, and the encyclopedic work of Edmond Van der Straeten, who published transcriptions and analyses of documents that identify Alamire as a music scribe, and mention other musicians whose compositions were copied into his manuscripts. 8 This period also saw the first article devoted to an entire manuscript in the complex, FlorC 2439, later identified as copied by Scribe B. 9 6 I am truly grateful to Herbert Kellman for his extensive commentary on an earlier version of this section. 7 For references to the literature of the early decades of the century, concerned primarily with manuscripts belonging to Margaret of Austria, see Martin Picker, The Chanson Albums of Marguerite of Austria, A Critical Edition and Commentary (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965). 8 John Sherren Brewer, ed., Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, vol. 2, pts. 1 and 2 (London: Public Record Office, 1864); Edmond vander Straeten, La musique aux Pays-Bas avant le XIXe si?cle: documents in?dits et annot?s, compositeurs, virtuoses, th?oriciens, luthiers, op?ras, motets, airs nationaux, acad?mies, ma?trises, livres, portraits, etc., avec planches de musiques et table alphab?tique, 8 vols. (Brussels: Van Trigt [...], 1867-88). See also Alexandre Pinchart, ed. Archives des arts, sciences et lettres: documents in?dits (Ghent: Hebbelynck, 1860-81); Henri Michelant, Inventaire des vaisselles, joyaux, tapisseries, peintures, manuscrits, etc., de Margu?rite d'Autriche, r?gente et gouvernante des Pays-Bas, dress? en son palais de Malines, le 9 juillet 1523 (Brussels: Hayez, 1871); Chr?tien Dehaisnes, Inventaire sommaire des archives d?partementales anterieures ? 1790. Nord. Archives civiles, S?rie B. Chambre des comptes de Lille. Nos. 1842-2338, vol. 4 (Lille: L. Danel, 1881); Jules Finot, Inventaire sommaire des archives d?partementales anterieures ? 1790. Nord. Archives civiles, S?rie B. Chambre des comptes de Lille, vols. 5 and 7 (Lille: L. Danel, 1885 and 1892). 9 L?on De Burbure, ??tude sur un manuscript du XVI e si?cle, contenant des chants ? quatre et ? trois voix,? M?moires couronn?s et autres m?moires publi?s par L?Acad?mie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres, et des 4 In the 1920's and 30's two key archival studies by Georges van Doorslaer provided more precise information on Alamire and other musicians active at the court of Philip the Fair, 10 and Charles van den Borren?s still valuable catalogue of manuscripts preserved in Belgian libraries and containing polyphonic music offers comprehensive descriptions the Alamire manuscripts now in Brussels. 1 The most significant publication of these years was Karl Roediger?s 1935 study of the eleven Alamire manuscripts sent to Frederick the Wise and eventually housed in the university library in Jena. 12 Roediger described this large group in scrupulous detail, discussing each manuscript's contents, structure, illumination, dating, and historical context, identifying Alamire as the scribe of ten of the manuscripts, and constructing a narrative of his occupations and travels. Furthermore, Roediger was the first to hypothesize a larger manuscript complex, originating in the Burgundian-Habsburg courts and copied mainly by Alamire, of which the Jena group was a major component. Spurred perhaps by Roediger's work, further studies of sets of manuscripts sent to particular recipients appeared in the years following World War II. In a series of articles, Albert Smijers dealt with Alamire's employment by the Confraternity of Our Lady in 's- Hertogenbosch, and described the manuscripts he copied for the confraternity; 13 Leopold Nowak identified and discussed the nine Alamire manuscripts produced for or acquired Beaux-Arts de Belgique 33 (1882): 1-44. D Burbure describes the manuscript?s physical structure and briefly discusses each of its 87 compositions. 10 Georges van Doorslaer, ?Calligraphes de musique, ? Malines, au XVI e si?cle,? Bulletin du Cercle Arch?ologique, Litt?raire et Artistique de Malines 33 (1928): 91-101, and ?La chapelle musicale de Philippe le Beau,? Revue belge d?arch?ologie et d?histoire de l?art 4 (1934): 21-57, 139-65. 1 Charles van den Borren, ?Inventaire des manuscripts de musique polyphonique qui se trouvent en Belgique,? Acta musicologica 5 (1933): 66-71, 120-27; 6 (1934): 116-21. 12 Karl Erich Roediger, Die geistlichen Musikhandschriften der Universit?tsbibliothek Jena (Jena: Fromann, 1935). 13 Albert Smijers, ?De illustre Lieve Vrouwe Broederschap te ?s-Hertogenbosch,? Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 11 (1925): 187-210; 12 (1926-28): 40-62, 115-67; 13 (1929-31): 46-100, 187-237; 14 (1932-35): 48-105; 16 (1940-46): 63-106, 216; 17 (1948-55): 195-230. 5 by the Fugger family of Augsburg, and later transferred to the Austrian State Library in Vienna; 14 Walter Rubsamen drew attention to important Alamire manuscripts that had come to the Vatican; 15 and David Pujol listed and commented on the manuscripts from the Low Countries in the monastery of Montserrat, including several copied by Alamire and probably intended for Charles V, work that was amplified a few years later by Ren? Lenaerts. 16 Glenda Goss Thompson?s more recent studies of those manuscripts and her archival work have shed new light on the final years of Alamire?s production. 17 In 1958, in a study focusing primarily on the Chigi Codex (VatC 234), Herbert Kellman for the first time identified the Alamire complex as such, naming forty-seven manuscripts copied by the latter and scribe B, or scribes trained in their style of calligraphy. In later work Kellman withdrew five of these sources, but named nine additional manuscripts and eleven fragments that he and other scholars had recognized as constituents of the complex. 18 Since the appearance of this article, the broad goal of scholarship on the Alamire manuscripts has been to increase understanding of their repertory, their intended function, 14 Leopold Nowak, ?Die Musikhandschriften aus Fuggerschem Besitz in der ?sterreichische Nationalbibliothek,? in Festschrift herausgegeben zum 25 J?hrigen Dienstjubil?um des Generaldirektors Univ.-Prof. Dr. Josef Bick (Vienna: H. Bauer, 1948). 15 Walter Rubsamen, Music Research in Italian Libraries: An Anecdotal Account of Obstacles and Discoveries (Los Angeles: Music Library Association, 1951). 16 David Pujol, ?Manuscritos de m?sica Neerlandesa conservados en la Biblioteca del Monasterio de Montserrat,? in Atti del Congresso internazionale di musica sacra organizzato dal Pontificio Istituto di musica sacra e dalla Commissione di musica sacra per l'Anno Santo, ed. Higini Angl?s. (Tournai: Descl?e, 1952), 319-26; and Ren? Lenaerts, ?Niederl?ndische Polyphone Musik in der Bibliothek von Montserrat,? in Festschrift Joseph Schmidt-G?rg zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Dagmar Weise (Bonn: Beethovenhaus, 1957), 196-201. 17 Glenda Goss Thompson, ?Music in the Court Records of Mary of Hungary,? Tijdschrift van der Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiendenis 34 (1984): 132-73; and ?Spanish-Netherlandish Musical Relationships in the 16 th Century: Mary of Hungary?s Music Manuscripts at Montserrat,? in Musique des Pays-Bas ancienne, musique espagnole ancienne: actes du Colloque musicologique international ? Bruxelles, 28-29 October 1985, ed. Paul Becquart and Henri Vanhulst (Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 69-113. 18 Herbert Kellman, ?The Origins of the Chigi Codex,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 11 (1958): 6-19. 6 and the circumstances surrounding their conception and redaction. Among such discussions, Kellman?s work is especially noteworthy. In a series of well-known articles and papers, he evaluated the complex of manuscripts and defined, to a great degree, the musical and historical significance both of individual manuscripts and of the complex. In these studies, Kellman noted paleographic, codicological, pictorial, and repertorial aspects of the manuscripts, which define them as a group that emanated from what he interprets as the Burgundian-Habsburg court scriptorium. Using the same range of evidence, as well as observations supporting the existence of relationships between manuscripts, and considering historical evidence, Kellman proposed dates for all the manuscripts, some of them quite precise, and historical contexts for most of them, and assigned each manuscript to one of three chronological groups (c. 1495-1508, c. 1508- 1520, and c. 1521-1534). He also described the important role the manuscripts, and indeed their repertory, played in sixteenth-century European international relations and in the dissemination of this polyphonic repertoire. 19 The wave of publications in the next fifteen years consisted primarily of further studies of single manuscripts. These demonstrated various methods for determining the function of a source and of its repertory, taking into account codicological, repertorial, 19 The most important of these are: ?The Origins of the Chigi Codex,? 6-19; ?Illuminated Choirbooks and the Manuscript Tradition in Flanders in the Early 16th Century,? Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Columbus, 1962; ?The Role of the Empire in the Radiation of the Northern Repertoire, 1500-1530,? Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Ann Arbor, 1965; ?Musical Links between France and the Empire, 1500-1530,? Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Toronto, 1970; and ?Josquin and the Courts of the Netherlands and France: The Evidence of the Sources? in Edward E. Lowinsky and Bonnie Blackburn (eds.), Josquin des Prez: Proceedings of the International Josquin Festival-Conference (London: Oxford University Press, 1977), 181-216. Kellman's research is also the basis of the entries for the Alamire manuscripts in the Census-Catalogue, his articles "Alamire" in the two New Grove editions (1980 and 2001), and his discussions of the complex and of individual manuscripts, in The Treasury. For a more complete bibliography of Kellman?s work, see Barbara Haggh, ed., Essays on Music and Culture in Honor of Herbert Kellman, Collection ??pitome Musicale,? 8 (Paris: Minerve, 2001), xxvii-xxx. 7 and historical aspects, including the biographies of their recipients. Thus they often attempt to describe in detail the social, religious, political, and economic context in which manuscripts found themselves after production. In a 1960 study of BrusBR 215- 216, Jozef Robijns identified the recipient of that codex, and dealt with its contents as these relate to the cult of Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows, aspects greatly amplified, among others, in a later study by Barbara Haggh. 20 Martin Picker?s critical edition of the chanson album of Margaret of Austria, BrusBR 228 (which deals also with BrusBR 11239, not within the complex), is accompanied by a detailed historical study of the manuscript, the scribes at the Burgundian-Habsburg court, the composers represented in this manuscript, as well as on Margaret of Austria as a patron and diplomat, and music at Margaret?s court at Mechelen. 21 A Ph.D. dissertation by Paul Newton similarly presents a complete edition of FlorC 2439, with, however, less extensive contextual commentary than Picker's volume. 2 In 1967, only a year before Newton's study, Martin Staehelin had also contributed to our knowledge of FlorC 2439 in identifying the coat of arms in the manuscript as that of the Italian family Agostini, for whom the manuscript must have been made. 23 In considerably later work, Honey Meconi examined both the repertory and context of the manuscript in great detail, significantly expanding the findings of Burbure 20 Jozef Robijns, ?Eine Musikhandschrift des fr?hen 16. Jahrhunderts im Zeichen der Verehrung unserer Lieben Frau der Sieben Schmerzen (Br?ssel, Kgl. Bibliothek, Hs. 215-216),? Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 44 (1960): 28-43; and Barbara Haggh, ?Charles de Clerc, Seigneur de Bouvekercke, and Two Manuscripts: Brussels, Biblioth?que Royale de Belgique, MS 215-16, and Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS VI E 40,? in The Burgundian-Habsburg Court Complex, 185-202. 21 Picker, The Chanson Albums. 2 Paul Newton, ?Florence, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica Luigi Cherubini, Manuscript Basevi 2439: Critical Edition and Commentary? (Ph.D. diss., North Texas State University, 1968). 23 Martin Staehelin, ?Quellenkundige Beitr?ge zum Werk von Johannes Ghiselin-Verbonnet,? Archiv f?r Musikwissenschaft 24 (1967): 120-32. 8 and Newton. 24 The main subject of Staehelin's 1967 article was VerBC 756, a manuscript newly discovered by him, and closely related to FlorC 2439 through their hands?both scribe B?their dating, and a number of physical characteristics, though their repertories differ. Staehelin discusses the eleven masses in VerBC 756 in considerable detail, with particular emphasis on those of Isaac and Ghiselin, and the transmission of these to the Burgundian-Habsburg court. Helen Dixon followed with a study of manuscript VienNB 1783, copied by scribe B1, (active with scribe B), and considered especially its genesis, concluding that it was prepared as a wedding gift for Emanuel I of Portugal and Maria of Spain, a context now debated. 25 In 1971, Jaap van Benthem, writing on a set of partbooks belonging to the Fugger family, VienNB Mus. 18746, was the first to point to an Alamire manuscript as an important source of the music of Josquin, in this case his five-part chansons; 26 eleven years later the same manuscript was examined by Richard Freedman for its evidence regarding the scribes employed at the Burgundian-Habsburg court. 27 The last publication in this period focusing on a particular Alamire source was Bernard Huys's description of a newly-surfaced luxury choirbook, acquired by the Royal Library of Belgium, the so-called Occo Codex, BrusBR IV.922. Huys identifies its owner, describes its physical characteristics, lists its contents, and speculates on the book's devotional function. 28 24 Honey Meconi, ed. Basevi Codex. Florence, Biblioteca des Conservatorio, MS 2439 (Leuven: Peer, 1990). 25 Helen Dixon, ?The Manuscript Vienna, National Library, 1783,? Musica Disciplina 23 (1969): 105-16. For VienNB 1783, see also Kellman, Treasury, cat. no. 39, 141. 26 Jaap van Benthem, ?Einige wiedererkannte Josquin-Chansons im Codex 18746 der ?sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek,? Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 22 (1971): 18-42. 27 Richard Freedman, ?The Partbooks Vienna, Codex 18746 and the Identification of Hands in the Complex of Music Manuscripts of the Netherlandish Court? (MA thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1982). 28 Bernard Huys, ?An Unknown Alamire-Choirbook (?Occo Codex?) Recently Acquired by the Royal Library of Belgium,? Tijdschrift van der Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiendenis 24 (1974): 1- 9 In the two decades 1979-1999, publications related to the complex increased substantially, and can be considered in five categories: contributions devoted to the whole, or substantial portions of the complex; to facsimiles of manuscripts; to manuscript fragments; to the 1999 exhibition and conference; and to the three most prominent composers in the complex. After Kellman?s initial studies of the complex as a whole, few scholars have addressed the Alamire manuscripts from that perspective. One outstanding exception is Flynn Warmington, who in the 1980s undertook a meticulous examination of the scribal hands in all the manuscripts, and thorough research on the manuscripts' patrons and recipients, with particular emphasis on the heraldic evidence. Based on her detection of variants in the music and text scripts, she eventually posited twenty-one music hands and seventeen text hands in the manuscripts copied in Alamire's workshop, but not counting those from the workshop of Scribe B. She discussed the earliest of these findings in her review of the Occo Codex, and her subsequent conclusions in papers delivered between 1981 and 1993, and in 1999 published examples of most of the music and text hands, with a detailed commentary. 29 While all the manuscripts in which these hands appear are specified, the folios and the staves on which they may be found have not so far been 19; and Bernard Huys et. al., eds., Occo Codex (Brussels, Royal Library Albert I, MS.IV.922), Facsimilia Musica Neerlandica, 1 (Buren, Netherlands: Vereniging Voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 1979). 29 Flynn Warmington, ?Review of Occo Codex, by Bernard Huys and Sebastien A. C. Dudok van Heel [Brussels, Royal Library Albert I, MS. IV. 922],? Notes 38 (1981): 406-9; eadem, ?A Picture Worth a Thousand Words: New Light on the Malines Manuscript, Jena 4, and Related Sources,? Paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the New England Chapter, American Musicological Society, Boston, MA, 1981; eadem, ?A Master Calligrapher in Alamire?s Workshop: Toward a Chronology of His Work,? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Ann Arbor, MI, November 4-7, 1982; eadem, ?Fayrfax Crosses the Channel: English Music from Alamire?s Workshop,? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Austin, TX, October 26-29, 1989; eadem, ?The Manuscripts C.S. 34, 36, and 160,? Paper presented at the Symposium Die Capella Sistina als musikgeschichtliche Quelle [Ruprecht-Karl-Universit?t Heidelberg), 1993; and eadem, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands in the Manuscripts,? in Treasury, 41-52. 10 published. Warmington's views concerning the particular scribes involved in the various manuscripts are widely cited in the recent literature, however. The second author whose work had important implications for an explanation of the copying process throughout the complex was Howard Mayer Brown, who in 1983 published a forward-looking article on the scribes of the five Alamire sources of La Rue?s Missa de septem doloribus. 30 Brown considers variants across these sources, attempts to decipher the impetus behind variants, and comments on those he considers intentional on the part of the scribe. Based on his assumption that Alamire himself had copied all of these manuscripts? he was apparently not yet aware of Warmington's work?Brown concludes that the latest source for the mass (BrusBR 15075) is the most accurate and would have reflected the intentions of La Rue, who had been a loyal servant of the Burgundian-Habsburg court for about twenty-five years. This rather old-fashioned view of last copies has been challenged by more recent scholarship which has determined that Renaissance compositions were subject to considerable alteration by performers, scribes, and indeed the composers themselves. 31 Nevertheless, Brown's study demonstrates that even manuscripts copied within close chronological proximity, by the same group of scribes and according to the same principles transmit significant variants, and that some of those variants were probably intended by the scribe, a conclusion reconsidered and developed further in Chapter 6 of this dissertation. Seven volumes of facsimiles appeared in the period under consideration, all 30 Howard Mayer Brown, ?In Alamire?s Workshop. Notes on Scribal Practice in the Early Sixteenth Century,? in Quellenstudien zur Musik der Renaissance: Datierung und Filiation von Musikhandschriften der Josquin-Zeit, ed. Ludwig Finscher (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983), 15-63. 31 See, for example, Peter Phillips, ?Beyond Authenticity,? in Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Music, ed. Tess Knighton and David Fallows (New York: Schirmer, 1992), 45; and Stanley Boorman, et al., ?Sources, MS,? in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/50158pg1 (accessed June 23, 2009). 11 extremely valuable resources in offering direct views of the manuscripts themselves. They also all contain informative introductions, which to a greater or lesser degree, and to the extent it is known, discuss the date, provenance, genesis, and destination of the manuscript reproduced; its physical characteristics such as scribal hands, gathering structure, decoration, and heraldry; the context and significance of its repertory, its importance in the complex, and other manuscripts most closely related to it. This group of facsimiles comprises the Occo Choirbook, BrusBR IV.922, edited by Bernard Huys; the Chanson Album of Margaret of Austria, BBR 228, edited by Martin Picker; the Chigi Codex, VatC 234, and BLR 8.G.vii, both edited by Herbert Kellman; the Basevi Codex, FlorBC 2439, edited by Honey Meconi; a volume of facsimiles of music fragments from the Low Countries, including five fragments that belong to the complex, edited by Eugeen Schreurs et al.(see also next section); and a Choirbook for Philip the Fair, BBR 9126, edited by Fabrice Fitch. 32 This period also saw the discovery of thirteen parchment fragments, whole or partial folios that were originally within a manuscript of polyphony and were then detached for unknown reasons, but can be identified as part of the complex by virtue of their music script, decorative initials where present, and contents?in most cases portions of works by La Rue. The first three, BrusSG 9423 (formerly 29), BrusSG 9424 (formerly 30), with portions of music by LaRue, and OxfBA 831, with portions of songs by Agricola and Wreede, each fragment a bifolium, were identified by Herbert Kellman in 32 Huys, Occo Codex; Picker, The Chanson Albums; Herbert Kellman, ed. Vatican City, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, MS Chigi C VIII 234, Renaissance Music in Facsimile, 22 (New York: Garland, 1987); eadem, ed., London, British Library, MS. Royal 8 G.vii, Renaissance Music in Facsimile, 9 (New York: Garland, 1987); Meconi, Basevi Codex; Eugeen Schreurs and Bruno Bouckaert, eds., Bedreigde klanken?: Muziekfragmenten uit de Lage Landen: (Middeleeuwen ? Renaissance). Leuven: Peer, 1995; and Fabrice Fitch, ed. Choirbook for Philip the Fair and Juana of Castile. Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek / Biblioth?que royale, Ms. 9126 (Leuven: Peer, 1999). 12 earlier research, but first described in the Census-Catalogue. 3 Another bifolium first described in the Census-Catalogue, OxfBLL a.8, with portions of motets by F?vin, was identified by Andrew Wathey. 34 Two decorated calligraphic initials cut from an Alamire manuscript, UtreC 47/1 & 2, were published in a 1993 catalogue of an exhibition devoted to Mary of Hungary, edited by Adrianus Maria Koldeweij. Jacobijn Kiel has identified the verso of 47/1 as a fragment of a LaRue mass. 35 In 1994 Jaap van Benthem published an article describing a set of five fragments he had discovered in Antwerp in 1987, four of which belonged to the complex: AntP B9484 iv, AntP M18.13/1, AntP M18.31/2, and AntP R43.13, with portions of masses of LaRue and of works by Moulu and Mouton. Three of these indeed represented only a few folios, but M18.13/1 was an important addition to the complex, consisting of twenty-four folios containing many portions of four masses by LaRue. 36 Finally, a catalogue of 1991 edited by Eugeen Schreurs and Bruno Bouckaert for an exhibition of manuscript fragments from the Low Countries, described six of the fragments mentioned above, which were in the exhibition: BrusSG 9423 & 9424, OxfBLL a.8, AntP M18.13/1 & 2, and AntPR 43.13. The catalogue also contains descriptions of two newly found Alamire fragments, also exibited, GhentR D3360b and TongerenSA 183, each with a portion of a mass by LaRue. 37 Except for the three Antwerp fragments, all of the above were also reproduced in Schreurs's facsimile volume, cited in the previous section. Then, in a 1999 article, Schreurs announced the 3 Hamm, Charles, and Herbert Kellman, eds. Census-Catalogue of Manuscript Sources of Polyphonic Music, 1400-1550, vol. 1 (1979), 104, vol. 2 (1981), 272, vol. 4 (1988), 299-300. 34 Kellman, Census-Catalogue, vol. 2 (1981), 283. 35 Adrianus Maria Koldeweij, ed., Maria van Hongarije, 1505-1558: koningin tussen keizers en kunstenaars (Zwolle: Waanders, 1993). 36 Jaap van Benthem, ?The Alamire Fragments of the Plantin-Moretus Museum in Antwerp,? in Musicology and Archival Research: Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Brussels, 22-23 April 1993, ed. Barbara Haggh et al. (Brussels: Biblioth?que Royale de Belgique, 1994), 542-57. 37 Schreurs, Bedreigde klanken?. 13 discovery of a few new fragments, including one again attributable to Alamire's workshop, BrugRA Aanw.756, with portions of a mass by LaRue. 38 Two events of 1999, an exhibition of almost all the manuscripts in the complex and an international conference on the complex, both in Leuven, were watershed events in the work on this subject, resulting in two major publications, The Treasury of Petrus Alamire (1999) and the conference proceedings (2003). 39 The first contains the catalogue for the exhibition, with a comprehensive description and discussion of every manuscript in the complex, accompanied by essays on the economic and social background of the period (Blockmans), the production, distribution and symbolism of the manuscripts (Kellman), their repertory (Jas), their scribes (Kiel, Warmington), their miniatures (Thoss), and on Petrus Alamire (Schreurs) and Pierre de la Rue (Meconi), as well as index of composers and compositions (Jas). The conference report contains articles by twenty-three authors elaborating their conference papers, in the following broad areas: past and future research (Kellman); scribes and scriptoria (Staehelin, Kiel); text underlay (Schmidt-Beste); the purpose and function of the manuscripts (Boorman, Meconi); their decoration (Dekeyzer, Thoss, Blackburn); specific manuscripts (VienNB 11883, VatC 234?Friebel, BBR 215-16?Haggh); groups of manuscripts for specific recipients ('s- Hertogenbosch confraternity?Roelvink, Saxon court?Duffy, Heidrich); specific composers in the complex (Agricola?Fitch, Alamire?Fallows, Forestier?MacCracken, Josquin?Urquhart, Elders, LaRue?Just, Pipelare?Borghetti); and specific genres (chansons?Picker, settings of the Salve regina ?Just). Together these two publications convey a wealth of new information and insights, and moved the field forward to a very 38 Eugeen Schreurs, ?De schatkamer van Alamire: enkele nieuwe vondsten van muziekfragmenten,? Musica Antiqua 16 (1999): 36-9. 39 C.f. note 1. 14 large degree. Publications concerned with the representation in the complex of La Rue, Josquin, and Ockeghem, the composers whose works are the most prominent, goes far back and continues to this day. Jozef Robijns published a monograph on LaRue in 1952, dealing briefly (and occasionally inaccurately) with his biography and each his then known works and their sources. 40 This has now been replaced by Honey Meconi's important 2003 book on Pierre de la Rue, in which the music of the Burgundian singer and composer is thoroughly analyzed and contextualized. 41 Meconi also compares La Rue?s music with that of his contemporaries, provides a detailed description of the role and function of the Burgundian-Habsburg court chapel, and comments on sources of La Rue?s music, many of which are Alamire manuscripts. The manuscripts containing La Rue's five and six-part masses had previously been discussed in J. Evan Kreider's 1974 dissertation, 42 and Meconi had previously dealt with La Rue's secular music in her 1986 dissertation, and with his biography in a 1993 conference paper. 43 A critical edition of the works of La Rue, in which all the Alamire manuscripts containing them are evaluated, has been under way since 1989, and is nearing completion. 4 The vast literature on Josquin includes many references to Alamire manuscripts containing his music. However, the specific role of Josquin in the complex was only 40 Jozef Robijns, Pierre de la Rue, (circa 1460-1518): een bio-bibliographische studie. M?moires, 8, 2 (Brussels: Paleis der Academi?n, 1954). 41 Honey Meconi, Pierre de la Rue and Musical Life at the Habsburg-Burgundian Court (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). 42 J. Evan Kreider, ?The Masses for Five and Six Voices by Pierre de la Rue? (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1974). 43 Honey Meconi, ?Style and Authenticity in the Secular Music of Pierre de la Rue (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1986); and eadem, ?Free from the Crime of Venus: The Biography of Pierre de La Rue,? Revista de musicolog?a 16 (1993): 2673-83. 4 Pierre de La Rue, Opera omnia, edited by Nigel Davison, J. Evan Kreider, and T. Herman Keahey. Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 97/1- (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1989-). 15 evaluated in Herbert Kellman's paper for the 1971 Josquin Festival-Conference, published in the conference proceedings of 1976. 45 His main finding was that, despite Josquin's prominence in the complex, a careful assessment of the twenty manuscripts containing his music, many of which postdate his death, a comparison of his prominence with that of La Rue, and other, contextual evidence, including misreadings of documents by earlier writers, strongly suggest that Josquin had not been active at the court of Margaret of Austria as had been previously assumed. Beyond this study, several writers have focused on Josquin's role in specific Alamire manuscripts, among them, notably, Van Benthem, in his 1971 article concerning Josquin's chansons in VienNB 18746, as mentioned above, and Picker, writing in a 1963 article and his 1965 critical edition on the significance of Josquin's chansons and motets in Margaret of Austria's manuscript, BrusBR 228. 46 As in the case of La Rue, a new critical edition of Josquin's works is in progress and nearing completion, and contains generally detailed appraisals of the sources in its exhaustive critical reports. 47 Work on Ockeghem with awareness of the critical significance of the Chigi codex, VatC234, for his sacred music? it contains thirteen of his fourteen known masses as well as two motets?can be traced back to 1911, when Michel Brenet published the first extended study on the composer, using the Chigi codex as the source for her transcriptions. 48 In 1927, in the first volume of his critical edition of Ockeghem's works, Dragan Plamenac described the manuscript, listed its contents, and makes it clear that it is 45 C.f. note 17. 46 C.f. notes 24 and 6. 47 Josquin des Pres, New Josquin Edition, edited by William Elders et al. (Utrecht: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1989-). 48 Michel Brenet, ?Jean de Ockeghem,? in Musique et musiciens de la vieille France (Paris: Alcan, 1911), 23-82. 16 the main source (in some cases the only source) for his edition of the masses. 49 In 1954 Heinrich Besseler published an encyclopedia article on the Chigi codex, which represented the first detailed discussion of the manuscript and its cultural background, though with some errors in identifying the heraldry and thus its recipient. 50 Nevertheless, Besseler could point to its significance for Ockeghem studies. Kellman's 1957 essay on the Chigi codex identified its Burgundian-Habsburg court scribe, first as Martin Bourgeois, but later, because of uncertainty about that identity, as Scribe B, then related it to another Scribe B manuscript, BrusBR 9126, and finding common hands, repertory, and miniatures in these and many other court manuscripts, posited the complex, as mentioned above. Dealing with the Chigi codex in his 1976 study of Josquin, he also identified the dedicatee of the manuscript, the Burgundian courtier Philippe Bouton, and in a 1997 conference paper, demonstrated the links, including likely personal encounters, between Bouton and Ockeghem. 51 Fabrice Fitch has also examined the codex in minute detail, and in his Ockeghem monograph of 1997 he extensively discusses his observations and conclusions regarding the gatherings containing Ockeghem's masses, their structure, copying, and the process of their assembly. 52 Michael Friebel has also examined various manuscripts in the complex with great care, including the Chigi codex, and on the basis of scribal evidence argues for 49 Johannes Ockeghem, S?mtliche Werke, ed. Dragan Plamenac, vol. I (Leipzig: Breitkopf und H?rtel, 1927). 50 Heinrich Besseler, ?Chig-Kodex,? in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 2 (1954), cols. 1194- 97. 51 Herbert Kellman, ?Ockeghem and the Court of Burgundy: The Memoires of Philippe Bouton,? Paper presented at the XI e Colloque International d?Etudes Humanistes: Johannes Ockeghem, Centre d??tudes Sup?rieures de la Renaissance, Tours, France, February 3-8, 1997. For a different opinion on the provenance and ownership of the Chigi Codex, see C?line van Hoorebeeck, ?Livres et lectures des fonctionnaires des ducs de Bourgogne (1420-1515)? (Ph.D. diss., Facult?s universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix, 2007). 52 Fabrice Fitch, Johannes Ockeghem: Masses and Models, Collection Ricercar, 2 (Paris: Champion, 1997), 11-40. 17 their function as models for use in the scriptorium, perhaps explaining the function of the codex between its production and transfer to Spain. 53 One other scholar who has examined the music of Ockeghem, Regis, and Comp?re through the lens of the Chigi codex is Edward Houghton, who with careful observation of evidence to be found in that manuscript, has written studies on rhythmic structure in Ockeghem's music (1971) and that of other fifteenth-century composers (1974), on the evidence arguing for the attribution of an anonymous motet in the Chigi codex to Regis (1983), on the differing notational practices and intentions of two copyists of Ockeghem's work in the codex (1998), on the music, text, sources, and historical context of a motet by Comp?re in the codex (2001), and on the four anonymous motets in the codex (2009). 54 A new critical edition of Ockeghem's works was begun in 1994, and is accompanied by notes commenting on all sources. 5 An important forthcoming publication in this area will be a critical modern edition of the Chigi codex by Edward Houghton, with a study of the manuscript's codicological and cultural history by Herbert Kellman. Of course, modern critical editions of the music of other composers well represented in the complex, such as Agricola, F?vin, Ghiselin, Isaac, Mouton, Pipelare, 53 Michael Friebel, Die Handschriften Wien, ?sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Ms. 11883 und Vatikan, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ms. Chigi C VIII 234 als Vorlagen am Burgundisch-Habsburgischen Hof,? in The Burgundian-Habsburg Court Complex, 59-96. 54 Edward Houghton, ?Rhythmic Structure in the Masses and Motets of Johannes Ockeghem? (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1971); eadem, ?Rhythm and Meter in 15 th -century Polyphony,? Journal of Music Theory 18 (1974): 190-212; eadem ?A ?New? Motet by Johannes Regis,? Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 33 (1983): 49-74; eadem, ?Ockeghem's Scribes?Then and Now,? in Johannes Ockeghem: Actes du XL e Colloque international d'?tudes humanistes: Tours, 3-8 fevrier 1997 , ed. Philippe Vendrix, Collection ?Epitome Musicale, 1 (Paris: Klincksieck, 1998), 223-38; eadem, ?A Close Reading of Comp?re's Motet Sile fragor,? in Essays on Music and Culture in Honor of Herbert Kellman, ed. Barbara Haggh (Paris: Minerve, 2001) 89-103; and eadem, ?The Anonymous Motets of the Chigi Codex,? in Uno gentile et subtile ingenio: Studies in Renaissance Music in Honour of Bonnie J. Blackburn, ed. Mary Jennifer Bloxam, Gioia Filocamo, and Leofranc Holford-Strevens (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009), 431-40. 5 Johannes Ockeghem, The Works of Johannes Ockeghem, ed. Jaap van Benthem, vols. 1- (Utrecht, Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1995-). 18 and Prioris, necessarily comment on Alamire mansucripts as important sources of the works of these composers. Despite the breadth of research on the many aspects of the Alamire manuscripts, including their repertory, a substantial discussion of the anonymous material has not been attempted to this point. 56 Only three of these twenty-two anonymous masses have been edited, in the Missa dubia volume of the Opera omnia of Pierre de la Rue, though no scholar has accepted them as authentic works by La Rue. 57 A forthcoming University of Illinois dissertation on the Alamire manuscript MunBS F, by Trudie Ranson, will address two others that are preserved in that manuscript. 58 Another of these masses, the anonymous Missa Du bon du cueur, in MunBS 6, is the subject of an article by Bernadette Nelson, in which she argues for its attribution to Noel Bauldeweyn. 59 All the anonymous compositions in the Alamire manuscripts have now been catalogued, however, and a call for their investigation, by Herbert Kellman, has now gone out: 60 56 Studies of other anonymous repertories, however, and of anonymous theoretical treatises show that such works have received and do indeed merit the attention of scholars and performers. Some examples of the most often-treated works are the anonymous mass cycles in the Trent Codices and the six anonymous Missa L?homme arm? cycles in NapBN VI E 40: see the most pertinent bibliography in the Grove Music Online, s.v. ?Sources, MS, IX: Renaissance Polyphony.? A few dissertations have focused on anonymous repertories: for example, Kathryn English, ?A Musical Response to the Reformation: Choirbooks 31, 32, 33, and 40 from the Hofkapelle of Ulrich VI of W?rttemberg? (Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 2001) and Walter Kemp, ?The Burgundian Chanson in the Fifteenth Century, with Special Reference to the Anonymous Chansons in the Ms Escorial V. III. 24 and Related Sources? (Ph.D. diss., University of Exeter, Oxford University, 1972). Finally, a project to edit fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century anonymous masses (Le corpus des messes anonymes du XV e si?cle) is under way at the Centre d??tudes Sup?rieures de la Renaissance, Tours. 57 These are the Missa de septem doloribus, in BrusBR 215-216, the Missa L?homme arm? II, in JenaU 2 and VatS 34, and the Missa sine nomine II, in JenaU 12 and FrankSU 2 (FrankSU 2 is not an Alamire manuscript). See Pierre de La Rue, Opera omnia, 7: Missa dubia, ed. Nigel Davison, Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 97/7 (Neuhausen: American Institute of Musicology/H?nssler-Verlag, 1998). 58 These are the Missa O werde mont (unique to MunBS F) and the Missa Adiutorium nostrum (MunBS F and VienNB 11883). 59 Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 103-30. 60 The anonymous works in the Alamire manuscripts are listed under ?Anonymous? in Eric Jas, ?Index of Composers and Compositions,? in Treasury, 168-69. Future study of these anonymous works is one of the 19 But particularly rich for study is the body of anonymous works. Out of some six hundred compositions in the complex, 142?almost 25 percent?are anonymous, that is, compositions for which no attribution has so far been found in any source. A few of these works will eventually be identified, of course, and composers of others have been proposed, but the majority will probably remain as anonymous to us as they probably were to the scribes. Nevertheless, these works merit careful examination and objective assessment of their style and quality, in comparison with the style and quality of works by known composers. We tend to disregard anonymous works and perhaps even undervalue them, but I believe it behooves us to give more attention to these pieces, since they were integral to the court?s music even while devoid of the identities of their creators. At the very least, we might discover some attractive works? PROSPECTUS FOR THIS STUDY Taking Kellman?s call for study of this anonymous repertory as a point of departure, this dissertation examines eight anonymous masses from the Alamire manuscript complex in detail. The eight masses presented in the chapters to follow were chosen because they are a representative sampling, in their chronology and style, of the ascribed and unascribed mass types in the Alamire complex. Seven were copied by Alamire and his colleagues between about 1518-20 and 1534, quite late in the history of the his workshop?s production, while the eighth is the only mass in a Scribe B manuscript that remains anonymous to us today. Correspondingly, ten of the thirty-four anonymous masses copied without ascription into Alamire manuscripts that were prepared in the later years of Alamire?s activity, between about 1518 and 1534, remain anonymous to us today. Of the forty-two unascribed masses and mass movements copied between 1508 and about 1518, thirty-eight have been attributed to composers by modern scholars, so they will not be considered here. 61 VerBC 756, the unique source of the eighth mass, the Missa Alles regretz, is remarkable among Scribe B manuscripts in that it transmits ten of ?openings? suggested by Kellman in his keynote address at the 1999 conference on and exhibition of the Alamire manuscripts: Herbert Kellman, ?Openings,? in The Burgundian-Habsburg Court Complex, 21-22. 61 The masses that remain anonymous from the early period are the Missa de septem doloribus, in BrusBR 215-216, the Missa L?homme arm?, in JenaU 2 and VatS 34, the Missa Sine nomine in JenaU 12, and the Credo that concludes JenaU 8. 20 eleven masses without ascription (other Scribe B manuscripts transmit at most one mass without ascription), only one of which remains anonymous to us today. The eight masses to be considered here represent a wide range of polyphonic styles and are scored for three to eight voices. With the exception of one unidentified Missa sine nomine, they constitute examples of the three main methods of borrowing at the turn of the sixteenth century, being cantus firmus, paraphrase, and imitation masses. 62 The musical discussions to follow will explore the style, origin, authorship, and historical context of these masses. The eight anonymous masses and one anonymous Agnus Dei preserved in VienNB 11883 will not be considered in this dissertation, because this heterogeneous fascicle manuscript, made up of twenty-seven individual gatherings pieced together, is atypical among Alamire manuscripts. 63 Anonymous masses that have already been edited or studied will also not be considered. 64 Thus the three anonymous masses copied in the earlier period and published in the La Rue critical edition, and the two anonymous masses in MunBS F, to be analyzed in forthcoming dissertation on that manuscript are excluded. 65 The anonymous Credo in JenaU 8 will not be examined, because this study is concerned with complete masses. Finally, the Missa N?avez point veu will not be discussed, because its sources, ?s-HerAB 72B and VienNB 11883, are different from the 62 Here I define these terms as follows: A cantus-firmus mass sets a monophonic melody (usually chant, but sometimes one voice of a polyphonic model) faithfully in all movements, in one mass voice (usually the tenor), often in longer note values than the surrounding counterpoint. A paraphrase mass sets a monophonic melody, but presents it in more than one voice of the mass, and alters it in a variety of ways. An imitation mass (or parody mass) sets all voices of a polyphonic model, sometimes but not always incorporating the entire polyphonic fabric, but usually altering the borrowed material in a variety of ways. 63 See Kellman, Treasury, cat. no. 44, 150-51. The anonymous masses in VienNB 11883 are the Missa Sine nomine, Missa Crux fidelis, Missa sine nomine [2], Missa Pourquoy alles vous seullette, Agnus Dei [unidentified], Missa L?amour de moy, Missa Noch weth ic ein so scoen joncfraw (also in ?s-HerAB 72B), Missa Adiutorium nostrum (also in MunBS F), and Missa Ma bouche rit. 64 With the exception of the Missa Du bon du cueur in MunBS 6. Cf. note 5, above. 65 Cf. note 37, above; and Pierre de La Rue, Opera omnia, 7: Missa dubia. 21 others: the character of VienNB 11883 was discussed above, and ?s-HerAB 72B is thought to have been commissioned for the use of a confraternity, rather than for presentation or use by a royal or private patron. By examining the eight selected anonymous masses in Chapters 2-5, and the Alamire manuscripts themselves in Chapter 6, I aim to determine 1) the skill of their anonymous composers and, as a result, the quality of these masses; 2) the reasons why the masses to be considered are anonymous; and 3) how consideration of these masses as creations of scribes, as well as composers, and as works gaining meaning from their manuscript context, can provide a more complete understanding of the manuscripts in the Alamire complex and of their repertory. To undertake the first task, I use close analyses of the music. I attempt to make a preliminary assessment of the value and historical importance of each mass to determine if the lack of ascription can be interpreted as a value judgment. I use analysis of stylistic features and techniques that are often used to place Renaissance compositions in the modern canon and have been used as evidence to distinguish compositional styles and dates of composition: these include the use and treatment of borrowed material, structure, texture, and text treatment, complemented by the physical evidence provided by their sources. The eight anonymous masses presented in the chapters to follow, like many anonymous works, are shown in Chapter 6 to be anonymous through accident. The names of their creators were somehow detached from the compositions, and we simply do not know the identities of those individuals. These compositions will therefore be approached with the same attention to detail, and examined along the same lines as we consider 22 works by known composers, but without the context of a known composer?s biography and without the goal of determining an attribution. Stylistic analysis is often affected by the reputation of the composer or presumed composer of the work in question, which can be a handicap to an objective and thorough analysis. Because that viewpoint is lacking in this case, the composer?s skill can be evaluated solely from the music. To deal with the second and third tasks, I will consider how the work of the scribes can contribute to anonymity (Chapter 6). Detailed codicological and paleographic analyses of the Alamire manuscripts that transmit masses reveal the roles, priorities, and habits of their scribes, and thus provide a significant new view of the production of anonymity, and, as a byproduct, a more nuanced interpretation of the Alamire workshop. The physical evidence of the manuscripts, along with variant readings of the same compositions in different manuscripts, point to two chronological groups of manuscript production. They also confirm a significant degree of scribal autonomy, which extends to ascription practices. Finally, a concluding chapter (Chapter 7) reconsiders the musical, codicological, and paleographical evidence for the nature and reasons for anonymity. It also reviews and synthesizes the detailed analyses of the individual masses presented in Chapters 2-5, bringing the masses together as a repertoire for the first time. Finally, it also suggests short-term and long-term projects, on anonymous repertories and on the Alamire complex, that will move scholarship toward resolutions of problems that have been identified as important throughout the dissertation. Whereas anonymous compositions are by their heterogeneous nature not easily contextualized, they are susceptible to the same examination and attention given to works 23 by known composers, and the internal evidence that they can provide is no different from that provided by attributed compositions. That musicologists have studied attributed works in the Alamire codices in great detail, but have so far allowed the anonymous works to go virtually unnoticed, is a clear indicator that musicology has been too dependent on the attachment of a known and namable creator to each musical work, a condition that may indeed have been to some extent foreign in the Renaissance. 24 CHAPTER 2 The Anonymous Missa Alles regretz in VerBC 756 INTRODUCTION The next four chapters present eight anonymous masses as a series of case studies, in which we explore how their composers treated large-scale structure, modality, borrowed material, counterpoint, and text setting, and then consider the musical and historical context of the mass. We thus demonstrate that these anonymous compositions can be analyzed according to the same criteria as compositions by named composers. This chapter presents the only fifteenth-century anonymous mass in the complex, the three-voice Missa Alles regretz in VerBC 756, a Scribe B manuscript dated c. 1508. 6 Thorough analysis reveals this composer?s approach to composition and his musical style, as well as the close relationship between this anonymous mass and its model, Hayne van Ghizeghem?s well-known chanson, Alles regretz. 67 Not only does the mass composer present melodies from Hayne?s tenor and superius as his cantus firmus in the mass superius and tenor, but he also borrows gestures and motives from all three chanson voices and places them in all three voices of the mass, and, in some instances, he borrows Hayne?s entire polyphonic fabric. Although this mass, a forerunner of the imitation mass, 6 Herbert Kellman, ?Book Production and Book Distribution at the Netherlands Court,? in Formen und Probleme der ?berlieferung mehrstimmiger Musik im Zeitalter Josquin Despres, ed. Ludwig Finscher (Munich: Kraus, 1981), 14-17. 67 For an edition of the model, see Hayne van Ghizeghem, Opera omnia, ed. Barton Hudson, Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 74. (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1977), 3-5. The five musical phrases of the rondeau cinquaine are here referred to as phrases A, B, C, D, and E. 25 defies simple categorization, the presence of some polyphonic borrowing, to be described below, places it closer to an imitation mass than a cantus firmus mass. 68 Though chanson masses, like this one, had already existed for about half a century, mass composers turned from borrowing a pre-existing single monophonic melody to the entire polyphonic fabric of a given song around the turn of the sixteenth century. This was a gradual process, to which many composers contributed in varying manners and to a different degree over several decades. This mass, written in the late fifteenth century, is a particularly interesting witness to this transition, because its composer preserves a cantus firmus structure, but cites from all voices of his polyphonic model. MISSA ALLES REGRETZ Large-Scale Structure of the Missa Alles regretz: The Lack of an Agnus Dei The Missa Alles regretz preserved in VerBC 756 is, in several respects, a peculiar composition. Perhaps its oddest trait is that it lacks an Agnus Dei, a fact for which there is no obvious explanation. One possibility is that the composer did write an Agnus Dei, which, for one reason or another, did not make it into VerBC 756, the only extant source 68 Peter Burkholder discusses the problem of masses that feature traits of both the cantus firmus and the imitation mass: ?Set off from their predecessors in conception [cantus firmus masses] and from the next generation in method [imitation masses, with full polyphonic citations], the Masses of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries that are based on polyphonic models yet preserve cantus-firmus structure do not simply represent hybrids between cantus-firmus and parody procedures; they belong to a distinct compositional genre that may be referred to as the imitation Mass...? Peter Burkholder, ?Johannes Martini and the Imitation Mass of the Late Fifteenth Century,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 38 (1985): 475. On the terminology of the imitation mass, sometimes also called the parody mass, see Lewis Lockwood, ?Mass, II, 6: The Cyclic Mass in the Later 15th Century,? in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/45872 (accessed April 1, 2009); idem, ?A View of the Early Sixteenth-Century Parody Mass,? Queens College, Department of Music, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Festschrift (1937-1962), ed. Albert Mell (New York: Queens College Press, 1964), 53-77; idem, ?On ?Parody? as Term and Concept in 16th-Century Music,? Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: A Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese, ed. Jan LaRue et al. (New York: Norton, 1966), 560-75. 26 for this mass. 69 Indeed, there is a blank opening immediately following the Missa Alles regretz. That neither folio of this opening was staved, however, makes it unlikely that the opening was meant for the missing Agnus Dei. Also, because blank openings follow one- half of the masses in VerBC 756, 70 the versos of two of which (those between the second and third and between the third and fourth compositions) were staved but left unnotated, it is more likely that the blank opening following the anonymous Missa Alles regretz is a structural element of the manuscript rather than a compositional element of the mass. In the decades around 1500, the Agnus Dei seems to have been the most dispensable, or at least the most flexibly set, among the five main movements of the Mass Ordinary. Though many masses from this period lack the Sanctus-Agnus pair, or consist simply of Gloria-Credo-Sanctus, few examples of otherwise complete masses with no Agnus Dei exist in this period. 71 In the Alamire complex, only one other mass, Pipelare?s Missa de feria, preserved in JenaU 21 and in the later German print, Georg Rhau?s Opus decem missarum of 1541 (RISM 1541 1 ) , was transmitted with no Agnus Dei. It is not unusual for masses in the Alamire manuscripts to include two statements of the Agnus Dei instead of three, and a few (including three anonymous masses in MontsM 766: Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, Missa Cueur langoureulx, and Missa Memor esto) have only one Agnus Dei statement. 69 Perhaps the scribe of VerBC 756 decided not to copy it to adhere to a liturgical tradition or due to lack of space, or perhaps the Agnus Dei was absent from his exemplar. 70 Blank openings in VerBC 756 occur after La Rue?s Missa Agnosce o Vincenti (ff. 16v-17r), Isaac?s Missa Een vrolich wesenn (ff. 32v-33r), Ghiselin?s Missa La belle se siedt (ff. 47v-48r), the anonymous Missa Alles regretz (ff. 105v-106r, and Isaac?s Missa Salve nos Domine (ff. 121v-122r). 71 These include Obrecht?s Missa Plurimorum carminum I, Isaac?s Missa Je ne fay plus in MunBS 3154, the anonymous Missa Une mousse de Biscaye in MunBS 3154, the anonymous Missa Maria zart in MunBS 3154, an anonymous Missa Quant ce viendra in, among others, TrentC 89, Caron?s Missa Sanguis sanctorum, Estienne Grossin?s Missa Trompetta (in this case, since the Santus is fragmentary, one could assume that the Agnus Dei is missing because it was lost along with part of the Sanctus), and the anonymous Missa sine nomine in TurinBN J.II.9. 27 The inconsistency with regard to the structure of the Agnus Dei among late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century polyphonic settings of the Mass Ordinary leads one to question the liturgical circumstances under which such masses were performed. The Agnus Dei was only omitted entirely on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, but one would not have expected polyphonic masses on these days circa 1500. That Pipelare?s Missa de feria, a generic mass for daily use, was also transmitted with no Agnus Dei is evidence that some alternative explanation must exist. 72 The existence of numerous individual Agnus Dei sections, along with the practice of substituting a section of a separate mass in an otherwise unified cycle (as in the version of Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua transmitted in BrusBR IV.922, which was copied with an anonymous Pleni sunt and the Benedictus from Gascongne?s Missa Es hat ein sin), or of combining portions of different masses to form one complete cycle (as in the Missa Pascale in VerBC 756, of which the Kyrie- Gloria pair is by Agricola, the Sanctus-Agnus pair is attributed to Agricola, but by Ghiselin, and the Credo is Isaac?s Credo Tmeiskin was jonk), suggests that perhaps one of these ?stand alone? settings of the Agnus Dei was meant to be inserted. A mass cycle may also have been composed without an Agnus Dei if this section were to be performed in plainchant, as the mass propers likely were. The strongest evidence in support of the hypothesis that this anonymous Missa Alles regretz was composed without an Agnus Dei is the musical and structural strength of the last known section, the Benedictus?Osanna. This last subsection of the Sanctus is the culmination of this composition, as will be shown below, and it features a striking 72 For example, masses in the main choir and side chapels often overlapped, and regulations may have required that the last part of the mass after the Elevation be less conspicuous. Masses performed at meetings of the Order of the Golden Fleece and Du Fay?s Missa Sancta Jacobi, for example, were simpler after the Offertory procession. See Barbara Haggh, ?The Archives of the Order of the Golden Fleece and Music,? Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 120 (1995): 9. 28 setting of the model in migration among all three voices. The splendor of this movement suggests that the singing of the Benedictus would have coincided, as it sometimes did in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, with the liturgical culmination of the Mass, the Elevation of the Host (when the celebrant would recite ?Hoc est corpus meum?). 73 It would be hard to imagine that any sort of Agnus Dei as ?grand finale? could follow it, a typical role for the final Agnus Dei of masses of this period (at least musically-speaking), as in Josquin?s Missa L?homme arm? sexti toni and Missa Pange lingua, for example. 74 Even if the codicological evidence of the manuscript and internal musical evidence suggests that this mass ended with the Benedictus, because the mass is an unicum, it is not possible to know with certainty that its composer never wrote an Agnus Dei. Without a definite liturgical context for it, we cannot know what took the place of that missing Agnus Dei, chant or lost polyphony. Large-Scale Structure of the Missa Alles regretz: The Extant Movements Apart from the missing Agnus Dei, the Missa Alles regretz follows normal convention with regard to large-scale structure: following the three-part Kyrie, the Gloria is divided into Et in terra pax and Qui tollis, the Credo into Patrem omnipotentem and Et incarnatus est, and the Sanctus into Sanctus, Pleni sunt?Osanna I, and Benedictus?Osanna II (see Table 2.1). 73 For more on the liturgical structure of the Renaissance mass, especially concerning the Elevation, see John Caldwell and Bonnie J. Blackburn, "Elevation," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/08705 (accessed November 18, 2008); Jeremy Noble, ?The Function of Josquin?s Motets,? Tijdscrift voor Nederlandse Musikgeschiedenis 35 (1985): 9-22; and Michael Long, ?Symbol and Ritual in Josquin?s ?Missa Di Dadi?,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 42 (1989): 1-22, esp. 5-7. 74 Since the Sanctus is the undisputable liturgical climax of the mass, however, and the Agnus Dei, a plea for mercy and peace, is a contemplative section, in many ways the structural and dramatic counterpart to the Kyrie, it is indeed possible that a more modest Agnus Dei once existed. 29 Mass sectionFinal5 th UnisonMensurationCleffingKey signature Length (B) TotalScoring KYRIEF Kyrie IF-F-FX O c2-c3-f4B: b-flat22+LSTB ChristeC-C-E Cut Cc1-c4-f4B: b-flat44+LSTB Kyrie IIF-F-FX Cut Cc2-c4-f4B: b-flat37+L 103+Ls STB GLORIAF Et in terraC-C-E Cut Cc2/1-c4-f4b-flat89+LSTB Qui tollisF-C-AX S/B: Cut C- 3-Cut C; T: C c2-c4-f4b-flat65+L 154+Ls STB CREDOF PatremC-G-EX Cut Cc2-c4-f4T/B: b- flat 110+LSTB Et incarnatus estF-F-FX Cut Cc2-c4-f4b-flat138+L 248+Ls STB SANCTUSF SanctusG-C-EX O c2-c4-f4T/B: b- flat 17+LSTB Pleni sunt-OsannaF-F-FX S: C; T/B: Cut C ? b-flat47+LSTB Benedictus-Osanna II (C-E) - F-F- F X Cut Cc3-c4-f4b-flat62+L 126+Ls STB Table 2.1: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Alles regretz Only the first Kyrie and Sanctus are in O; all other sections are in C or cut C. There are, however, two internal passages that feature proportio sesquialtera?one in the Gloria (mm. 117-27), in which the superius and bassus proceed in proportio sesquialtera against a cantus-firmus-like tenor citation of chanson phrase B (on the mass text Quoniam tu solus sanctus. Tu solus Dominus. Tu solus Altissimus?); the other, in the Credo (mm. 40-44), in which the superius and tenor proceed in proportio sesquialtera while the bassus rests, sets the important Mass Ordinary text Jesum Christum and immediately proceeds to a setting of chanson phrase B. 75 The first Kyrie and Sanctus also resemble each other in that each opens with three and one-half measures of very similar three-voice counterpoint during which the superius 75 The texting described here is editorial, as the manuscript provides only the incipit for each mass section. 30 paraphrases the Alles regretz tenor [phrase A] clearly (see Example 2.1, Kyrie, in appendix, mm. 1-4; Example 2.4, Sanctus, in appendix, mm. 1-4). This similarity between the openings of these two movements essentially underscores texts about making acquaintance with Christ: Kyrie eleyson (?Lord have mercy?) and Sanctus (?Holy?), corresponding to the chanson text, ?Alles, regrets.? Meanwhile, the tenor in the Kyrie, and the tenor and bassus in the Sanctus, open with three pitches reminiscent of the opening of the chanson phrase A superius melody, and the first five measures of the bassus in both movements provide a similar supporting line in both sections. The anonymous composer employs similar rhythms, and the polyphonic texture of both sections is undeniably similar. Both movements are exceptionally brief (22 and 17 breves, respectively), and both can be divided into three subsections (which naturally correspond to the like texting of these two Mass sections: Kyrie eleyson x 3 in the former, and Sanctus x 3 + Dominus Deus Sabaoth in the latter). Both of the second subsections of these two movements, the Christe and Pleni sunt?Osanna I, open with similar textures and rhythms, and, aside from the last section, Benedictus?Osanna, indisputably the climax of the mass, these two corresponding pairs are the only sections not to open with an imitative statement of borrowed material. The Missa Alles Regretz and its Model The Missa Alles regretz bears a strong modal relationship to its model, Hayne?s chanson, throughout the mass. Both are firmly rooted in F. The final of each of the four 31 main mass movements is F, while all secondary cadences (in the Christe, Et in terra, Patrem, Sanctus, and Benedictus) are on C (see Table 2.1). As in the chanson, the Kyrie, Credo, and Sanctus end with all three voices on F, spanning three octaves. As will be shown below, the mass composer also borrowed often and extensively from Hayne?s cadential phrases, and he took care to end quotations of borrowed material as the originals end in the chanson, even in cases where he transposed the melody. That the mass composer also follows his model in the manner in which he approaches cadences, a common feature of fifteenth-century imitation masses, strengthens the modal relationship between mass and model even further. For example, both composers employ similar simultaneous stepwise ascents and descents, and both use similar cadential figures in each voice in their final approaches to the cadential tones (see Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 9-10, 51-53; and Examples 2.1-2.4, in appendix, Kyrie I, mm. 20-24, mm. 106-109; Gloria, mm. 19-22, 64-65, 73-75; Credo, mm. 28-30, mm. 249- 251; Sanctus, mm. 65-67, mm. 78-80). The final cadences of the first and last Kyrie, for example, are the same as the final cadence of the chanson. It should be noted, however, that such cadential formulas were among the most common for three voices in late- fifteenth- and early-sixteenth-century polyphonic music. Still, that many cases like this can be found is noteworthy. The phenomenon extends to other cadences as well. For example, the last two notes in each voice of the internal cadence between citations of phrase A and phrase B in the Qui tollis (see Example 2.2, mm. 111-113) match Hayne?s cadential figure to phrase A (mm. 9-11), the difference being that the mass composer continues with a transitional phrase to his rather outstanding citation of Hayne?s phrase B (see below for a more 32 detailed discussion), whereas in the chanson, Hayne moves directly from one phrase to the next. Further, the last two notes in each voice of the final cadence of the mass match the final cadence of the chanson exactly. Most of the other cadences that occur at the ends of mass sections are comprised of the final and the third, while only three (those which conclude the Qui tollis, Patrem, Sanctus) include the fifth as well (see Table 2.1, above). The Gloria is the only instance in which a cadence on F includes a full triad, while all other major mass movements, as well as those internal subsections with F finals, end on unison Fs. The anonymous mass composer often strays from quotations of borrowed material in the measures leading up to cadences, in various cases interpolating a phrase of newly composed music, composing an extension of a cadence, ornamenting the quotation at the cadence, or straying from his quotation as it dissolves into the cadence. These procedures usually serve as transitions from transposed passages back to original chanson pitch, allowing the passage in question to cadence on the same pitches as does the corresponding chanson phrase. Thus, the modal relationship between mass and model is strengthened, even in cases in which the composer transposes his citation away from original pitch. One clear example of cadential extension is the end of the bassus quotation of Hayne?s tenor at phrase E in the Pleni sunt (see Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 53-54; and Exmple 2.4, Sanctus, mm. 60-68). One of few places in the mass where the composer assigns borrowed material to the bassus, this is an exact quotation, though augmented by two and transposed down a fifth. In order to bring the quotation to an end at original pitch after it rests on B-flat (m. 60), the anonymous composer extends the cadential phrase by 7 33 1/2 breves. This extension acts as a transition to F, and this quotation of the final chanson phrase ends, as does the chanson itself, with a three-voice cadence on F. Types of Quotation in the Missa Alles regretz The simplest compositional method employed by this composer is exact quotation of one voice of his model, usually the tenor, in augmentation in one mass voice at a time. This procedure is especially prevalent in the Qui tollis, in which the anonymous composer quotes phrases A, B, and C of the song in their entirety and with no interruptions (see Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 1-33; and Example 2.2, Gloria, tenor, mm. 92-157), 76 and in the Pleni sunt?Osanna, in which he quotes phrases D and E completely in long notes, again with no significant interruptions (see Example 2.4, Sanctus, superius, mm. 20-38, B, mm. 39-60). 7 The Et in terra pax concludes with augmented statements of phrases B and C (Gloria, tenor, mm. 27-43, superius, mm. 53-80), 78 and the Credo opens with an augmented statement of phrase A, presented a fifth below its original pitch (see Example 2.3, Credo, superius, mm. 1-13). Other examples of exact citation, at pitch or transposed, and sometimes with slight rhythmic alteration, occur in the Christe and Kyrie II (see Example 2.1, Kyrie, superius, mm. 25-31 [phrase B]; tenor, mm. 30-34 [phrase D]; tenor, mm. 52-58 [phrase C, transposed up a fifth]; tenor, mm. 71- 74 [phrase C, transposed up a fifth]; superius, mm. 73-76 [phrase C]; bassus, mm. 91-100 [phrase A]); and in the Gloria (superius, mm. 1-4 [phrase A]; tenor, mm. 4-7 [phrase A, transposed up a fourth]; superius, mm. 7-12 [phrase A, transposed up a fourth]). 76 The chanson text is given beneath the quoted melody in the tenor. 7 A minor rhythmic variant occurs in the superius citation: the f in m. 33 of the mass superius is dotted, whereas that in m. 40 of the chanson is not. The citation of phrase E is transposed down a fifth. 78 The citation in the mass superius is lightly paraphrased with a few minor embellishments, but the chanson melody is extremely clear. 34 Another method of citation used by this composer is melodic paraphrase, which this composer achieves by condensing (Kyrie, superius, mm. 12-17 [phrase C]) or ornamenting the borrowed material (Kyrie, superius, mm. 1-6 [phrase A]), or by interpolating new material within it, either in a phrase or as an extension of it, the latter usually at cadences (Credo, superius, tenor, bassus, mm. 112-132 [phrase A]; superius, tenor, mm. 241-251 [phrase E]; Sanctus, bassus, mm. 39-59 [phrase E]; superius, tenor, bassus, mm. 102-114 [phrase D]; tenor, mm. 120-126 [phrase E]). On occasion, he paraphrases his borrowed material almost beyond recognition, as in the Credo (mm. 45- 52 [phrase B]; mm. 73-79 [phrase D]; mm. 88-112 [phrase E]; mm. 113-120 [phrase A]). The anonymous composer occasionally moves his borrowed material from one voice to another, or even among all three, the most striking of these in the Benedictus?Osanna (Sanctus, mm. 69-126 [phrases A, B, C, D, E]). The closest the composer comes to polyphonic imitation in this mass are several brief quotations of Hayne?s entire polyphonic texture, (Kyrie, mm. 28-31 [phrases B (=D?) ? see discussion below, pp. 33-55]; Credo, mm. 52-53 [phrase B]; Credo, mm. 84- 85 [phrase D]; and Sanctus, mm. 69-80 [phrase A]). He frequently writes points of imitation on Hayne?s motives (Kyrie, mm. 71-79 [phrase C]; Credo, mm. 45-51 [phrase B]; and Credo, mm. 241-246 [phrase E]), and cadential structures employed in the mass often mirror those in the corresponding phrase of the chanson (Kyrie, mm. 86-87 [phrase C]; Kyrie, mm. 107-109 [phrase A, F]; Gloria, mm. 88-91 [phrase C]; Credo, mm. 249- 251 [phrase E]). While the superius and tenor melodies of Hayne?s chanson provide structure to the new composition, this composer also makes use of full polyphonic borrowing, presenting 35 prominent motives from his model in points of imitation, citing brief passages of Hayne?s entire polyphonic texture, and, in the final section (Benedictus-Osanna), presenting the superius opening and segments of the tenor of the chanson in migration from voice to voice, separated by interpolations. Indeed, even in instances of exact borrowing, he diverges from his model in the passages leading up to cadences, but then borrows Hayne?s cadences. As in most imitation masses, this one corresponds to its model most obviously at the beginnings and ends of movements. Plan of Quotation in the Missa Alles regretz This mass composer cites all three lyrical melodic lines of Alles regretz in this mass, usually one by one (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3). The chanson tenor is by far the most prominent in the mass, with 24 citations, though the superius is also cited 10 times. Hayne?s bassus appears only once in the mass, near the end of the Et in terra pax (T and B, mm. 51-55). Quotations of the model occur about equally in the mass superius (22 times) and tenor (20 times), with no apparent pattern. The bassus presents borrowed material on only ten occasions, all of which are citations of phrase E (Patrem, Et incarnatus est, Pleni sunt?Osanna), with the exception of the third Kyrie, in which the bassus presents the final statement of phrase A, and the Benedictus?Osanna, in which the chanson melody migrates between all three mass voices. Instances in which the bassus presents some borrowed material in imitation with another voice also exist. Often, this composer borrows only the beginnings and endings of phrases, or prominent motives. In between, he conveys the basic shape of a phrase, while providing newly composed music as well. He frequently draws attention to his borrowed material 36 by setting it in imitation and augmentation, and he contrasts the slower motion of a citation with faster moving counterpoint in the other voices. He often begins a paraphrased citation at a transposed pitch, skillfully modulating back to chanson pitch during an interpolation or in a pre-cadential passage, to cadence on Hayne?s pitch. Mass SectionPhraseMass mmChanson mm TreatmentImitative Kyrie IA B C 1-6 S 6-11 S 12-17 S 1-9/11 T 13-20 T 7-11/21-29 S/T ornamented almost exact at P5 above condensed at step above ChristeB D x C 25-31 S 30-34 T 34-40 T 52-58 T 58-70 S 61-70 T 13-20 T 34-40 T 21-25 T 26-33 T 29-33 T exact almost exact outlines 8 va and 5 th almost exact at P5 paraphrase close-cadence Kyrie IIC A 71-74 T 73-76 S 76-87 B 91-100 B 20-33 T 1-10 exact at P5 above exact exact at 3 rd below/pitch exact X Et in terra paxA x/B B C 1-4 S 4-7 T 7-12 S 8-25 T 27-42 T 53-91 S T/B 1-4 S 1-6 13-19 T 21-33 T B exact exact at P4 above exact at P4 above, until cadence long notes exact, augmented exact, augmented, ornamented at cadences X Qui tollisA B C 92-115 T 117-131 T 133-157 T 1-12 T 13-20 T 21-33 T exact, augmentedX PatremA x b,c D E 1-17 S 19-71 72-87 T/S/B 93-112 B 1-12 T 34-43 T exact at P5 below, augmented imitative T/B duo; S melody; brief motives from phrases B and C paraphrased almost exact; motives in S,T X 37 Et incarnatus estA b, c E 113-120 S, T, B 120-132 S 122-132 T 132-171 172-175 S 177-187 T 195-199 T 207-212 T, S 241-252 S, T, B 1-4 T 5-11 T 5-11 S 43-45 S 43-46 S 43-45 S 43-47 S, T 50-54 T paraphrase almost exact until cadence almost exact until cadence motives from B and C at P5 below, augmented at P4 above, augmented at P4 below, augmented transposed elaborated X SanctusA B b, e 1-8 S 8-12 S 13-19 1-11 T 12-20 T exact, some rhythmic var and int. at cadence motives from B, E Pleni sunt-OsannaD E 20-38 S 38-60 B 34-43 T 43-54 T exact, long notes exact, long notes, extension at cad Benedictus-Osanna II A B C D E 69-80 S, T, B 82-89 T, S 90-102 S, T, B 102-114 B, T, S 120-126 T 1-11 S, T 13-20 T 21-33 T 34-42 T (S) 43-50 S, T paraphrase, not complete, at P5 below, migrates (S/B/T cite S at P4 above) exact, migrates T to S exact, migrates S to T to B exact until cadence, imitation at beginning, then S exact until cadence, migrates S to T Table 2.2: Distribution and Description of Borrowed Material in the Missa Alles regretz lower case=borrowing of motive from chanson x=freely composed material Where the composer of this Missa Alles regretz follows Hayne?s five-phrase structure, he usually presents chanson phrases in the order in which they occur in Hayne?s original. He does not employ segmentation technique (in which a composer would break a cantus firmus into short segments, which are then presented in succession or repeated), but he sometimes breaks a phrase into smaller melodic units, presenting each in a slightly varied manner (as at the opening of the Et in terra pax and Et incarnatus est). He follows a logical structural model, usually beginning mass movements on phrase A and ending them on phrase E, and citing some chanson phrases in order. In sections that typically carry fewer exact citations of borrowed material, such as the Credo, the mass composer paraphrases more freely and interpolates much new 38 material. In the Kyrie and Gloria, the mass composer makes clear use of the first part of the chanson, phrases, while in the Credo the second half of the chanson is more prominent. The Sanctus is the first and only instance in the mass in which all five chanson phrases are cited clearly and in order, culminating in the Benedictus-Osanna, in which the composer cites phrases A through E, almost always faithfully, and in which the borrowed material migrates between in all three voices. Kyrie IA ? B ? C ChristeB ? (D)?C Kyrie IIC ? (A) Et in terra paxA ? B ? C Qui tollisA ? B ? C PatremA ? B ? D ? (E) Et incarnatus estA ? (B) ? E SanctusA ? B ? (C) Pleni sunt ? OsannaD ? E Benedictus ? OsannaA ? B ? C ? D ? E Table 2.3: Distribution of Borrowed Material in the Missa Alles regretz The Kyrie cites phrases A, B, and C in the first section, phrase B and C in the Christe, continues with phrase C in the final Kyrie, and comes full circle to conclude the movement with a citation of phrase A. Each of the two subsections of the Gloria present A, B, and C, in order, and, for the most part, in exact quotation. The Credo is less obvious, but due to the nature of that movement and the length of the Credo text, citations of borrowed material are paraphrased, or are brief points of imitation on a motive from the chanson. Nevertheless, both subsections open with A, both include some prominent new material based on the C-D-C motive from the model, to be discussed below, and both conclude with citations of Hayne?s phrase E. In the Sanctus, the first two subsections together present all five chanson phrases in order (Sanctus: A, B, C; Pleni 39 sunt?Osanna: D, E), and the last, Benedictus?Osanna, features exact citations of A, B, C, D, and E, presented without interpolations and in order. Considering the symmetry of this last movement, it is interesting to note that the first two subsections together are of similar length to the last one (Sanctus + Pleni sunt?Osanna = 64 breves; Benedictus?Osanna = 62 breves). As is common in imitation masses of the period, the beginnings and ends of mass movements correspond to the appropriate sections of the model. Thus all five major mass movements begin with phrase A of Alles regretz and end on either phrase C (which closes the first section of Hayne?s chanson) or E (the last chanson phrase), depending on the material cited in that section. Instances in which the mass composer diverges from this system, then, are conspicuous. In the Christe, the mass composer first cites phrase B in the superius. At a polyphonic citation of mm. 16-18 of the chanson in the mass superius and bassus, the tenor interrupts with an exact statement of the first half of phrase D, followed by several measures of material based on the C-D-C motive. He then cites phrase C of the chanson. 79 The section opens with an exact citation of phrase B in the superius. After the superius/bassus cadence (mm. 28-31) that intentionally resembles the tenor/bassus cadence in the chanson, the tenor, which had been resting during the superius statement of phrase B, enters in (mm. 30-34) with a precise quotation of pitches of the first half of phrase D of the chanson (Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 34-40). The tenor enters again two bars later with sequential passage on a four-note descent (mm. 43-51), a prominent motive in the chanson. He continues with a straightforward quotation of the first half of 79 In fifteenth-century polyphonic mass cycles, the Christe often did not carry any cantus firmus material. 40 chanson phrase C (mm. 21-25), a fifth above original pitch (mm. 52-58). At this point, the quotation migrates to the superius, which paraphrases the next section of phrase C (mm. 26-27). Here, the tenor picks up the end of Hayne?s phrase C (mm. 29-33), beginning a fifth above chanson pitch. At the fourth note (F), on the second breve of m. 62, the mass composer continues his melodic ascent by step to the cadence on C, at Hayne?s pitch. This clever transition back to original chanson pitch in the tenor is one of many examples in this mass of a cadence in which the composer modulates to chanson pitch in a cadential passage. The tenor finishes this quotation of phrase C with a cadence that recalls that of Hayne in the tenor and bassus (see Example 2.1, Kyrie, mm. 61-70). Meanwhile, the superius and bassus follow different routes to cadences on the same pitches as those used by Hayne (E and C, respectively) than does their model (mm. 58- 70). This composer?s use of newly composed material in this case is not particularly outstanding, since it is only the first of several similar instances, including one in the Et in terra pax (mm. 8-25), and several throughout the Credo (mm. 19-44, 53-71, 132-171). His interpolation of such a literal quotation of phrase D in the Christe, a section that otherwise clearly cites phrases B and C, however, is highly unusual in this mass. It is even more notable in the context of a movement which otherwise proceeds so logically from phrase A to B to C. In the first Kyrie, the anonymous composer borrows material from the tenor and the superius of phrase A of the chanson, and presents it in the superius of the mass. The phrase A tenor melody (mm. 1-11) is ornamented in mm. 1-6 of the mass. In mm. 6-11, the superius continues with a statement of the phrase B tenor melody (mm. 13-19). A brief passage that recalls the opening of chanson phrase C (tenor) follows in the superius 41 (mm. 12-14). The phrase C quotation is transposed up one full step at the beginning (Kyrie, S, mm. 11-14), down a fourth a few bars later (mm. 14-17), and finally presented at chanson pitch (mm. 17-20). The anonymous composer is subtly effective in his transpositions here, as he is elsewhere in the Missa Alles regretz. The first, from one step above to a fourth below original pitch, occurs between the second and third breves of m. 14: in the chanson, Hayne?s melody leaps from C to C (m. 25), whereas the mass composer leaps only from D to G, transposing the same melody. The method that he uses in the next transition is one seen often in this mass: after a cadence on F followed by a minim rest (m. 17), Hayne restarts his melody on F. The anonymous mass composer?s cadence on C (m. 17) is followed by the same minim rest, only he begins the next phrase on F, as Hayne does, to conclude his quotation of phrase C at original pitch. The final Kyrie is the first of a series of five subsections that open with imitative statements of borrowed material. It is also the first section in which the bassus carries a significant portion of this borrowed material. The tenor, a fifth above Hayne?s pitch, and the superius, at pitch, present only the opening gesture of Hayne?s tenor phrase C. The bassus, which enters last and a third below original pitch, presents an exact statement of the entire phrase, with only very minor rhythmic alterations, to accommodate the Mass Ordinary text (see Example 2.1, Kyrie, bassus, mm. 76-87). As discussed above, the cadence at mm. 86-87 matches Hayne?s at mm. 32-33, though the mass composer necessarily exchanges the functions of the tenor and bassus, since the bassus carries the tenor line of the chanson. The following superius/tenor duet serves as a transition to another chanson citation, still in the bassus, but this time of phrase A (tenor) at a fifth 42 below. At mm. 100-101, the mass composer evades a final cadence, interpolating a brief cadential passage that brings us back to F, so that his cadence at mm. 104-105 matches Hayne?s at mm. 10-11, and the very end of the movement (mm. 106-109) matches the final cadence of the chanson. As mentioned above, both sections of the Gloria (Et in terra pax and Qui tollis) feature phrases A, B, and C of Hayne?s Alles regretz, presented quite clearly. Though both the Et in terra pax and the Qui tollis open in imitation and with statements of phrase A, the anonymous composer handles these statements differently. Like the final Kyrie, the Et in terra pax opens with a three-voice imitative statement of the opening gestures of phrase A, though the superius rather than the tenor of the chanson is quoted, and the quotation beyond the initial few notes occurs in the mass superius. By m. 13, the mass superius begins to break away from its exact quotation of chanson phrase A (at Hayne, S, m. 6) in order to come to rest in m. 18, on the fifth of a C cadence (G). The tenor ends its phrase with the prominent C-D-C cadence (mm. 13-16), and a brief cadential extension (mm. 18-23/25), at the end of which the tenor repeats the same cadential motive a fifth below (F-G-F), returns to F. The tenor quotation of phrase B begins in m. 27 with its statement, in long notes at original pitch. The superius repeats sequential statements of a brief dotted-figure motive, and the bassus moves along in relatively simple counterpoint, repeating short motives, thereby emphasizing the augmented statement of phrase B in the tenor even more. A superius/tenor duo (mm. 42-52) separates citations of phrases B and C. Meanwhile, the mass bassus and tenor present an imitative statement of Hayne?s transitional bassus melody linking phrases B and C (Example 2.2, Gloria, mm. 51-55; Hayne, Alles regretz, 43 mm. 19-21), preparing the quotation of phrase C in the superius at mm. 53-91, which, at m. 60, continues in augmentation (double or more) with some paraphrase to m. 82. At this point, the mass tenor picks up Hayne?s cadential figure. An elaborated cadential phrase occurs in the Gloria during a superius quotation of the tenor voice of Hayne?s phrase C (Gloria, mm. 53-71). Apart from the first few measures, in which the mass composer follows his model extremely closely, he cites his borrowed material exactly, and augmented by four, until the first important cadence, at mm. 69-71 (which corresponds to Hayne?s cadence in mm. 28-29). The entire citation, including the cadence, is at original pitch. Where Hayne simply writes F-G-F, the anonymous mass composer draws out the cadence, inserting a 1 1/2-breve ornamental passage to replace the first semibreve F of the chanson (see Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 28-29; and Example 2.2, Gloria, mm. 69-71). The mass composer continues immediately (mm. 72-77) to quote the second half of phrase C, still in the superius, still augmented. His treatment of the next cadence is even more innovative. If he were to have followed Hayne exactly, he would have cadenced on C-D-C in mm. 77-79. Instead, he extends the phrase with a melody that first hovers around C, then gradually falls to E. Meanwhile, the mass tenor picks up Hayne?s C-D-C cadential motive and meanders around it for several measures. By the final cadence of the Et in terra pax (mm. 88-91), our composer has successfully and subtly moved the chanson tenor material from the mass superius to the tenor, and assigned music from Hayne?s superius to the mass superius, which had been quoting, rather faithfully, the chanson tenor up to this point. In this way, the mass cadence in mm. 89-91 matches the corresponding chanson cadence, which occurs at mm. 32-33. This quotation of the full 44 texture of the model at cadences, as we have seen, occurs elsewhere in this mass, and is a fine example of this composer?s manipulation of his borrowed material. It is typical of early imitation masses, however. 80 Like the Et in terra pax, the Qui tollis presents phrases A through C of Hayne?s Alles regretz, though the anonymous composer presents them in a more straightforward manner. First, he employs only the tenor of Hayne?s chanson as borrowed material, and only in the tenor of the mass, augmented by two, throughout the section. Because the mass ordinary text does not fit conveniently under the tenor melody in this subsection, the tenor may perform the chanson text, emphasizing the citation even more. The tenor citations of Hayne?s phrases A, B, and C stand out even more against the superius and bassus, which the composer manipulates in a variety of ways to this end. At the opening of the Qui tollis, the bassus and superius surround the tenor with a brief imitative ascending scalar figure (B, mm. 92-94, S, mm. 94-96), and the two voices continue through the tenor?s statement of phrase A, in a blend of homophony and simple counterpoint. At m. 117, where the tenor begins its quotation of phrase B, the superius and bassus move in the first of two instances of sesquialtera (the other, which occurs in the Patrem, though in a different context, will be discussed below, on p. 46), thus emphasizing even more the long-note statement of chanson phrase B in the tenor. They return to their original mensuration only at the end of the tenor melody, in mm. 126-127. The phrase C quotation, which begins in the tenor after a fairly strong superius cadence in m. 133, does not stand out quite as much as phrases A and B did, because the more prominent superius 80 J. Peter Burkholder, "Borrowing," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/52918pg5 (accessed April 29, 2009). 45 melody and more complex counterpoint in the superius and bassus disguise it. Nevertheless, the anonymous composer provides an overt and clearly audible quotation, which, unlike the quotes in other sections of the mass, continues exactly through the final cadence (mm. 156-157). As expected, the anonymous composer disguises the chanson melody more in the Credo than in other movements, although he does emphasize the last phrase of Hayne?s chanson, phrase E (mm. 72-112, mm. 172-252). He frequently inserts and omits notes and entire passages, not necessarily preserving the identity of Hayne?s melodies (as at mm. 113-132 [phrase A]; mm. 195-212 [phrase E]). He alters rhythms, even changing the rhythmic character of his model (mm. 72-87 [phrase D]). Many passages in the Credo are not borrowed directly from Alles regretz, although they are constructed from borrowed motives rather than completely newly composed material (mm. 19-44, mm. 53-71, mm. 132-171). As is often the case in imitation masses, the first and last phrases of the model correspond to the beginnings and ends of mass sections, and are cited clearly, whereas quotations of the middle of the chanson are more heavily paraphrased. Thus, for the first 17 measures of the Patrem, phrase A of the chanson tenor is easily recognizable in the superius. Likewise, the Et incarnatus est opens with a statement of phrase A, this time paraphrased. Both sections close with a quotation of chanson phrase E, paraphrased in the Patrem and set exactly, though transposed, at the close of the Credo. The movement accordingly opens and closes with faithful statements of the first and last phrases of the chanson. The mass composer opens the Credo with an extended exact quotation of Hayne?s 46 phrase A tenor melody, presented in the mass superius, down a perfect fifth and augmented by two, but otherwise exactly, up to m. 13, where he departs from his model to bring his phrase to a close with the C-D-C cadence that so characterizes this mass. Meanwhile the bassus presents the first three measures of Hayne?s superius, also a fifth below pitch. In the middle of this first phrase (mm. 8-12), the tenor presents a prominent, slow-moving melody, all under one ligature, a retrograde statement of the beginning of Hayne?s phrase E, but for one note (see Hayne, Alles regretz, superius, mm. 43-46). The same melody returns later near the end of the Credo, though in different transpositions, first in the superius and then in the tenor, at a logical place for a citation of phrase E (mm. 172-186). Two brief, imitative duos on subjects that do not quote Alles regretz follow the strong cadence in mm. 16-18 of the Patrem. They do feature prominent motives from the chanson, such as a stepwise descent of a fourth. In the first of these passages (mm. 19- 30), the bassus is the lead voice, while both the tenor and superius, at different times, follow at a distance of two breves. The duo between the tenor and bassus lasts only two measures (B, mm. 19-20, T, mm. 21-22), during which the superius presents its own melody (S, mm. 19-22). At mm. 23-24, the superius imitates the bassus (mm. 21-22) for two measures, picking up where the tenor left off. Immediately following the cadence on F in m. 30, a new duo, between tenor and superius at 1 1/2 breves, begins (mm. 31-40). The bassus accompanies up to m. 40, at which point the superius/tenor duo proceeds in proportio sesquialtera, unaccompanied, to m. 45. Following these duos, the anonymous composer presents a phrase of unknown origin in imitation in the bassus, then the tenor, and finally the superius. 47 The passage that follows (mm. 57-71) acts as a transition, anticipating the citation of phrase D. The dotted, descending motive that is repeated in all voices from mm. 66-70 is from phrase C of the chanson, bassus, m. 26. At the phrase D quotation, the bassus first quotes only the descending scalar figure that begins Hayne?s phrase D tenor melody (mm. 72-73), the end of which overlaps with a tenor/superius quotation of the majority of phrase D, in exact imitation. As the tenor and superius cadence, without having completed their quotations (mm. 79-80 and 81-82, respectively), the bassus enters in m. 79 with an exact quotation of the entire phrase D, transposed down a whole step. The anonymous composer often includes a brief polyphonic citation of his model and manipulates the rhythm and texture to fit the context of the mass (see Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 40-42; and Example 2.3, Credo, mm. 84-85). In mm. 84-85, during the bassus quotation of Hayne?s phrase D tenor, the mass superius and tenor each cite a bit of Hayne?s tenor, which consists of an ascending dotted figure followed by a slightly different descending one (see Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 40-41). In m. 41, the chanson superius duplicates the rhythm of the second part of this figure, which occurs simultaneously, while the bassus presents the first part. This polyphonic citation works precisely because of the way in which the mass composer manipulates the timing of each voice entry. The superius, like the bassus, presents the chanson tenor, which resembles that in the chanson superius, but a semibreve earlier than the bassus. In the mass tenor, the figure is inverted?the descending portion leads into a dotted-figure ascent, so that, as in the chanson, the two portions sound simultaneously. The result is a texture that matches that of the chanson, though in the chanson, the superius and tenor present a similar rhythmic and melodic figure, whereas in the mass, the dotted ascending bassus 48 figure is doubled in the superius. Also, in the mass, the imitation of the dotted rhythms occurs at the semibreve rather than at the breve, as in the chanson. If the mass bassus were to be realigned so that it would begin this two-bar figure one breve earlier than it does, the texture would match that of the chanson, except that the descending figure would be in the tenor and bassus, while the superius would present the ascending portion. The Patrem closes with a citation of the phrase E tenor melody, anticipated by the superius and tenor at mm. 89-93, then presented by the bassus (mm. 93-112). In the transition between quotations of phrase D and phrase E (mm. 89-923, the anonymous composer foreshadows the mostly faithful bassus quotation with a paraphrase of part of phrase E (mm. 47-50) in the superius, transposed down a major third. At m. 93, the bassus enters with its citation of phrase E, transposed down a fourth from Hayne?s original. At m. 99, the superius enters with the notable opening gesture of the chanson superius, mm. 43-45. Also at m. 99, the mass composer augments the note values in the bassus by four for a few notes, then by two (at m. 102) to m. 107, where he adds a cadential extension to close on G, rather than on F as Hayne does, for an incomplete cadence on C. The only clear quotations from Alles regretz in the Et incarnatus est are phrases A and E. The opening of this subsection provides a particularly interesting example of a pre-cadential interpolation, however (see Example 2.3, Credo, mm. 113-132). The Et incarnatus est opens with a three-voice imitative paraphrase of the first gesture of Hayne?s tenor melody, and features no fewer than six interpolations of material not taken from the model in the eighteen bars that precede the first cadence. The superius carries 49 the most straightforward quotation of the chanson phrase A (tenor), though initially transposed down a fifth. The first interpolation in the superius (mm. 115-119), which follows the initial four-note gesture of the chanson, moves from the transposed pitch to the original chanson pitch. It thus interrupts the citation of the first phrase of the chanson, even including an intermediate cadence, on G (mm. 118-119). In a striking change of voice, in m. 120, the mass superius picks up with the chanson tenor where it had left off in m. 115, only now at Hayne?s original pitch, where it remains until its cadence on F in m. 130. The final cadential statement, which the anonymous composer modeled after Hayne?s cadence in mm. 10-11, is also interrupted, by a second, shorter, interpolation, which occurs between the quoted penultimate note (G) and the final (F). The bassus follows the superius by three breves with the first few measures of Hayne?s tenor, also a fifth below chanson pitch. As in the superius, the composer breaks the phrase after the first four-note gesture with an interpolation (mm. 117-118), but this time he picks up the melody (m. 119) at transposed pitch. His two-note diversion from Hayne?s m.5 melody, at m. 120, functions as a transposition to chanson pitch, to which he adheres as he continues, from m. 121, with a paraphrased version of Hayne?s phrase A, with some notes omitted, some added notes, and rhythmic alteration. The tenor enters last with its statement of phrase A, already at chanson pitch (m. 117). The very brief and very simple interpolation at mm. 119-121 occurs, as do those in the superius and bassus, after the first four-note gesture of the opening of Hayne?s tenor. Now, however, the composer does not use the new material to make a transposition. Instead, he breaks up his statement of phrase A. He then immediately cites the second half of Hayne?s superius (mm. 5-8), which he quotes with very minor rhythmic variation. 50 At this point, a second interpolated phrase replaces Hayne?s mm. 8-10 and extends the tenor phrase in the mass to m. 130. With the exception of a few rhythmic variants and an interpolation in each voice at the cadence of this phrase, both superius and tenor reproduce their borrowed material faithfully up to the three-voice cadence, in mm. 130- 131,which matches that of Hayne?s phrase A, in mm. 10-11, exactly. The anonymous composer even borrowed Hayne?s bassus transition to phrase B (see Hayne, Alles regretz, B, m. 11; and Example 2.3, Credo, B, m. 131), as well as the texture of that transition (Credo, mm. 131-133; Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 11-12). In each of the three voices, the anonymous composer skillfully and cleverly uses interpolated cadential material for structural and modal means. Consequently, the Et incarnatus est is rich in invention, consisting of three functionally-related voices, which bear a strong and complex relationship to Hayne?s Alles regretz. This opening passage is a prime example of the exceptional thematic unity of this mass. The anonymous composer employs multiple voices of his model and presents them in all three voices of the mass in a creative, clever way. He draws attention to the most remarkable of Hayne?s gestures, and weaves his borrowed material through the entire texture of the mass, thus communicating the fundamental character of Hayne?s song through his new composition. What, if any, borrowed material the anonymous composer employed at Crucifixus (mm. 132-171) is unclear, though the imitative gesture that he uses repeatedly in the tenor and superius at the semibreve at the fifth (mm. 132-144) resembles Hayne?s phrase B, and the superius in mm. 155-158 recalls the tenor of phrase C, mm. 24-26. On the other hand, the mass composer employs an ascending motive consisting of a dotted quarter, an 51 eighth, and a quarter or half note, in all three voices between mm. 135-147, emphasizing it through sequential repetition in the superius and tenor in mm. 140-144. This motive may in fact have been derived from Hayne?s phrase D, the superius of which opens with such an ascending motive, though in longer note values in the chanson (Hayne, Alles regretz, S, mm. 35-36). If this were the case, the imitative figure with which the tenor and superius begin this passage may be a paraphrase of the chanson tenor at the beginning of phrase D (mm. 34-36). A fairly clear and rather long statement of chanson phrase E follows, all three mass voices taking part, in mm. 170-221. The homophonic passage that begins this extended quotation features the opening gesture of Hayne?s phrase E superius melody in double augmentation and transposed down a fifth. As the homophonic passage dissolves, the superius stops its citation of phrase E, which is picked up by the tenor, in long notes, in m. 177. The superius and bassus accompany with similar rhythms, then a brief imitative passage (mm. 181-184), which continues to the cadence in mm. 184-187. The anonymous composer effectively uses texture to emphasize the tenor quotation, by setting it in long notes against a contrasting texture in the contrapuntal voices. In the passages that follow, the anonymous composer splits Hayne?s melodies and combines pieces taken from different chanson phrases, or even voices, in new ways. Motives from the opening (tenor, mm. 43-46) of the phrase E tenor are combined to form a single melodic phrase in the mass tenor in mm. 194-199. Similarly, beginning in m. 207, the mass tenor presents an exact (transposed up a fourth) citation of the opening of Hayne?s phrase E superius (Hayne, Alles regretz, superius, mm. 43-45), against the phrase E tenor presented by the mass bassus a fifth below. The mass tenor presents the 52 phrase E tenor opening (Hayne, Alles regretz, tenor, mm. 43-47) at m. 209, and at m. 211, the mass superius cites the same chanson tenor gesture a fifth below pitch, and continues with a repeated cadential figure to m. 221. The passage that follows is not easily identified as borrowed from Hayne?s chanson, though the dotted scalar ascending and descending fourth motives from the chanson are prominent (S: mm. 228-230, mm. 232-234, m. 237, mm. 242-243; T: mm. 225-227, mm. 235-237, mm. 242-243; B: mm. 234-235, mm. 241-242, m. 243). Also, the tenor presents a prominent melody in mm. 228-237, which may be constructed from the C-D-D motive. After a strong cadence on C in m. 241, the mass superius and tenor close the Credo with a fairly faithful imitative quotation of the second half of Hayne?s phrase E, beginning at m. 50 (see Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 50-54; and Example 2.3, Credo, mm. 241-251). As he often does, the anonymous composer interpolates a cadential phrase (mm. 245-249), which brings us to the final cadence on unison Fs, all three voices of which match Hayne?s final cadence. After the evasive manner in which the anonymous composer treated his borrowed material in the Gloria and Credo, the clarity and precision with which he quotes Alles regretz in the Sanctus is refreshing. As mentioned above, he presents the first two chanson phrases in the first subsection (Sanctus), the last two chanson phrases in the second subsection (Pleni sunt?Osanna), and all five, for the first time in the mass completely and in order, in the final section (Benedictus?Osanna II). The Sanctus, one of only two sections in O (the other is the opening Kyrie; textural similarities between the two movements have been discussed above), opens with a superius quotation of Hayne?s phrase A tenor melody, with minor rhythmic alterations 53 and a cadential ornament. The anonymous composer continues directly with a citation of Hayne?s phrase B tenor melody, still in the superius, transposed up a fifth, this time with no rhythmic variants. The final passage of this section (mm. 13-19) is less clear, though the mass superius continues with a paraphrase of phrase B with modulation, and motives from phrase E are present. The mass composer emphasizes his superius quotations of Hayne?s chanson by setting them in a higher register and slightly slower longer notes than the tenor and bassus accompaniment, which proceed in a similar register and like rhythms. The composer quotes the tenor of Hayne?s phrases D and E in the Pleni sunt. The section opens with a precise statement, in long notes, in the superius. The composer uses mensuration as well as texture to emphasize his borrowed material; only the superius is in C during its quotation of phrase D, while the other voices are in cut C. At m. 38, the superius continues, like the tenor and bassus, in cut C, and in m. 39, the bassus picks up with its own exact quotation, a fifth below and augmented by two, of phrase E (mm. 39- 60). A cadential extension serves to modulate back to Hayne?s original pitch (F) for the cadence (mm. 65-67), all three voices of which again match Hayne?s final cadence (Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 53-54). The Benedictus?Osanna II is indisputably the climax of this mass (which suggests, as discussed above, that no polyphonic Agnus Dei was ever composed for this cycle). A real tour de force, the section features clear, compact quotations of all five chanson tenor phrases, as well as three instances of melodic borrowing from Hayne?s superius, in all three mass voices. At the opening, the three voices trade small segments of Hayne?s phrase A tenor 54 and superius melodies back and forth. The superius gives the opening two notes (mm. 69- 70) of the chanson tenor melody, then passes it on to the bassus, which continues with Hayne?s second gesture (mm. 70-72) before passing it back to the superius in m. 72. At m. 73, the bassus picks up with Hayne?s phrase A tenor cadential phrase as the superius leaves off, continuing with its own newly composed cadential material. Meanwhile, the mass tenor begins in mm. 69-72 with an incomplete statement of Hayne?s phrase A superius melody a fourth above chanson pitch, and continues with a cadential gesture (mm. 72-74). At m. 77, the mass tenor picks up again with the first few notes from the second part of Hayne?s phrase A superius melody, but the anonymous mass composer switches to the chanson tenor, at pitch, in order to give his mass tenor the same material with which the chanson tenor concludes phrase A. Although he added some new material prior to the conclusion of this passage, the actual cadence (mm. 78- 80) matches that of Hayne?s phrase A in all three voices. Phrase B also migrates, this time between superius and tenor. The anonymous composer foreshadows the tenor entry with a superius statement of Hayne?s opening gesture (mm. 81-82). After the mass tenor presents this same gesture, the line moves to the superius (m. 85), which completes the citation. Only one measure later (m. 90), the superius continues with phrase C, passing the melody to the tenor after stating Hayne?s opening gesture (m. 92). This time, rather than passing his borrowed material back and forth between two voices, the anonymous composer passes it to the bassus, which completes the citation and moves directly to present the first of three imitative entries of the opening of phrase D (mm. 102-104). The tenor follows with its presentation of the first gesture of Hayne?s phrase D tenor melody 55 and that of the phrase D superius melody, then a newly-composed cadential passage (mm. 104-108). The superius enters in m. 106 with a full and exact statement of Hayne?s phrase D tenor melody. Where Hayne cadences on F (chanson, mm. 42-43), the anonymous mass composer extends his cadential phrase to finish on C (mm. 117-118). The anonymous composer?s quotation of phrase E is incomplete, but other than the 1 1/2 breves of Hayne?s music that he omitted (mm. 51-52), and a brief passage that he interpolated just prior to the final cadence, it is exact. He puts the opening gesture of the chanson tenor melody in the superius (mm. 120-121), and the rest of the phrase in the tenor (mm. 122-126). Considering how often the anonymous composer borrowed Hayne?s cadences, it is odd that, at the final cadence of the mass, he should have chosen not to use a cadence identical to that with which Hayne ends his chanson. Still, he concludes on unison Fs, which he approaches in all three voices by the same penultimate notes as those used by Hayne at the final cadence of Alles regretz. Citations of Motivic Material in the Missa Alles regretz The mass composer frequently cites prominent motives from the chanson, both in their original contexts and in new contexts, sometimes developing them and combining them to create new melodies. The mass composer usually, but not always, employs the prominent cadential motive, C-D-C, in the context of a cadence. The motive is borrowed from Hayne?s tenor in mm. 32-33 (phrase C), and is related to the F-G-F motive at the end of the chanson. It is also a prominent gesture near the opening of the tenor of chanson phrase B (mm. 14-16), and it occurs again in extended form within chanson phrase E (mm. 44-47). 56 Its three statements in Kyrie I (the last of which, in the tenor, mm. 22-24, is transposed down a fifth to F-G-F) can be seen in two ways. The phrase that begins in the superius in m. 12 loosely paraphrases phrase C, in an odd transposition (up a whole step). It modulates to a C-D-C cadence at mm. 16-17, and the mass tenor embellishes the C-D- C motive at mm. 17-19 and again at mm. 21-22 before settling on an F-G-F cadence in mm. 22-24. The motive as it appears in mm. 17-18 and mm. 20-21, was probably intended to resemble Hayne?s phrase C cadence in the tenor, mm. 32-33. The statement on F in the tenor, mm. 22-24, takes the phrase C cadence, but transposes it, keeping the tenor and exchanging the bassus and superius. Another possibility surfaces when one considers the composer?s treatment of borrowed material in the Kyrie. Apart from the quotation of the most striking musical features of phrase C in the chanson tenor (S, mm. 12-20), Kyrie I presents phrases A and B, the Christe presents B and C (though interrupted by part of phrase D), and the final Kyrie presents phrase C and wraps up with a quotation of phrase A. The many statements of the C-D-C motive in Kyrie I, sometimes transposed and altered (S: mm. 7-9, mm. 12- 13, mm. 16-17, mm. 19-20; T: m. 2, mm. 22-24; B: mm. 3-4, m. 7, m. 10) could be interpreted as foreshadowing phrase B, which is cited at the opening of the Christe in the superius and of which the C-D-C motive is an integral part of the opening gesture. The Christe presents one example of this composer?s development of this motive, along with another, to create new music. Here, the tenor presents the inversion of the very prominent C-D-C motive (D-C-D), which Hayne uses most often at cadences, followed by a scalar passage, as throughout the chanson (Example 2.1, Kyrie, mm. 34-40). Generally, though, the motive in the mass reflects its context in the chanson, most 57 often as the cadence to phrase C. Thus, the composer uses it twice in the course of his quotation of phrase C in the final Kyrie (see Example 2.1, Kyrie, bassus, mm. 82-83, mm. 86-87, tenor, mm. 107-109). The final cadence of the Kyrie II is one of the many cadences in this mass to feature this prominent cadential motive. Of course, in this instance and others in which phrase C is the borrowed material (e.g. Kyrie, bassus, mm. 86-87, and others), the motive is simply transferred from model to mass as part of a borrowed cadence. In two of the three occurrences of the motive at the end of the Et in terra pax, during his quotation of phrase C, the mass composer slightly elaborates it before giving one final, clear quotation at the final cadence (see Example 2.2, Gloria, superius, mm. 77-78, tenor, mm. 80-83, mm. 88-91). At the end of the Qui tollis, which also concludes with a statement of phrase C, the motive occurs three times in quick succession: once transposed (Gloria, T, mm. 146-148), once hidden within a cadential phrase (Gloria, superius, mm. 151-152), and finally at pitch in long notes in the tenor at the final cadence (Gloria, tenor, mm. 154-157). Near the beginning of the Et in terra, immediately after the presentation of the phrase A opening gesture in the tenor and bassus, as the mass superius begins its statement of phrase A, the mass tenor proceeds with a melodic unit that moves along in long notes (mm. 8-25), which resembles that in the Christe, mm. 34-40. The melody opens with an octave leap D-D and continues, in the Christe, around D, dropping first to a lower neighbor (C) and then a fifth (A) and back to D. The passage presented in the Et in terra pax opens with an upper neighbor ornamentation to D, then proceeds with a leap of a minor third to F before descending by step to C (ornamented by an upper neighbor, a 58 cadential figure prominent elsewhere in this mass and in its chanson model), and finally to E, all before finishing with a strong cadential figure on F (mm. 19-25). Phrase C is used sparingly in the Credo, though one statement of the C-D-C motive stands out (Credo, T, mm. 56-58). Where it occurs again, it is an internal part of phrase E. In fact, the Et incarnatus est, in which the anonymous composer quotes the first part of the chanson (phrases A, B, and C), closes with a cadence reminiscent of Hayne?s phrase C cadence, on E (see Hayne, Alles regretz, mm. 32-33; and Example 2.2, Gloria, mm. 88-91). Of the two occurrences of the motive in the Sanctus, the first (see Example 2.4, Sanctus, tenor, mm. 66-68) is on F and is, in fact, a version of Hayne?s final cadence, transferred to the mass at a point where the composer is concluding his own statement of the final phrase of the chanson. The other C-D-C motive (Sanctus, B, mm. 101-102), not surprisingly, appears during a transition between phrase C (where the motive originally occurs in the chanson), and phrase D. This motive is also emphasized even when it is not part of a chanson citation, which effectively integrates the chanson more fully into the mass. The Alles regretz Tradition Hayne van Ghizeghem?s three-voice chanson Alles regretz generated a substantial complex of eight other chansons, one motet, seven masses, and four intabulations, all of which borrow to some extent from Hayne?s original song (see Table 2.4). If its distribution in twenty-seven manuscripts with music, not to mention tablatures and text sources, is any indicator, Alles regretz was, along with Hayne?s De tous biens plaine, one 59 of the most widely-known songs in the late fifteenth century, a point supported by its attractiveness to other composers as material for new composition. 81 The reasons for this are simple. First, Hayne?s elegant superius and tenor melodies are quite lyrical and memorable, thus recognizable?all qualities that lend themselves well to melodic citation. Second, no imitation is present, resulting in three independent, useful lines. Because of this, the composer of a new composition based on Alles regretz has three melodies to choose from, not to mention the contrapuntal or motivic options available to him in instances of polyphonic borrowing. Indeed, several of the compositions based on Hayne?s Alles regretz, including the anonymous mass being discussed here, cite significant portions of the superius melody, as well as that of the tenor, and there are numerous brief instances in which the entire polyphonic fabric of Alles regretz appears in the new composition. An overview of the chronology and distribution of compositions related to Alles regretz, along with a brief description of the only manuscript to transmit this anonymous Missa Alles regretz, VerBC 756, shows that these works emanated from Burgundian- Habsburg court musicians and their foreign contacts. Of the eight chansons related to Hayne van Ghizeghem?s Alles regretz and composed around 1470, presumably while Hayne was in the service of Charles the Bold, three or four were composed in the late 1480s or 1490s by musicians with Burgundian or French ties (Du Sart, 82 Agricola, 81 David Fallows, A Catalogue of Polyphonic Songs, 1415-1480 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 81-83. 82 David Fallows first questioned Du Sart?s authorship of this chanson, suggesting instead Caron or Basiron as possible composers, based on conflicting attributions. Fallows, A Catalogue of Polyphonic Songs, 351. The later article on Du Sart in the New Grove, however, maintains Du Sart?s authorship, based on unreliable attributions in the two other sources. David Fallows and Barbara H. Haggh, "Du Sart, Jean," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/48625 (accessed November 18, 2008). 60 Comp?re, and possibly Weerbeke 83 ), another two or three were composed at the end of the fifteenth century by composers working in northern Italy, or are transmitted in manuscripts copied in Italy for Italian patrons (that by Bartolomeo degli Organi, 84 an anonymous chanson in BolQ 17, and possibly that by Weerbeke), and the latest was apparently composed in the very early sixteenth century by Senfl, who lived and worked in Germany and had ties to the Holy Roman Empire. The sole motet to bear relation to Hayne?s Alles regretz is the anonymous Regina celi in VienNB 18825, a manuscript copied for the Fuggers of Augsburg probably between 1519 and 1525. 85 The tenor of the motet is the Alles regretz tenor. Of the seven masses whose composers took material from Alles regretz, four date from the 1480s and 1490s. 86 Of these four, three are preserved in four Alamire or Scribe B manuscripts, including the anonymous mass under discussion here (the mass by Comp?re is in two manuscripts, VienNB 15495 and JenaU 3, the mass by one ?Io. De pratis? is in JenaU 21, and the anonymous mass is in VerBC 756). A fourth mass, by Prioris, is in VatS 35. Of the three early sixteenth-century masses, another anonymous one is preserved in CambraiBM 18, the mass by Champion (attributed to Scompianus, active at the courts of Philip the Fair, Charles V, and probably Frederick the Wise) is 83 Weerbeke?s classification depends on his whereabouts when he composed his chanson on Alles regretz. 84 See Richard Wexler, ?Newly Identified Works by Bartolomeo degli Organi in the MS Bologna Q 17,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 23 (1970): 107-18. 85 Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 50, 163. 86 See Johannes Prioris, Opera omnia 1, ed. Thomas Herman Keahey and Conrad Douglas. Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 90/1 (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology, 1982), 47-70; Loyset Comp?re, Opera omnia 1: Masses, ed. L. Finscher, Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 15/1 (Neuhausen- Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology, 1958), 26-50; and Josquin des Prez, New Josquin Edition 7: Masses Based on Secular Polyphonic Songs, Critical Commentary 1, ed. Thomas Noblitt (Utrecht: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1997), 1-10. 61 preserved in BerlPS 40634, and the Missa Carmina by Bruhier (active in France and Rome) includes citations from Alles regretz among other chansons. 87 A clear pattern emerges here: the earliest compositions to be based on Hayne?s Alles regretz, those composed at the end of the fifteenth century, were by composers who were employed at the French or Burgundian court, on the one hand, and by Franco- Flemish composers who were active in northern Italy (with the exception of Bartolomeo degli Organi, an Italian musician who, as suggested by Richard Wexler, was probably a student of Isaac or Agricola in Florence), 8 on the other. It was not until the early decades of the sixteenth century that the masses on Alles regretz by Senfl and Scompianus would be copied into German sources. That all but one of these masses are either by French composers or Franco-Flemish composers working in northern France or northern Italy suggests a strong late fifteenth-century French and Italian tradition of compositions on Alles regretz. 89 ComposerCompositionGenrevvDateSources Hayne van GhizeghemAllez, regretsChanson3 c 147027 Jean Du Sart (or Caron or Basiron?) Rose plaisanteChanson3 late 1480s? BolQ 16, FlorBN BR 229, LeipU 1494, ParisBNF 15123, RomeC 2856, RISM1504 1 Alexander AgricolaAllez regretzChanson3 end of 15 th c RISM1501 Loyset Comp?reVenes regretzChanson3 1485-90?SGallS 462, BolQ 17, BrusBr 11239, CopKB 1848, FlorBN Magl. 117, BrusBR IV.90/TourBV 94,RISM1501. ZwiR 78/3 87 See David Fuller, et al., "Champion (i)," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/43232pg2 (accessed April 29, 2009); and Richard Sherr, "Bruhier, Antoine," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/04143 (accessed April 29, 2009). 8 Cf. note 84, above. 89 Three, if the ascription in JenaU 21, ?Jo. de Pratis,? does refer to Josquin, and two, if it refers to another composer, likely Johannes Stokem, who was active in the Low Countries, at the court of Hungary, in Florence, and in Rome. Cf. chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of this ascription. 62 BrusBR IV.90/TourBV 94,RISM1501. ZwiR 78/3 AnonymousChanson3 end of 15 th c BolQ 17 (1490s) Bartolomeo degli Organi Chanson3 end of 15 th c BolQ 17 (1490s) Gaspar van Weerbeke/Johannes Jaspart? Sans regretz veul entretenir/Allez regretz Chanson3 before 1505 FlorC 2439 Ludwig SenflChanson4 early 16 th c VienNB 18810 (1524-33 Augsburg), MunU 328-331 (1526-30 in Augsburg?) Antoine de LonguevalAlles regresChanson3 before 1518 BolC Q 19 AnonymousRegina celiMotet4 by 1519- 25 VienNB Mus. 18825, f. 12v-14 Johannes PriorisMissa Allez regrets Mass4 by late 1480s VatS 35 Loyset Comp?reMissa Alles regrets Mass4 1485-90VienNB Mus. 15495, JenaU 3 Io. De pratis 90 Missa Allez regrets Mass4 1490s?JenaU 21 AnonymousMissa Alles regretz Mass3 late 15 th cVerBC 756 AnonymousMissa Allez regrets Mass ca.1500CambraiBM 18, f. 110v-125 Scompianus [N. Champion?] Mass (incomplete) before 1520? BerlPS 40634; A and B ptbks Antoine BruhierMissa CarminumMass4/5 in final Agnus Dei early 16 th c Spinacino Intabulation1507Venice Vicenzo CapirolaAles regresIntabulationca. 1517Venice Leonhard KleberIntabulation1521-24D-B Ms. Mus. 40026 Hans GerleAles regresIntabulation1533Tablatur auff die Laudten / Tablature pour les luths Table 2.4: Compositions Related to Hayne?s Alles regretz 91 90 Cf. Chapter 3 for a discussion of the identity of this composer. 91 Much of the data presented in Table 1 is derived from Fallows, A Catalogue of Polyphonic Songs, 81-83, 351, 399-400; Howard Mayer Brown, Music in the French Secular Theater, 1400-1550 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 186-87; Irena Cholij, ?Borrowed Music: Allez regrets and the Use of Pre- 63 The Anonymous Missa Alles regretz in VerBC 756 The sole source for this anonymous Missa Alles regretz, VerBC 756, is the only Scribe B manuscript to contain an anonymous mass. Generally, the Scribe B sources are more consistent regarding ascriptions than the slightly later Alamire manuscripts. 92 Scribe B apparently took great care with the accuracy of his ascriptions. In spite of having ascribed some compositions in error, he subsequently scraped off many of these, including some text at the top of f. 96v, the opening of the Missa Alles regretz, in VerBC 756. The manuscript is probably relatively late for a Scribe B source; Herbert Kellman dates it, with some certainty, around 1508, because of its codicological and repertorial similarities to FlorC 2439. Its original recipient is unknown, though probably Italian. 93 Our anonymous mass appears in VerBC 756 alongside masses by La Rue (1), Isaac (3 + 1 Credo), Ghiselin (5 + 1 S-A pair: ascribed to Agricola in the manuscript), and Agricola (1 K-G pair). All of these composers, with the exception of La Rue, were Netherlandish composers and active at some point in their careers in northern Italy (especially Florence), where the Alles regretz tradition was strong at the end of the fifteenth century (see Table 2.4). Thus, given the apparent French and northern Italian affinity for compositions on Hayne?s Alles regretz, and that our anonymous mass appears in a manuscript copied in the Burgundian Netherlands, likely at the court of Burgundy, and was sent to a northern Italian patron, it seems likely that it is also by a northern composer active in northern Italy. The analysis provided below will clarify aspects of this Existent Material,? in Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Music, ed. Tess Knighton and David Fallows (New York: Schirmer Books, 1992), 165?76. 92 Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 4, 73. cat. no. 7, 78, cat. no. 21, 107, cat. no. 33, 125, cat. no. 38, 137, cat. no. 39, 141. 93 For this, and what follows, see Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 38, p. 137. Although FlorC 2439 contains no masses, it does, like VerBC 756, transmit many works by Johannes Ghiselin-Verbonnet. 64 anonymous composer?s methods and style. CONCLUSIONS Though the anonymous composer of this Missa Alles regretz varies his treatment of his model from section to section and is by no means methodical in his large-scale organization of these presentations, he almost always preserves the general character of Hayne?s melodies and, indeed, of his chanson as a whole. The most notable exceptions are certain passages of the Credo, in which the composer uses various paraphrase techniques, discussed above, to disguise his borrowed material, sometimes straying so far as to make the model unrecognizable, and sometimes inserting newly composed material. Among the seven masses whose composers borrowed from Alles regretz, this anonymous mass is one of three preserved in Alamire or Scribe B sources. While most of these other masses are cantus-firmus masses, this anonymous Missa Alles regretz can also be categorized as an early imitation mass, because its composer borrowed from all three voices of Hayne?s chanson and employed this borrowed material in all three voices of his new composition, sometimes clearly, and sometimes disguised. Because of its context in VerBC 756 among masses by Franco-Flemish composers, one can safely assume that its composer was also a northerner, likely a Burgundian. The mass was certainly known in northern Italy, for which its sole extant source was destined, and where a strong tradition of Alles regretz masses existed. Whether the composer of this mass was working in Italy or not is unclear, though this is certainly a viable hypothesis. 65 CHAPTER 3 Two Anonymous Masses in the Late Alamire Manuscripts, JenaU 21 and VienNB 4810, 1521-1525? INTRODUCTION This chapter examines two anonymous masses, a Missa sine nomine and the Missa supra Salve regina, copied into two rather plain Alamire manuscripts of almost identical physical appearance, JenaU 21 and VienNB 4810. It will be shown from their stylistic features that both masses were most likely composed outside the Burgundian Netherlands decades before they were copied into these manuscripts, to which each is unique. JenaU 21 and VienNB 4810 are unlike most Alamire manuscripts, because they transmit an antiquated repertoire; and, while VienNB 4810 contains mainly works by French court composers, there is no discernible program for JenaU 21, which distinguishes it further from most of the Alamire complex. MISSA ?SINE NOMINE? 94 The Anonymous Missa sine nomine in JenaU 21: Style and Ascription This anonymous four-voice Missa sine nomine is unique to JenaU 21, which is thought by musicologists to have been copied in Alamire?s workshop between 1521 and 94 Untitled in JenaU 21. The copyists were most likely unaware of any title or composer of this mass, because Scribe D, who copied the fascicle with this mass as well as those immediately preceding it, gives reliable attributions. That Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua, which opens the manuscript, is not ascribed is problematic. It is interesting that its scribes titled it Missa de venerabili sacramento in JenaU 21 and in VienNB 4809, suggesting that those scribes preferred to call a mass by its liturgical occasion rather than by its model, or that the descriptive liturgical title was useful to the manuscript?s patron who may have used it for practical purposes. For example, Barbireau?s Missa Virgo parens Christi is called Missa De venerabilis sacramento in MontsM 766 and VatS 160, but not in its earlier ?Scribe B? sources, VatC 234 and VienNB 1783, and F?vin?s Missa Salve sancta parens is identified with both liturgical occasion and cantus firmus in MunBS 7, as Missa de beata virgine Salve sancta parens. Numerous additional examples of this phenomenon exist in the complex. Cf. Chapter 6, pp. 349-52, for a more detailed description of this trend. 66 1525. 95 Probably composed around the turn of the sixteenth century, for reasons given below, this anonymous mass is characterized by close imitation at the openings of sections, imitative and homophonic paired duos, parallel motion, frequently at the tenth between the outer voices, and heavy reliance on sequential writing, especially at the ends of sections. Copied along with masterpieces by composers such as Josquin, La Rue, and Pipelare, this attractive mass has so far escaped the attention of musicologists, likely on account of its unknown identity. The manuscript does have one clue that may help in the identification of this mass. At the bottom of folio 101v, which contains the superius and tenor of the first Kyrie, there is a barely noticeable indication that identifies the movement and either the composer, model, or subject matter: ?Missa las?kyrie? (see Figure 3.1). 96 Unfortunately, the bottom of the inscription is cut off, making it indecipherable. We know that in the earliest phase of manuscript production, the Alamire scribes would often note to themselves or to one another what was to be copied on a given folio, using indications varying in type, placement, and purpose. 97 Some are simply small letters indicating where an initial should later be inked in, some are numbers indicating the number of staves to be copied on a folio, or whose meaning is still not apparent, some are clear indications of the mass movement or section to be copied, and a few even identify the mass by composer, model, or subject matter (e.g., BrusBR 6428). 98 Yet here, because 95 Kellman, ?Josquin and the Courts of the Netherlands and France, 213. 96 That this inscription reads ?las? was confirmed by Pierre Aquilon, an expert in paleography at the Centre d??tudes Sup?rieures de la Renaissance, Tours, in April, 2008. 97 Such indications are visible in most of the Alamire manuscripts. Cf. Chapter 6 for a more detailed discussion of this feature. 98 Herbert Kellman and Jacobijn Kiel have noted the existence of these rubrics. Herbert Kellman, private communication to author, May, 2005; and Jacobijn Kiel, ?An Introduction to the Scribes and their Methods,? in Treasury, 39-40. Since they appear in individual codices and throughout the Alamire complex, it would be useful to make a complete list of them with reference to the manuscript in which they 67 no composer whose name begins with ?Las? is represented in the Alamire manuscripts (in fact, very few early sixteenth-century Franco-Flemish composers have name beginning ?Las?), the indication seems to identify the model or liturgical occasion, rather than the composer, of the mass. The lack of any title for this mass leads one to ask whether its identity is indeed unknown or if it was composed around a freely-composed tune rather than a pre-existing chant or song. Though a model has not been identified for this mass, and it is indeed possible that it is freely composed, the clear presentation of related motivic material in imitation by all four voices at the openings of many sections (e.g. Christe, Kyrie III, Et incarnatus est) suggests that a liturgical or secular model may exist. There are unfortunately no additional textual or pictorial clues, such as miniatures, as to such a model?s identity. Figure 3.1: JenaU 21, f. 101v Example 3.1 shows the openings of all five movements, which feature common melodic material, especially in the superius and tenor. There is no identical statement of any melody, however, and other recurring melodic themes and brief motives are present in all four voices in the other movements, further complicating identification of a possible model. Comparisons between various themes in the mass and liturgical or well-known appear and their meaning. Some of them are discussed along with analyses of their significance for scribal practice and scribal attribution in Chapter 6. 68 melodies to vernacular texts do not yield any conclusive match. 9 Our understanding of this anonymous mass, then, is limited to what we can gain from analyzing other features of this composer?s style, some of which, such as his frequent use of sequence at the endings of sections, which precludes citation of a melody, suggest that the Missa sine nomine is, in fact, a freely-composed mass. Example 3.1.1: Missa sine nomine, Kyrie, mm. 1-8 Example 3.1.2: Missa sine nomine, Gloria, mm. 1-6 9 Despite a thorough search of the New Grove and MGG for composers whose names begin with ?Las,? of the Liber usualis, Antiphonale monasticum, and the online CANTUS database for possible liturgical models, and of catalogues of chansons for possible vernacular models, no positive match was identified. Laura Macy, ed., Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com; Ludwig Finscher, ed., Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Allgemeine Enzyklop?die der Musik (Kassel: B?renreiter, 1995-); Liber usualis (Tournai: Society of Saint John the Evangelist, Descl?e, 1954); Antiphonale monasticum pro diurnis horis (Tournai: Society of Saint John the Evangelist, Descl?e, 1934); The University of Western Ontario, ?CANTUS: A Database for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant? http://publish.uwo.ca/~cantus/ (accessed April 8, 2008); Fallows, A Catalogue of Polyphonic Songs; Brown, Music in the French Secular Theater. 69 Example 3.1.3: Missa sine nomine, Credo, mm. 1-9 Example 3.1.4: Missa sine nomine, Sanctus, mm. 1-14 Example 3.1.5: Missa sine nomine, Agnus Dei, mm. 1-9 70 Large-Scale Structure in the Missa sine nomine This anonymous composer followed standard divisions of mass movements into subsections (see Table 3.1). All major sections and most subsections cadence on G; only the Christe and the Patrem end on D. The Christe, Patrem, and Et incarnatus est are the only sections to feature a third in the final cadence. The mass is clearly centered in G (mixolydian) with B-flats in the signature in all voices throughout, and relatively frequent E-flat accidentals in the score, mainly in the bassus and sometimes in the tenor. The mass is almost entirely in Cut C. The anonymous composer changes to cut C3 only three times: two sections, the second Osanna and the final Agnus Dei are entirely in Cut C3, following sections in cut C, presumably to emphasize the endings of the Sanctus and of the entire mass. The only other instance of perfect tempus in the mass occurs at the final cadence of the Crucifixus, before the Confiteor begins, where the composer moves from cut C to cut C3. 71 Mass SectionFinal3 rd no 3 rd MensurationCleffingKey signature Scoring KYRIEG Kyrie IG X cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB ChristeDX cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB Kyrie IIG X cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB GLORIAG cut C Et in terraG X cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB Qui tollisG X cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB CREDOG PatremDX cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB Et incarnatus estGX cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB cut CCrucifixus Confiteor G X cut C3 c1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB SANCTUSG SanctusG X cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB Pleni sunt Osanna G X cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB cut CBenedictus Osanna G X cut C / cut C3 c1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB AGNUS DEIG Agnus Dei IG X cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB Agnus Dei IIG X cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB Agnus Dei IIIG X cut C / cut C3c1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSCTB Table 3.1: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa sine nomine Text-Setting and Texture in the Missa sine nomine The evidence that texture mattered to this composer is found in the middle sections of mass movements. Although none are scored for fewer than four voices, the anonymous composer often uses texture, in addition to new melodic phrases, to distinguish between phrases or sections. In the Crucifixus, paired duos of varying voice ranges alternate with sections in four-voice homophony. In the Sanctus, each phrase is introduced with a change of texture, alternating between four-voice homophony and imitative duos. Especially in the Pleni sunt and Benedictus, these changes of texture at each new phrase of text accompany new melodic material, so that each text phrase is assigned its own melody and is delineated from surrounding phrases by scoring, thus 72 emphasizing each new idea in the text. The composer?s extensive use of relatively brief, alternating duos between voice pairs in the Benedictus is both striking and effective. The Kyrie features traits common throughout this Missa sine nomine (see Example 3.2, Kyrie, at the end of this chapter), such as the frequent use of parallel motion between the outer voices, often in tenths (Kyrie I, mm. 3-5, mm. 16-18). According to Tinctoris, occasional passages in parallel motion (thirds and sixths, and their octave counterparts) are allowed, though extensive use of parallel motion is considered poor counterpoint. 10 Although this composer does employ parallel tenths often, he also varies his contrapuntal material. Varietas was one feature that medieval and Renaissance theorists considered beautiful. 101 Homorhythmic patterns between voice pairs, and even in all four voices, are also widespread (Christe, m. 39). The composer?s frequent use of melodic sequence is especially apparent at the ends of sections (Kyrie I, superius, tenor, bassus, mm. 21-23; Kyrie II, superius, contratenor, tenor, bassus, mm. 73- 76), but also within sections (Christe, superius, mm. 33-36). A fine example of this composer?s frequent use of imitation, the Christe opens with canonic statements in all voices of a short motive, which quickly dissolves into the sequential writing just noted. Likewise, the final Kyrie opens with an ascending four-note theme presented by all four voices in canon. 10 Johannes Tinctoris, The Art of Counterpoint, trans. Albert Seay. Musicological Studies and Documents, 5 (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology, 1961), 132-34. 101 As outlined as the eighth rule of counterpoint by Tinctoris in his Liber de arte contrapuncti: ?variety must be most accurately sought for in all counter-point.? Albert Seay, ed., Johannis Tinctoris Opera Theoretica. Corpus Scriptorum de Musica, 22 (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology, 1975-78), book 2, chapter 7, line 2. Much earlier, Guido of Arezzo, in Micrologus, states ?Nor is it any wonder if the hearing is charmed by the variety of sounds, since the sight rejoices in a variety of colors, the sense of smell is gratified by a variety of odors, and the palate delights in changing flavors.? See Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, ed., Guidonis Aretini Micrologus. Corpus Scriptorum de Musica, 4 (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1955), 159; translation from Claude Palisca, ed., Hucbald, Guido, and John on Music: Three Medieval Treatises, trans. Warren Babb (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), 69. 73 The beginning of the Gloria condenses the four-part texture opening the Kyrie (see Example 3.2, Kyrie, mm. 1-2; Example 3.3, Gloria, mm. 1). Three voices present Gratias agimus tibi in homorhythm, after which the two voice pairs?one upper and one lower?alternate short units of text, presented with points of imitation. The composer continues in this alternating style right up to the text Jesu Christe, which he sets in homophony in all four voices. He continues, on Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, in a similar manner, though this time with homophonic paired duos, the contratenor/bassus pair followed by a superius/tenor pair. Not surprisingly, he uses four-voice homophony once again to emphasize the text Filius Patris. This composer continues to emphasize text relating to Christ. The Qui tollis opens as the Gloria did, in four-voice homophony, followed by alternating voice pairs. This time, however, the duos also alternate with brief syllabic passages in four-voice homophony (as at suscipe deprecationem nostram, Quoniam tu solus sanctus, and Cum Sancto Spiritu in gloria Dei Patris). The composer brings attention to the text Jesum Christum not only by setting it in homophony, as in the passages cited above, but also by augmenting the note values by two. This section, like the Credo that follows, is also syllabic. The Credo is divided into three subsections: Patrem, Et incarnatus est, and Crucifixus/Confiteor. All four voices open the Patrem with a brief, imitative motive, which does not resemble the openings of the previous two sections (for this and what follows, see Example 3.4, Credo, mm. 1-5). Their successive entries on G (contratenor), D (bassus), G (tenor), and A (superius) are separated by only a semibreve, after which the texture promptly returns to the syllabic four-voice homophony alternating with brief 74 episodes for pairs of two voices that so characterized the Gloria. At mm. 27-35, there is a striking series of motives presented in imitation four times (S, T, B, S), each of which could be an independent cadential figure. There follows yet another homorhythmic section, on Genitum non factum?facta sunt (mm. 37-44). To distinguish between textual phrases in this otherwise static passage, the composer uses an extremely simple but effective method?he removes the bassus from alternating phrases to give the impression of a change of register. The subsection ends with an absolutely marvelous exchange of text between voice pairs that results in an echo effect, like feet descending a ladder or staircase, and all four voices come together on one final homorhythmic figure at the secondary cadence on D (mm. 44-57). The brief (only 22-breve) Et incarnatus est opens with an imitative statement by all four voices of a theme that has not yet been presented in this mass. The clarity with which this melody is presented suggests that our composer borrowed it, though a model has not been identified. Though he writes for all four voices here, the composer gives the impression of a thin texture. He relies heavily on consonances?fifths and octaves?and on parallel or oblique motion. This subsection, unlike the Patrem and Gloria before it, proceeds in a slow harmonic rhythm. Its simplicity gives it a static feel, which is not uninteresting, but a pleasant contrast to the busier sections that precede it. In the Crucifixus, the composer returns directly to the syllabic, homophonic style of these sections in the Gloria and Credo that describe Christ. Two short, completely homorhythmic duos?tenor / bassus and superius / contratenor?and a four-voice statement, also homorhythmic and in the same rhythm as the duos at mm. 83-90 recall the passage on Quoniam tu solus Sanctus of the Gloria and the preceding one beginning on 75 Genitum, non factum, mm. 36-44 (see Examples 3.3 and 3.4). The presence of such material repeated and reused in different movements suggests that the anonymous composer might have borrowed from a pre-existing composition. Though the Crucifixus is rather long (95 breves), the composer effectively separates the major phrases by changing the texture. For example, following the homophonic passage cited above, which ends with a strong four-voice cadence, he sets Et resurrexit apart in an imitative texture, albeit with simple counterpoint (mm. 91-98). Et resurrexit begins on the same four pitches that closed the preceding phrases, a method of maintaining continuity between these otherwise distinct textual and musical phrases. Another full cadence separates the Et resurrexit phrase from Et ascendit. Though the phrase on Et iterum overlaps with that on Et ascendit, the second is sung to a wavy melody, which is presented in close imitation by all four voices (mm. 103-112). Two brief duos, on cuius regni non erit finis, precede another distinct phrase Et in Spiritum Sanctum, which our composer sets apart in four-voice homophony that so resembles a horn call that one wonders if the presumed model was a kind of hunting song, or if this passage recalls the trumpets of the apocalypse at the Last Judgement (mm. 117-123). The rhythmic ?drones? in the bassus and tenor, a fifth apart, are accompanied by a motive constructed of descending thirds presented in imitation at the minim in the superius and contratenor. The composer returns to homophony at et vivificantem. Then, alternating duos between tenor / superius and contratenor / bassus, whose reliance on repeated notes and simple rhythms suggests psalm recitation, lead directly to Confiteor, the first instance of perfect tempus in the mass. 76 While short, this final phrase of the Credo does not go unnoticed. It opens chorale-style in long notes and in cut C3 (mm. 147-152). Like most of the Credo, it is syllabic. The counterpoint is simple, mostly consisting of octaves, fifths, and thirds. Could it be only coincidence that the scribe notated all parts in black at mortuorum (mm. 163-65)? (See Figure 3.2, JenaU 21, ff. 108v-109r). Given the inconsistencies among Alamire scribes in text underlay, it is indeed possible that the word mortuorum should accompany the entire passage in black notes in all four voices. Because the coloration here accompanies the word mortuorum, it appears to be notational word painting, though when it returns two more times before the close of the section, at vitam venturi (tenor) seculi (contratenor), and Amen (tenor, contratenor), it clearly does not serve the purpose of word painting. Rather, it improves text declamation, giving long notes to accented syllables. The Credo closes on an open fifth on G. Figure 3.2: JenaU 21, ff. 108v-109r 77 The superius theme with which the Sanctus opens recalls the imitative motive that opens the Christe, while the other three voices proceed in very simple homophony, then separate to a varied four-voice texture (see Example 3.5, Sanctus, mm. 1-14). In the next phrase, still on Sanctus, two duos?contratenor / bassus and superius / tenor?outline the descending perfect fifths F to B-flat and D to G, respectively (mm. 14-23). As in the Gloria and Credo, this alternating duo passage is followed by a contrasting one on new text, Dominus Deus, in four-voice homophony. After one bar, however, the voices continue in four-voice polyphony. Here, the composer also uses an abrupt modal shift to emphasize the change of text; the previous phrase ends on G, and this one begins on a strong F triad and cadences, in m. 29, on a D triad. At Sabaoth (mm. 30-39), a superius / contratenor duo is a prompt modulation back to G, which introduces the final four-voice cadential phrase. A tenor / bassus duo opens the Pleni sunt, which continues with the tenor imitating the four-note descending theme starting on B-flat in the bassus (mm. 45-47), anticipated by the tenor at mm. 43-44. Though he does not set the Osanna as a separate subsection, the composer draws attention to the passage by assigning to the tenor what seems to be a phrase of a cantus firmus in long notes (mm. 63-69). In contrast to this descending phrase, the tenor closes the movement with three sequential statements of a three-note ascending dotted figure that return to G, surrounded by short descending motives in the other three voices (mm. 70-77). The Benedictus is basically a series of paired duos between the superius/tenor and contratenor/bassus. As in the Pleni sunt, each new segment of text is presented by a different voice grouping. The duos on Benedictus, qui venit, and in nomine all begin in 78 close imitation. At Domini, the composer brings the two contratenor and bassus together at the opening, and eventually adds the superius and tenor, so this important word is the only one until Osanna to be presented by all four voices. The opening of the second Osanna dovetails with the ending of the Benedictus, and in contrast to the section that precedes it, is presented in glorious, four-voice polyphony. A shift in mensuration to cut C3 is accompanied by augmentation of note values (and coloration) to accentuate the very last statement of Osanna in excelsis. The opening phrases of the first and third statements of the Agnus Dei present what is perhaps the clearest statement of a prominent melody in this anonymous mass. Here, the tenor proceeds in longer notes (see Example 3.6, Agnus Dei), with other voices repeating or deriving their melodies therefrom. In Agnus Dei I, an inversion of the melody in the tenor and contratenor are accompanied by an imitative duo in the superius and bassus. Like most of the other four-voice sections of the mass, the Agnus Dei is characterized by sequential passages with or without paired voices in imitation (mm. 14- 19 and 31-38). At peccata (mm. 14-19), for example, the superius and bassus present a syncopated duo, the superius ascending by step on the off beats while the bassus descends a minor third and leaps up a fourth for several cycles. The tenor proceeds in long notes until miserere nobis (m. 30), though the melody does not stand out as a real cantus prius factus, because the bassus also moves in longer notes from its entry in m. 5 until m. 14, when it joins the superius in their second duo. Like the Benedictus, the second Agnus Dei is a series of paired duos?tenor/bassus and superius/contratenor?each of which presents a single word or brief segment of text until miserere nobis (m. 68), at which point the sequential writing 79 that so dominates this mass takes over in the superius and tenor. A brief contratenor / bassus duo foreshadows the closing theme, which is finally presented in four-voice polyphony. The anonymous composer is extremely consistent in his alternation of texture in this and other sections featuring alternating duos. The final Agnus Dei, not surprisingly, begins with brief paired imitative duos, the upper two voices presenting an ascending figure beginning on D, while the lower two enter several measures later with a similar ascending figure beginning a fifth below, on G, filling out the texture. The final section continues in four-voice polyphony. At m. 95, the superius, tenor, and bassus cadence on G to coincide with the commencement of a striking passage on peccata, in which the tenor holds long Gs, while the other voices move busily around it. Two bars later, the bassus joins the tenor in a held G, the upper two voices meanwhile moving rapidly in quasi-sequential statements which effectively evade a cadence. The bassus provides a foundation beginning in m. 100, and at m. 104, all four voices return to consonance on mundi. Then, a sequential cadential passage in the superius and bassus recalls that of the first Agnus Dei (mm. 14-19, also on peccata mundi), and accompanies a long-note theme in the tenor to a strong cadence on G on m. 112. From mm. 112-115, the bassus descends deliberately from G through E-flat to a cadence on B-flat accompanied by a cadential passage in the contratenor; this bridge, immediately following a strong cadence and with a sudden change in texture and purpose, conspicuously marks the final move to Cut C3, in m. 116 (m. 117 in superius), at dona nobis pacem. The final passage opens with a purposeful, imitative tenor/superius duet, which is immediately followed (m. 121) by a similar theme in the contratenor, accompanied by 80 what amounts to a descending minor scale in the bassus (G to G, with E-flat), which, prominently and to the listener?s satisfaction, completes the incomplete descending scale with which the bassus introduced the passage in Cut C3 (mm. 112-116). The final superius / tenor duet introduces one last four-voice cadential passage, which brings our mass to a close on G. The Missa sine nomine: Historical Context and Composer A closer look at the anonymous mass we have just described within JenaU 21 leads us to consider Martini and Weerbeke possible composers of the mass. JenaU 21, the sole source for this anonymous Missa sine nomine, stands out among the eleven Alamire choirbooks in the possession of Frederick the Wise as the only relatively plain paper manuscript in the collection. 102 Its presence among other Alamire choirbooks in the Jena Universit?tsbibliothek is, in fact, the only evidence connecting it to Frederick; unlike these other manuscripts, there are no coats of arms, donor portraits, or mottos linking JenaU 21 to Frederick or any other individual. There exists in Jena a second set of eight choirbooks, also once in the possession of Frederick the Wise, which, like JenaU 21, are sparsely decorated (and only one is parchment). They contain repertories?Mass Ordinaries, Mass Propers, Vespers Music?appropriate for performance at the Castle Church in Wittenberg, 103 which Frederick began building in 1496 and which would soon 102 The other Alamire manuscripts in Frederick?s collection are JenaU 2, JenaU 3, JenaU 4, JenaU 5, JenaU 7, JenaU 8, JenaU 9, JenaU 12, JenaU 20, and JenaU 22. For a description of JenaU 21, see Kellman, Treasury, cat. no. 20, 103. For general information on the Jena choirbooks, see Roediger, Die geistlichen Musikhandschriften der; Duffy, ?Netherlands Manuscripts at a Saxon Court,? 215-23; for what follows on the Jena choirbooks, see Duffy, ?The Jena Choirbooks. 103 See Duffy, ?The Jena Choirbooks,? 252-398. 81 play a large role in the Lutheran Reformation. (Martin Luther posted his 96 Theses on the north door of Frederick?s Castle Church in 1517.) That Frederick wanted masses to be performed in polyphony for special feasts, on Sundays, and on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays during Lent, may explain the sheer number of polyphonic compositions in his collection. 104 While it is tempting to hypothesize that the Missa sine nomine in JenaU 21 may have been polyphony composed for no special occasion, but for one of these ferial days when Frederick heard polyphonic mass, the lack of any identifying features in the manuscript is problematic, and the function of JenaU 21?for performance, presentation, or preservation? remains unclear. 105 Like many other Alamire manuscripts (such as LonBL Royal 8g.vii, JenaU 9, VienNB 4810), this one may have been prepared for one patron and, somehow, ended up in the collection of another, here Frederick the Wise. Even if it was originally intended for someone else, the repertory in JenaU 21 could have been performed for Frederick, either by the choir of the Castle Church or by Frederick?s court chapel. Nevertheless, it would not be prudent to use its repertory as evidence of what was performed in Frederick?s milieu, because we do not know that it was originally prepared for Frederick, nor do we know when Frederick acquired it. JenaU 21 has been dated between 1521 and 1525, based on the cross that follows the ascription, ?Io. De pratis??understood by many musicologists as an attribution to Josquin des Prez?of the Missa Allez regretz, and its presence in the collection of 104 This last step may never have been completed, so the Jena paper choirbooks have no music for Holy Week through the end of the church year, or, perhaps that music was in a different, now lost, book. See Duffy, ?The Jena Choirbooks,? 247. 105 For more on the function of this and other Alamire manuscripts, cf. Chapter 6, below; and Zoe Saunders, ?Manuscripts in the Age of Print: Production, Function, and Destinations of the Alamire Manuscripts,? in Books in Transition. Manuscripts and Printed Books at the Time of Philip the Fair (1478-1506), ed. Hanno Wijsman. Burgundica, 15 (Turnhout: Brepols, in press). 82 Frederick the Wise, who died in 1525. 106 Because the terminus post quem depends on the interpretation of ?Io. De pratis? as a name for Josquin des Prez (who died in 1521), and because Josquin?s authorship of the Missa Allez regretz has been contested, the question must be reexamined. An important caveat is that ?Io.? was the standard abbreviation for ?Iohannes.? 107 Although Rob Wegman points out that some theorists referred to Josquin as ?Iosquinus de Pratis,? ?Iodocus ? Pratis,? or ?Iodocus Pratensis,? 108 all of which could warrant the abbreviation ?Io.,? Josquin?s name is never Latinized in the Alamire manuscripts. 109 Thus the likelihood that ?Io De pratis? refers to Josquin des Prez is indeed slim. Still, Wegman accepts the mass as authentic Josquin. 10 Thomas Noblitt, Richard Sherr, and Murray Steib, however, do not, and it is listed under ?Doubtful and Misattributed Works? in the New Grove Online. 11 In addition to their stylistic arguments, Sherr and Steib point out that there were at least two other musicians called Johannes de Pratis. One was Johannes de Prato alias Stokem, a fifteenth-century singer and composer who worked in Li?ge, as chapel master at the 106 Smijers seems to have been the first to interpret the ascription to mean Josquin. He lists JenaU 21 as a source for the mass, citing the ascription ?Io. De Pratis ?.? Josquin des Prez, Werken van Josquin des Pr?s, ed. Albert Smijers vol. 4: Missen 43 (Amsterdam: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1956), no. 20, 23. 107 See Pamela Starr, ?Josquin, Rome, and a Case of Mistaken Identity,? Journal of Musicology 15 (1997): 47. Starr points out that, in the papal chapel rosters, Josquin?s name was abbreviated ?Ju. de Prez,? ?Ju.? being short for Judocus, while Johannes Stokem appeared most often as ?Jo. de Pratis.? 108 See Rob Wegman, ?Josquin des Prez, Missa Allez regretz,? Renaissance Masses, http://www.princeton.edu/ ~rwegman/mass.htm (accessed April 3, 2008). 109 This last fact is interesting in light of the ascription practices of the Alamire scribes: names were Latinized as a result of sixteenth-century humanism, so that feature reflects a slightly later practice. Cf. Chapter 6 for a list of names that were Latinized by the Alamire scribes. 10 Op. cit. 11 Josquin des Pres, New Josquin Edition 7, 1-10; Richard Sherr, ?Missa Da pacem and Missa Alles regretz,? in The Josquin Companion, ed. Richard Sherr (Oxford University Press, 2000), 243-47; Murray Steib, ?A Study in Style, or Josquin or Not Josquin: The Missa Alles regretz Question,? Journal of Musicology 16 (1998): 519-44; and Patrick Macey, et al, "Josquin des Prez," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/14497pg13 (accessed March 28, 2009). 83 Hungarian court of Mathias Corvin and B?atrice of Aragon, and at the SS. Annunziata in Florence, before beginning employment in the papal chapel in 1486 (he died in October, 1487), and with whom Josquin des Prez has often been confused by modern scholars. 12 The other was Johannes de Prato, another fifteenth-century musician, who was associated with St. Donatian in Bruges (1479 and perhaps 1508), St.-Omer (1490), and who may have been the Jan de Pr? who was paid by the court of Maximilian I in 1503. 13 This is not the place to argue either for or against Josquin?s authorship of the Missa Alles regretz, but since we must acknowledge that it may not be an authentic work by Josquin, the cross that follows the ascription in JenaU 21, significantly the main piece of evidence in the dating of the manuscript (1521-25), loses its meaning, since it could just as well refer to another composer who had died by the time the manuscript was copied, possibly one or the other Johannes de Prato (Johannes Stokem died in 1487). Until the composer of this Missa Allez regretz is determined, the cross next to the composer?s name should not be used to date the manuscript. Reinterpreting the Missa Allez regretz as a work by another composer would start to explain why one (the Missa Alles regretz), and not the other, mass by Josquin in this manuscript, the Missa Pange lingua, is ascribed in JenaU 21, a manuscript which features ascriptions for six of its eight works. 14 Of course, since the Missa Pange lingua, which opens the manuscript, was copied by a scribe different than the one (Scribe D) who 12 Sherr, ?Missa Da pacem and Missa Alles regretz,? 246. 13 Discovered by Andrew Kirkman, communicated privately to Pamela Starr, and quoted in Starr, ?Josquin,? 56, n. 32. 14 There is no codicological explanation for the missing ascription. The title as it appears in this source, Missa de venerabili sacramento, is written across ff. 1v-2r, and the incipit of the hymn, Pange lingua, is interspersed with the Mass Ordinary text in all voices. There is ample space in the top margin of the opening ff. 1v-2r for an ascription, and it does not seem as if an ascription has been inadvertently clipped off in binding. The only other mass to have been copied into JenaU 21 without ascription is the anonymous Missa sine nomine discussed in this chapter. 84 copied most of the codex, the lack of ascription may be due to scribal preference or habit. 15 It is remarkable that La Rue?s Missa Sancta dei genitrix, the attribution of which has caused some confusion, is the only other composition also not copied by the main scribe. The original ascription, on folio 43v, which once read ?Petrus alamyre,? was scraped and skillfully converted to ?Petrus delavie? before the manuscripts was completed and sent out. 16 If Alamire proofread the ascriptions, he obviously would have known that the ascription of La Rue?s mass to himself was an error. Whether Alamire or a different scribe noticed the error cannot be determined, but this shows that someone working on JenaU 21 took the care to go back and correct mistakes. The contents of JenaU 21 could provide a clue as to the identity and origin of the anonymous Missa sine nomine that concludes it, which may shed more light on the dating of the mass, as well as the manuscript. The first five masses date from the 1510s. The latter three were composed as early as the 1480s, however, forming a chronological, though not a paleographic group, since they were copied by the same scribe (D), who copied later masses by Pipelare and La Rue (see Table 3.2). 15 This issue is discussed in Chapter 6, along with a detailed analysis of composer attributions across the Alamire complex. 16 Despite Flynn Warmington?s opinion that the ascription never read ?alamyre,? communicated privately to Honey Meconi and quoted in Meconi, Pierre De La Rue, 94, 321, n. 22, examination of the manuscript makes it quite clear that it did once read ?Petrus alamyre,? a conclusion with which the editors of the La Rue edition agree. See Pierre de La Rue, Opera Omnia, vol. 6: Missa Sancta Dei genitrix; Missa sine nomine I; Missa Sub tuum praesidium; Missa T'ander naken; Missa Tous les regrets, ed. Nigel Davison, J. Evan Kreider, and T. Herman Keahey, Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 97 (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1996). 85 MassComposerAffiliationsModelRemarksDate Missa de venerabili sacramento [Josquin]Paris, Milan, Rome, Ferrara Pange linguaCorpus Christi version of Easter hymn 1513-17 Missa Mi mi miPipelareLow Countries Agnus Dei- Agnus Dei X Ordinary Cycle X before 1515 Missa Tandernaken La RueLow Countries T?andernakenMonophonic Flemish song March 1516- November 1518 Missa Sancta dei genitrix (Miserere mei Deus) La RueLow Countries Unidentified 7- note ostinato; L?homme arm? Also ascribed to ?Alamyre? March 1516- November 1518 Missa De ferraPipelareLow Countries Mass XV & XVIII Ordinary Cycles XV & XVIII before 1515 Missa Allez regrectz [Josquin/ Stokem?] [Italy?]Allez regretsHayne van Ghizeghem 1480s Missa brevisWeerbekeMilan, Rome, Low Countries X 1489-c1500 Missa sine nomine AnonymousX Table 3.2: Contents of JenaU 21; Shaded = copied by Scribe D 17 In considering this group of three earlier masses, an attractive and logical hypothesis regarding their transmission in JenaU 21 emerges. Weerbeke worked for the Sforzas in Milan from 1471/2 to 1480/1 and again from 1489 until possibly as late as 1500. He is presumed to have composed the Missa brevis during this second period in Milan, when he, along with Martini and Comp?re, formed a sort of musical workshop. 18 Between his two Milan periods, Weerbeke was a member of the papal chapels of Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII in Rome, where his colleagues included Josquin, de Orto, and Johannes de Prato alias Stokem. It is pertinent here that Weerbeke is known to have traveled often between Italy and the Low Countries, where he recruited musicians for his Italian employers and apparently maintained some connections from his youth. Thus, it 17 Much of the information in this and following tables was derived from the appropriate articles in the New Grove, and from Meconi, Pierre de la Rue, 98-99. 18 For this and what follows, see Gerhard Croll and Andrea Lindmayr-Brandl, "Weerbeke, Gaspar van" in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/30008 (accessed October 1, 2008). 86 seems possible that Weerbeke could have brought the three masses that conclude JenaU 21 to the Low Countries, in which case the Missa Alles regretz and Missa sine nomine might have been composed by one of his colleagues. If the hypothetical fascicle originated in Milan and was used as a model for JenaU 21, Martini and Comp?re are strong candidates as the composer of the Missa sine nomine In fact, the pervasive repetition of duos recalls Martini?s style, 19 and also that of Josquin?s motet Ave Maria, virgo serena, which Joshua Rifkin places in his Milan period. 120 Yet if the mass did not come from Milan, but instead from Rome where both Weerbeke and de Prato alias Stokem were working together in 1486-87, that could explain the attribution to Io. De pratis. 121 Codicological analysis of the manuscript reveals no strong evidence either for or against the hypothesis that this Missa Alles regretz and this anonymous Missa sine nomine were brought north from Italy by Weerbeke, though considering that all three masses were copied in a group by the same scribe, it is certainly a reasonable explanation for their situation together in a manuscript supposedly copied three or four decades after they were composed. It is reasonable to propose that JenaU 21 may have been copied earlier than the 1520s, since Flynn Warmington attributes it to Scribe D, who was normally active between about 1516 and 1520, and Alamire. 12 Four other Alamire manuscripts, VienNB 19 First noticed by Adam Gilbert, e-mail communication to the author, February 19, 2008. Also see the analysis to follow. 120 Joshua Rifkin, ?Munich, Milan, and a Marian motet: Dating Josquin's Ave Maria...virgo serena,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 56 (2003): 239-350. 121 This is not an attempt to attribute the Missa Allez regretz to Stokem, a task that would require extensive stylistic analysis and which lies outside the scope of this dissertation. It should also be noted that Sherr mentions that its style is dissimilar to that of Stokem?s few extant works. Sherr, ?Missa Da pacem and Missa Allez regretz,? 246. 12 In fact, the dating of all five of these manuscripts is questionable. As will be discussed in Chapter 6, below, many of the Alamire manuscripts have been dated using a circular method, in which the evidence relating to activity of the scribes and the dates of the manuscripts to which they contributed are 87 4809, VienNB 4810, VienNB 11778, and SubA 248, have so many codicological and paleographic traits in common with JenaU 21 that Herbert Kellman and Eric Jas have suggested that all five codices were copied around the same time (see Table 3.3). 123 It is odd, however, that, of these five codicologically similar manuscripts, all but JenaU 21 were copied by music scribes F, H, and I, and text scribes F, I, Y, and Z (see Table 3.4). That JenaU 21 is slightly taller than the other manuscripts of this group may also indicate that it was prepared under different circumstances. ManuscriptDateScribesMaterial-ffSize (mm) Staff height Recipient JenaU 211521- 25 D, Alamire?paper-114402 x 280 17 mm? / Frederick the Wise VienNB 48091521- 25 F, H3paper-141392 x 280 17 mmRaimund Fugger VienNB 48101521- 25 H, I, Zpaper-118392 x 280 17 mm? / Fugger VienNB 11778 1521- 25 F, H, I, Y, Z, Alamire paper-135395 x 280 17 mmRaimund Fugger SubA 2481521- 25 F, I, Zpaper-130396 x 282 18 mmunknown Table 3.3: Codicological and Paleographic Properties of Five Related Alamire Manuscripts ManuscriptMusic scribesText scribesRecipient JenaU 21D, Alamire?D ? / Frederick the Wise VienNB 4809F, H F Raimund Fugger VienNB 4810H, I I, Z ? / Fugger VienNB 11778F, H, I, AlamireF, Y, Z, AlamireRaimund Fugger SubA 248F, I F, Z Unknown Table 3.4: Scribal Attributions for Five Related Alamire Manuscripts Moreover, it is significant that the repertoire in four manuscripts related to JenaU 21, VienNB 4809, VienNB 4810, VienNB 11778, and SubA 248, was composed as early codependent. Here, it is only important to realize that there are grounds on which to propose that accepted date for JenaU 21 (1521-25) may be inaccurate. 123 Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 20, 103, cat. no. 40, 143, cat. no. 41, 145, cat. no. 43, 147, cat. no. 32, 124. 88 as the 1480s and most of it by 1505/6. Though precise dates for Renaissance music are not always available, Tables 3.5-3.8, below, illustrate that, generally, the repertoire in all five manuscripts was composed considerably earlier than 1521-25, the presumed date of copying. This does not preclude the possibility that the manuscripts contain a much older repertoire, yet it shows the possibility that they were copied earlier than 1521. MassComposerModelRemarksDate Missa de venerabili sacramento JosquinPange linguaCorpus Christi version of Easter hymn before 1515 Missa de beata Virgine JosquinKyrie IX, Gloria IX, Credo I, Sanctus IV, Agnus IV Paraphrase1503 (G & C); c 1510-1514 Missa Hercules dux Ferrarie [Josquin]solmization motto re- ut-re-ut-re-fa-mi-re 1480s? Missa Malheur me bat JosquinMalheur me batJohannes Martini/Johannes Ockeghem/Malcourt?, paraphrase of all 3 vv before 1505 Missa Faisant regretz [Josquin]Tout a par moyWalter Frye, ostinato on motif; superius of chanson quoted in Agnus III before 1503?; 1505-12 Missa sine nomine Josquin +X c 1504-1514 Missa Ave maris stella JosquinAve maris stellaplainchant hymn used for various Marian feasts (Conception, Annunciation, de BVM, etc) before 1505 Table 3.5: Contents of VienNB 4809 MassComposerModelRemarksDate Missa Regina mearum MoutonPange linguaCorpus Christi version of Easter hymn; =Missa de almania by 1515 Missa Sanctorum meritis F?vinSanctorum meritisHymn for First and Second Vespers in the Common of the Martyrs before 1511-12 Missa ad placitumF?vin X =Missa parvisbefore 1511-12 Missa Intemerata virgo ForestierVultum tuumJosquin des Prez, sections 3 & 4 unavailable Missa ad placitum[Appenzeller]X Missa supra Salve regina [Anonymous]Salve reginaMarian antiphon[before 1510?] Table 3.6: Contents of VienNB 4810 89 MassComposerModelRemarksDate Missa l?homme arm? [super voces musicales] JosquinL?homme arm?before 1492-5 Missa l?homme arm? [sexti toni] JosquinL?homme arm?before 1498-1503 Missa GaudeamusOckeghem/[Josquin]GaudeamusGregorian Introitearly-mid 1480s? Missa Fortuna desperata JosquinFortuna desperata Busnois?, paraphrase of all 3 vv 1480-2?; 1473? Missa La sol fa re mi Josquinostinato solmization motto la-sol-fa-re-mi 1490s? Missa l?amy baudechon [Josquin]L?ami baudechonTinctoris?, monophonic chanson before 1505 Credo Vilayge IIJosquin /[Brumel]Gregorian Credo Ibefore 1492 Credo Chiascun me crie Josquin/[Brumel]Chascun me crie de rouges nes Monophonic chanson? before 1492 Table 3.7: Contents of VienNB 11778 MassComposerModelRemarksDate Missa cum jocunditate [La Rue]Cum jucunditateAntiphon for Nativity BVM before 1505 Missa de beata Virgine La RueGregorian Kyrie IX, Gloria IX with trope ?Spiritus et alme?, Credo IV, Sanctus IX, Agnus XVII =Missa super Coronatum, de domina, Salve sancta parens before 1506 Missa Puer natus est La RuePuer natus estIntroit for Nativity BVM; =Missa de nativitate Christi before 1506 Missa Ave MariaLa RueAve MariaAntiphon for Annunciation; =Missa de annuntiatione Maria 1506-March 1516 Missa O gloriosa Domina La RueO gloriosa Domina Hymn for Lauds in the Common of the Blessed Virgin Mary; favored by St. Anthony of Padua 1506-March 1516 Missa Assumpta est Maria La RueAssumpta est Maria Antiphon for Assumption of BVM before 1505 Missa Tous les regretz La RueTous les regretzPierre de la Rue1506-March 1516 Table 3.8: Contents of SubA 248 90 We argued above, on pp. 81-83, that ?Io. De pratis? was not Josquin des Prez, and thus, that the dating of the manuscript was based on an incorrect interpretation of the attribution. This new dating, or at least un-dating, has far-reaching consequences, the most obvious of which is that the Missa Allez regretz would seem not to have been composed by Josquin. Because JenaU 21 is so closely related to the four other manuscripts shown in Table 3.3, the dating of one possibly affects the dating of all five. In fact, the dating of the Vienna and Subiaco manuscripts was derived from that of JenaU 21 in the first place (see above, nn. 24-25). Finally, the dating of JenaU 21, and of other manuscripts, affects our dating of compositions. The presumed date of a source has often been used to date music. For example, Honey Meconi, though she states that she is not attempting to create a strict chronology of La Rue?s masses, presents La Rue?s music in ?approximate chronological order by surviving source.? 124 This method is apparently unreliable in the case of the two masses by La Rue in JenaU 21, Missa Sancta dei genitrix and Missa Tandernaken. Despite their common traits with La Rue?s much earlier masses, they appear at the very end of her chronology. Though it has been firmly established that the evidence used in the dating of JenaU 21 and related manuscripts is not reliable, two issues make a date before 1521 problematic. First, a cross immediately follows the ascription of Josquin?s Missa sine nomine, a mass that is unquestionably by Josquin, in VienNB 4809, one of the manuscripts that resembles JenaU 21 so closely that they are thought to have been copied 124 Meconi, Pierre de la Rue, 97-99. 91 around the same time. 125 If VienNB 4809 were copied after 1521, the date of Josquin?s death, then would it not follow that JenaU 21 was also copied at that time? Perhaps this is not the case. It was mentioned above that it is odd that JenaU 21 is the only manuscript of the group copied by Scribe D, so it is possible that this one was in fact copied earlier than the others, though clearly in the same workshop and by scribes working according to the same principles as scribe D. Second, the Missa ad placitum in VienNB 4810 has been attributed to Benedictus Appenzeller, who was generally active much later. He was, however, a singer at St. Jacob?s in Bruges by 1518. The attribution to Appenzeller is based on a concordance in MontsM 771, the only other source for this mass and one of the manuscripts copied for Mary of Hungary during the second half of the 1530s. 126 Appenzeller?s mass is out of place in VienNB 4810, whose other masses are by Mouton, F?vin, Forestier, and an anonymous composer. Judging from its style, this anonymous mass was probably composed before 1510. 127 The other composers represented in the manuscript were active at the French court during the first few years of the sixteenth century, while Appenzeller worked in Bruges in the late 1510s and for Mary of Hungary during the 1530s. Yet, Eric 125 The cross in VienNB 4809 is suspicious, because the later Alamire scribes did not typically add these crosses to ascriptions (cf. Chapter 6, below, for a list of manuscripts and composers to feature these indications). It is indeed possible that the cross after Josquin?s name in VienNB 4809, and that in JenaU 21 after ?Io. De pratis,? were copied in error or without careful attention to their implied meaning. 126 New Grove does not mention VienNB 4810 as a source for Appenzeller?s mass, listing only MontsM 771. Eric Jas, "Appenzeller, Benedictus," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/01109 (accessed October 8, 2008). Thomas Schmidt-Beste, however, lists VienNB 4810, MontsM 771, and a third source from Modena, ModD 10, a manuscript copied ca. 1520-30 for the use of the cathedral choir. See his ?Appenzeller, Benedicturs? in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart: allgemeine Enzyklop?die der Musik, ed. Ludwig Finscher (Kassel: B?renreiter Verlag, 1999), Personenteil, vol. 1, 823. For ModD 10, see Charles Hamm and Herbert Kellman, eds., Census-Catalogue of Manuscript Sources of Polyphonic Music 1400-1550 (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: H?nssler Verlag, 1979-1988), 2: 159. Comparison of the Missa ad placitum in VienNB 4810 with Appenzeller?s mass of the same name in MontsM 771 indeed confirms that they are the same composition. 127 The Missa supra Salve regina is discussed in the second half of this chapter. 92 Jas notes that, because Appenzeller?s music was published only by the French printers, Pierre Attaingnant and Jacques Moderne, he, too, may have spent part of his career in France. 128 Thus, the repertory in VienNB 4810 dates, for the most part, from the early years of the sixteenth century, as does that contained in the other four related manuscripts. Although the sole source of this Missa sine nomine is a manuscript that seems to have been copied in the early 1520s, it is noteworthy that the masses that immediately precede it in the manuscript date from the 1480s or 1490s. As has been suggested above, the three masses that close JenaU 21?the Missa Allez regretz, which may or may not be by Josquin, Weerbeke?s Missa brevis, and this anonymous Missa sine nomine?may have reached Alamire?s workshop at the same time and by the same means. If so, the anonymous mass would likely have been composed in the same milieu as the other two with which it was copied. Characteristics of this mass, such as the seldom occurrence of thirds in the final cadence, a fairly reliable indicator of period of composition, the composer?s heavy reliance on parallel tenths between the outer voices, and his extensive use of imitative duos, among other traits, suggest a date certainly before the 1510s, and possibly at the end of the fifteenth century, which would put the anonymous composer in the same generation as composers such as Martini, Isaac, and Mouton and his colleagues at the French court. Conclusions By their nature, anonymous masses defy simple contextualization, and a sine nomine mass is even more ambiguous. Nevertheless, the objective assessment of this 128 Eric Jas, ?VienNB 4810,? in Treasury, cat. no. 41, 145. Too little is known of Appenzeller?s biography to give the dates when he may have worked in France, although Appenzeller was Flemish-speaking, which may argue against any employment in France. 93 Missa sine nomine provided above has revealed that its composer?s approach and techniques?frequent alternation between imitative duos and four-part homophonic textures, usually to mark new phrases of mass text, sequential melodic statements at the ends of sections, simple counterpoint, great sensitivity to text setting, and recurring melodic material, especially at the openings of sections?fit the tradition of polyphonic mass composition around the turn of the sixteenth century. When considered along with an analysis of JenaU 21, its sole source, however, it becomes apparent that this mass, along with the two others with which it was copied, is out of the ordinary among masses copied into the Alamire manuscripts, because it was composed so much earlier than the date when its manuscript was copied (1521-25), and because the compositions in JenaU 21 as a group suggest no apparent theme. Our new understanding of this composition thus allows us to reconsider JenaU 21 in light of all of its repertory, and most importantly, it illustrates that anonymous masses, even those with no apparent subject matter, are an integral part of our knowledge of the early Renaissance polyphonic mass. MISSA SUPRA SALVE REGINA 129 The Missa Salve regina in VienNB 4810 VienNB 4810, 130 one of the manuscripts related to JenaU 21, closes with an anonymous, four-voice paraphrase mass on the Marian antiphon, Salve regina. It also contains polyphonic citations of Josquin?s five-voice motet, Salve regina. VienNB 4810 is one of those Alamire manuscripts so sparsely decorated?without coats of arms, 129 Throughout this dissertation, primary subtitles give mass names as in the original manuscript. The discussion uses standard names for the masses and their models, however. 130 Described in Jas, ?Vienna, MS 4810,? cat. no. 41, 145. The foliations cited for this manuscript are those in pencil, rather than ink. This chapter follows the foliation cited in the catalogue entry cited in this footnote. 94 mottos, or other identifying features?that it is difficult to say with any certainty for whom it was originally prepared. It is known that it was eventually acquired by a member of the wealthy Augsburg Fugger family, perhaps Raimund the Elder, who owned as many as seven other Alamire manuscripts, because the codex was part of the Fugger library that Ferdinand III bought and brought to Vienna in 1656, where it remains to this day. 131 The masses in this manuscript, while not obviously centered on any theme, do constitute a cohesive set. Three out of the six masses in VienNB 4810 are Marian in subject: Mouton?s Missa Regina mearum, Forestier?s Missa Intemerata virgo, which is based on Josquin?s motet Vultum tuum, and of course the anonymous Missa supra Salve regina. That two of the remaining masses?by F?vin and Appenzeller?are ad placitum 132 is striking. The third is F?vin?s Missa Sanctorum meritis (on the hymn for Vespers for the Common of the Martyrs) (see Table 3.6, above). Since the Marian works are not grouped together, we cannot conclude that the manuscript has a Marian agenda. Instead, it appears to be a collection of early masses, mostly by French composers (a point to which we will return below). Neither of the last two masses in this manuscript, Appenzeller?s Missa ad placitum or the anonymous Missa supra Salve regina, is ascribed in the source, though the other four masses do carry accurate ascriptions. The likely explanation for the missing ascription for the Appenzeller mass is the odd layout of its first opening. It begins on f. 131 Three other manuscripts that form one codicological group with VienNB 4810, VienNB 11778, JenaU 21, and SubA 248, were prepared for unknown recipients and bear no signs of ownership. Might the four manuscripts whose intended recipient remains unknown have been copied without a particular patron in mind, to be presented when the need arose? The arms of the Fuggers in the other manuscript in this codicological group, VienNB 4809, do seem to suggest, however, that the other Vienna manuscripts, eventually acquired by the Fuggers, may have been prepared for them as well. 132 Eric Jas speculates that ?ad placitum? may have been interpreted as ?brevis.? See Treasury, cat. no. 41, 145. ?Ad placitum? could also be another way to say ?ad libitum,? which would have entailed leaving one or more performance decision up to the performers (unspecified by the composer). Often this undetermined aspect of performance was scoring, so that a voice part may be left out in performance. 95 85r: the openings of all four voices are copied onto that folio, likely because the tenor, which presents a simple melody in long notes, fits onto one staff, and the scribes could save space by using only one side of the folio. The facing verso (f. 84v) is blank, leaving only one blank folio between masses, whereas all other masses in this manuscript follow a blank opening, and their beginnings copied across an opening as was usual in manuscripts of this kind. (Another source for this mass, MontsM 771, presents the opening in normal choirbook format, with the superius and tenor on the verso and the contratenor and basses on the facing recto.) In short, there was no room for an ascription. For the Missa supra Salve regina, however, no such explanation is evident. The mass begins across an opening. The title, Missa supra Salve regina, is written at the top of f. 102v, and there is ample space (2.5 cm) on the facing recto for an ascription. Like so many anonymous masses in the Alamire complex, there is no clear reason for this one?s anonymity; one can only speculate as to why its scribes did not provide a composer attribution. Polyphonic Settings of the Salve regina The Salve regina, the model for this mass, one of the four Marian antiphons, was usually performed at the end of Compline during the summer season, from Trinity Sunday to the Saturday before Advent, but it was also used as a votive antiphon on Saturdays, at Marian feasts, during processions, and at commemorations. 13 In its very 13 For an overview of the Salve regina (and of Marian devotion) see Jeannine S. Ingram and Keith Falconer, ?Salve regina,? in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/ grove/music/24431 (accessed October 8, 2008); Sonja Stafford Ingram, ?The Polyphonic Salve Regina, 1425?1550? (PhD diss., University of North Carolina, 1973); Grayson Wagstaff, ?Mary?s Own: Josquin?s Five-Part Salve Regina and Marian Devotions in Spain,? Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 52 (2002): 3- 96 early history (late eleventh or early twelfth century), it was most important in monastic circles, where it was sung at Compline, during processions, and on other occasions, and where theologians discussed it at some length. The antiphon text fit the relatively new doctrine of the Virgin Mary as an intercessor between man (or, in the case of the performance of the antiphon, monk, cleric, patron, singer, or composer) and Christ. Mary?s role thus changed from simply that of the mother of God to that of a mediatrix who could assure salvation. The enormous increase in Marian veneration, then, was a logical reaction to the extremely powerful church and the fear of purgatory. From the thirteenth century on, performing the Salve regina resulted in the granting of indulgences in some centers, 134 and the popularity of the devotion would continue to develop well into the Renaissance, even with the eventual (and gradual) transfer of symbolic power from the Catholic church, which had dominated medieval culture and society, to various states. In fact, Marian devotion, including performances of the Salve regina in a variety of forms (monophonic antiphon, polyphonic motet setting, and, apparently, mass setting) was immensely popular at a variety of Renaissance European courts. By the fifteenth century, the Salve regina was also performed at (and lent its name to) the Salve, or Lof service, either Marian Vespers or Marian Compline, often with added motets, and which was especially popular in the Low Countries and in Spain from the fourteenth through the sixteenth centuries and beyond. This extra-liturgical service, 34; Marie-No?l Colette, ?Le Salve Regina en Aquitaine au XII ?me Si?cle: L?auteur du Salve,? in International Musicological Society Cantus Planus: Papers Read at the Fourth Meeting, P?cs, Hungary, 3- 8 September 1990, ed. L?szl? Dobszay (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute for Musicology, 1992), 521-47; J. de Valois, ?En marge d?une antienne: le Salve Regina,? Tribune de Saint- Gervais 17 (1911): 25-28, 53-58, 76-82, 110-19; and idem, ?Les auteurs pr?sum?s du Salve Regina,? Tribune de Saint-Gervais 17 (1911): 226-43, 261-68, 293-307, and 18 (1912): 9-22, 65-88. 134 Ingram, ?The Polyphonic Salve Regina,? 21. 97 celebrated in front of an altar of the Virgin, included the singing of the Salve regina, and, as early as the fourteenth century, incorporated polyphony. 135 Marian confraternities, prevalent in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in the Low Countries, are known to have commissioned polyphonic settings of the Salve regina, as well as polyphonic masses (though not necessarily on the Marian antiphon) for use at their services. 136 At Antwerp Cathedral, a Salve regina chaplaincy and a guild were established in the fifteenth century. 137 Thus, even though the singing of Marian antiphons during the appropriate times of year was universal, in the Low Countries, the Salve service resulted in additional emphasis on the Salve Regina in particular. Perhaps not coincidentally, at least two important Marian confraternities, the Illustre Lieve Vrouwe Broederschap in ?s-Hertogenbosch and that of the same name in Antwerp, purchased music over a period of decades from scribes, including Jacob Obrecht, Pierre La Rue, and Petrus Alamire, 138 and choirmasters and scribes of books 135 Kristine Forney, ?Music, Ritual, and Patronage at the Church of Our Lady, Antwerp,? Early Music History 7 (1987): 1; and Barbara Haggh, ?Motets and Marian Worship in the Fourteenth Century,? in Music Fragments and Manuscripts in the Low Countries; Alta Capella; Music Printing in Antwerp and Europe in the sixteenth Century, ed. Eugeen Schreurs and Henri Vanhulst, Yearbook of the Alamire Foundation, 2 (Leuven, Peer: 1997), 61-63. 136 Forney, ?Music, Ritual, and Patronage,? 2. 137 Forney, ?Music, Ritual, and Patronage,? 8-9. 138 The confraternity in ?s-Hertogenbosch made payments in 1496, then again in 1530-32 (and probably between as well): ?Item Petrus Alamire van 17 sexternen nuwer musiken van missen ende voer elck sexterne 7 stuivers ende 7 stuivers in den hoep, facit tsamen 6 gulden 6 stuivers. Noch voer 7 boeck dobbel papiers, elck boeck 3 stuivers, om die voerz. musike op te scriven, facit 21 stuivers?Noch om die voerz. missa van Salve sancta parens metten drie anderen missen voerz. mettermissen van Requiem ende dat nuwe Patrem in een boeck te doen bynden, gegeven 4 stuivers.? ?s-Hertogenbosch, Archief Illustre-Lieve- Vrouwe-Broedershcap, St. Janskerk, 1496-97. ?Gegeven den sangers, want zy sestien missen geordineert hebben om te laten scriven tot Mechelen [Alamire] van eenen excelenten meester, tot drinckgelt ? 12 stuivers?Gegeven eenen meester van Mechelen, genoempt Alemiere, den 28 ten january, omdat hy een sangboeck gelevert hadde ende twee boecken aen hem verdingt was ende dat tselver boeck beter was dant verdinght was, met hem overcomen ende hem noch moeten geven boven die twelf gulden die hy ontfangen hadde ? 9 Rijnsgulden.? ?Gegeven Peter Allemire van Mechelen van een musuyck sangboeck, dat aen hem verdinck was te maken van acht myssen die hem medegegeven waren om in der musick te stellen, ende also volbracht heft nae inhout onser vorwarden daeraf gemackt was, ende gelevert den 22 july, daeraf betaelt ? 18 gulden. Gegeven onssen Sebastiaen sangmeester metten anderen gesellen om dit vorscr. boeck te visenteren ende om te besien oft gerecht ende lofbaer gemaeckt was nae inhoudt onsser voerwaerden, 98 used by the Antwerp Confraternity of Our Lady include other musicians associated with the court and represented in the Alamire manuscripts, including Obrecht, Alamire, and possibly La Rue. 139 The two Marian confraternities are further connected, insofar as they employed many of the same musicians at different points in their careers, a fact that could have resulted in common rituals and repertories. Though these institutions were neither clerical nor courtly, they were necessarily associated with churches, and apparently with courts as well. One probable context for a Salve regina mass would have been in front of the altar of this or another Marian confraternity, a known location for polyphonic masses, as well as the Salve regina antiphon. 140 Unfortunately, given the absence of known documents citing a polyphonic Missa Salve regina as part of the repertory of one of these confraternities, this must remain one hypothesis among others. Only a few references to masses connected to the Salve regina exist, and not necessarily masses based upon that antiphon. For example, in a fourteenth-century German monastery, the Salve regina followed a high mass every Saturday; in 1382, the Dominicans at Frankfurt-am-Main pledged to perform a High Mass every Saturday followed by the singing of the Salve regina after they received an exquisite image of the Virgin; they later moved the singing of the Salve regina to after Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays after Compline; 141 and in 1433 at Our Lady of Mont-Roland, a church near Dole, in Burgundy, that was frequented by Burgundian dukes and counts, Duke Philip the ende also bevonden Godt dank, hieraf gesconken ? 10 stuivers.? ?s-Hertogenbosch, Archief Illustre-Lieve- Vrouwe-Broedershcap, St. Janskerk, 1530-31, 1531-32. Cited most recently in Eugeen Schreurs, ?Petrus Alamire: Music Calligrapher, Musician, Composer, Spy,? in Treasury, 23. For payments to Alamire made by both the Church and the Confraternity of Our Lady in Antwerp, see Forney, ?Music, Ritual, and Patronage,? 32-46, especially 33-36. 139 See, for example, Forney, ?Music, Ritual, and Patronage,? 33-36. 140 Ibid. 141 Ingram, ?The Polyphonic Salve regina,? 33. 99 Good established a daily high mass to accompany the Office of the Blessed Virgin, which, on Saturdays and on Marian feasts, was followed by a Salve regina. 142 During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a number of votive masses, including one established by the Confraternity of Our Lady, were performed weekly at the Church of Our Lady in Antwerp. 143 These early witnesses to the performance of masses just before the singing of the Salve regina may be traditions that eventually gave way to a Missa Salve regina. Also, according to the 1469 ordinance of the Burgundian Court issued by Charles the Bold, a polyphonic High Mass was celebrated daily, according to the Use of Paris. 14 Though not a votive mass, this provided ample opportunity for the performance of polyphonic masses, perhaps including a Missa Salve regina. A Missa Salve regina would have had ample opportunity for performance at or around the Court of Burgundy- Habsburg, but it would have been appropriate to perform such a mass almost anywhere, including the main altar of a church, a side altar (such as one of those used by the Marian confraternities), or even a private altar. Since it was based on a votive antiphon, another likely context for this sixteenth-century Missa Salve regina would be as a votive mass, not necessarily but probably to be performed on a Saturday or a Marian feast day or its octave. 145 142 Ibid., 36. 143 Forney, ?Music, Ritual, and Patronage,? 9. 14 ?Item chascun jour de l?an a heure competente sera dite et celebree en la dite chapelle par iceulx chapelains, clercz et autres servans une haulte messe ordinaire a chant et deschant de tel saint ou sainte dont la feste escherra icelluy jour; et ce faiste n?y achet la dite messe sera du ferial selon l?office dominical de la sepmaine; et le tout en observant et gardant l?usage de l?eglise de Paris ainsi qu?il est acousteum? du temps des predicesseurs de monditseigneur.? Quoted in David Fallows, ?Specific Information on the Ensembles for Composed Polyphony, 1400-1474,? in Studies in the Performance of Late Mediaeval Music, ed. Stanley Boorman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 147, no. 3. 145 Forney, ?Music, Ritual, and Patronage,? 9, also suggests Mondays as a possible day of celebration of Marian votive masses by the Confraternity of Our Lady in Antwerp. 100 Despite the strong tradition of performance of the Salve regina in various contexts throughout Europe over more than four centuries, and though it was still common in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century to use an antiphon as a cantus firmus (for example in the anonymous Missa de Assumptione beate Maria, discussed in Chapter 5) or to set the antiphon Salve regina to polyphony, sixteenth-century masses on the large- scale Marian antiphons?Ave regina celorum, Alma redemptoris mater, Regina celi, and Salve regina?are uncommon, and to my knowledge, only eight sixteenth-century masses cite the Salve regina melody. Only the two anonymi feature the antiphon as the main cantus firmus (see Table 3.9). Three are late sixteenth-century settings (those by Victoria, Palestrina, and de Cristo), and the other three, Obrecht?s Missa Sub tuum presidium, the Missa Myns liefkens bruyn ooghen, probably by Vinders, and the Missa Ave Maria peregrina by Pe?alosa, set Salve regina along with other cantus firmi. The anonymi, then, provide the link between the early sixteenth-century settings from the Low Countries and the later Spanish, Portuguese, and Roman ones. Although the Salve regina was widely known, it was rare in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to compose a polyphonic mass on that antiphon. The few settings that do exist, therefore, require an explanation. Why would a composer have written a mass on this particular, extremely well-known antiphon? The two anonymous settings, the only ones to be based completely on the Salve regina, appear in manuscripts with some connection to the Burgundian or Habsburg courts?VienNB 4810 was copied in the Low Countries by scribes who were, if not employed at the court, at least loosely associated with it, and some gatherings of MunBS 3154 were copied by scribes active at the Habsburg court at Innsbruck. The impressive use of votive masses by confraternities in 101 Antwerp has been discussed at some length; 146 one can easily conceive of similar devotions taking place throughout the Burgundian-Habsburg Low Countries, and indeed, in other centers with strong ties to the Burgundian-Habsburg court. 147 MassComposerVoicesDateSourcesRemarks Missa Sub tuum presidium Obrecht3, 4, 5, 6, 7c. 1503?DresSL 1/D/505; Concentus harmonici quattuor missarum (Basel: G Mews, c1510) Agnus Dei III quotes Salve regina Missa Salve regina Anonymous4 1506-07?MunBS 3154 Missa supra Salve regina Anonymous4 1510s?VienNB 4810 Missa Ave Maria peregrina Francisco de Pe?alosa 4 1510s? Sancuts/Agnus Dei: quote Salve regina; Agnus Dei II (5vv): Salve regina melody in S sung in canon simultaneously with Hayne?s chanson De tous biens plaine in T in retrograde; Worked for Ferdinand of Aragon, Pope Leo X 1517-21; Seville, Burgos, Rome Missa Myns liefkens bruyn ooghen Jheronimus Vinders? 5 1520s??s-HerAB 75Quotes Appenzeller?s Salve regina; active at St Bavo in Ghent 1525-26 Missa Salve regina Tom?s Luis de Victoria 8 (2 choirs + organ) 1592 on own antiphon (1576) Missa Salve regina Giovanni Luigi da Palestrina 5 c 1594 Missa Salve regina Pedro de Cristo4 CoimU 8, 18, 33, 36? Portuguese Table 3.9: Sixteenth-century Masses on Salve regina 146 Forney, ?Music, Ritual, and Patronage,? 7. 147 It is interesting, however, that the Burgundian court statutes of 1469 published by David Fallows nowhere mention a special Salve service or votive services, except for obits. See Fallows, ?Specific Information,? 145-60. 102 Aside from the settings from the Burgundian-Habsburg realm, other masses on Salve regina were composed by Iberian composers, especially in the latter half of the sixteenth century. Considering the Spanish penchant for Marian worship and the Salve service in particular, the existence of numerous Iberian mass settings is hardly surprising, above all because the Iberian peninsula became Habsburg territory, and the northern singers made trips to Spain with the chapel. Polyphonic Spanish settings of the antiphon Salve regina include those by Pedro de Escobar and Juan de Anchieta, both of whom served in Spanish royal chapels. 148 Though Grayson Wagstaff maintains that Pe?alosa, a composer known to have emulated the style of Josquin des Prez, 149 ?does not seem to have composed a Salve regina,? the composer incorporates the antiphon melody in the second (final) Agnus Dei of his Missa Ave Maria peregrina (in canon with Hayne?s De tous biens plaine), and there are traces of it in the Sanctus. 150 The absence of other repertory of Spanish origin in VienNB 4810 makes it difficult to argue that the composer of this Missa supra Salve regina was Spanish or worked in Spanish circles. In fact, aside from Appenzeller, the other composers represented in the manuscript were employed at the French court (if in fact Forestier is the same individual as Mathurin Dubuysson, as Edward Lowinsky hypothesizes, but even if not, Forestier was a French composer), 151 and Appenzeller is also thought to have been 148 Both composers served Queen Isabella the Catholic, and Anchieta was eventually transferred to the chapel of Juana, Isabella?s daughter and wife of the Habsburg-Burgundian ruler (and new Spanish king), Philip the Fair. 149 Wagstaff, ?Mary?s Own,? 9-10. 150 The Spanish composers borrowed heavily from composers from the Low Countries. 151 Edward Lowinsky, The Medici Codex of 1518, Monuments of Renaissance Music 3 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), 74, n. 34. 103 connected with France. 152 The strong representation of French court composers is in fact common to many of the later Alamire manuscripts, 153 and may reflect the scribe?s trips between France and the Low Countries (and England) as a spy on the part of Henry VIII of England against Richard de la Pole (or perhaps as a counter-spy) between 1515 and 1518, not coincidentally the exact period that immediately precedes the change in repertoire from Netherlandish to French in origin. Would it then not be prudent to consider a French musician as the composer of the anonymous Missa supra Salve regina? The analysis below would seem to suggest he was. Large-Scale Structure, Mode, and Texture in the Missa Salve regina The Missa supra Salve regina is a paraphrase mass on the Marian antiphon, Salve regina. Like the Missa de Assumptione beate Virgine (discussed in Chapter 5), each of its five main movements open with an imitative citation of the opening of the antiphon, presented by all four voices, always starting on D in the superius and tenor, and a fifth below (G) in the contratenor and bassus (the antiphon, in D authentic mode, begins on A). This motive, on the text ?Salve,? recalls the opening of the antiphon Salve regina, and is called the ?Salve? motive here. Because the composer slightly varies his presentation of this material from movement to movement, this is not a true head motive. The material serves the same function, however?to unify the five main mass movements. It is also dramatic. The ?Salve???Hail??itself commands the listener?s attention, but the imitative entries in all four voices, in pairs at the fifth, in a relatively slow harmonic rhythm, with ample space between entries, and normally followed by a 152 As stated above, it is indeed probable that Appenzeller spent some time in France. 153 Kellman, ?Josquin and the Courts of the Netherlands and France,? 200-01. 104 contrasting passage heighten the effect. In the context of the Mass, during which the polyphonic items of the Ordinary would of course be interspersed with Propers?probably performed in plainchant?readings, and other actions, these conspicuous statements of the ?Salve? motive would certainly have made an impression. The anonymous composer paraphrases the entire Salve regina melody throughout the mass, but the ?Salve? motive is by far the most obvious citation. The scribes who copied this mass were also aware of the emphasis placed on that motive. After one text scribe underlaid the Ordinary text, another text scribe (the one who wrote the title ?Missa supra Salve regina? at the top of f. 102v) inscribed ?Salve? one time each under the superius and tenor voices (see Figure 3.3). Although these scribes did not identify the composer of this mass, they thus emphasized its subject. Figure 3.3: VienNB 4810, f. 102v Figure 3.4: VienNB 4810, f. 121v 105 The composer of the Missa supra Salve regina follows the standard structural divisions as well as modal, mensural, and textural norms, of early sixteenth-century polyphonic settings of the Mass Ordinary. The G-mode mass, in imperfect tempus throughout, alternates between C and cut C. The choice of mensuration sign seems to be one of scribal habit, rather than one that would affect performance, although such changes in mensuration could function as relative tempo indications (see Table 3.10, below). 154 Mass SectionFinal3 rd No 3 rd MensurationCleffingKey signature Scoring KYRIEG Kyrie IG X C g2-c3-c3-f3b-flatS-C-T-Bariton ChristeDX C (S-T) / cut C (C-B) g2-c3-c3-f3b-flatSCTB Kyrie IIG X C g2-c3-c3-f3b-flatSCTB GLORIAG Et in terraGX C g2-c3-c3-f3b-flatSCTB Dominus DeusG unisonC c3-f3b-flatTB Qui tollisG X cut Cg2-c3-c3-f3b-flatSCTB CREDOG PatremG X C g2-c2-c3-f3b-flatSCTB Et !ncarnatus estDX cut C (S) / C (C- T-B) g2-c3-c3-f3b-flatSCTB Et resurrexitGX C (S-T) / cut C (C-B) g2-c3-c3-f3b-flatSCTB Et in Spiritum Sanctum G XC (S-C-B) / cut C (T) g2-c2-c3-f3b-flatSCTB SANCTUSG SanctusG X C g2-c3-c3-f3b-flatSCTB Pleni suntG unisonC c3-f3b-flatCB OsannaGXno 5 th C g2-c3-c3-f3b-flatSCTB BenedictusG unisonC (S) / cut C ?g2-c3b-flatSC [Osanna]GXno 5 th C g2-c3-c3-f3b-flatSCTB AGNUS DEI? Agnus Dei IDX C (S-T-B) / cut C (C) g2-c3-c3-f3b-flatSCTB Agnus Dei IIGX cut C (S-C) / C (B) g2-c3-f3b-flatSCB Table 3.10: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Salve regina 154 A detailed modal analysis is given below. 106 Three subsections?Dominus Deus, Pleni sunt, and Benedictus?are duos, and the second Agnus Dei is a trio for superius, contratenor, and bassus. One might consider the possibility of a canonic tenor in this last section, even though no such indication is present in the source, but the layout of folio 121v is evidence against a fourth canonic voice (see Figure 3.4, above). The scribes of this mass clearly knew that they would only be copying three voice parts for this section, because there is no indentation where the tenor part would normally begin. Elsewhere in VienNB 4810, each folio is laid out for the number of voices that perform a given section, with the first staff of each voice indented to make room for an initial. For folios containing duo sections, staves were drawn only for those two voices. Where the other voices appear in four-voice sections, the scribe left the space unstaved and blank. That the initials were never added after the first opening of the mass is irrelevant to this argument; what is important is that the scribe responsible for layout knew how many voices he would be copying on each folio before he started to prepare the page. He knew exactly where each voice should appear, and he drew his staves accordingly. Despite the relative lack of decoration in VienNB 4810, its scribes visibly took care to provide an accurate, clean reading of its repertory. Though not indicated in this manuscript, the Osanna would have been repeated after the Benedictus. There is also no third Agnus Dei in the manuscript. According to early Renaissance performing traditions, the first Agnus Dei would often be repeated as Agnus Dei III with altered text (dona nobis pacem replacing miserere nobis), if no separate Agnus Dei III had been composed. In this mass, given that the Osanna needed to be repeated as well, this would seem a logical conclusion. Further, the second Agnus Dei 107 is scored for only three voices (there is no tenor), which would be an anticlimactic conclusion to the mass. Agnus Dei I cadences on D, an unlikely ending for a mass so clearly centered in G, however, though a sequential passage worthy of a final ending leads to the D. Whether this mass should conclude with the second Agnus Dei, a reprise of the first, or another, missing third section, is impossible to tell, given the lack of any concordant source. External evidence, such as local or institutional practice, could be relevant to the performance of this Agnus Dei, but since the mass is anonymous, it is not easily contextualized in this way. One clue is the increasing evidence that masses copied in the Burgundian-Habsburg orbit often transmitted only two, and sometimes just one, statements of the Agnus Dei. There is evidence to suggest that these masses were composed with three statements of the Agnus Dei, but that, corresponding to the local traditions where they originated or, more likely, where they were to be sent, the Alamire scribes did not copy the final petition, with the text dona nobis pacem. 15 The unsatisfactory conclusion that either of the extant statements of the Agnus Dei of this mass would provide fits well with this hypothesis. Whereas the model is a first-mode chant, in D (the antiphon dips below its final only once, at the important text ?Et Jesum?), the mass composer transposes it to G, giving one flat in the key signature (see Example 3.7, below). All major sections cadence on G, as do most subsections (except the Christe, Et incarnatus est, and Agnus Dei I, which cadence on D). Nearly half (7 out of 15) of all final cadences, except those that occur at the unison, include the third. The superius, which presents the ?Salve? motive most 15 Cf. Chapter 6 for a detailed discussion of this phenomenon. 108 faithfully, begins on D along with the tenor, carries a g2 clef, and extends from a fourth below to an octave above its final?almost always G. It therefore mixes both the authentic and plagal ambitus, although descents into the plagal register are exceptional (as in the model). The tenor, however, with a c3 clef, remains within an authentic ambitus, but with a tone on either end. The contratenor, which, with the bassus, always presents the ?Salve? motive a fifth below the superius and tenor, is authentic, while the bassus, with its ambitus a fifth below that of the tenor, is plainly plagal. The ranges and key signature thus confirm that the Missa supra Salve regina is a mode-one composition rather than one in mode seven. Its transposition to G is in fact common among polyphonic settings of the Salve regina. 156 Example 3.7: Clefs, Ranges, and Finals of the Missa Salve regina Of interest, however, is the resulting ambiguity regarding the sixth scale degree, in this case E. In D-Dorian, la is often B-flat; likewise, in Dorian transposed to G, one would expect frequent E-flats, which are, in fact, often marked as accidentals in the manuscript. Also, it is often necessary to add editorial ficta, for example, to avoid imperfect fourths or fifths, and in cases when E occurs outside the soft hexachord (una 156 Other settings of the Salve regina transposed to G with B-flats are by La Rue (VI), Martini, Divitis, and some anonymi. 109 nota super la semper est canendum fa) (see Example 3.8, below). Of course, the quality of the note E in this mass depends on the context of the surrounding counterpoint, and the anonymous composer exaggerates the ambiguity that is already a natural result of mutation between hexachords. A particularly telling example is near the beginning of the Kyrie: the source displays a notated flat on the E in the tenor, m. 7, which occurs against an A natural in the bassus. To avoid the resulting tritone, the bassus must lower his A, or the notated flat in the tenor must be ignored and the E, which is in this case una nota super la, would be natural. If the bassus sings A-flat, its statement of the often-heard descending cadential figure in m. 8 (motive x) would have E-flats, which correspond to the B-flats in the tenor, and which would, consequently, result in E-flats in the same figure in mm. 9-10. In this instance, the bassus would, for the duration of one minim, sing an E-flat against an A-natural in the superius. The counterpoint of this section suggests that linear considerations should take precedence over harmonic ones. In fact, any harmonic tritones that result in this passage are passing. One possible and satisfying solution to the quality of E as it occurs within motive x in Kyrie I is the following: E-flats in the bassus in m. 8 and m. 10; E-naturals in m. 14; E-flats in m. 19, and E-naturals in m. 22. 110 Example 3.8: Missa Salve regina, Kyrie, mm. 1-24 This interplay between E-natural and E-flat (or B-natural and B-flat for compositions in D-Dorian untransposed) is a normal consequence of the transposed Dorian mode. The same kind of alternation between major and minor sixths is evident in Josquin?s polyphonic setting of the Salve regina, and, according to Edward Lowinsky, is typical of Josquin?s compositions in general. 157 The composer of this anonymous mass was not so skilled as to provide a situation of ?no doubt? concerning the intended quality of the sixth scale degree, but his frequent apparent alternation between the major and minor inflection may be seen as reminiscent of Josquin?s style. 157 ?Josquin, more than any other composer of his generation, exploits this harmonic variety and clearly leads his voices so that there can be no doubt about the intended opposition between E-natural and E-flat.? Edward Lowinsky, ?Musica Ficta in the Josquin Edition,? in Edward E. Lowinsky, Music in the Culture of the Renaissance and Other Essays, ed. Bonnie J. Blackburn (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), 2: 786. This tendency as it pertains to Josquin?s five-voice Salve regina is also discussed in John Milsom, ?Analysing Josquin,? in The Josquin Companion, 474-75. 111 Borrowing in the Missa Salve regina The Salve regina existed in many versions until it was fixed in the Roman Breviary of 1569, the form in which it appears in the Liber Usualis. 158 Thus it is difficult to ascertain the version employed by this anonymous composer, complicating the task of tracing it through the mass even further. The version of the melody that he employed is not that in the modern chant books, 159 nor is it the simplex version. 160 It is fascinating that it does correspond quite closely to John Milsom?s reconstruction of the one employed by Josquin des Prez in his five-voice motet Salve regina, a point to which we will return below (see Examples 3.9.1 and 3.9.2). 161 Milsom points out that this hypothetical version of the Salve regina corresponds to those used in settings by Johannes Ockeghem, Philippe Basiron, and Johannes Beausseron (Bonnevin), all of whom were French composers. 162 158 Ingram, ?The Polyphonic Salve regina,? 14. 159 Liber usualis, 276; Antiphonale Monasticum, 176-77. 160 Liber usualis, 279; Antiphonale Monasticum, 180. 161 Milsom, ?Analysing Josquin,? 442. 162 Milsom, ?Analysing Josquin,? 441, n. 37. 112 Example 3.9.1: Salve regina, AM 163 Example 3.9.2: Salve regina, Milsom Reconstruction 164 While each of the five main movements opens with the incipit of the antiphon, as mentioned above, most of the internal subsections (Christe, Et incarnatus est, Et resurrexit, Benedictus, Agnus Dei II) begin with imitative statements of the prominent ascending motive that opens segments D, F, and H of the antiphon, and which, perhaps only coincidentally, recalls the opening motive of the Gregorian Kyrie IX, the basis for a group of sixteenth-century Missae de beata Virgine. 165 This repetitive use of the same material, which functions effectively as a secondary head motive, further unifies the composition. Although the mass composer borrows most often from the first part of the antiphon (through segment H, after the fourth phrase of text), motivic material and some entire segments from the second half of the antiphon are paraphrased in the mass. For example, sections that do not open with the headmotive or the opening gesture of 163 Cf. note 159, above. 164 Cf. note 161, above. 165 Throughout my analysis, I refer to the phrases in John Milsom?s reconstruction by letter. 113 segments D, F, and H include the Domine Deus, Qui tollis, Et in Spiritum Sanctum, and Osanna, all of which cite material or refer to motives from the second half of the antiphon. This variety of choice of opening material provides contrast between the five main movements and the internal subsections, according more importance to the five main movements and maintaining a hierarchical structure. Apart from the openings of each movement, the composer presents portions of the Salve regina melody in exceptionally free paraphrase, often combining motives drawn from several phrases of his borrowed material, merely sketching the general outline of antiphon phrases, or beginning a melody with borrowed material and then continuing in free composition. Indeed, because the antiphon opens with such a striking gesture, which the composer displays prominently at the beginning of each mass movement, it is possible that the resemblance at the beginning of the movements, along with intermittent references to motivic material derived from the antiphon, was enough to convey the Salve regina in this mass. Since some phrases of the antiphon are nearly identical, it is natural that the mass composer would quote one or the other of them, but not both. For example, segments A (Salve), B (regina), and C (misericordiae) are repeated to different text (Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra salve), and the last phrase, segments V and W (O dulcis Maria), are very similar to the opening. Segments D (Ad te clamamus), F (Ad te suspiramus), and H (in hac lacrimarum) are almost identical to one another, and I (Eia ergo) and J (advocata nostra) together resemble these closely. Segments T (O Clemens) and U (O pia) are identical. Quotations of these phrases in the mass are most often indistinguishable, and it is probably not coincidental that these melodies figure most prominently in the mass. 114 The antiphon melody is present in all four mass voices, though it is usually more prominent in the superius and, to a slightly lesser degree, in the tenor. Though it, too, sometimes quotes the Salve regina melody, the bassus is characterized by repetitions of shorter motives not drawn from the antiphon, some of which are clearly cadential in function (as in the Kyrie, see Example 3.8, above, m. 8, m. 10, and m. 14), and others of which are structural (as in the Gloria) or transitional. In all four voices, the anonymous composer bridges statements of borrowed material with short motives (not always borrowed from the antiphon), which he presents in imitation or uses to build sequential passages. The Kyrie and Gloria serve as excellent contrasting examples of this composer?s use of paraphrase technique, which includes condensing melodic phrases to a bare skeleton of their form, elaborating upon melodic phrases with ornamental figures and other added notes, 16 inserting melodic excursus that resemble the borrowed material between quotations, and, less obviously, repeating certain motives and presenting others in sequential elaboration. The Kyrie is particularly interesting, because it presents the first four phrases of the antiphon (see Table 3.11), which the anonymous composer employs most often throughout the mass, and because the antiphon melody is recognizable throughout the movement, even if the line between paraphrase and recomposition is often blurred. By contrast, in the Gloria, much newly-composed material separates citations of and references to the antiphon. 16 Interestingly, these are also the procedures used by composers of chant. 115 Mass sectionPhrase of AntiphonScoring KYRIE Kyrie IA-BSCTBariton ChristeD=F-A-BSCTB Kyrie IIF-G-H-XSCTB GLORIA Et in terraA-B-KSCTB Dominus DeusTB Qui tollisA-B-N-O-P-Q-R-SSCTB CREDO PatremA-B SCTB Et incarnatus estD=FSCTB Et resurrexitF=I-JSCTB Et in Spiritum SanctumQ-S-T=U-V-WSCTB SANCTUS SanctusA-B SCTB Pleni sunt CB OsannaP SCTB BenedictusD=F=HSC (Osanna)P AGNUS DEI Agnus Dei IA-B SCTB Agnus Dei IID=FSCB Table 3.11: Distribution of Borrowed Material in the Missa Salve regina The detailed examination of the statements of the Salve regina and the connective tissue between them in each mass movement to follow further elucidates the relationship between mass and model. Examples 3.9.2 (above) and 3.10, Kyrie, in appendix show the antiphon Salve regina (in John Milsom?s reconstruction) and the anonymous Kyrie. Though the contratenor and bassus cite snippets of the antiphon, the superius and tenor are truly the chant-bearing voices. The ?Salve? motive is cited exactly in imitation in all four mass voices, then segment B, a falling gesture from D to G, which rises briefly to C in the middle before finally descending to settle on G, is cited clearly, but condensed, in the tenor and superius. In the tenor, the anonymous composer greatly reduces this melody to present it in its most simplified form: D-D-B-flat-G-A-G (mm. 4-6), then continues with free material until the cadence in m. 11. This melodic continuation in the tenor is 116 one of many melodic extensions following quotations that serve as transitions and to fill in the counterpoint while other voices present their canonic statements of the model. in this mass, until the cadence in m. 11. The superius, because it enters only in m. 6, has no need for such an extension, and its quotation of segment B is simplified and employed as a prominent cadential figure (mm. 9-11). In the contratenor and bassus, only the ?Salve? motive is a clearly quoted before these voices carry on with free material. The paired canonic duos (tenor/bassus and superius/contratenor) that follow (mm. 11-18) present an ascending figure similar to the one in the Gloria, (tenor, contratenor, mm. 82-88?see Example 3.11, below, p. 119), where the composer borrows from Josquin?s five-voice motet Salve regina (mm. 130-134). 167 As it often does in this mass, the bassus alternates between playing an active role in imitative counterpoint (usually in duo with the tenor) and repeating short cadential motives not drawn from the model. The composer repeats one of these motives incessantly, the descending figure that first appears in the bassus in mm. 8-9 (motive x). While the motive itself is not outstanding (it occurs often enough in sixteenth-century music), the frequency with which this anonymous composer employs it is remarkable. It is as striking to the ear as it is to the eye. The function of this particular motive is always cadential (see Table 3.12, below), and it is most often used in combination with the figure in the Kyrie, superius, mm. 9-11, constructed of ?longs? and ?shorts? (LSLLSL), in a higher voice. In fact, motive x is basically an ornamentation of the standard tenor cadence (LSLL), which approaches the final note by descent, and it is one that works extremely well in imitative contexts. 167 For an edition of Josquin?s motet, see Josquin des Prez, Werken, ed. Albert Smijers, (Amsterdam: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1927-69), Motetten. vol. 3, 26-35. 117 The rhythm of this cadential motive, dotted M-SM-SM-SM-S-S (the three semiminims ornament the short of the standard tenor cadence), is what sets this figure apart from other, generic, tenor cadences, and which marks it as a notable element of this composer?s style. The anonymous composer employs it repeatedly in all four voices throughout the mass, but especially in the bassus. It occurs no fewer than sixteen times in the Kyrie alone, fifteen of which are in Kyrie I and Christe. Of the six occurrences in the first Kyrie, five are in the bassus, which also speaks to the cadential function of that voice in this mass. The Christe and final Kyrie both open with a tenor/bassus presentation of the same ascending motive that opens segments D and F of the model, and which the anonymous composer employs as his secondary head motive. The opening of the Christe is an outline of this melody, presented as usual in imitative duos, with newly composed continuations tacked on to the end of each quotation (mm. 28-43). The opening tenor/bassus duo gradually gives way to the superius/contratenor duo that follows it (m. 35), meanwhile, the superius presents its statement of borrowed material for two full bars before the tenor/bassus pair cadences in m. 37, at which point the contratenor enters with the same theme. Alternating duos such as the ones found in the Christe are characteristic of this mass. The anonymous composer achieves a seamless texture by the sheer brevity of these duos, sometimes only two measures, and never more than eight (except at the openings of some movements), and by overlapping the beginning of one duo with the end of the previous one. In the next phrase, mm. 41-50, the composer continues with imitative paired duos on a free ascending melody. As he often does in the mass, he punctuates passages 118 constructed of alternating, paired duos with brief passages for the full texture of four voices, mostly preceding cadences (mm. 47-50). What follows is strange: the tenor, bassus, and superius enter with what would seem to be the ?Salve? motive, but the downward leap of a fifth which so characterizes this motive is delayed by a 1 1/2-measure interpolation (tenor, bassus, mm. 51-54). The superius enters in m. 55 with a segment of long notes that recall segment B of the Salve regina. Meanwhile, the contratenor enters in a similar rhythm to the tenor and bassus (m. 54) and, like the tenor and bassus, cadences right away. The degree to which the canonic tenor and superius quotations in the final Kyrie (tenor, mm. 65-73; superius, mm. 71-79) match segment F is remarkable, considering that the model we are comparing is a reconstructed version of the antiphon that does not exist in any source, and that our anonymous composer sometimes paraphrased his model almost beyond recognition. The two passages are exactly identical until the cadence, where, in the mass, the voices feature appropriate polyphonic cadential figures (tenor, mm. 72-73; superius, mm. 78-79). As the superius and contratenor complete their statement of segment F in m. 79, the tenor and bassus enter in imitation with a clear quotation of segment G, the superius and contratenor following in mm. 82 and 83, respectively, with their statement of segment G. The tenor and superius statements of segment G are exact right up to the polyphonic cadence in both voices (tenor, mm. 78-83; superius, mm. 82-85). The tenor only briefly cites the opening of segment H (mm. 87- 89), while the superius begins the sequential passage with which our composer concludes the movement. 119 The Gloria is another fascinating example of this anonymous composer?s paraphrase technique, as well as his polyphonic borrowing (see Example 3.12, below, and Example 3.13, Gloria, in appendix). In the Et in terra pax, after the quotation of the ?Salve? motive in the tenor and bassus, just after the bassus presents the fourth in J, the tenor leaps up an octave and embellishes the fourth G to D from segment K and L of the antiphon (Gloria, mm. 6-9), the highest and thus most outstanding melodic phrases of the chant. This passage is out of context especially since the A motive reappears immediately thereafter, in the contratenor and superius. Example 3.11.1: Missa Salve regina, Gloria, mm. 81-88 Example 3.11.2: Josquin des Prez, Salve regina, mm. 130-136 168 168 Excerpt taken from Cristle Collins Judd?s analysis of Josquin?s five-voice motet, Salve regina, in Mark Everist, ed., Models of Musical Analysis: Music Before 1600 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992): 114-44. 120 Example 3.12: Missa Salve regina, Gloria, mm. 1-24 Following the superius and contratenor statements of the ?Salve? motive and an imitative transitional figure in the tenor and bassus (mm. 9-14), a melodic excursus that has nothing to do with the borrowed material, the tenor and bassus continue with a short motive presented in very close imitation six times in as many measures, on the text Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te (mm. 16-22). It is remarkable that this very same motive permeates the texture of Josquin des Prez?s five-voice Salve regina in the corresponding place in the motet: immediately following Josquin?s setting of segment K, misericordes oculos, in mm. 105-111. 169 In fact, it is the only figure employed by Josquin in this brief passage. The contratenor of the mass enters in m. 17 on Adoramus te, recalling the first three notes of Josquin?s bassus in m. 99 and m. 101, and its cadence at 169 Whereas I do not argue that this anonymous mass is based upon Josquin?s five-voice Salve regina?this anonymous composer clearly had his own style and his own techniques for setting the antiphon?it is useful to note common elements between the two compositions, if only to show minor ways in which this composer may have emulated Josquin, perhaps even subconsciously. 121 mm. 19-21 is almost identical to that of Josquin?s contratenor cadence at mm. 101-103, with which he concludes segment K. Josquin uses the same figure elsewhere in his Salve regina. In mm. 49-51, Josquin?s setting of segment E, the superius and contratenor each state the figure once. Though it can be misleading to use short figures such as this one, which were not uncommon in the music of this period, as points of comparison between two compositions, the like contexts in both compositions, as well as the prominence afforded it by both composers by sheer repetition and the surrounding texture, justifies it as a feature common to the two compositions. After the passage that features the sequential elaboration of this motive, from Josquin?s motet or prior to both compositions, the anonymous composer returns to his customary paired duos. In the first, between tenor and bassus, the tenor emphasizes the ascending fourth B-flat to F, then the third A-C, before rising to a cadence on G (m. 32). A superius/contratenor duo follows (mm. 32-35), this time with new melodic material emphasizing fourths and fifths (unlike in the Kyrie), leading to points of imitation in all four voices at Domine Deus, that resembles the opening of segment G. As he often does, the composer brings all four voices together for the cadence, at Rex celestis, and changes to imitative entries at Deus Pater omnipotens, from the lowest voice to the highest on a new melodic phrase unrelated to the model. This passage leads directly into the sequential statement of a falling third motive and the cadence on Jhesu Christe (see Example 3.14). 122 Example 3.14: Missa Salve regina, Gloria, mm. 41-56 The Domine Deus, Agnus Dei (mm. 56-75), a brief duo between tenor and bassus, opens with an imitative motive, but does not directly quote any material from the antiphon. This subsection stands apart from the largely motivic writing of the Et in terra pax, featuring significant melismas extending to the high range of both voices (G in the tenor; C in the bassus), while the bassus alternates between participating in the imitative texture and providing a fundamental cadential function. The final section of the Gloria, Qui tollis, begins with an extremely free paraphrase of the opening of the Salve regina, in alternating duos punctuated by brief sections for all four voices at particularly important segments of text (for example, Tu solus Dominus. Tu solus Altissimus, Jhesu Christe) and at cadences. It cites material from the second half of the antiphon, and, like the Domine Deus before it, is characterized by significant melismas. This section also contains what is perhaps the most outstanding instance of polyphonic borrowing from Josquin?s motet (see Examples 3.11.1 and 3.11.2, above), suggesting that this anonymous Missa supra Salve regina is both a paraphrase and an 123 imitation mass. Accompanying the mass Ordinary text miserere nobis is a passage constructed of descending octave scales (D-D) in the superius and bassus against ascending scales spanning the fifth G-D in the contratenor and tenor. Similarly, in the tertia pars of Josquin?s setting, starting in m. 130, the superius presents a descending octave scale (also D-D) as the tenor ascends the fifth G-D, followed in m. 133 with the altus ascending G-D against the descending bassus, D-D. In the mass, the passage begins with the tenor ascending the fifth G-D against the bassus octave descent, followed three measures later by the superius octave descent against the contratenor ascent of a fifth. The mass composer did make changes to Josquin?s passage. Josquin?s segment begins with the superius descending an octave against the tenor?s ascent of a fifth, immediately after which the contratenor ascends the fifth while the bassus makes its octave descent (see Figure 3.5, below). The passage in the mass differs in direction and voice pairing. Josquin pairs the superius with the tenor, which begin separated by a fifth and move together to cadence on unison Ds, and the contratenor with the bassus, which also begin at the fifth but expand to an octave (on D). The mass composer, on the other hand, begins his segment with the tenor and bassus, which start at a fifth and expand to the octave (D), and he concludes it with the superius and contratenor collapsing their opening fifth to a unison (D). Though the voice pairs move in opposite directions, each duo, in both compositions, begins on the fifth G-D and ends on unison or octave Ds. That the mass composer paraphrased his polyphonic citation of Josquin by altering voice pairs and their respective entries seems a minor detail considering that the essence of Josquin?s polyphonic structure?theme, rhythm, and range?is replicated diligently in the mass, and that the two passages sound remarkably similar. 124 Though the passage in the mass is borrowed from Josquin?s motet, the two passages may or may not correspond to the same phrase of the Salve regina: mm. 130- 136 of Josquin?s motet sets section Q of phrase 6, on the text nobis, while mm. 82-88 of the mass do not clearly resemble any part of the antiphon melody. It is, however, noteworthy that the mass composer chose to place this polyphonic citation of Josquin?s motet to the mass text miserere nobis, since the corresponding passage in the motet sets the very same word ?nobis?as it occurs in the antiphon. Since the Qui tollis is a paraphrase of antiphon phrase 6 (segments N-S), which includes the section on nobis set by Josquin, the two passages do seem to correspond, albeit subtly, to the same phrase of their original model. Josquin, Salve regina, mm. 130-136Anonymous, Missa supra Salve regina, mm. 82-88 m.130 133 136m.82 85 88 S: D S: D ! ! D D D " " Ct: G Ct: G D D " " T:G T:G B: DB:D ! ! D D Figure 3.5: Voice Pairs and Structure of Josquin, Salve regina, mm. 130-136, and Anonymous, Missa Salve regina, Gloria, mm. 82-88 In the mass, the tenor/bassus duo that follows this passage is a transition to the four-voice passage with paraphrase of segments N and O in the superius, beginning at m. 93. The mass composer continues to paraphrase the rest of the sixth phrase of the 125 antiphon in his usual manner, alternating duos with points of imitation, up to a clear cadence on G, at m. 122. A clear four-voice imitative quotation of segment Q follows. Segment Q is one of the more striking passages in the antiphon, because it opens with a leap of a fifth, followed by an upper neighbor, before it descends, at segments R and S. The superius at in gloria Dei (mm. 126-130), in particular, recognizably paraphrases segments R and S, He reserves a clear reference to segments T=U of the antiphon at Confiteor (see Example 3.15, Credo, mm. 162-165, in appendix), whereafter the final phrases are paraphrased in the superius and tenor. Polyphonic Borrowing in the Missa Salve regina As mentioned above, this mass has several traits in common with Josquin des Prez?s five-voice motet on Salve regina. Though the anonymous composer by no means systematically borrowed Josquin?s polyphonic texture (the most common way to treat polyphonic models), there are several instances of paraphrased polyphonic citation in which the anonymous composer?s contrapuntal concept resembles Josquin?s closely enough, so as to rule out coincidence as a likely explanation. The version of the antiphon employed by the two composers and the two instances of polyphonic borrowing in the Gloria mentioned above are not the only similarities between this Missa supra Salve regina and Josquin?s motet. Another, and perhaps the most striking similarity between this anonymous mass and Josquin?s motet, is the repetition of certain prominent motives, some of which are also present, surprisingly, in two imitation masses discussed in Chapter 5 and in their models, both of which are compositions by Josquin (Cueur langoreulx and Memor esto 126 verbi tui). 170 Particularly notable are motive x, which has been discussed in several musical contexts, and a series of descending minor thirds. (See Example 3.10, Kyrie, in appendix, bassus, m. 8, for motive x; and mm. 87-94, for a set of descending thirds). For a second motive, that we will call motive y, see Example 3.13, Gloria, in appendix, tenor and bassus, mm. 16-22.) These motives are not derived from the Salve regina, nor are the figures outstanding themselves, but they occur frequently enough in early sixteenth- century polyphonic music (such as in the works of Mouton and other composers of his generation, as well as in the anonymous masses discussed in Chapter 5). The frequency with which both the anonymous composer and Josquin employed them, however, is remarkable. Motive x, the most outstanding among these, is also an important element in Josquin?s five-voice setting of the Salve regina. In Josquin?s motet, the bassus sings this particular figure more than any voice, repeating it four times in the approach to the cadence of the prima pars. (It occurs a total of 11 times in the prima pars, 4 times in the secunda pars, and 3 times in the tertia pars, in all voices in the motet, and statements usually follow each other closely.) Motive y is present in Josquin?s motet, for example, in the superius and altus, mm. 49-52, and in superius, altus, tenor, and bassus, mm. 105-11, albeit sometimes with slight variation of intervals in this latter passage. It was not at all out of the ordinary for composers of this generation?writing in the 1500s-1520s?to construct a parody around a motive or motives that are particularly prominent in the model, rather than on the entire polyphonic texture of the borrowed composition. This is, in fact, one of the key traits of the imitation mass. In this case, the 170 Like Missa Salve regina, Missa Memor esto presents a head motive, which its anonymous composer derived from the opening of Josquin?s motet (cf. Chapter 5). 127 anonymous composer sets certain motives in imitation in all four voices and elaborates upon them in the new polyphony. It thus appears that this anonymous composer employed a kind of double borrowing: his Missa supra Salve regina is both a paraphrase of the antiphon and, less obviously, an imitation mass based on Josquin?s motet. A link with another work by Josquin, his motet, Memor esto, verbi tui, further strengthens this connection between Josquin and the Missa supra Salve regina. At Mm. 56-58 of Agnus Dei II, on the mass text ?qui tollis peccata mundi,? the superius, contratenor, and bassus quote Josquin?s striking descending motet melody, on the text ?et consolatus sum,? that occurs at mm. 45-47 in imitation in all four voices (see Examples 3.16.1 and 3.16.2, below). 128 Example 3.16.1: Missa Salve regina, Agnus Dei, mm. 55-58 Example 3.16.2: Josquin des Prez, Memor esto verbi tui, mm. 40-44 171 The anonymous mass contains enough allusions to Josquin?s motet that it does in fact appear to be an example of polyphonic citation. The similar version of the antiphon set by both composers, the two instances of extended polyphonic borrowing in the Gloria (see discussion above), and the striking motivic similarities between the two compositions suggest that the anonymous composer knew and alluded to Josquin?s setting. This mass is not a pure imitation mass based on Josquin?s motet on the antiphon, since both composers employed the Salve regina as a model, and because there are a number of important structural differences between the two compositions. Most 171 'Memor esto, verbi tui' from 'A Josquin Anthology' ? Oxford University Press 1999. Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. 129 obviously, Josquin?s motet is for five voices, whereas the mass is for four. Also, the mass composer does not employ a motto, one of the most prominent structural elements of Josquin?s motet. Furthermore, some of the mass movements do not correspond to Josquin?s Salve regina. For example, in the Agnus Dei, no borrowing from Josquin?s motet is evident. Rather than categorizing this anonymous Missa supra Salve regina as an imitation mass on Josquin?s motet, we can look at it as a paraphrase mass whose composer emulated Josquin?no uncommon occurrence?through his polyphonic allusions to the latter?s motet on Salve regina. Scoring and Texture in the Missa Salve regina As was mentioned at the beginning of this discussion of the Missa supra Salve regina, the four voices are divided into two pairs: superius/tenor and contratenor/bassus, each of which contains one authentic and one plagal voice (see above for discussion of the mode of the superius). This particular scoring plan, referred to as ?a voce piena,? was the common one employed by sixteenth-century composers, and it can tell us something about the compositional process of this mass. These pairings are not immediately evident from the structure of the mass. Four of the five main movements open with a tenor/bassus duo (the Agnus Dei opens with a duo between the high voices), and the Gloria and Credo are characterized by alternating duos between tenor/bassus and superius/contratenor. It may, therefore, seem that the voices are actually grouped by register, but their modal and melodic functions clearly demonstrate the grouping described above. For example, in the movements in which the borrowed material is most prominent (Kyrie, Sanctus + Osanna, and Agnus Dei), the antiphon is most recognizable in the superius or the tenor, while the 130 bassus consists largely of short, repeated motives that serve a cadential function, and the contratenor, apart from its contributions to the imitative statements of incipits from the antiphon, effectively fills in the counterpoint. This structure suggests an older date. The modal and textural qualities of this mass can tell us something about the compositional process of its composer. It is well known that there was a transition in polyphonic composition during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries away from linear writing, in which each voice was composed separately (usually, in the north, in the order tenor-superius-bassus-contratenor), to a process resulting in parts that were interdependent to a much greater extent, and which eventually led to the vertical composition on which our modern tonal system is based. 172 This process was described aptly by Pietro Aron, who contrasts the procedures of ?ancient? and ?modern? composers: Many composers were of the opinion that the soprano should be composed first, then the tenor, and after the tenor the bass?Therefore the modern composers had a better idea, which is apparent from their compositions in four, five, six, and more voices, in which each part has a comfortable, easy and agreeable place, because they take all the parts into consideration at once and not as described above. And if you prefer to compose the soprano, tenor, or bass first, you are free to follow that method and rule, as some at present do, who often begin with the bass, sometimes with the tenor, and sometimes with the alto. But because this will be awkward and uncomfortable for you at first, you will begin 172 Described by Pietro Aron Toscanello in Musica, libro secondo, cap. xvi (Venice: Marchio Sessa, 1529) [facsimile]. See also, for example, Edward Lowinsky, ?The Concept of Physical and Musical Space in the Renaissance: A Preliminary Sketch,? in Music in the Culture of the Renaissance, 1: 6-18. Although Lowinsky describes a system, derived from the Italian frottola, in which superius and bassus were composed first, while altus and tenor were later additions. Still, the concept of a move from successive to simultaneous composition in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is the relevant issue. On the evolution from successive to simultaneous composition, see Richard Wexler, "Simultaneous Conception and Compositional Process in the Late Fifteenth Century," in Antoine Busnoys: Method, Meaning, and Context in Late Medieval Music, ed. Paula Higgins (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 389-398. See also Margaret Bent, ?Res facta and Cantare super librum,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 36 (1983): 371-91; eadem, ?Accidentals, Counterpoint and Notation in Aaron's Aggiunta to the Toscanello in Musica,? The Journal of Musicology 12: Aspects of Musical Language and Culture in the Renaissance. A Birthday Tribute to James Haar (1994): 306-344; and Bonnie Blackburn, ?On Compositional Process in the Fifteenth Century,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 40 (1987): 210-84. 131 by part; nevertheless, once you have gained some experience, you will follow the order and method described before. 173 Though Aron counsels the aspiring composer to conceive all of the voices together to result in a more harmonious composition, he allows the beginner to start by composing the voices separately and consecutively, then, when comfortable with that method, to move to the preferred simultaneous composition. The anonymous composer of the Missa supra Salve regina seems to have followed a more or less standard compositional process for the period, in which the tenor and superius would have been composed simultaneously and before the contratenor/bassus pair. This pairing of voices was used in performance, as the early sixteenth-century Bohemian theorist Venceslaus Philomathes describes: Let the tenors stand with the boys, and separately. and the basses in one group with the altos, the former together and the latter together, so that they seem to harmonize. As the acute voice [alto] must be subject to the low voice, so the highest voice ought to obey the middle voice, and by singing in the proper arrangement, they will be directed as one. 174 173 La imaginatione di molti compositori f?, che prima il canto si dovessi fabricare, da poi il tenore, et doppo esso il controbasso?Onde gli moderni in questo meglio hanno considerato: come ? manifesto per le compositioni da essi a quarto a cinque a sei, et a pi? voci fatte: de la quali iascuna tiene luogo commodo facile et grato: perch? considerano insieme tutte le parti et non secondo come di sopra ? detto. Et se a te piace componere prima il canto, tenore o controbasso, tal modo et regola a te resti arbitraria: come da alcuni al presente si osserva: che molte fiate danno principio al controbasso, alcuna volta al tenore, et alcuna volta al contro alto. M? perch? questo a te sarebbe nel principio mal agevole et incommodo, a parte per parte comincierai: non dimeno di poi che ne la pratica sarai alquanto esercitato, seguirai l?ordine et modo inanzi detto. Aron, Toscanello in Musica, libro secondo, cap. xvi: Citation and translation from Blackburn, ?On Compositional Process,? 215. As Blackburn points out, Aron?s description of the order of composition superius-tenor-bassus-altus is probably a result of his Italian background, whereas in the north, composers almost surely composed the tenor first. 174 Cum pueris occentores simul, atque seorsum / Et succentores stent cum excentoribus una. / Hi simul, hique simul quia concordare videntur. / Sicut acuta gravi vox voci subijcienda est, / Sic mediae voci debet parere suprema. / Et propriis formis cantando regantur in unum.Venceslaus Philomathes, Musicorum libri quatuor, book 4, ?De situ modulantium? (Vienna, 1512): Citation and translation from Bernhard Meier, The Modes of Classical Polyphony Described According to the Sources, trans. Ellen S. Beebe (New York: Broude Brothers, 1988), 54. 132 The relationship between the superius/tenor and contratenor/bassus voice pairs in this mass is also reflected by the distribution of borrowed material. The groupings are most notable at the openings of the five main mass movements, where the superius and tenor present the ?Salve? motive at the (transposed) pitch of the original antiphon (beginning on D), and the contratenor and bassus present the same motive a fifth below (starting on G). Other imitative citations of the model, which open internal subsections, are likewise presented by these voice pairs, the contratenor/bassus pair appearing a fourth below the superius/tenor pair. The sections with reduced texture do not adhere to this arrangement. Only one of the three duos in the mass, the Pleni sunt, is between one of the established pairs of voices (contratenor/bassus). The Dominus Deus section of the Gloria is a duo between the two low voices (tenor/bassus), while the Benedictus is scored for high voices (superius/contratenor), each providing a contrast of register. Might this idea of alternation and contrast in the mass be intended to reflect a customary alternatim performance of the Salve regina? The anonymous composer?s approach to texture in the Kyrie is to state a theme in the tenor/bassus pair and follow it with a superius/contratenor statement or variation of the same theme, a procedure to which he adheres strictly throughout the movement. In the Gloria and Credo, however, the alternating voice pairs rarely repeat each other. Instead, each pair presents new melodic material to accompany each consecutive phrase of text, converging into a four-voice texture at major cadences or at particularly important phrases of text. This procedure is especially notable in the Credo, which, not coincidentally, is the only movement that does not present an imitative statement of the ?Salve? motive in all 133 four voices (segments A-B of the model appear only in the tenor/bassus pair). The anonymous composer consistently divides the two voice pairs by text phrase, each setting their portion of the text to a new melodic segment until faced with one of the more rhetorically significant phrases, normally ones that mention Jesus or the Virgin Mary. For example, following a lengthy tenor/bassus introductory duo on Patrem omnipotentem, factorem celi et terre and a slightly shorter superius/contratenor duo on the following phrase, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium, and a significant minim-long silence, all four voices come together at m. 20 on Et in unum Dominum Jhesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum (see Example 3.17). Example 3.17: Missa Salve regina, Credo, mm. 1-30 134 Another, more striking, example of this phenomenon takes place in the Et incarnatus est (see Example 3.18). This time, the pause that separates a series of very short duos is a full semibreve, and the text Et homo factus est is set homophonically (mm. 77-82). In the Crucifixus, which is not a separate section in this mass, the composer breaks with his usual procedure and presents a contratenor/bassus duo, again bringing all four voices together at the cadence of the entire section (Et incarnatus est) at passus, et sepultus est. 175 Example 3.18: Missa Salve regina, Credo, mm. 65-96 The reasoning behind this composer?s technique is simple: the Gloria and Credo, with their longer texts, require more music. Repetition of both textual and melodic 175 Oddly, at this point in the manuscript, the scribe underlaid Et homo factus est in the superius (cf. f. 111v). We can assume that he erred because the homophonic texture at passus, et sepultus est is one commonly used in masses of the period at Et homo factus est. 135 material is a more logical solution in movements with very short, simple texts, such as the Kyrie. The first subsection of the Sanctus, which also sets a very brief text, is so short (31 breves), that its duos can only present the ?Salve? motive. After the superius/contratenor response, on segments A and B, the composer moves immediately into the four-voice texture with which he closes the section (mm. 23-31). The short, repeated motives that are so characteristic of the bassus in this mass drive to the final cadence (see Example 3.19, below, and Example 3.20, Sanctus, in appendix). The Osanna stands out in its consistent four-voice texture (as opposed to alternating duos) and its repetitive presentation of the ?Salve? motive in the bassus, tenor, and contratenor at the close of the section. Also, the tenor at mm. 64-69, at Osanna, suggests segment P (fructum ventris tui), both texts clearly referring to Christ. Example 3.19: Missa Salve regina, Sanctus, mm. 1-32 136 In the Agnus Dei (see Example 3.21, Agnus Dei, in appendix), the anonymous composer combined two of his most prominent compositional techniques. Agnus Dei I is simply a passage in paired imitation on the ?Salve? motive, followed by two sequential constructions. The composer opens the section with an upper-register duo between the superius and contratenor and continues with a tenor/bassus duo on segments A and B of the antiphon, which quickly dissolves into a syncopated polyphonic passage. At mm. 13- 24 and 28-42, the composer creates momentum through sequential statements of short motives that drive to cadences on G at m. 24 and on D at m. 41 (see Example 3.22, below). The first motive is constructed of a series of descending thirds in the superius and, in the bassus, a variation of the descending cadential figure (motive x) that is so prominent throughout the mass, while the contratenor and tenor each present their own series of more complicated motives made of two ascending fourths on consecutive scale degrees followed by a stepwise descent of a sixth. After the cadence in mm. 24-25, a series of points of imitation on another motive emphasizing intervals of a fifth ensues, beginning with the bassus in m. 24 and adding one voice at a time until the superius statement in mm. 29-31. At m. 32, the composer begins another sequential passage that leads to the final cadence on D. In the closing passage, the composer makes similar use of several motives presented in sequence in different voices, though this time the superius, tenor, and bassus present like material in imitative sequence, while the contratenor completes the texture with its own figure. 137 Example 3.22: Missa Salve regina, Agnus Dei, mm. 1-45 The brief (33-breve) second Agnus Dei is scored only for superius, contratenor, and bassus. Perhaps the reduction from four to three voices is symbolic, the omission of the tenor, known as a cantus-firmus-bearing voice, representing the removal of Mary in favor of Christ. That the Agnus Dei II consists of 33 breves lends weight to this symbolism, and the three-voice section would provide contrast to a more spectacular third and final setting of the Agnus Dei. 138 Like most of the other internal subsections (Christe, Et incarnatus est, Et resurrexit, and Benedictus), the Agnus Dei II opens with the secondary head motive derived from audible snippets of segments D and F of the model. Most of this section is based on a few motives not drawn from the antiphon, however, such as the ascending scalar figure that he presents repeatedly in all three voices. Might this be an instance of word painting, the ascending motives symbolizing the ascension to the heavenly Jerusalem that the Agnus Dei represents? As in the Kyrie, Et in terra, and the first Agnus Dei, the composer concludes this section with a polyphonic sequential passage, in which all three voices present the same motive in close imitation, nevertheless resulting in a texture that is less complex than that of the busier, more exciting first (and final?) Agnus Dei. Cadences in the Missa Salve regina The Kyrie also includes fine and representative examples of this composer?s cadences and phrasing (see Example 3.10, Kyrie). Despite frequent cadences on the principal pitches of the mode (in this case G and D), the only strong cadences in the Kyrie are the final cadences of each of the three sections, on G, D, and G (see Table 3.12, below). The anonymous composer uses a variety of techniques to diminish the effect of internal cadences, or ?fuggir la cadenza,? and the phrases between these internal cadences are of varying lengths. The mass is characterized by brief, alternating, dovetailed duos, the natural result of which is that each two-voice cadence overlaps with the opening of the following duo, as in m. 18, 43, 50, 54, 72, 79, and 82. Specifically, the anonymous composer uses 139 several of the standard sixteenth-century techniques for avoiding a full cadence. 176 The cadence in m. 11 is evaded, because the tenor, which we expect to cadence on G, rests after its penultimate note (A), the expected cadential tone only sounding as the opening of a new imitative passage. The composer uses the same technique in m. 50 of the Christe, though this time it is the bassus that rests at the cadence, entering a semibreve later on G, its expected cadential tone. The effect is even more startling, because when the bassus enters on the last minim of m. 48, it is with a standard cadential figure (figure D), which consists of an ascending second, a descending second to the original pitch, and finally a leap of a fourth upward (or a fifth downward). The composer withholds the final note of the bassus in a passage in which the sole function of that voice is cadential. In m. 23, he likewise weakens the effect of the cadence, this time by starting a new phrase in the tenor, which had rested up to this point, on the penultimate note of the two cadential voices, the contratenor and the bassus. In this instance, the reason for avoiding a full cadence is clear?the section comes to a final close only four measures later. The mass composer employs several cadential figures, many of which are standard sixteenth-century formulas, constructed from different combinations of ?shorts? and ?longs.? One of the most prominent (and common) is the figure LSLLSL, also used in its extended form, as in Kyrie I, mm. 9-11. This formula is itself an ornamentation of the classic linear resolution for the top voice of a polyphonic composition, a three-note figure consisting of a descending second followed by an ascending second (see Table 3.12, figure A). This composer almost always employs this figure in the top, or most prominent, cadential voice. In a few instances, he replaces figure A with figure B, an 176 Some of these are described in Meier, The Modes, 99-101. 140 ornamentation of figure A. Figures C and D, which move in contrary motion to one another, are used often by this composer in combination with Figure A, or a variation, in both strong and weak cadences. Not surprisingly, the strongest cadences in the Kyrie, those that close Kyrie I and Kyrie II, are constructed from the classical cadential formulas including a figure A, two instances of figure C in the internal voices, and figure D in the bassus. The first of these, in mm. 24-27, features figure A in the superius, figure C or a variation thereof in the contratenor and tenor, and figure D in the bassus. The second, in mm. 94-97, is similar, though even stronger. In the superius, a sequential passage that begins essentially in m. 90, but is preceded by a two-breve cadential figure (figure A) drives to the final cadence, a variation of figure B. In fact all four voices proceed in sequence on dotted figures as a final flourish, breaking their respective patterns only in the penultimate measure (m. 95) where the contratenor and tenor finally cadence on figure C, and the bassus, as it often does, cadences on figure D, moving in contrary motion against the contratenor and tenor. The entire passage (from m. 90) can be seen as a coda, since the cadence on the first minim of m. 90 effectively ends the section. The only prominent cadential figure in this mass that is not one of the classical formulas, or an ornamentation of one of those formulas, is motive x. This very prominent figure, discussed at some length above (p. 29) and in Chapter 5, appears regularly in the bassus in the first Kyrie and at the end of the Christe, but not at all in the final Kyrie. Motive x makes one appearance in the contratenor in Kyrie I at the rather weak cadence at m. 18. In the Christe (mm. 35-38), the tenor states the motive two times, following a cadence on G in m. 35. In this case, the motive, though cadential, plays an important 141 modal role. Since the listener?s ear is already accustomed to hearing this particular figure, it smoothes the transition between the cadence on G in m. 35 and that on D in m. 37, following which it makes the change in texture between the tenor/bassus duo that opens the section and the superius / contratenor duo that follows it more subtle. The final cadence of the Christe (mm. 61-63), on D, provides a particularly interesting example of how this composer mixed these cadential elements. The superius, which usually carries figure A, or some elaboration or simplification of it, moves in breves from m. 58 to the end (B-flat-A-F-B-flat-G-F). The tenor takes over the normal function of the superius in two successive passages, identical aside from a transposition (in effect, a sequence), built from motive x and figure A with a suspension, a completely normal sixteenth-century cadential figure. It begins in m. 58 with motive x (on G) which ends on D and is elaborated by a turn down to C-sharp and back to D in m. 60. On the last minim of m. 60, motive x continues on D, providing continuity with the first part of this cadential passage. While this statement of motive x would normally end on A on the last minim of m. 61, the tenor jumps instead to G, and again proceeds immediately to figure A, with suspension, on A. Following the tenor?s second sequential statement of its cadential figure by only two minims, the contratenor also enters on motive x, on G and, like the tenor, elaborates motive x with Figure B. Finally, the bassus, like the tenor, presents two consecutive statements of an identical figure, a simple statement of motive x, on G, preceded by a semibreve G and a minim G (no transposition). Since the contratenor?s entry on motive x follows the tenor?s final entry on that same motive by two minims, the final entry of the bassus follows that of the contratenor by two minims. 142 The tenor, whose final note is A, carries on to open the final Kyrie on G in a natural continuation of its previous phrase, emphasizing that the final cadence of the Christe is only a momentary resting point. Though it features elements of a strong modal cadence, the fact that its pitches are D-A-D-F in a mass that is strongly centered in G minimizes its effect. In fact, the G cadence in m. 50, the only internal cadence in the entire Kyrie that the composer did not evade, is just as strong. The passage from m. 51 to the end, then, functions to move the final cadence of the section from the very strong final G (m. 50) to the secondary tone, D. In this way, this passage represents an interesting step in the transition from modality to tonality. Whereas this mass is a modal composition, the hierarchy between cadences on the final and the fifth (also regarded as a principal tone of the mode in Renaissance theory) prefigure the eventual tonic-dominant relationship. Mass SectionMeasureVoiceFinal/Cadential figureStrong/WeakContinuation 11 S C T B G: Figure A D: Figure C - D-G: Motive x weak new phrase on g T/B duet 18 S C T B D: Figure A D: Motive x - - weakcontinue new phrase new phrase motive x 23 S C T B - D: Figure A ~ D: Motive x very weaknew phrase coda-D new phrase coda-G KYRIE I 26 S C T B G: Figure A D: Figure C G: Figure C G: Figure D strong 143 35 S C T B G: Figure C G: Figure D 1 very weaknew phrase motive x coda 37 S C T B D: imitative phrase D: entrance D: Motive x D: 5 th ! very weak new phrase motive x 43 S C T B G: Figure A G: Motive x B: - weak continues phrase new phrase 50 S C T B G: Figure A B: Figure E G: Figure D 1 G strong new phrase 54 S C T B C-G: Figure C 1 C: Motive x weaknew phrase new phrase 60 S C T B F: phrase A: phrase D: Figure A D: Motive x weakcoda-F coda-D motive x coda-motive x CHRISTE 63 S C T B F: phrase D: Figure B A: Figure A D: Motive x strong 72 S C T B F: - D: - D: Figure A D: step ! very weakcontinues phrase new phrase continues phrase 79 S C T B D: Figure A D: step ! B: - - weak continues phrase new phrase 82 S C T B A: phrase - F: Figure C D-Bb: Motive x+5 th ! weakcontinues phrase new phrase 85 S C T B F: Motive x F: - D: - D: - very weak continues phrase new phrase new phrase 90 S C T B G: Figure A D: D-D G: Figure D 1 G: Figure D weakcoda-G new phrase continues phrase new phrase KYRIE II 96 S C T B G: Figure B 1 D: Figure C G: Figure C 1 G: Figure D strong Table 3.12: Cadential Formulas in Missa Salve regina, Kyrie 144 Conclusions This anonymous Missa supra Salve regina is a remarkable example of an early sixteenth-century paraphrase mass. Its composer generally followed standard procedures with regard to large-scale organization, mode, the scoring and function of voices, melodic distribution, motivic repetition, and melodic development. Highly unified, this mass is characterized by paired voices, points of imitation almost always divided by register, alternating duos of irregular length, repetitive motivic writing, and refined sequential passages, mostly at the ends of sections. Imitative duos are between tenor/bassus and superius/contratenor, though as in most early sixteenth-century masses, the superius is more closely related in its function and mode to the tenor and the contratenor than to the bassus. With regard to borrowing the composer fully explores the continuum between paraphrase and recomposition. He skillfully conveys his model by placing its most prominent gesture, the opening ?Salve? motive, at prominent places in the mass; outlines the openings of melodic phrases from the antiphon and continues immediately with related, but new, music; and focuses on intervals and motives that are prominent in the antiphon. In general, the superius and tenor carry the model, while the contratenor and bassus imitate their respective counterparts, fill in the counterpoint, and play a functional role at cadences. We have seen that the anonymous composer of the Missa supra Salve regina concentrated on single ideas from his model and on other short motives, which he employed in repetition or in sequence with great frequency. In all voices, but particularly 145 in the bassus, the anonymous composer highlights short motives and certain ideas taken from his model, which he repeats, develops, and from which he derives newly-composed passages. The composer?s approach to leaps of fourths or fifths is careful, and he uses octave leaps sparingly, but effectively. Yet his contrapuntal skill comes into question in several passages for which no musica ficta solution is evident or completely satisfactory (as in the Kyrie, m. 7, mm. 9-11, and the Agnus Dei, m. 49). Finally, his sequential writing, which sometimes elaborates upon motives drawn from the antiphon and always drives to an important cadence, is often complex and always highly refined. These three characteristics?alternating paired duos, the repeated use of certain motives, and sequence?are, along with his paraphrase technique, the most important aspects of his style on display in this mass. Because the version of the antiphon employed by this anonymous composer corresponds to that used by Ockeghem, Basiron, Beausseron, and Josquin, all French composers, and because the other music in VienNB 4810 is also by French composers, I would suggest that this mass is of French origin and dates from the early years of the sixteenth century. 146 CHAPTER 4 Two Anonymous Masses in MunBS 6, a Manuscript for Wilhelm IV of Bavaria INTRODUCTION Two anonymous masses are preserved in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Musiksammlung, MS 6, a manuscript copied near the end of Alamire?s career, around 1530. These are the five-voice Missa Du bon du cueur (MunBS 6, MunBS 5, Toledo, Biblioteca Capitular de la Catedral Metropolitana, MS 33), an imitation mass thought by Bernadette Nelson to be by Noel Bauldeweyn, 17 and the eight-voice Missa Miserere mihi Domine (MunBS 6), a cantus firmus mass. The analyses to follow focus on the ways in which these anonymous composers treated their models, the first a secular chanson and the second a liturgical antiphon, and reveal significant traits of their compositional styles. Four Alamire manuscripts were sent to or otherwise came into the possession of Wilhelm IV of Bavaria (MunBS 6, MunBS 7, MunBS 34, MunBS F). Of these, only MunBS 6 and MunBS 34 can be considered with certainty to have been prepared for Wilhelm of Bavaria, since they alone feature his arms. It can be inferred that MunBS 7 and MunBS F were once in the duke?s possession, since they currently reside in the Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, of which Duke Wilhelm?s library formed the foundation. MunBS F differs from the other Munich manuscripts in that it was copied on parchment and decorated more elaborately. Because it features the heraldic emblems of Henry VIII of England and Catherine of Aragon, which are of the same date as the manuscript?s content, we know that it was originally prepared for them. Along with 17 Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 103-30. 147 MunBS F, MunBS 7 preserves music mainly by French composers. MunBS 7 was copied by scribes who were active before about 1518-1520 (labeled D, E, and X, by Flynn Warmington), while MunBS 6, MunBS 34, and even MunBS F, despite its physical and repertorial differences, were all copied by scribes who were active in the 1520s (Warmington?s music scribes F, H, and I, and text scribes Y and Z). 178 MunBS 6, which contains two of the anonymous masses under discussion here, shares common physical traits?similar size (dimensions, length, and staff height), material, and decoration?with the group of three manuscripts copied for the Confraternity of Our Lady in ?s-Hertogenbosch (?s-HerAB 72A, ?s-HerAB 72B, and ?s- HerAB 72C). Though MunBS 6 was not copied by the same individuals as these manuscripts?the ?s-Hertogenbosch manuscripts were copied entirely by scribes F and K?the scribes who worked on these codices all worked around the same time. 179 Because of these similar traits and time of copying, they would seem to have served a common function. Indeed these ?s-Hertogenbosch manuscripts, preserved in the archives of the Confraternity of Our Lady, correspond to descriptions in entries in archival documents concerning manuscripts commissioned for the use of the Confraternity. 180 While in excellent condition and certainly not heavily used, MunBS 6 does display some signs of practical use and of its destination for that purpose. For example, not only did scribe Z take care with his text underlay, most often copying out repetitions and placing individual words, if not syllables, under their corresponding notes, but also another, less formal hand, perhaps that of an individual who had sung from this 178 Warmington, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands, 52. 179 Despite its paleographical and repertorial differences, MunBS 7 also fits into this unified codicological group. See Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 27, 117. 180 Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. nos. 8-10, 80-83. 148 manuscript, added more precise texting in the superius voices (see Figure 4.1). It is notable that, after the first Kyrie, the upper voices are labeled puer, leading one to conclude that some individual thought it prudent to write out all text repetitions for the younger, less experienced singers. At least one musical element argues against the possibility that MunBS 6 was intended for practical use or was used in performance, however: its scribes failed to copy the tenor canon in the Agnus Dei of the anonymous Missa Du bon du cueur, leaving the tenor impossible to realize (unless the singers were so familiar with this mass that they knew to sing the black notes as white, and vice versa). 181 Although we cannot conclude with any certainty that MunBS 6 was meant to be or was actually used in performance, it is clearly related to the ?s-Hertogenbosch group, thus it seems a likely possibility. Figure 4.1.1: MunBS 6, f. 67vFigure 4.1.2: MunBS 6, f. 78v 181 The canon is present in the copy of this mass transmitted in MunBS 5, which is not an Alamire manuscript. 149 MISSA DU BON DU CUEUR Missa Du bon du cueur: Model and Composer The five-voice Missa Du bon du cueur is an imitation mass on the five-voice chanson, Du bon du cueur ma chere dame, attributed to Jean Mouton. 182 Bernadette Nelson first recognized that the composer of this mass also borrowed from an earlier, three-voice version of the chanson, and that the mass composer was evidently quite familiar with his models, a fact made clear by the extent to which he borrowed from the entire polyphonic texture of the chansons. 183 There is also a six-voice imitation of the three-voice chanson attributed to Philippe de Vuildre, printed by Tielman Susato in Antwerp in 1545, though this version bears no relation to the mass. 184 The lowest voice of a three-voice textless fragment in ?s-HerAB 72A (f. 151v), one of the manuscripts copied c. 1530-31 in Alamire?s workshop for use by the Confraternity of Our Lady in ?s- Hertogenbosch, corresponds exactly to the contratenor line in the Domine Deus, a subsection of the Gloria (see Figure 4.2 and Example 4.1). 185 182 The sources for this chanson are the Alamire manuscript VienNB 18746, and LeRoy & Ballard?s 1572 Mellange de Chansons of 1572. The only attribution to Mouton is in the 1572 print. 183 Because the mass composer borrowed more extensively from the five-voice chanson, this discussion will focus on that model, and citations of phrases, unless otherwise denoted, are from the five-voice Du bon du cueur, edited in Charles Jacobs, ed., Le Roy & Ballard?s 1572 Mellange de Chansons (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1982), no. 86, 304-07. References will be made to the three-voice version, when appropriate, however. The three-voice Du bon du cueur is edited in Selected Chansons from British Library, MS Additional 35087 ed. William M. McMurtry, Recent Researches in Music of the Renaissance, 68 (Madison: A-R Editions, Inc., 1985), 20-21, no. 7. The earliest source of the three-voice chanson is LonBL Add. 35087, copied before 1509. Other sources include MunBS 1503 a , MunBS 1516, Ulm 237 a-d , Formschneider?s 1538 9 print, and two intabulations, from 1545 and 1547. 184 Tielman Susato, Le sixiesme livre contenant trente et une chansons nouvelles a cincq et a six parties convenables et propices a jouer de tous instrumentz nouvellement imprim?s?(Antwerp, January 1545). R?pertoire international des sources musicales, Recueils imprimes, xvi e -xvii e siecles, vol. 1: Liste chronologique, ed. Fran?ois Lesure (Munich: G. Henle Verlag, 1960), 1545 14 , 151. 185 First noticed by Peter Urquhart, e-mail message to author, October 13, 2007. 150 Figure 4.2: ?s-HerAB 72A, f. 151v Example 4.1: Missa Du bon du cueur, Gloria, contratenor, mm. 66-95 As Peter Urquhart observed, the style of this fragmentary work resembles that of the anonymous mass. Its other two voices do not match any known section of the anonymous mass, though, as Urquhart points out, but it is possible that they are from a missing part of the mass, perhaps one of the statements of the Agnus Dei (this mass, as it exists, has only one statement of the Agnus Dei, a feature which will be discussed below). 186 If this fragment does not belong to this Missa Du bon du cueur, it is certainly part of some other, presumably unknown, setting of the chanson, probably by this same anonymous composer. Another chanson with the incipit Du bon du cueur, the anonymous Du bon du cueur sans aultre amer, is related neither to Du bon du cueur ma chere dame nor to the 186 This is a problematic argument because, as will be discussed below, the single Agnus Dei statement seems to be a feature of this mass, and not too unusual in this complex of anonymous masses. 151 mass. 187 A mass by Bertrandus Vaqueras on the tenor of Du bon du cueur sans aultre amer, preserved in VatS 49, was presumably composed for the papal chapel. 18 Apart from these unrelated pieces, there do not seem to be any other compositions on Du bon du cueur ma chere dame. It should be mentioned that, while this mass is unascribed, Bernadette Nelson has attributed it to Noel Bauldeweyn. 189 Though she provides a detailed discussion of many aspects of the mass, its sources, and its models, Nelson analyzes the Missa Du bon du cueur with a specific goal in mind?to support her attribution to Bauldeweyn?and her presentation is therefore a not comprehensive analysis of the mass. 190 Nelson?s comparison of the styles and sources of this mass with those of Bauldeweyn?s Missa Quam pulchra es, with discussion of several contrapuntal passages that it has in common with Missa Quam pulchra es, the material of which is not present in Du bon du cueur, suggests that it was, in fact, composed by Noel Bauldeweyn. Since my purpose here is to seek an explanation for its lack of ascription and to evaluate it among other unascribed compositions, however, I will not consider Bauldeweyn's authorship further, but will instead provide below an independent, unbiased assessment of the work. Unlike most of the anonymous masses in the Alamire manuscripts, the Missa Du 187 See Fallows, A Catalogue of Polyphonic Songs, 136. 18 See Richard Sherr. "Vaqueras, Bertrandus," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/29039 (accessed January 09, 2009); and Richard Sherr, ?Notes on the Biography and Music of Bertrandus Vaqueras (ca. 1450-1507),? in Studien zur Musikgeschichte: eine Festschrift f?r Ludwig Finscher, ed. Annegrit Laubenthal (Kassel: B?renreiter, 1995), 111-112. 189 Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 103-30. Nelson further suggests the possibility that the attribution of the chanson to Mouton is mistaken, and that the chanson may actually have been composed by Noel Bauldeweyn. Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 122-23. For the purposes of this chapter, the attribution to Mouton will be assumed to be correct. 190 ??A number of these characteristics are however common to the Missa Du bon du cuer, and in this article I am setting out to propose that this Mass is almost certainly an unknown Mass composed by Bauldeweyn.? Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 106. 152 bon du cueur is preserved in more than one source: MunBS 6, an Alamire manuscript copied around 1530 for Wilhelm IV of Bavaria; MunBS 5, copied in Munich c. 1523-31 (around the same time that MunBS 6 was prepared), probably by Lucas Wagenreider, for use at the court of Wilhelm IV of Bavaria; and ToleBC 33, copied by Mart?n P?rez, under the supervision of Andr?s de Torrentes, choirmaster of the Toledo Cathedral, in 1542-43 for use by the cathedral choir. 191 The Crucifixus of this anonymous Missa Du bon du cueur also appears among the anonymous duos in Vienna 18832, another Alamire manuscript which, like MunBS 6, was sent to the Fuggers, although likely a few years earlier. 192 Because this study is limited to anonymous masses in the ?Alamire? manuscripts, the discussion of the Missa Du bon du cueur presented below is based entirely on the copy preserved in MunBS 6. Large-Scale Structure in the Missa Du bon du cueur The large-scale organization of this mass is interesting (for this and what follows, see Table 4.1, below). While the Kyrie follows the standard tripartite structure, the Gloria, Credo, and Sanctus are each divided into more, therefore shorter, subsections. The Gloria consists of four sections: Et in terra pax, Dominus Deus, Qui tollis, and Cum Sancto Spiritu, all of which are scored for the full complement of five voices except the brief Dominus Deus, which is a trio for first discantus, contratenor, and bassus. The Credo is divided into an impressive five parts: Patrem, Et incarnatus est, Crucifixus, Et resurrexit, and Et in Spiritum Sanctum. Here, the scoring varies more than it did in the 191 For descriptions of these manuscripts, see Hamm and Kellman, eds., Census-Catalogue, vol. 2, 186-88, vol. 3, 213-14. For a more detailed description of MunBS 6, see Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 26, 116. The concordance in ToleBC 33 was discovered by Bernadette Nelson. See Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 124. 192 VienNB 18832, #77, first partbook, ff. 69r-v, second partbook, f. 67r. 153 Gloria. Only the Patrem is scored in the standard five-voice pattern: SSCTB. The Et incarnatus est lacks a bass voice, the extremely brief Crucifixus is a duo for the two upper voices, followed by a trio between the lower three voices in the Et resurrexit, and the Et in Spiritum Sanctum, though scored for five voices, has two basses and no tenor. The Sanctus is divided into four separate sections: The Sanctus and Osanna are scored for five voices, the Pleni sunt is scored for two superius voices and tenor, and the Benedictus is scored for contratenor, tenor, and bassus. Most obviously, there is only one statement of the Agnus Dei. Mass SectionMensurationFinal3 rd no 3 rd CleffingKey signature Scoring KYRIE F Kyrie IC F X c1-c1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSSCTB ChristeCut CCX c1-c1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSSCTB Kyrie IIC F Xc1-c1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSSCTB GLORIA F Et in terraC F X c1-c1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSSCTB Domine DeusCut CF unisonc1-c3-f4b-flatSCB Qui tollisCut C-O/3/ (B:3) F Xno 5 th c1-c2-c3-c4-f4b-flatSSCTB Cum Sancto SpirituO/3-Cut CF X c1-c1-c3-c4-f4b-flatSSCTB CREDO F PatremC F X c1-c1-c3-c5-f4b-flatSSCTB Et incarnatus estCut CCX c1-c2-c3-c5-f4b-flatSSCT CrucifixusCut CF unisonc1-c1b-flatSS Et resurrexitCut CCX c3-c4-f4b-flatCTB Et in spiritum sanctum Cut CF X c1-c1-c4-f3/c4-f4b-flatSSCBB SANCTUSF SanctusCut CF X c1-c1-c3-c5-f4b-flatSSCTB Pleni suntCut CCX c1-c2-c5b-flatSST OsannaO/3F X c1-c1-c3-c5-f4b-flatSSCTB BenedictusCut CCX c3-c4-f4b-flatCTB AGNUS DEIF Agnus DeiCut CF X c1-c1-c4-c4-f4b-flatSSCTB Table 4.1: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Du bon du cueur 154 Large-Scale Structure in the Missa Du bon du cueur: The Single Agnus Dei The single Agnus Dei is less unusual than one may think. Several masses in the Alamire manuscripts, including the three anonymous masses transmitted in MontsM 766 (these are the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, the Missa Cueur langoureulx, and the Missa Memor esto ? see Chapter 5), share this structural trait, which may be indicative of a local liturgical tradition. It is intriguing that MontsM 766 and MunBS 6 are codicologically similar (see Chapter 6, Appendix I, below), and that they were copied by scribes working in the same period, which perhaps suggests that these masses with one Agnus Dei have the same origins (see Table 4.2). If a common context is found for those masses with only one statement of the Agnus Dei (which, by the way, always ends with the text miserere nobis, rather than the usual dona nobis pacem), we may be able to draw such a conclusion. ManuscriptDateScribesFoliosSize (mm) Staff (mm) MaterialRecipient Monts766ff. 6-18: before 1520; ff. 1-5,19- 173: c1524 D, F, K, Z 5 + 13 + 155 550-55 x 385 20 paper+ parchment Charles V? MunBS61508-30H, I, F?, Z 144560 x 385 21 paperWilhelm IV Table 4.2: Codicological and Paleographic Characteristics of MontsM 766 and MunBS F There is no internal or external evidence to suggest that there was ever more than this sole statement of the Agnus Dei. As is the case with two of the three masses in MontsM 766 (Missa de Assumptione beata Marie and Missa Cueur langoureulx), the only Agnus Dei in this mass is impressive enough to be a finale to this setting of the Ordinary. The presence of a canonic cantus firmus in the tenor, symbolic of the Lamb of 155 God at Easter, 193 a characteristic which does not occur elsewhere in this mass, the clear and concise quotations from the chanson superius 1, as well as from the contrapuntal voices, the majestic nature of the movement as a whole, and the strength of the final cadence, all suggest that this section alone was intended to conclude the mass, and it does so with a flourish. Further, there is no codicological evidence to suggest that more music should have been copied along with this mass, since each mass in MunBS 6 is followed by a blank opening. We can conclude that the blank folios that immediately follow this Agnus Dei were not meant to contain more music. The evidence provided by the other masses with only one Agnus Dei is also too strong to ignore. Apparently, there were some traditions in the 1510s or 1520s, either in the Burgundian Netherlands or at the intended destinations of these masses, of setting the mass ordinary with only one polyphonic Agnus Dei. As was pointed out in Chapter 2, the Agnus Dei seems to be the least consistent of mass ordinary movements. There exist several possible liturgical explanations for the phenomenon. 194 From its first inclusion in the Mass, in the late seventh century, and extending through the tenth to twelfth centuries, the Agnus Dei, which always ended with the text miserere nobis, was repeated an indefinite number of times, to allow enough time for the Fraction, or breaking of the loaves of bread that were to be consecrated. Once smaller pieces of unleavened bread replaced these loaves, which occurred gradually during the tenth to twelfth centuries, the Fraction did not take as long, and the Agnus Dei, and its accompanying music (in the Roman rite), could be shortened. By about the twelfth 193 Craig M. Wright, The Maze and the Warrior: Symbols in Architecture, Theology, and Music (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 101. 194 See David Hiley, Western Plainchant: A Handbook (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 165-68; and Richard Crocker and David Hiley, ?Agnus Dei,? in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/00293 (accessed May 12, 2009). 156 century, the Agnus Dei was more or less fixed at three repetitions, the last of which took on the text dona nobis pacem, which is how it is transmitted in the Liber usualis and how it was commonly treated in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and as it is known today. Typically, in the period in which this Missa Du bon du cueur was composed and performed, the Agnus Dei consisted of the standard three repetitions, the last of which set the text dona nobis pacem. Composers often treated the last of these three subsections in a special manner, adding an extra voice or writing cryptic canons whose realizations had extraordinary and often musically dramatic results. Mensuration and Texture in the Missa Du bon du cueur This composer uses mensuration to distinguish between mass sections. Most of the mass is in imperfect tempus; the Osanna is the only section to be entirely in perfect tempus (O/3). 195 Within the Gloria, there are two mensuration changes. In the Qui tollis, our composer switches from Cut C to O/3 (simply ?3? in the bassus) at the text Quoniam tu solus sanctus, and proceeds in a largely homophonic texture. The Gloria remains in perfect tempus at the opening of the Cum Sancto Spiritu, which is still fairly chordal, only moving back into duple meter near the end of that subsection, at in gloria Dei Patris. Most other sections are in Cut C, though a few, particularly those which open major mass movements?Kyrie I, Kyrie II, Et in terra pax, Patrem?are in C. The composer uses texture to a great degree to the same end, most obviously by 195 For a discussion of this interesting mensuration sign, see Bonnie Blackburn, ?The Sign of 3: Obrecht and Others,? Jacob Obrecht: The Quincentenary Conference, Antwerp, Belgium 26-28 August, Programme & Abstracts (Leuven: Alamire Foundation, 2005), 23-24. For information on Petrus Castellanus and relationships between Petrucci?s prints and some manuscript sources, see Blackburn, ?Petrucci's Venetian Editor: Petrus Castellanus and his Musical Garden,? Musica disciplina: A Yearbook of the History of Music 49 (1995): 15-45. The presence of this mensuration sign may indicate that the scribe who copied this mass used a Petrucci print edited by Petrus Castellanus as his exemplar. A positive identification would link MunBS 6 to a Petrucci print. 157 altering the scoring of sections. As we shall see below, he achieves the same effect by varying the texture between passages that correspond to a new phrase of text or by setting particularly important Mass Ordinary text to homophony. Like its model, this five-voice Missa Du bon du cueur is scored for two superius voices (labeled primus discantus and secundus discantus in the first Kyrie, after which the second superius is consistently labeled secundus puer), contratenor, tenor, and, in the first Kyrie, bariton, and bassus in every subsequent section. Several instances of voice splitting on the final chord of a section prove that more than one individual sang a voice part. The contratenor splits into two voices, which form a fifth, on the final chord of the Patrem, at the very end of the Credo. At the final chord of the Sanctus (first subsection), the superius 2 splits at the third, and at the final cadence of the Pleni sunt, the tenor splits at the octave. That many of these split final chords occur in the upper voices corresponds to David Fallows?s conclusion that the performance of fifteenth-century music at the Burgundian court was top-heavy, and it is interesting that this phenomenon apparently extended into the 1520s. 196 Mode in the Missa Du bon du cueur Like the chanson, the mass is an F-mode piece with b-flats in the key signature. All major movements end on F, as do most of the internal subsections. The few exceptions (Christe, Et incarnatus est, Et resurrexit, Pleni sunt, Benedictus) cadence on C. Thus in the Kyrie, Credo, and Sanctus, cadences alternate between F and C with each subsection. Likewise, in both the three-voice and the five-voice chansons, all phrases except D 196 Fallows, ?Specific Information, 143-44. In 1469, the distribution of voices in the Burgundian court chapel was 6/3/2/3. 158 cadence on F (though in phrase C, the superius 1 melody rests on A), while phrase D, which marks the break between two distinct parts in the three-voice version, cadences on C (the superius 1 melody ending on E). The cleffing varies slightly between sections to reflect range, but is standard for five-voice compositions of the period. The Missa Du bon du cueur and its Models: Borrowing and Texture The five-voice chanson Du bon du cueur consists of six independent phrases, A- F. 197 Phrases A, C, and F are significantly longer than phrases B, D, and E, and in the three-voice chanson, phrases A and C are significantly longer than the other, fairly equal phrases. This corresponds roughly to the nature of the text phrases (see Table 4.3): Mouton extends his melodies by repeating them, sometimes exactly, as in phrases A, B, and F, and by cadential extension in phrase C. Phrase D consists of two contrasting parts, a feature emphasized in citations of this phrase in the mass, and Phrase E is brief, with no textual or melodic repetitions or extensions. Also in the three-voice version, a caesura between phrases D and E effectively separates the chanson into two parts, a division that is reflected in the mass. PhraseSyllablesText repetitionMelodic repetitionMeasuresText A 8 x 2 x 2 30Du bon du cueur ma chiere dame B 8 2 nd half x 2 13Je vous supplie tres humblement C 8 x 2 none21Que me rechevez doulcement D 8 2 nd half none14Pour vous servir de corps et d?ame E 8 none none11Et je vous jure sur mon ame F 8 x 2 x 2 25Que vous serviray lealment. Table 4.3: Form of Jean Mouton, Du bon du cueur 197 The chanson is not in one of the formes fixe; rather, its phrases are independent and no text is repeated. The text is as follows: Du bon du cueur ma chiere dame, / Je vous supplie tres humblement / Que me rechevez doulcement / Pour vous servir de corps et d?ame, / Et je vous jure sur mon ame / Que vous serviray lealment. Text established and translated by Arthur J. Gionet in McMurtry, ed., Selected Chansons, 21. A more detailed analysis of the chanson can be found in Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 107-10. 159 The superius 1 melody is the foundation of the borrowed material in the mass, cited most often in the mass superius 1. Material from the other voices still plays a prominent role in the mass, however. Each of the five chanson voices presents the opening gesture in inexact imitation at even intervals of two breves. Likewise, all five mass movements, as well as many subsections, open with imitative statements of the same phrase A melody, effectively a kind of polyphonic head motive, usually spaced at even intervals. Some of the more prominent cadential motives from the chanson are presented as points of imitation or in sequential passages in the mass. Finally, the mass composer borrows polyphonic cadences from the chanson. Though the song melody moves primarily by step, certain intervals, such as the descending fourths at the opening of phrase D, as well as intervals outlined by step, particularly at the openings of phrases, are prominent in both chanson and mass. The primary melody, that in the first superius, of phrases A, B, and C, opens with a stepwise ascent, descent, and ascent, respectively, between F and A. Phrase F also opens with a stepwise ascent beginning on F, but continuing to B-flat. While phrase B remains centered around thirds, the second interval outlined in both the phrase A and phrase C melodies is an ascending fourth, from F to B-flat in phrase A (and phrase F) and E to A in phrase C. By contrast, phrases D and E open with descending fourths, though of very different character. While phrase D?s opening motive is a striking downward leap of a fourth, imitated in three voices, phrase E is a twofold statement of a stepwise descending fourth A to E, with an upturn to a cadence on F. The other voices also outline ascending fourths and descending fifths. Most obviously, the phrase B contratenor opens with a descending leap of a fifth (C to F), 160 while the tenor and bassus of that phrase conclude with the same interval. The phrase C second superius opens with a stepwise ascent C to F, while the contratenor outlines the descending triad, C-A-F and the tenor ascends A to D. As mentioned above, the tenor, contratenor, and superius open phrase D with what is perhaps the most memorable motive of the chanson, a descending leap of a fourth in imitation. In superius 1, phrase D is made up of two contrasting parts, which the mass composer emphasizes (as in the Christe, see below). The opening descent of a fourth is followed immediately by a lyrical, double-arch melody that moves stepwise in eighth notes to come to rest on E. Each of the five main mass movements, as well as many internal subsections, opens with an imitative statement of phrase A of the chanson presented in all five voices. While the chanson?s first superius is the most often and clearly quoted melody?and provides the cantus prius factus of the beginning of the tenor of the Agnus Dei?the composer of this Missa Du bon du cueur paraphrases Mouton?s chanson, presenting phrases or motives from all voices of the chanson in all five voices of the mass (see Table 4.4, below, for a description of how this composer distributed his borrowed material). Quotations of borrowed material are most straightforward in mass sections scored for the full complement of five voices, though prominent motives and intervals, as well as paraphrases of full melodies, are present in sections scored for a reduced number of voices. Though the chanson permeates the mass texture, the mass is a unique composition, distinct from its model, a feat that the mass composer achieves mainly by paraphrasing his borrowed material and presenting material derived from various chanson voices in different combinations of mass voices. 161 Mass SectionChanson Phrases QuotedScoring Kyrie IA-B-a-d-f SSCTB ChristeC-D SSCTB Kyrie IIE-F SSCTB Et in terra paxA-B-C-X-D SSCTB Domine DeusA-c-F SCB Qui tollisA-B-c-D SSCTB Cum Sancto SpirituE-F SSCTB PatremA-B-C-c-D-E-F SSCTB Et incarnatus estA-B-C SSCT CrucifixusA SS Et resurrexitX-F-B-D-X CTB Et in Spiritum SanctumA-B-X-c-C-d-E-F SSCBB SanctusA-B-C-D SSCTB Pleni suntE-X-F SST OsannaA-B-C-D SSCTB BenedictusA-X-c-F CTB Agnus DeiA-B-C-X-c-d T: A-B-C-D-F SSCTB Table 4.4: Distribution of Borrowed Material in the Missa Du bon du cueur X=newly-composed material lower case=borrowing of motive chanson The first Kyrie serves as a fine example of this technique (see Example 4.2, Kyrie, in appendix). Each mass voice opens with some variation of phrase A, with entries spaced evenly at intervals of two breves. From m. 9 to the end of Kyrie I, the mass contratenor noodles around the second, C-D-C, which is prominent in the chanson superius 2 of phrases B and C. At m. 12, mass superius 2 presents a straightforward citation of the phrase B superius 1, while the mass tenor (mm. 12-16) paraphrases mm. 32-37 of the phrase B contratenor. There is an interesting interplay between the first and second superius voices here; at m. 15, the superius 1 begins a passage that combines the most prominent elements of the phrase A melody?a slow-moving ascending third F-G- A with an upward leap of a fourth, F-B-flat?which is left incomplete in that voice, and is picked up by the superius 2 in m. 17. This passage, which cadences on A (rather than on 162 F, as is the case of the phrase A melody) in m. 21, serves as a transition to the cadential phrase. Meanwhile, in the other voices, the mass composer plays with ascending and descending fourths and fifths, borrowing specific motives from phrases A, D, and F (mm. 16-23). Kyrie I ends with a repetitive series of cadential figures drawn from the chanson, most of them from the end of phrase D, which is otherwise absent from this section. In mm. 22-31, both discantus voices and the contratenor present material that resembles mm. 68-74 of the chanson second superius. The ostinato figure in the tenor and bassus (mm. 22-30) is that of the chanson tenor and bassus at the end of phrase D (mm. 68-74). The mass contratenor, which had been citing phrase B, continues immediately with the superius 2 of chanson phrase C, repeating what is basically Mouton?s cadential formula four times (chanson, S2, mm. 34-52, mass, C, mm. 9-end). Given that Kyrie I otherwise only quotes phrases A and B, it is interesting that the mass composer should borrow cadential material from phrase D at this point. Indeed, as will be seen below, he employs this same figure with some consistency throughout the mass. Ending a movement or section with material drawn from the end of the borrowed composition, even if that phrase is not otherwise quoted in that section, is a typical feature of imitation masses of this period. In the three-voice chanson, phrase D is in effect the end of the first part of the song, and is separated from the following phrases by a caesura. As stated above, the mass composer was influenced by this structure, even though the caesura is absent from the five-voice chanson, where phrase E begins on the cadence of phrase D. Hence the Kyrie I cadential phrase, in itself an impressive drive to the end of the section, becomes a fascinating example of how this anonymous composer 163 borrowed from both the three-voice and five-voice versions of the chanson. His reliance on, and apparent familiarity with both versions of Du bon du cueur is revealed here and throughout the mass by the complex way in which he employs thematic, motivic, modal, contrapuntal, and structural material from both. The Christe and Kyrie II present straightforward citations of the remaining phrases of the chanson (C-D in the Christe, E-F in the Kyrie II). At the opening of the Christe, the mass composer quotes the polyphony from phrase C of the chanson. The two superius voices present, in imitation at 4 1/2 breves, an almost exact citation of the superius 1 melody of phrase C in superius 1, then C and D in superius 2. Meanwhile, the mass contratenor quotes the chanson superius 2 phrase C melody. The mass tenor and bassus cite intervals from the same voices in the chanson, but in a different context. This passage of the mass is one instance among many in which this anonymous composer transferred material from all five chanson voices to his new composition, yet presented them in a new contrapuntal context so that the mass would be more than just a reworking of its model. The striking opening of phrase D is presented in the mass by superius 2, tenor, and bassus, while superius 1 and contratenor play with a dotted motive that outlines the C triad. The mass composer presents the entire phrase D, lightly paraphrased, in superius 2 (mm. 46-53). There are some rests between the opening gestures of this phrase, and he inserts an elongated, simplified version of the descent which begins in m. 66 of the chanson, emphasizing the overall shape of the phrase rather than the ornamented lyricism of the chanson. Superius 2 is joined by superius 1 as it moves toward the cadence with a direct quotation of this second half of phrase D (mm. 51-56), and the Christe, like phrase 164 D, cadences on a C triad. Kyrie II, which presents the final two chanson phrases, opens with a three-voice statement of the opening of phrase E (mm. 59-69), echoed by the two remaining voices two bars later, the first of several such passages. At m. 67, the tenor, followed by the superius 1, then superius 2, then the contratenor, and finally the bassus, these last two voices a fifth above, quotes phrase F from the superius 1 melody of the chanson. Scalar passages and leaps of a fifth and octave, borrowed from other chanson voices, color this passage. In the Gloria, material borrowed from all six phrases of the chanson is distributed over four subsections (see Table 4.4, above). The composer also introduces freely composed material, for the first time in this mass. Beginning at Et in terra pax, we hear phrases A, B, C, and D presented quite clearly and concisely, with one freely composed passage inserted between citations of phrases C and D (see Example 4.3, Gloria, in appendix). As always, the movement opens with a five-voice, imitative statement of phrase A, to which is sung the first polyphonic phrase of mass text, Et in terra pax hominibus bone voluntatis. The two superius voices quote chanson superius 1 with only minor rhythmic alteration. Meanwhile the mass contratenor, which is the first voice to enter, quotes the chanson superius 2 tenor, and the bassus quotes the chanson tenor and bassus lines, which resemble each other so closely that they are indistinguishable as models for a paraphrased melody. Worthy of mention is the emphasis that our composer places on the flatted seventh (E-flat) in the bassus and tenor (Et in terra, m. 12 and m. 14, respectively), a contrapuntal feature that is completely absent from the chanson. Bernadette Nelson also comments on this passage in her comparison of this mass to 165 Bauldeweyn?s Missa Quam pulchra es, which contains a similar passage. 198 At Laudamus te. Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te, beginning at m. 15, the two mass superius voices quote the chanson superius 1 at phrase B fairly exactly, while the mass tenor quotes the chanson contratenor, and the mass bassus quotes the chanson bassus, also faithfully. The mass contratenor, meanwhile, fills in the counterpoint. Foreshadowing the phrase C quotation at Glorificamus, the bassus ends its phrase B citation with a ?cambiata? motive from the phrase C tenor and bassus beginning at m. 48, a motive which will provide our composer much opportunity for paraphrase and manipulation throughout the mass. The phrase C quotation (at Gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam) is less straightforward than the others in this section, though the superius 1 and superius 2 melodies are presented in condensed form in the upper four voices, while the bassus opens with a descending figure. The ?cambiata? motive is repeated in the mass superius 2, tenor and bassus several times before the main melody in the superius 1, like that of phrase C, cadences on A (though the cadence is a D triad in the chanson). The brief trio between the lower three voices (mm. 39-45) on Domine Deus, Rex celestis takes motives from the cadence of the top three voices of the chanson (mm. 58- 62) to lead into a clear five-voice statement of phrase D (m. 46), at Deus Pater omnipotens. Domini Fili unigenite Jesu Christe. This passage is the second instance of this echo effect in this mass (the first is the opening of Kyrie II), but this time, the lower two voices follow the upper three, whereas in the Kyrie, the two voice pairs shared equal registers?superius 2 / tenor echoed superius 1 / contratenor / bassus. Here is another 198 Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 118-19. 166 instance of our composer?s sensitivity to text. He continues through the text Deus Pater omnipotens. Domini Fili unigenite with these echo-like statements of the descending fourths that open phrase D, coming to rest on F and A in m. 55. At mm. 55-57, the contratenor, superius 2, and superius 1 follow each other closely (their entries are separated by semibreves) on the opening gesture of phrase D, the descending fourth, before continuing with the second, more lyrical and melismatic, half of the phrase, which the mass composer reserved for Jesu Christe. The superius 1 quotes chanson superius 1, mass superius 2 only cites the opening of the chanson contratenor, and the mass contratenor presents material from chanson superius 2, the mass tenor from the chanson contratenor, and the mass bassus from the chanson tenor. The entire passage is, as befits the accompanying mass text, majestic. The final cadence of this section matches that of the first Kyrie exactly, an interesting unifying factor considering that the Kyrie I, which otherwise presents phrases A, B, and C, incorporates a motive buried in phrase D only as a cadential element. In the Domine Deus, a trio between superius 1, contratenor, and bassus, the composer is somewhat less methodical. The section opens with a paraphrase of phrase A in the superius 1 and a nearly exact statement in the contratenor (mm. 66-74). This citation is accompanied in the bassus by a melody that moves stepwise to outline the octave F to F?both descending and ascending. Then, all three voices present a motive in sequence taken from the phrase C tenor and bassus (T, mm. 43-47, mm. 52-55; B, mm. 48-50; mass, mm. 75-87). M. 88 begins with a minim rest in all three voices, after which they finish the section with a very brief and concise quotation of phrase F: superius 1 quotes chanson superius 1, the contratenor quotes melodic fragments from the chanson 167 superius 2 and contratenor, and the bassus cites the chanson bassus (mm. 95-101) twice. Though this subsection is organized less systematically than many others in this mass, it is a characteristic example of this composer?s complex polyphonic borrowing. In only 27 measures, he recalls three chanson phrases, drawing from multiple voices, and he includes an extended section derived entirely from one short motive (mm. 66-95). The Qui tollis contains the first part of the chanson, phrases A through D. The composer divides them between the first section in tempus imperfectum (A, B, C) and the second homophonic section, in perfect tempus (C, D). To set Qui tollis peccata mundi, the composer divided the five voices into two canonic groups, tenor/superius 1 and bassus/contratenor, while superius 2 proceeds homorhythmically with the latter group. First, the tenor quotes the last part of phrase A while the bassus accompanies with thematically similar, though quicker moving contrapuntal material, ending with the tenor/bassus ?cambiata? motive from phrase C (mm. 96-100). Then, superius 1 quotes phrase A, as the tenor had done, while superius 2 and contratenor, this last voice imitating the bassus, accompany. The composer paraphrases the first part of the phrase B superius 1 quotation in the mass superius 2 (mm. 106-109), on miserere nobis, and the mass tenor and bassus resemble mm. 31-37 of the contratenor and tenor, respectively, of the chanson. At mm. 119-128, a more clear quotation of chanson phrase B (mm. 31-43) begins, on suscipe deprecationem nostram. Here is yet a third instance of an echo effect, and, as he often does, the composer repeats the passage that leads to the cadence at mm. 128-29. At this point, he immediately begins a paraphrased statement of phrase C (on Qui sedet ad dexteram Patris) with two four-bar, semi-imitative duos, the first between the upper 168 voices and the second between the three lower voices. At miserere nobis (m. 136), all five voices together recall motives from several voices from phrase C, leading to a full paraphrase of phrase C in a greatly different style, after the mensuration change to O/3 (see note 18, above for the significance of this mensuration sign), at Quoniam tu solus sanctus (mm. 143-150). This is the first of several instances where our composer uses a mensural as well as a textural change to emphasize a particular passage of mass text. The passage, which opens with points of imitation and includes the frequent ascending and descending scales that appear throughout the chanson, recalls the ringing of church bells. It would be wonderful to know the destination of this mass -- whether our composer intended this passage to resemble the bells of a particular church, or whether he was seeking a stately effect in general. This part of the phrase C quotation quickly cadences on an unstable D triad, and gives way to a more straightforward and hauntingly beautiful quotation of phrase D (mm. 151-162), at Tu solus Dominus. Tu solus Altissimus Jesu Christe. Though more precise, the phrase D citation in the mass undergoes rhythmic alteration and is stretched out to correspond to its new, slow-moving, largely homophonic, regal context. The composer reserves the second, lyrical, and highly melismatic half of phrase D for the text Jesu Christe, just as he did earlier in the Gloria. The opening gesture of the Cum Sancto Spiritu, continuing in O/3, presents chanson phrase E in close, five-voice imitation, at the interval of one breve. In this way, although this subsection presents the second part of the chanson, it nevertheless resembles the openings of all five major mass movements. This passage evolves directly into the one that quotes phrase F, beginning in m. 180 (superius 2, tenor, then superius 1). The 169 composer emphasizes this continuity, both in setting the text in gloria Dei to the two phrases E and F, and by beginning phrase F before the mensuration changes back to imperfect tempus (m. 185). In fact, the effect is outstanding. At m. 185, the change to imperfect tempus quickens the pace. Imitative entries of the phrase F ascending motive begin in the contratenor and gradually move upward in register until all five voices sing together. The rising motive in the contratenor and bassus (mm. 191-96) provides an active accompaniment to the ostinato-like cadential figures being sung in the other three voices. This repetitive activity sets the text in gloria Dei Patris perfectly, and contrasts with the slow, calm manner in which the mass composer first set that same text, at mm. 173-184. The conclusion of the Gloria is a real tour de force, and the composer does not slow down until he reaches Amen (mm. 197-200). As in the Gloria, the mass composer presents the entire chanson twice in the Credo, though, as in the Gloria, this is by no means a systematic presentation of borrowed material, and newly composed material is interspersed with material from the model. The Patrem carries material from all six chanson phrases, though the degree of borrowing varies. Sometimes only a single motive drawn from a chanson phrase represents that phrase, as is the case with phrase D (see below for a more detailed discussion of the passage in question). The Et incarnatus est features the first three chanson phrases. As is most often the case in this mass, the anonymous composer?s treatment of borrowed material is so loose in the two subsections scored for fewer than five voices?Crucifixus and Et resurrexit?that it is difficult to identify. Finally, in the Et in Spiritum Sanctum, the anonymous composer sets phrases (or, at least, motives from phrases) A, B, C, D, E, and F, which he intersperses with freely composed material. 170 The Credo is an excellent example of this composer?s use of texture, new themes, and silence to distinguish between melodic and textual phrases (see Example 4.4, Credo, in appendix). The movement opens with an imitative statement of the chanson phrase A in superius 1, superius 2, contratenor, and bassus (on the Mass text Patrem omnipotentem). The tenor, rather than opening with the usual ascending third F-G-A, enters with the second half of the phrase as presented by the chanson bassus (Mouton, Du bon du cueur, mm. 13-20) and then at m. 21, paraphrases the end of the chanson bassus phrase A melody. At factorem celi et terre, the same passage is heard two times?first by superius 2, contratenor, and tenor (mm. 16-19), then by superius 1, superius 2, and bassus (mm. 20-23). At visibilium omnium (mm. 24-28), a brief imitative passage using phrase B material is followed by similar material in the lower three voices. It serves as a transition to and foreshadowing of the proper citation of phrase B (mm. 28-33), on et invisibilium. At Et in unum Dominum, the two superius voices present an imitative statement of material derived from phrase C, while the tenor presents, in ostinato, the direct inversion of the phrase C opening motive. An outstanding change in texture occurs at Jesum Christum: the ?call-and-response,? contrapuntally-simple setting of this important mass text recalls bell tones, the upper two voices echoing the lower three (mm. 38-42). After a brief silence, our composer passes that often heard ?cambiata? motive from the phrase C tenor and bassus between all voices, at the text Filium Dei unigenitum (mm. 42-51). The composer uses a drastic change of texture, along with newly composed thematic material, to emphasize Et ex Patre natum ante omnia secula, which begins with a three-measure duo between the two upper voices and melismas on Patre in superius 1 and 2, and continues with all five voices moving stepwise in contrary motion. Following 171 a brief pause, the call-and-response setting?in which the lower set of voices echoes the simple motives presented by the upper voices of Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero?fits that text perfectly (mm. 60-74). At genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri, the composer repeats in several voices, that same motive from the phrase D superius 2 (Mouton, Du bon du cueur, mm. 71-75) that he used as a cadential figure in Kyrie I and in the Et in terra pax, and he includes cadential motives from the tenor of this same chanson phrase (Mouton, Du bon du cueur, mm. 68-76) in the mass tenor and bassus (mm. 78-83). At per quem omnia facta sunt (m. 83), an imitative quotation from phrase E in the two upper voices is accompanied by an ostinato tenor on motives derived from superius 1 and 2 of the chanson. A more complete polyphonic borrowing from phrase E occurs at Qui propter nos homines in the three lower voices (mm. 88-94); the tenor sets chanson superius 1, the mass contratenor paraphrases the chanson contratenor, and the mass bassus paraphrases the end of phrase E and the beginning of phrase F of the chanson bassus. This is one outstanding instance, at least in the Credo, where the mass composer does not use structural or musical devices, such as mensuration and texture, to separate settings of mass text. Perhaps because phrase E continues without break into phrase F in the chanson, the composer provides continuity between his settings of the mass text to the citation of phrases E and F. Not only does his texting of the citation of phrase F begin well before that of phrase E ends, but also he sets the same mass text at the end of the phrase E citation as he does at the beginning of his phrase F citation. Further, there is no drastic textural change at this point. 172 A brief duo between the upper voices in contrary motion introduces the imitative stepwise descent that illuminates the text descendit de celis (mm. 98-115). This is the first of several clear instances of word painting in this mass, and also a fine example of this composer?s frequent use of contrary motion, particularly in syllabic passages that tend to move by step. The superius 1, which always descends in this passage, finally soars to D and falls back to settle on A on celis. After this imitative, contrapuntal finale, the Et incarnatus est is homophonic until the final phrase. It opens with a chorale-like setting of phrase A, which our composer divides into two even (four-breve) phrases (Et incarnatus est and de Spiritu Sancto), both of which cadence on F, though the first of these cadences is ?incomplete.? This passage is remarkable for its symmetry and its functional tonality, both forward-looking traits. A caesura separates this phrase from the next, which sets phrase B in similar fashion (the two symmetrical phrases set two statements of ex Maria virgine). The composer reserves imitative counterpoint for numerous repetitions of Et homo factus est, which is set to a melody from phrase C. Only at the final statement do three voices sing this important text in homophony against held notes in the other two voices. The section is impressive, yet the cadence on a C triad is weak in this F-mode mass; the listener expects the Crucifixus to follow immediately. The next two subsections, Crucifixus and Et resurrexit, are a complementary pair in that the first is a duo between the two upper voices (in which phrase A is cited), while the latter is a trio among the three lower voices. In the very brief Crucifixus (21 breves), the composer sets only phrase A, but distinguishes three different phrases of mass text. Each phrase begins in loose imitation and ends with two voices converging near the end. The 173 last phrase (mm. 157-66) opens with an echo effect on sub Pontio Pilato and ends with a repetitive rising motive presented in close canon on passus et sepultus est that leads to a unison cadence on F. This ostinato-like repetition near a cadence is a typical feature of the Credo, and indeed of the mass. The Et resurrexit is largely built around motives that the composer treats in imitation. While it does not feature any lengthy, or even clear, citations of melodic material from the model, the composer sometimes hints at chanson phrases B, D, and F (mm. 167-75). The motive with which the Et resurrexit opens, in three-voice imitation, is not from Du bon du cueur, but it does play a prominent role in other masses of this period (for example, the anonymous Missa Salve regina discussed in Chapter 3). At tertia die, m. 169, the tenor paraphrases chanson phrase F. 19 An impressive bout of word painting occurs on Et ascendit in celum (mm. 179-87). All three voices rise, the contratenor and bassus ascending a tenth (F-A), after which the bassus repeats the cadential figure which sets in celum three times. At mm. 186-91, the mass tenor paraphrases the chanson phrase B superius 1, at sedet ad dexteram Patris. At Et iterum (m. 195), the three voices play with a descending fourth motive recalling the opening of phrase D, though in a different context, and the final phrase of this section, on cuius regni non erit finis, is built entirely upon a cadential motive that is prominent in the tenor and bassus near the end of phrase D. It seems, then, that the Et resurrexit is a freely composed section, built from a series of small melodic units derived mainly from phrases B and D, and is not a setting of phrase F, as Nelson interprets it. The section is characterized by motivic repetition; in 19 Bernadette Nelson claims only that this entire section is based on phrase F. Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 110. 174 each phrase of the Et resurrexit, the composer sets a different motive, in sequential repetition, in all three voices. The final section of the Credo, Et in Spiritum Sanctum, sets the entire chanson, interspersed with some freely composed material, though the composer paraphrases to a great extent. Two imitative voice pairs (tenor / bassus and superius 2 / contratenor) paraphrase phrase A at two pitches (original pitch and a fifth above, on C), while superius 1 presents a condensed version at original pitch (mm. 217-27). After a paraphrase of phrase B at Qui ex Patre, he sets Qui cum Patre et Filio to a bell-tone motive, which he repeats sequentially in all five voices (mm. 236-44), as he did in the Gloria (at Quoniam tu solus sanctus). The motive recalls that presented in the chanson superius 2 and contratenor within phrase B (mm. 34-42). 20 A syllabic setting of simul adoratur et conglorificatur follows (mm. 244-50). Here, two voice pairs (superius 1 and 2 / contratenor/tenor) imitate one another, and the bassus chimes in with the same motivic material, which is absent from the chanson, but which Nelson identifies with material from Bauldeweyn?s Missa Quam pulchra es and that composer?s motet of the same title. 201 A dramatic pause follows, after which qui locutus est per Prophetas is set homophonically, also, according to Nelson, on material from Bauldeweyn?s Missa Quam pulchra es. 202 The mass composer changes texture yet again at et unam sanctam catholicam, setting it to a melody which ends with the phrase C tenor / bassus ?cambiata? motive, in 20 Bernadette Nelson suggests another interpretation of this passage, that it recalls Bauldeweyn?s motet Sancta Maria virgo virginum, and that the passage that follows is based on Bauldeweyn?s Missa Quam pulchra es, which in turn is based upon pars II of the motet. Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 118. 201 Cf. note 198, above. 202 This kind of borrowing, from another composition by the same individual, is fascinating evidence for studies of attribution and compositional process. It is also present in a several masses based on works by Josquin des Prez in MontsM 766. Cf. Chapter 5. 175 four-voice imitation (the bassus is omitted). He completes that text phrase in a freer style. At in remissionem peccatorum, m. 276, the contratenor clearly sets the phrase C superius 1 opening against its stepwise, descending continuation in all other voices (mm. 275-84), which overlap with his setting of chanson phrase D superius 2, contratenor, tenor, and bassus (68-71), at Et expecto (m. 283). As he has done earlier in this mass, he repeats motivic material from the lower voices of the chanson. This time, he breaks melodies into smaller units, presenting each as a separate motive. Thus superius 1 (mm. 283-292) presents a variation of a motive from superius 2 near the end of the chanson phrase, the same, in fact, that concludes Kyrie I (mm. 71-75). Meanwhile, superius 2 (286-290) paraphrases the same motive in a different context, the contratenor (mm. 285- 290) presents the block from the same superius 2 phrase that immediately precedes that presented by the superius voices (mm. 68-71), the tenor (mm. 283-292) presents the chanson contratenor (mm. 66-70), and the bassus (mm. 285-292) gives us the chanson tenor (mm. 68-76). By citing chanson voices other than the first superius in this phrase, the composer gives the listener a subtle impression of phrase D, yet he breaks it up and presents it in such as manner that it is barely recognizable. Continuing from the same phrase of text into the next (?resurrexionem mortuorum. Et vitam venturi), the composer sets the phrase E superius 1 in the mass superius 2. 203 A quotation from phrase F, which follows immediately, on the same text (beginning in m. 298), brings the Credo to an end. As he often does, the composer presents brief cadential motives in an ostinato-like repetition that drives straight to the final cadence, on F. That these last few melodic phrases overlap with each other, and that 203 This citation apparently slipped Nelson?s attention. See Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 110, for her interpretation of the borrowed material. 176 the same Mass text that finishes one begins the next, suggests that our composer was aiming for continuity between phrases; as has been discussed above, he more commonly takes care to separate phrases of Mass text by setting it to new melodic material, or by changing the texture or mensuration, or both, of a given passage. After the Gloria and Credo, in which our composer paraphrased his borrowed material, sometimes almost beyond recognition, and in which he was far from methodical in his organization of that material, the clear, concise, and systematic presentation of material from Du bon du cueur in the Sanctus is refreshing. The listener immediately recognizes the chanson, and our composer took care, as seems to have been his habit, to match new melodic phrases to new phrases of Mass text. The first two sections, Sanctus and Pleni sunt, together quote the entire chanson in order (see Example 4.5, Sanctus, in appendix). The Osanna features the first part of the chanson, phrases A through D. The Benedictus, which opens with a clear quotation of phrase A, is largely freely composed, though it presents some motives from phrases C, D, and F. As always, the movement opens with an imitative five-voice presentation of phrase A, on Sanctus. Following a clear cadence on F in m. 13, a polyphonic citation of phrase B sets Dominus Deus, which again cadences clearly on F in m. 24. A very brief transition recalling the end of phrase C follows, and a clear polyphonic citation of phrase D concludes the section, on Dominus Deus Sabaoth (mm. 28-38). 204 As he often does, and as has been described above, the composer borrowed material from several chanson voices and assigned it to different mass voices, in effect recontextualizing the borrowed polyphonic passage. 204 The presence of phrase D in this section went unnoticed by Nelson, ?The Missa Du bon du cuer,? 110. 177 The Pleni sunt, a trio between the two superius voices and tenor, is built from clear quotations of phrases E and F. The mass composer presents phrase E in imitation in all three voices at the same pitch. The section beginning et terre gloria tua, is free, though similar melodic material has occurred elsewhere in the mass during freely composed sections. Still on the same text, the superius 2 (at mm. 62-65) and tenor (at mm. 65-68) cite the mm. 89-95 of the phrase F superius 1, while the mass superius 1 provides contrapuntal interest, returning several times to the ?cambiata? motive from phrase C. The Osanna is, fittingly, the only entire section in this mass to be in perfect tempus. Here, the composer unambiguously sets phrases A through D of Du bon du cueur. After the initial imitative setting of phrase A, this section moves along evenly and, for the most part, in homophony. Though the brief text of this section makes it impractical to make musical phrases corresponding to text phrases, the composer takes care to distinguish between quotations of different chanson phrases. For example, between citations of phrases A and B (m. 85), there is a dramatic pause. A strong cadence separates citations of phrases B and C (m. 89), the latter of which is less homophonic than the other passages. A chordal entry marks the beginning of the phrase D quotation (m. 99), and the section ends on F. The three-voice Benedictus opens with an imitative statement of phrase A (contratenor / tenor / bassus), the only borrowed material in this section. Oddly, at least in this mass, the bassus enters a third below original pitch, on D. Other transpositions, though rare in this composition, are at the fifth, as in the contratenor in this section. This section resembles most others for a reduced number of voices in that the composer chose individual motives from various chanson phrases to develop, phrases C and F here, rather 178 than presenting full citations of borrowed melodies. Though it is not indicated in the manuscript, it is clear that the preceding Osanna should be repeated after the Benedictus. Not only was it a necessary liturgical item, but the Benedictus also ends weakly on a C triad, which begs resolution. The Agnus Dei of this mass is fascinating for two reasons: there is only one statement, rather than the usual three, as discussed above (pp. 154-56), and it carries a tenor canon that prescribes the realization of the cryptic notation. The version of the Agnus Dei transmitted in MunBS 6 is unperformable because the tenor voice, which is notated in a mixture of black and white notations, does not fit the rhythms of the other voices (see Figure 4.3). The later copy in MunBS 5, however, transmits the following riddle canon: Noctem verterunt in diem: et rursum post tenebras spero lucem (They have turned night into day, and after darkness I hope for light again). 205 Figure 4.3.1: MunBS 6, f. 81r Figure 4.3.2: MunBS 6, f. 82r According to this text, from Job 17:12, the tenor is interpreted in the following manner: after the initial phrase of black notes on ?Agnus Dei? (phrase A), which are 205 If the copy in MunBS 5, a manuscript written c 1523-31 at the Munich court (by Lucas Wagenrieder), was copied from that in MunBS 6, the Munich scribes apparently knew enough to insert the canon inscription. That they did not correct the copy in MunBS 6 suggests that maybe that manuscript was not meant for performance, even though they did redo much of the text underlay. 179 performed as notated, all black notes are transcribed as white notes, and white notes are transcribed as if they were black, beginning at ?Qui tollis.? 206 Each grouping of black or white notes corresponds to a different chanson phrase (in one case, phrase C, the switch from white to black notes occurs within one melodic phrase). This canonic text is also a way of emphasizing Christ's Resurrection, as does the text Agnus Dei: ?night? is the period of the Tenebrae, which precedes Easter, and Christ was often symbolized by ?light? in medieval poetry. 207 The cantus firmus presented by the tenor corresponds closely to superius one of the five-voice version of Du bon du cueur (see Example 4.6, Agnus Dei, in appendix). Phrases A, B, C, and D are quoted clearly but with rhythmic alterations. Phrase E is omitted entirely, and phrase F is greatly abbreviated. The composer assigns less material from the chanson to the other voices than he does in other movements, though the few quotations that do exist are of the phrase being quoted by the tenor. The free contrapuntal material that takes the place of chanson quotations is simple, and similar scalar motives occur frequently elsewhere in the mass. The movement opens, as they all do, with a five-voice imitative citation of phrase A (mm. 1-15). The superius 2 foreshadows the tenor entry on phrase B (mm. 15-25). At the end of the phrase C quotation (mm. 26-36), the bassus cadences with the ?cambiata? motive from the phrase C tenor and bassus. The superius opens the next phrase with a motive from the phrase D superius 2, which has played a prominent cadential role throughout the mass (mm. 35-35), and, as mentioned above, the tenor quotation of the second, more lyrical, half of phrase D is condensed. Likewise, the quotation of phrase F 206 This break between ?Agnus Dei? and ?Qui tollis? was already observed in isorhythmic Agnus Dei movements, where the isorhythm only begins at the ?Qui tollis.? 207 Cf. note 193, above. 180 (mm. 43-51) is extremely brief, though the composer still manages to communicate the essence of that phrase. Full quotations of phrases E and F may have existed in a missing Agnus Dei section. As occurs near the end of the Credo, most of the phrases flow directly into one another. This is not the case in most of the mass, where the composer generally makes a great effort to distinguish between phrases. This presentation of the tune without breaks in a mass that otherwise separates phrases is remarkable, and serves, with the cantus firmus canon, as an effective and grand final gesture. There are few changes of texture; one that stands out (mm. 15-25), in which the composer switches from five voices to, first, the three upper voices, then the three lower voices, occurs in the middle of the phrase B citation. The final cadence is strong, and it is unlikely that any other statements of Agnus Dei were meant to follow it. The superius 1 and tenor each hold an F for six breves, while the other three voices continue with cadential figures to their respective finals, F, C, and A. Simply put, the brief Agnus Dei is a fine conclusion to this mass. The Agnus Dei of the Missa Du bon du cueur: Symbolism and Historical Context While the tenor canon may have no symbolic meaning outside of the realization of the tenor voice, it just as well may provide a clue as to the context for which this mass was composed. This particular text yielded the famous Latin phrase, Post tenebras lux (After darkness, light), which is linked to the Protestant Reformation. 208 It may be more 208 The phrase was adopted from ?Post tenebras spero lucem? as the motto of the Calvinist Reformation, and in 1535, the device ?Post tenebras lux? was added to the arms of Geneva, as well as coins, and was adopted by followers of the Reformation. See, for example, Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography, trans. Wallace McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 114, 116; John B. Roney, Martin I. Klauber, and 181 than coincidence that two of the three sources for this mass were copied for the Bavarian court of Duke Wilhelm IV. Some historical background is needed here, for there are several issues at stake. Wilhelm IV (Emperor Maximilian I?s nephew) originally sympathized with (or at least turned a blind eye to) the Protestant Reformation (in 1517, for example, he forbade the sale of indulgences). Though he allied himself with Pope Leo X and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, he did not systematically enforce the regulations laid out during the Diet of Worms (January, 1521). 209 During the 1520s, though, Wilhelm apparently changed his attitude. In 1523, after meeting with Pope Adrian VI in Nuremburg, he issued a ducal order to report ?heresy? (i.e., Lutheranism), though his attempts to rid his lands of Protestantism were still by no means systematic or severe and, in fact, Lutherans and Lutheran ideals continued to multiply and spread. Finally, in 1524-25, in accordance with the wishes of Pope Clement VII and Emperor Charles V, Wilhelm took a firm stand against Protestantism, though punishments were still not severe. It was not until 1527, after a year or so of territorial battling with the Habsburgs (whose lands surrounded Bavaria) and a peasant revolt, when he apparently had little time for persecuting heretics, that Wilhelm actually took consistent and harsh action against the Protestants. There may be a further connection between the Agnus Dei tenor canon and the Reformation. In Job 17:12 (the second series of colloquies between Job and his three Robert M. Kingdon, The Identity of Geneva (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998), 172; Jeannine E. Olson, Calvin and Social Welfare: Deacons and the Bourse Fran?aise (Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1989), 102; Hugh Heugh, Notices of the State of Religion in Geneva and Belgium (Glasgow: Bell and Bain, 1844), 5; Thomas Martin Lindsay, A History of the Reformation (New York: Scribner, 1913), 89-90; Fran?ois Bonivard, Advis et devis de l?ancienne et nouvelle police de Gen?ve, suivis des advis et devis de noblesse et de ses offices ou degrez et des trois estats monarchiques, aristocratiques, et d?mocratiques [?] (Geneva: Fick, 1865), 135. See also Pamela A. Mason, ?The Communion of Citizens: Calvinist Themes in Rousseau's Theory of the State,? Polity 26 (1993): 29. 209 For this and what follows, see Gerald Strauss, ?The Religious Policies of Dukes Wilhelm and Ludwig of Bavaria in the First Decade of the Protestant Era,? Church History 28 (1959): 350-73. 182 friends), from which this quotation comes, Job (a patron saint of musicians in the Low Countries), 210 who has tried and failed to prove his virtue, renews his hope in God and in the future life in the next world (he looks for rest in death). This could be interpreted as a metaphor for the Reformation and Counterreformation. Wilhelm, who wavered for more than a decade before taking active part in the Counterreformation, is represented by the figure of Job, and his renewed commitment to Catholicism (demonstrated by his persecution of heretics) is represented by this positive turn in Job?s attitude. Furthermore, in this context, the chanson text could take on symbolic meaning. 21 Wilhelm, ?from the goodness of [his] heart,? begs of his ?dear lady? (the Catholic Church) to ?keep [him] kindly in your service, to serve you body and soul.? and swears on his soul ?to serve you faithfully.? The manuscript, or at least this mass, when considered in the framework of the Protestant Reformation and the ongoing hostilities between Wilhelm IV and the Habsburgs, could have been intended to persuade Wilhelm to restore himself to virtue and to support the Catholic Church. Thus Wilhelm IV had a long and tumultuous relationship with the papacy and with the Holy Roman Empire (ruled by Charles V), further complicated by familial ties and territorial hostilities. During the 1520s there were numerous meetings at which both Charles V and Wilhelm IV were present, and there would have been ample motivation and opportunity for the transmission of a manuscript such as MunBS 6 (as well as MunBS 34, MunBS 7, and MunBS F). In fact, a manuscript copied at the Munich court, WolfA A, features portraits of Maximilian I and Charles V along with Wilhelm IV and Albrecht IV, his father and predecessor. Wilhelm would also have had the opportunity to 210 Kristine Forney, ?The Role of Secular Guilds in Antwerp,? in Musicology and Archival Research, 442. 21 Cf. note 197, above, for the chanson text. 183 commission the book directly from Alamire. Conclusions Whether or not one can accept the context of this mass suggested by the symbolism in the Agnus Dei, this analysis of the mass?s musical and structural traits allows us to draw conclusions about the circumstances of its composition. Certain characteristics of this Missa Du bon du cueur stand out. As is typical of imitation masses of the period, each movement begins with quotations of the first phrase of the model, presented in imitation. These citations also function as a kind of head motive. In citations of other chanson phrases, he frequently borrows the entire polyphonic texture, usually assigning melodies from a given chanson voice to a different voice in the mass, thus presenting his borrowed material in a new context (as in the Christe). The composer?s presentation of melodic material from his model is basically logical and consistent. Superius 1 of the chanson becomes a cantus firmus, which he presents in all mass voices at different times, and he usually present the chanson phrases in order, though he often intersperses them with free material. Yet, in the Gloria and Credo, he is less systematic, and citations of chanson phrases are sometimes limited to development of prominent motives. He breaks the chanson into two parts, following a caesura after phrase D in the three-voice version. Thus phrases A, B, C, and D form the first part, and phrases E and F the second. In voices not carrying the main superius 1 melody of the model, he employs motives from the lower voices and presents them as points of imitation or in sequence. A few of these, for example the ?cambiata? motive from the tenor and bassus of phrase C, and a cadential motive from the superius 2 of 184 phrase D, appear regularly throughout the mass. In his approaches to final cadences, the composer presents short cadential figures in an ostinato-like repetition (as in Kyrie I and Kyrie II). He also repeats polyphonic cadences exactly within the mass, as in Kyrie I and Et in terra (see Example 4.2, Kyrie, mm. 31-33; and Example 4.3, Gloria, mm. 63-65). The composer?s skillful use of texture to distinguish between phrases, sections, and melodic ideas is notable. As stated above, the openings of movements are in imitation; otherwise, imitative passages are generally brief and loose. He alternates homophonic passages with contrapuntal ones; duos or trios with the full complement of five voices; and several passages in which one set of voices echoes another stand out. In some instances, as in the Credo and Agnus Dei, however, there is no break, pause, or change in scoring or texture to separate phrases; these overlap seamlessly one into the other. On a few occasions, he invokes the sound of bells (as in the Gloria, mm. 143-158, and the Credo, mm. 38-42), and there are several instances of unambiguous word painting (as in the Credo, mm. 98- 115 and mm. 179-187). The mass is mostly in imperfect tempus, almost all cadences include the third (even in sections scored for three voices), polyphonic borrowing is extensive, scoring is for five voices, strict imitation is absent, freely composed material is frequently interspersed among quotations from the model, and the mass is preserved in manuscripts copied between the 1520s and 1540s. These features suggest a relatively late date of composition, probably in the later 1520s. 185 MISSA OCTO VOCUM SUPRA MISERERE MICHI DOMINE Missa Miserere mihi Domine: Its Manuscript and Model Situated between Bauldeweyn?s Missa Quam pulchra es and the Missa Du bon du cueur in MunBS 6 is an anonymous mass bearing the title Missa octo vocum supra Miserere michi domine. In a manuscript that transmits five- and six-voice masses, and in a period during which four- and five-voice masses were the norm, this mass for eight voices is particularly notable. Though the first openings of the first three masses in MunBS 6 are decorated with initials painted with grotesques and banderoles (reading ?O quam pulcra es,? ?Ave Maria,? and ?Laus Deo,? respectively), the first opening of this Missa Miserere mihi Domine features the ducal arms of Bavaria, linking it to Wilhelm IV, for whom MunBS 6 was evidently prepared. This polytextual cantus firmus mass is based on the antiphon, Miserere mihi Domine, for use on Sundays at Compline. 212 The antiphon text, ?Miserere mihi Domine, et exaudi orationem meam,? is from verse 2 of Psalm 4 (?Cum invocarem exaudivit me Deus justiti? me??). The chant is a simple, two-phrase, mode 8 melody. The first phrase centers on the final, G, while the second soars up to C, before descending gradually back to G. The earliest source for the chant is a twelfth-century Beneventan manuscript, though most of its sources by far are thirteenth-century manuscripts from Franciscan monasteries, primarily in central Italy (see Table 4.5 for sources of the antiphon). The chant was apparently also used in the thirteenth century in France (at the cathedrals of 212 Liber usualis, 266. Apart from the antiphon, there are three Mass Introits beginning with the same text: ?Miserere mihi... quoniam conculcavit,? for Monday (feria secunda) during the week before Palm Sunday or the fifth week of Lent; ?Miserere mihi... quoniam tribulor,? for Friday, also during the week before Palm Sunday, and ?Miserere mihi... quoniam ad te clamavi,? for the 16th Sunday after Pentecost, but their melodies differ from that of the antiphon. 186 Cambrai and Notre Dame of Paris), and was known in Britain, Germany, and Eastern Europe (also at Franciscan monasteries, in Budapest and Dubrovnik). 213 Manuscript 214 DateOriginType of msUse I-BV 1912 cBenevento, Italy; non- monastic Liber typicusSunday Compline GB-Cu Mm.ii.92 nd quarter of 13 c Barnwell, England; St. Giles Abbey (Augustinian) Sarum antiphoner Sunday Compline F-CA 38c. 1230-1250Cambrai, France; Cambrai Cathedral AntiphonerSunday Compline I-Ac 693, 6941 st half of 13 c Central Italy; FransciscanBreviarySunday Compline US-Cn 2413c (1 st half?) Central Italy; FranciscanBreviarySunday Compline I-Rvat lat. 8737After 1232Central Italy; FranciscanBreviarySunday Compline D-Ma 12o Cmm 1 After 1235Central Italy; FranciscanBreviarySunday Compline I-Ad 5After 1235Central Italy; FranciscanAntiphonerSunday Compline I-Nn vi.E.2013c (2 nd half)Central Italy; FranciscanBreviarySunday Compline CH-Fco 2late 13c- early 14c FranciscanAntiphonerSunday Compline F-Pn lat. 15181, 15182 c 1300Paris France; Notre Dame Cathedral BreviarySunday Compline GB-AB 20541 Ec 1320-1390Wales (diocese of St. David?s?_; non-monastic Sarum Antiphoner Sunday Compline H-Bu lat. 11814c FranciscanAntiphonerSunday Compline D-MZb A1430sMainz, Germany; Carmelites AntiphonerSunday Compline F-CA Impr. XVI C 4 1508-18Paris, France; Simon Vostre AntiphonerSunday Compline HR-Hf Cod. C? Dubrovnik, Croatia; Franciscan 2 nd Sunday after Epiphany-Compline Table 4.5: Known Sources of Miserere mihi Domine Though it would be useful to examine all extant versions of this antiphon to determine whether the one used as a model for this mass adheres to a local tradition, it falls outside the scope of this chapter. The version set by this anonymous composer is 213 The information in this table is taken from the CANTUS Online Database (accessed April 3, 2008). 214 Library sigla for manuscripts in this table are those used in Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell, eds., The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London: Macmillan, 2001), 29 vols. 187 different from that which appears in the Liber usualis (see Example 4.7), 215 though the first half of the first phrase is identical. On mihi, the version employed by the mass composer is slightly ornamented; instead of G?-A-A, the mass version is G?-B-flat-A. At et exaudi, the version in the Liber usualis proceeds A-C-B-C-A, while that which serves as a model for the mass is A-C-C-D-A. In both versions, the ligature is on the third and fourth notes. The second phrase is melodically identical in both versions, though the placement of the ligatures in the mass sometimes differs, and the mass composer often ornaments his settings of this phrase, especially the end, on meam, even in the cantus- firmus-bearing voices. Example 4.7.1: Miserere mihi Domine, Liber usualis, 266 Example 4.7.2: Miserere mihi Domine, MunBS 6 215 Liber usualis, 266. 188 Other Settings of Miserere mihi Domine The antiphon Miserere mihi Domine serves as the cantus firmus of numerous polyphonic vocal and instrumental settings?both liturgical and extra-liturgical?that date from the fifteenth century through the seventeenth. 216 That so many English settings survive attests to a strong Miserere tradition in Britain, especially after 1600 and into the seventeenth century, 217 but the tradition was prevalent on the continent, as well as earlier in the Renaissance. There are nine Miserere motets from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. One of these, an anonymous three-voice setting, is preserved in LonBL 35087, the same manuscript that transmits the five-voice chanson Du bon du cueur, the model for the mass that follows this one in MunBS 6. 218 LonBL 35087 is associated with the Burgundian-Habsburg court; it was copied in 1505-06 in Bruges for J?r?me Lauweryn of Watervliet, an official at the courts of Maximilian, Philip the Fair, and Margaret of Austria. Though one may suspect ties to this motet, which was apparently known at the Burgundian-Habsburg court around the same time when the mass was copied into MunBS 6 at that same court, the mass and motet share only their cantus firmus. In fact, the mass composer used a different version of the chant as his model than did the composers of the two contemporary motets, John Norman (LonBL 5665) and an anonymous composer (LonBL 35087). To my knowledge, despite the existence of 216 John Caldwell, "Miserere," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/18777 (accessed January 11, 2009). 217 For a study of the English ?Miserere,? see Peter Kolb Danner, ?The Miserere Mihi and the English Reformation; A Study of the Evolution of a Cantus Firmus Genre in Tudor Music? (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1967). Although the Reformation espoused texts in the vernacular, polyphonic settings of Miserere mihi Domine played an important role during the English Reformation. We may, therefore, ask whether this mass had some relation to the English Reformation. Considering the possibility that the Missa Du bon du cueur had some tie to the Protestant Reformation, this question is worthy of further exploration. A positive correlation would suggest that MunBS 6 was indeed somehow related to the Reformation. 218 See Jennifer Thomas, ?Motet Database Online,? The University of Florida, http://www.arts.ufl.edu /motet/default.asp [accessed April 8, 2008], for a list of these motets. At least two, those in the manuscript WeimB A, from Torgau/Wittenberg c. 1505, are settings of the Introit Miserere mihi, not the antiphon. 189 numerous polyphonic settings of the antiphon, no other masses on Miserere mihi Domine survive. Scoring and Voice Labelling in the Missa Miserere mihi Domine The most outstanding feature of this Missa Miserere mihi Domine is its scoring?a mass for eight voices was hardly common in the 1520s, when this one was likely composed. Further, the scoring of this mass, and with it the cleffing, varies from movement to movement (see Tables 4.6 and 4.8). Not only are some subsections scored for fewer than the full complement of voices, but the distribution of voice types differs even among sections with all eight voices. Thus, the voice distribution in the Kyrie is three superius voices, 219 contratenor, two tenors, and two bassus voices, and the entire Gloria and the sections of the Credo and Sanctus incorporating all eight voices (Patrem, Et incarnatus est, Et iterum; Sanctus, Osanna) are scored for two superius voices, contratenor, three tenors and two bassus voices. Mass SectionScoring Mass SectionScoring Kyrie IPrimus [discantus] Secundus discantus Tertius discantus Contratenor Tenor [1] Tenor [2] Bassus [1] Bassus [2] Et resurrexit[Primus discantus] Secundus discantus=canonic Contratenor Christe[Primus discantus] Secundus discantus Tertius puer Contratenor Tenor [primus] Tenor tertius Bassus primus B[assus secundus] Et iterum[Primus discantus] [Secundus puer] Contratenor Tenor [primus] Tenor [secundus] Tenor [tertius] Bassus [primus] Bassus secundus 219 The third superius is labeled tertius puer in the Christe, and is mistakenly labeled tenor secundus in the Kyrie II?its clef and function with relation to the other voices confirms that this is an error in labeling. 190 Kyrie II[Primus discantus] Secundus discantus Tenor secundus [=Tertius discantus] Contratenor Tenor primus Tenor secundus Bassus [primus] Bassus [secundus] Sanctus[Primus discantus] Secundus discantus Contratenor Tenor primus Tenor secundus Tenor secundus [=tertius] Bassus [primus] Bassus secundus Et in terra[Primus discantus] Secundus discantus Contratenor Tenor secundus Tenor primus Secundus puer [=Tenor tertius?] Bassus primus Bassus secundus Pleni suntContratenor Bassus primus Bassus [secundus] Qui tollis[Primus discantus] Secundus discantus Contratenor Tenor secundus Tenor primus Tenor tertius Bagans Bassus [secundus] Osanna[Primus discantus] Secundus puer Contratenor Contratenor [=Tenor secundus] Tenor primus Tenor tertius Bassus [primus] Bassus [secundus] Patrem[Primus discantus] Secundus puer Contratenor Tenor primus Tenor secundus Tenor tertius Bassus [primus] Bassus [secundus] Benedictus[Primus discantus] Secundus discantus Contratenor Et incarnatus est[Primus discantus] [Secundus puer] Contratenor Tenor primus Tenor [secundus] Tenor [tertius] Bagans Bassus [secundus] Agnus Dei I[Primus discantus] [Secundus discantus] Contratenor Altus Tenor secundus [=primus?] Tenor tertius [=secundus?] Bassus [primus] Bassus [secundus] CrucifixusTenor [secundus?] [Canonic Tenor] Bagans Bassus Agnus Dei II[Primus discantus] Secundus discantus Contratenor Altus Tenor [primus] Tenor tertius [=secundus?] Bassus [primus] Bassus [secundus] Table 4.6: Scoring of the Missa Miserere mihi Domine in MunBS 6 191 As was the case in the Kyrie, the scribes of this manuscript mislabeled some of these voices. In the Et in terra, one of the tenors is labeled secundus puer, a clear mistake given that its range is about an octave below that of the superius voices (its clef is c4 and the same staff is labeled ?Tenor 3? in the Qui tollis). In the Patrem and Et incarnatus est, superius 2 is called secundus puer, and in the Et incarnatus est, the second bassus is called bagans (a variation on vagans, probably due to the initial ?B? that would have been drawn before the voice was labeled-see Chapter 6, p. 0 for a discussion of these voice labels). In the Et iterum, both the second and third tenors are labeled tenor secundus. The Crucifixus is a quartet between two tenors, one of which is canonically derived from the first, and two bassus voices, and the Et resurrexit is a trio between the two superius voices and contratenor. 20 Like the Et iterum before it, two tenors in the Sanctus are labeled tenor secundus, and a second voice labeled contratenor in the Osanna is clearly a second tenor (not only does the voice in question present the cantus firmus melody in long notes, the other two tenor voices on this opening are labeled tenor primus and tenor tertius). The Pleni sunt and Benedictus are both trios, the former between the contratenor and two bassus voices, and the latter between the two superius voices and contratenor. The Agnus Dei is scored oddly for this mass: it has four pairs of two similar voices, thus two superius, two contratenor (the second is labeled altus), two tenors, and two bassi. Though the altus, like the contratenor, has a c3 clef, the other tenors are labeled tenor secundus and tenor tertius in the first Agnus Dei, and tenor and 20 The scoring of the Et resurrexit is confusing. A signum congruentiae after 1 1/2 breves in the first superius indicates a canonic voice, but the second superius is precisely a realization superius exactly doubling another. That the scribes did not realize the canonic voice in the Crucifixus, which immediately precedes the Et resurrexit, is another interesting paleographic anomaly. It should also be mentioned that a similar pairing of Credo sections occurs in the Missa Du bon du cueur, described above, in which the Crucifixus is a duo between the two upper voices, and the Et resurrexit is a trio among the three lower ones. 192 tenor tertius in the second (and last) Agnus Dei, suggesting that this altus voice may play the role of a tenor. These inconsistencies with regard to voice labeling are not interesting with regard to compositional method, because it is easy to decipher the function of each voice from their clefs and role with respect to the other voices. They are important from a paleographer?s point of view, however. They may be explained by the fact that the scribe who labeled voices and copied the cantus-firmus text, titles, and ascriptions was often a different individual than the one who wrote the Mass Ordinary text, so he would not necessarily have paid much attention to the music. Also, it was fairly normal practice for one scribe to label the voices on the verso of a given opening, while another labeled the facing recto, which would explain the mistaken labeling of two tenor voices, one on each folio, as tenor secundus. There are a few clues regarding the performing forces of this mass in the source. First, in some sections, one or two voice parts split into divisi, at the third in all but one instance at the final cadence, and, in two instances, within a section, at the octave (see Table 4.7). This indicates, of course, that there were at least two individuals on each of these voice parts. This is in contrast to the scoring of some sections. The voice label secundus puer?the second boy?may suggest a solo part sung by a choirboy (see Table 4.6, above). One wonders whether the scribes of MunBS 6 used discantus interchangeably with puer, since the superius voices would normally have been sung by choirboys in this period. The relevant question here is not regarding scribal initiative?we already know that individual scribes exercised their own idiosyncratic practices with regard to notational elements and texting?rather, it concerns the meaning 193 behind these labels, and the relationship between those labels and the individuals, both number and voice type, who would have performed this mass. There are two issues. First, does puer indicate a solo part? And second, was puer used here to specify a type of discant voices, or was it merely an alternative to discantus? Despite the mislabeling of some voices, in no case does puer, which may indicate a soloist, contradict an instance in which a voice divides, which clearly would indicate several individuals on a part. In the Qui tollis, Et iterum, and both Agnus Dei sections, however, it is the superius voices that are divisi, so it is impossible that puer and discantus are interchangeable, if indeed puer denotes a solo part. Hence puer could indicate a solo part, since it is not interchangeable with discantus, but since other voice labels?superius, tenor, bassus?are also singular, and we know that there were often several singers to a part, the number of the label does not likely reflect the number of performers. Because the scribes who labeled these voice parts were not consistently accurate, and considering the degree to which the Alamire scribes in general exerted their own practices in these manuscripts, it would be imprudent to conclude that puer had any meaning beyond voice type. Still, we may bear in mind the possibility that these labels indicated performing forces when studying other compositions in this and other manuscripts, and with more evidence, perhaps a meaningful pattern will emerge. Mass SectionVoice(s)NotesPositionScoring Kyrie IT2 G-Bfinal cadenceSSSCTTBB Qui tollisS2 B-Dfinal cadenceSSCTTTBB PatremT2 / T3G-B / B-Dfinal cadenceSSCTTTBB Et incaranatus estT3 D-D m. 60 Et iterumS1 / S2 / B1 B2 G-B / B-D / D-G G-G final cadence m. 167 SSCTTTBB SanctusC B-Dfinal cadenceSSCTTTBB Pleni suntC G-Bfinal cadenceCBB Agnus Dei IS1 B-Dfinal cadenceSSCATTBB Agnus Dei IIS1 B-Dfinal cadenceSSCATTBB Table 4.7: Divisi in the Missa Miserere mihi Domine in MunBS 6 194 Structure, Mode, and Borrowing in the Missa Miserere mihi Domine Though one may expect an opaque, muddled effect in an eight-voice polyphonic composition, this anonymous composer?s organized handling of structure and scoring, and his uncomplicated, open counterpoint, allows for an unexpected clarity and beauty. In most movements, he assigns the cantus firmus to some combination of two voices (see Table 4.8, below), always including the first tenor, while the other voices move in imitation or homophony with one another or proceed in long notes in simple intervallic counterpoint. 21 The Kyrie provides a fine example of this structure and counterpoint (see Example 4.8, Kyrie, in appendix): the composer presents the first phrase of the chant as a cantus firmus in tenor 1 and bassus 2, the latter one octave below, in canon at the interval of six breves. The three superius voices open with an imitative statement of a simple dotted figure (mm. 1-3), then separate into simple counterpoint, in which all non-cantus-firmus- bearing voices emphasize leaps of a fourth, a fifth, and an octave throughout the section (esp. superius 1, superius 3, bassus 1, mm. 3-7, tenor 2, mm. 8-15). The contratenor proceeds during the entire section in longer notes, first embellishing the minor third B-D, a prominent interval in the three superius voices (mm. 5-20), then, in m. 20, presents the exact dotted figure heard earlier in the three superius voices, then cadencing on a simpler figure preceded by open intervals (mm. 21-27). Similarly, tenor 2 proceeds in rather long notes on open intervals, particularly fourths and fifths (mm. 8-18). Probably out of contrapuntal necessity, the anonymous composer employs long notes held over several measures, both at cadences and within sections (Kyrie I, C, mm. 10-17; S, mm. 16-20; 21 For the sake of this discussion of the Missa Miserere mihi, the two-phrase antiphon is divided into four sections: A 1 is the opening gesture, on Miserere mihi; A 2 the close of the first phrase, on Domine; B 1 is the opening of phrase two, on et exaudi; and B 2 concludes the chant, on orationem meam. 195 Christe, S1, mm. 49-53, all, mm. 54-62; Kyrie II, S3, C, mm. 80-85). About halfway through Kyrie II (m. 73) and continuing through the final cadence, the anonymous composer employs a series of short, simple motives in exaggerated repetition in all non-cantus-firmus-bearing voices. The superius 1 motive reverses the melodic direction of the dotted rhythm that opened the first Kyrie. The composer repeats it three times without the dotted rhythms (mm. 77-79), then four more times with it (mm. 80-83), before reversing it back to its original form, in which state he presents it sequentially before the final cadential phrase (superius 1, mm. 85-89). Meanwhile, superius 2 alternates between G and D (mm. 76-79), and continues three repetitions of a new descending motive, A-G-F (mm. 80-83). At mm. 76-79, the superius 3 and contratenor motives present three statements of similar descending motives before holding an octave D for six measures. The lower voices present an ascending dotted figure, like that which opens the first Kyrie, but at a different pitch. For the second half of the passage, tenor 2 and bassus 1 proceed with similar figures, but bassus 2 continues on with leaps of a fifth between D and G. By no means does the simplicity of this composer?s style result in uninteresting music; rather the effect is beautiful and majestic. 196 Mass SectionC.f. PhraseC.f. PlacementTreatmentScoring Kyrie IA 1 -A 2 -a 2 T1/B2Canon at P8 at 6BSSSCTTBB ChristeB 1 -B 2 T1/B2Canon at P8 at 3BSSSCTTBB Kyrie IIA 1 -A 2 -B 2 T1/[ C: A 1 A 2 ] [Canon at P5 at 3B, 1B]SSPCTTBB Et in terraA 1 -A 2 -B 1 -B 2 T1/[C: A 1 A 2 ] [Canon at P5 at 1B]SSPCTTBB Qui tollisA 1 -A 2 -B 1 -B 2 T1 SSCTTTBB PatremA 1 -A 2 -B 1 -B 2 T1/T2Canon at P5 at 4BSSCTTTBB Et incarnatus estA 1 -A 2 -B 1 -B 2 T1 SSCTTTBB Crucifixus TTBB Et resurrexit SSSC Et iterum Et in unam sanctam A 1 -A 2 -B 1 -B 2 A 1 -A 2 -B 1 -B 2 T1/T2 T1/T2 Canon at P5 at 1B Canon at P5 at 1B SSCTTTBB SanctusA 1 -A 2 -B 1 -B 2 T1/T2Canon at P5 at 1SSSCTTTBB Pleni sunt CBB OsannaA 1 -A 2 -B 1 -B 2 T1/T2Canon at P5 at 2BSSCC/[T]TTBB Benedictus SSC Agnus Dei I1/2A 1 T1 SSCATTBB Agnus Dei IIA 1 -A 2 -B 1 -B 2 T1 SSCATTBB Table 4.8: Distribution of Borrowed Material in the Missa Miserere mihi Domine Mass Section MensurationFinal3 rd CleffingKey sigScoring KYRIE G Kyrie ICut CG X c1-c1-c1-c3-c4-c4-f4-f4noneSSSCTTBB ChristeCut CG X c1-c1-c1-c3-c4-c4-f4-f4noneSSPCTTBB Kyrie IICut CG X c1-c1-c3-c4-c1-c4-f4-f4noneSSSCTTBB GLORIAG Et in terraO G X c1-c1-c3-c4-c3-c4-f4-f4noneSSCTTTBB Qui tollisCut CG X c1-c1-c3-c4-c3-c4-f4-f4noneSSCTTTBB CREDO G PatremO G X c1-c1-c3-c4-c3-c4-f4-f4noneSPCTTTBB Et incarnatus est Cut CG X c1-c1-c3-c4-c3-c3-f4-f4noneSPCTTTBB CrucifixusCut CG X c4-c4-f4-f4noneTTBB Et resurrexitCut CGX (no 5 th ) c1-c1-c1-c3noneSSC Cut CG X none Cut C3D X none Et iterum Et in unam Et exspecto Cut CG X c1-c1-c3-c4-c3-c4-f4-f4 none SPCTTTBB SANCTUSG SanctusO G X c1-c1-c3-c4-c3-c4-f4-f4noneSSCTTTBB Pleni suntCut C-Cut C3- Cut C G X c4-f4-f4noneCBB OsannaO/3G X c1-c1-c3-c3-c4-c4-f4-f4noneSPCTTTBB BenedictusCut CGunisonc1-c1-c3noneSSC AGNUS DEIG Agnus Dei IO G X c1-c1-c3-c3-c4-c4-f4-f4noneSSCATTBB Agnus Dei IICut CG X c1-c1-c3-c3-c4-c4-f4-f4noneSSCATTBB Table 4.9: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Miserere mihi Domine 197 Its atypical scoring apart, this anonymous mass conforms to sixteenth-century structural and modal norms (see Table 4.9). The anonymous composer breaks the five Mass Ordinary movements into standard subsections; a three-part Kyrie is followed by a two-part Gloria (Et in terra and Qui tollis), the Credo is broken into five distinct sections (Patrem, Et incarnatus est, Crucifixus, Et resurrexit, Et iterum), the last of which can be divided into three by changes in mensuration (at Et iterum, Et in unam sanctam, and Et exspecto), the Sanctus is divided into the maximum possible number of sections (Sanctus, Pleni sunt, Osanna, Benedictus), and a two-part Agnus Dei concludes the mass. Most of the mass is in imperfect tempus; sections in perfect tempus stand out. Aside from the Kyrie, each mass movement opens with its first subsection in O (Et in terra, Patrem, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei I). The Osanna, like that of the Missa Du bon du cueur, is in the distinctive mensuration O/3 (see n. 18, above, for a discussion of this intriguing sign). Two sections, Et iterum and Pleni sunt, feature mensuration changes within. In the former, the phrases Et unam sanctam and Confiteor are in Cut C3, while the subsection begins and ends in tempus imperfectum. In the Pleni sunt, a five-measure) phrase in Cut C3, on the text et terra, is inserted into a section otherwise in tempus imperfectum. The switch back to imperfect tempus at in gloria tua is an effective way to simulate a quickening of pace, and the section also contrasts in texture with following homophonic Osanna in perfect tempus. The Missa Miserere mihi overwhelmingly emphasizes G. In fact, there is no other mass in this group in which every section cadences on the main final (see Table 4.8, above). The antiphon is a mode 8, G plagal, chant, though the ranges of the mass voices necessarily exceed a plagal ambitus. 198 Though there are no B-flats in the antiphon, and none in the key signature of the mass, notated B-flats are not infrequent in the mass, notably in the cantus firmus. Quotations of the chant in the mass, the version of which differs from that in the Liber usualis, sometimes has a B-flat on mihi (the version in the Liber usualis has a repeated A rather than a B at this point). The differences between the version employed by this mass composer and the standardized version of this chant, the one presented in the Liber usualis and which served as the model for the two contemporary motets on the same antiphon, have been discussed above, see Example 4.7). In the Qui tollis, and in every statement from the one in the Et incarnatus est through the end of the mass, the B on mihi is natural. Because there is no apparent textual or symbolic reason for the change from B-flats to B-naturals, it would seem that the quality of this note in the cantus firmus depends on the surrounding counterpoint, and not vice versa. Some isolated passages with notated B-flats, such as those in the Gloria, mm. 12-19, and Credo, mm. 20-23, result from this B-flat in the cantus firmus, however (see Examples 4.9, Gloria, in appendix; and 4.10, Credo, in appendix). It is interesting that in these instances, the accidentals are notated in the manuscript, and were not left up to the discretion of the singers, whereas other instances requiring editorial B-flats to avoid a linear tritone (as in Credo, tenor 3, m. 25) were not notated by the scribes. The quality of the note B in the cantus firmus is indeed inconsistent and often unclear, suggesting that the lack of notated accidentals on these notes may be a scribal phenomenon rather than a compositional one. For example, the passages in the Qui tollis (Gloria, mm.69-71) and Et incarnatus est (Credo, mm. 62-64) work equally well with editorial B-flats in the cantus firmus. 199 In the second Agnus Dei (the incomplete cantus firmus presentation in the first Agnus Dei does not reach this point), the B in the cantus firmus is not marked flat, but a B-flat is clearly notated in bassus 1 at the same point (see Example 4.12, Agnus Dei, in appendix, mm. 49-57). If one follows the flat marked in the bassus, three editorial flats ensue, and a three-bar passage with B-flats interrupts two phrases in which B-naturals are otherwise appropriate. Because the passage with B-flats begins on the cadence between Agnus Dei and qui tollis (m. 52), the sudden change of modal character stops the forward flow of the music, which only picks up gradually after the change back to B-naturals in m. 55, at qui tollis. On the other hand, the passage works as well with all B-naturals; one would only have to alter the notated B-flat in the bassus 1 in m. 52. Considering that B-flats do not suit the contrapuntal context of some other passages, however, we must rule out the possibility that the change between B-flat and B- natural is due to scribal carelessness. For example, the quality of the first B in the cantus firmus in the Et iterum, however, must be B-natural in order to work with the surrounding counterpoint, and indeed with the character of that passage (mm. 176-79), which includes several dotted figures that ascend to B or C. Though a B-flat would be contrapuntally possible in the second antiphon quotation (m. 227) in this section (beginning at Et unam sanctam), it would abruptly disrupt the modal character of the passage at its cadence. Yet, if such an abrupt change of modal character is possible in the Agnus Dei, it would also be appropriate here, which further complicates the situation. Likewise, B-flats would also be out of place in the Sanctus (mm. 10-16), and in the Osanna (mm. 79-84). Though some of these passages are ambiguous, it is most prudent in this case to 200 follow the notation in the manuscript, with the exception of the second Agnus Dei, for which two possible and equally likely solutions exist. Despite the variation in quality of the Bs in the cantus firmus, the strong emphasis on G, both at cadences and within phrases, is another factor?like its orderly structure and scoring?that softens the chaotic sound that could otherwise result from eight-voice polyphony. Though each of the five movements of this Missa Miserere mihi Domine opens in a different manner, they are unified by the cantus firmus and by the similar motivic material that recurs throughout the mass. The origin of these motives is unclear; most of them are not derived from the antiphon, nor do they come from the two motets that would provide a likely source for this composer (though the emphasis on dotted figures is present in both motets, as well as in the mass). For the most part, the anonymous composer distributes his cantus firmus in a logical manner (see Table 4.8, above). The Kyrie, however, is anomalous in several respects. The first half of the model is presented in Kyrie I (in canon between tenor 1 and bassus 2, at a fifth and at the interval of six breves), and the second half is cited in the Christe (also in canon between tenor 1 and bassus 2, at a fifth, and at the interval of three breves). In all other instances of canonic presentation of the entire cantus firmus, the chant is presented by tenors 1 and 2. The anonymous composer closes these canonic statements at cadences in various ways. In Kyrie I, he repeats Domine to a different figure in the tenor 1, and uses a simple cadential figure?F-G-D-G?in the bassus (see Example 4.8, mm. 21-27). The Kyrie II is especially strange, because a section from the middle of the antiphon, B 1 , on et exaudi, is conspicuously absent. There is no place in the other voices 201 where this text would be appropriate. This omission is completely illogical; one would expect this final section of the Kyrie to bring the movement to a close with a statement of the entire antiphon. This last subsection is all the more unusual, because it is one of only two sections in which the contratenor carries part of the cantus firmus (the other is the Et in terra). It begins in canon at three breves with tenor 1 at the fifth, m. 66, but omits the two-breve rest in tenor 1, closing the canon to one breve. But halfway through (m. 76), where it would continue with the melody on Domine, it leaves off, continuing in regular counterpoint as described above (see Example 4.8). (This is not the only instance in this mass of a voice presenting only part of the cantus firmus?other examples, the Et in terra, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei I, are discussed at pp. 201, 208-10, and 212). It is also unclear if the contratenor should sing the antiphon text or Mass Ordinary text during its presentation of the cantus firmus. In the manuscript, the voice is texted Miserere, in red, then Kyrie eleyson, in black. Whether the antiphon incipit Miserere mihi was meant to be sung to its chant melody, or whether it was simply an identifying feature, as is often the case in these manuscripts, is not certain, but this is one of several instances in this mass of such ambiguity. Each of the two sections of the Gloria carries a full statement of the cantus firmus in tenor 1. In the Et in terra, as in Kyrie II, the contratenor presents the opening of the antiphon, also in canon at the fifth and at the interval of one breve with tenor 1, before it makes a smooth transition into its contrapuntal role, carrying on with the text of the Mass Ordinary at gloriam tuam (see Example 4.9, Gloria, in appendix, mm. 1-19). The beauty of this movement is in its simplicity. It is mainly syllabic, similar motivic material occurs in each of the contrapuntal voices, and the counterpoint is 202 unusually open (we hear mainly fourths, fifths, and octaves, as well as some thirds). Its sectional structure also contributes to this simplicity; short melodic ideas are separated by clear cadences, almost always on G, though a few are on D (see Example 4.9, mm. 54- 70). In contrast with the slow-moving cantus firmus in the first tenor (and contratenor at the opening of the Et in terra), the contrapuntal voices all carry quicker-moving material, each voice presenting similar musical gestures. Their entries are often displaced, giving the impression of brief bouts of very close imitation. These alternate with equally brief homophonic passages. These changes in texture always correspond to a new phrase of Mass Ordinary text, and the musical material is always appropriate for the text being set. Thus in the first six measures of the mostly syllabic setting of the Et in terra, the two superius voices proceed in loose imitation, while the tenors 2 and 3, and bassus 1, present contrapuntal accompaniment in similar rhythms (mm. 1-6). As the contratenor enters with its statement of the cantus firmus, the non cantus-firmus-bearing voices cadence, pause, and carry on in similar rhythms with a new motive. At Laudamus te, tenor 2 and bassus 2 enter first, followed one minim later by the two superius voices, tenor 3, and bassus 1. Then, on Benedicimus te, bassus 2 enters first, followed by tenor 2, then the two superius voices, tenor 3, and bassus 1 all together. In contrast to this syllabic, almost choppy, thematic material, the setting of Adoramus te. Glorificamus te is more melismatic, and the texture is more sparse. A change to largely homophonic texture occurs on Gratias agimus tibi and continues through gloriam tuam (mm. 15-25). Another remarkable change of texture occurs at 203 Domine Deus, where all contrapuntal voices present a triadic dotted figure in imitation (mm. 24-27). After slowing down the pace on Jesu Christe, another bout of imitation occurs on Dominus Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris. In a fittingly conclusive passage, the composer repeats the text Filius Patris three or four times in each voice, each time to slightly varied music (mm. 40-47). The anonymous composer?s employment of texture in the Qui tollis is equally effective, though he introduces some new elements. The section begins with a slow- moving chordal passage that complements the tenor 1 cantus firmus statement. Here, the first of several alternatim passages occurs: here, the two superius voices and tenor 3 first present miserere nobis, followed by a similar, but not identical, figure in the contratenor and two bassus voices, while the tenor 2 moves at half the tempo as the other voices on a series of Ds (mm. 54-62). The response is in turn echoed by the two superius and two non-cantus-firmus-bearing tenor voices on the next phrase of text, Qui tollis peccata mundi. These last two phrases are cadential in nature, contributing even more to the already clear architecture of the Qui tollis. Next, a brief, syllabic, homophonic passage on suscipe deprecationem (mm. 66- 70), and another of different character, on Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris (mm. 72-75), are effectively separated by a more florid setting of nostram. A series of three extremely brief, almost entirely homophonic phrases of alternating registers ensues, beginning with a duo between the superius voices at miserere nobis (mm. 77-80). At Quoniam tu solus sanctus. Tu solus Dominus (mm. 81-83), the contratenor ornaments the otherwise homophonic passage presented by the three lowest voices, while tenor 1 enters with the cantus firmus melody in long notes. Tenor 3 extends the word Dominus through the 204 beginning of a livelier passage in the upper voices on Tu solus Altissimus (mm. 86-90). The composer clearly employs the ornamental voices that break the homophony to provide textural, rhythmic, and registral contrast to an otherwise sparsely scored, homophonic passage. A significant pause separates these phrases from the chordal setting of Jesu Christe, in which a syncopated contratenor provides contrast. The setting of Jesu Christe in turn leads, with no separation, into a lively, rhythmically imitative Cum Sancto Spirito, which recalling the character of the opening of the Gloria. In contrast with the end of the Et in terra, there is no textual repetition here; instead, the anonymous composer races to the final cadence. In the Credo, which the mass composer subdivides into five relatively short sections (Patrem, Et incarnatus est, Crucifixus, Et resurrexit, Et iterum), the entire cantus firmus is presented four times. In this mass, the composer never assigns any cantus firmus to sections scored for fewer than eight voices, therefore the Crucifixus (a low- register quartet between two tenors and two bassi) and Et resurrexit (a high-register trio between two superius voices and contratenor) lack any clear statements of material from the antiphon. The antiphon is quoted in canon at the fifth between tenor 1 and tenor 2, at the interval of four breves in the Patrem, and at one breve in the Et iterum?this latter section is further divided into two, at Et in unam sanctam, by a change in mensuration and the beginning of a second full statement of the cantus firmus. The statement in the Et incarnatus est is by the first tenor alone. At the opening of the Patrem, while the real cantus-firmus-bearing voices rest, the first superius begins with an exact statement, in long notes, of the opening of the antiphon 205 melody. Instead of singing this melody to Miserere, as a cantus-firmus-bearing voice would, the superius opens with the Mass Ordinary text, Patrem omnipotentem. Accompanying this clear quotation are two pairs of voices, superius 2 / contratenor and tenor 3 / bassus 2, each pair singing similar contrapuntal material. When tenor 2 enters with the antiphon melody in m. 7 (at visibilium), so do the other contrapuntal voices, now including all but tenor 1, as the previous introductory phrase cadences on G. Four measures later, tenor 1 enters with its citation of the antiphon melody as the contrapuntal voices cadence on C (m. 11), and the composer proceeds with the full, majestic complement of eight voices through m. 34 (at consubstantialem Patri). As in the Gloria, brief, homophonic passages?with some exceptions?alternate with passages in close, loose imitation (see Example 4.10, Credo, in appendix, mm. 10- 29). A more sparsely scored passage follows, on a brief motive presented in imitation by four voices (on consubstantialem Patri), then a different group of voices sings per quem omnia facta sunt, and all eight enter again on Qui propter nos homines and continue to the final cadence of this section, on descendit de celis. The composer emphasizes it with descending lines in the superius and fanfare motives in the bottom two voices. The Et incarnatus est begins with a homophonic accompaniment to the cantus firmus presentation by one voice alone, the contratenor. This chorale-like texture is characteristic of the entire section. Two four-measure phrases are separated by a cadence on G and a semibreve pause in all voices except the cantus-firmus-bearing tenor, which holds A through the pause. Though both of these phrases cadence on G, the first of these cadences is incomplete, and requires further resolution (see Example 4.10, mm. 55-62). A brief, more vigorous motive, three quarter notes followed by a half, interrupts the 206 homophonic flow in five voices, on ex Maria (mm. 62-64), before the homophonic texture that characterizes this section returns, on Virgine. Meanwhile, the contratenor carries a phrase constructed of a sequential series of descending fourths, in syncopation with most other voices, which proceed in homophony in half notes on the beats (mm. 62- 69). This passage recalls those in the Gloria in which one non-cantus-firmus-bearing voice interrupts an otherwise homophonic passage. Though some voices had already stated the text, Et homo factus est, the final statement of this important Mass Ordinary text is preceded by a strong cadence on D and another semibreve pause (the first separated the two phrases that opened this section), interrupted, as before, only by the cantus-firmus-bearing tenor, which again holds an A through the pause. This time the voices enter in a new modal center?the cadence on D leads to what is essentially a brief passage in D-minor. B-flats, which were absent earlier in the section, confirm this modal character. This abrupt modulation is conspicuous, and it effectively emphasizes the text, Et homo factus est, as do the short melismas on homo and factus. Following an incomplete cadence on D in m. 80, the final cadence shifts to G, with no B-flats. Neither of the next two sections, Crucifixus and Et resurrexit, both of which are scored for fewer than eight voices, carry any cantus firmus material. Instead, they are constructed from imitative and repetitive presentations of short, mainly triadic, motives. The Crucifixus opens with a four-voice imitative passage on a descending C triad (mm. 85-91). At sub Pontio Pilato, what seems simple and repetitive, on closer examination, constitutes a continuous cycle of motives successively imitated by the two tenors (mm. 92-102). Within the same phrase, bassus 1 imitates the bassus 2 figure (bassus 2, mm. 92- 207 95, bassus 1, mm. 94-96). In the next passage (mm. 98-102), the descending four-note motives that are passed between both bassus voices, like the preceding tenor motives, become a continuous cycle, broken at mm. 101-102, where the tenors enter again in imitation (m. 102), while the bassi imitate each other on different figures up to the final cadence. This section is one of continuous motion on a series of short, simple motives. In contrast to the Crucifixus, the Et resurrexit, a trio between the two superius voices and contratenor, consists of a canon at the unison between the two superius voices at the interval of 1 1/2 breves, while the contratenor accompanies with motivically- similar material, and no effort is made to separate text phrases by means of musical effects. This light, upper-register canon is a refreshing contrast to the predominantly motivic writing in this mass, and it prepares the listener for the return to full scoring, and to the antiphon, at Et iterum. The Et iterum, as mentioned above, consists of three subsections?Et iterum, Et unam sanctam, and Et exspecto. It opens with a short, homophonic trio between the two upper voices and bassus 2, a subtle transition from the Et resurrexit. At m. 163, the composer adds two more voices, then, at mm. 167-168, the cantus-firmus-bearing tenors enter with their first quotation of the antiphon (to the text cum gloria in the other voices). This majestic passage is constructed of a combination of the most prevalent motives in this mass (mm. 166-171), including a falling third in the two superius voices, an ascending fifth in the two bassi, and a dotted, ascending fifth in tenor 3, as well as various other motives built around open intervals. A suspended dissonance in the contratenor at m. 169 is a typical feature of this mass. A brief homophonic passage, at mm. 179-183, calls attention to Et in Spiritum Sanctum. Imitation between the two upper voices returns 208 at et conglorificatur (mm. 205-210), a semibreve silence precedes the homophonic setting of qui locutus est, and a descending line to G on per Prophetas, perhaps suggesting the inevitability of the prophecy, completes the section. Following another semibreve silence, the almost entirely homophonic Et unam sanctam begins in perfect tempus, during which the two cantus-firmus-bearing tenors cite the first phrase of the antiphon Miserere mihi Domine in canon at the fifth. Since this subsection refers to the Church, which is solid, the composer uses a full texture here to emphasize and glorify it. At m. 239, the mensuration changes back to imperfect tempus, and a brief, still homophonic Et exspecto closes the Credo, with tenor 1 and tenor 2 presenting the second phrase of the model. While the Credo, like the Gloria, is syllabic and is characterized by alternating homophonic and imitative passages, it is not nearly as sectional, nor are a significant majority of internal cadences on G, as is the case in the Gloria. Still the composer employs similar techniques in both movements. For example, syncopation plays more of a role in these two movements, and is used to the same effect, than elsewhere in the mass. Extremely rapid alternation between imitative and homophonic passages, although neither the imitation nor the homophony is strict, characterizes both movements, and, for the most part, the composer takes care to separate phrases of Mass Ordinary text with musical devices, especially texture and mensuration, in both movements. Though only the first half of the first phrase of antiphon text is present in the manuscript at the Sanctus, the entire melody is presented by tenor 1 and tenor 2, in canon at the fifth, at the close interval of one semibreve. In fact, this is the first time in this mass that the cantus firmus has not been presented in long notes consistently. Indeed, it seems 209 that the composer has purposefully embedded it in the polyphonic texture of this section. First, the texture, rhythms, and register of the tenors are so similar to those of the contrapuntal voices that the antiphon melody blends in with the other material. Second, the contrapuntal voices also carry some motivic material derived from the antiphon (see Example 4.11, Sanctus, in appendix, superius 1, mm. 12-16). Third, as mentioned above, the antiphon quotation is not exact. It is odd that the scribes should have underlaid the Mass Ordinary text in these cantus-firmus-bearing voices, and the situation is further complicated by the changing rhythm of the antiphon melody and occasional repetition of motives within. The texting in the manuscript changes from antiphon text to Mass Ordinary text after Miserere mihi. It is interesting that this gesture is repeated, once to mihi, and again to Sanctus, allowing for a very subtle transition from model to mass text. Further, the mass ordinary text Dominus, is set, probably not coincidentally, to the Domine motive from Miserere mihi in the two cantus-firmus-bearing tenors. Since both sets of text fit the melody, several solutions are possible; either the antiphon text should be sung throughout, which is unlikely, considering the care the scribes took to underlay mass ordinary text; or the mass ordinary text should be sung throughout, which is even less likely, given the antiphon text that is underlaid at the opening of the movement and the presences of antiphon text in all other sections containing model material. This section should almost certainly be performed as notated, with antiphon text at the opening becoming Mass Ordinary text after mihi, at m. 14; or, perhaps with one individual or a group singing each tenor part, one singing the cantus firmus text and the other the Mass Ordinary text. The scribes of MunBS 6 were normally 210 attentive to text underlay, though they certainly made enough errors in labeling voice parts. Considering the existence in this mass of two other instances where a voice begins to quote the antiphon text and continues after the incipit with mass ordinary text and contrapuntal musical material, 22 and that the anonymous composer disguises the cantus firmus melody in this section, one can conclude that the two tenor voices should begin the Sanctus with antiphon text, and then switch to Mass Ordinary text on the second statement of the mihi gesture (mm. 14-15), and then finish the section as the contrapuntal voices do. As is the case with all other sections scored for fewer than eight voices, no cantus firmus material is present in the Pleni sunt, an imitative trio between the contratenor and the two bassi. This section opens in exact three-voice imitation at the interval of one breve. Since each voice repeats this imitated motive twice, there are six regular statements of it in only seven measures. Embellishment of this motive brings the three voices together in homophony at m. 44. The long-tone contratenor melody stands out against the bassi, which proceed again in homophony and repeat the same descending motive several times before the change to perfect tempus at m. 53, a five-measure section marked by repeated gestures, a typical feature of this mass. At the mass ordinary text gloria tua, imperfect tempus returns as the contratenor and first bassus open in exact imitation at the fifth, at the extremely close interval of one minim. It should be mentioned here that a similar effect occurs in the Gloria of the Missa Du bon du cueur discussed above. In the subsection Cum Sancto Spiritu, the text in gloria Dei Patris is first stated in perfect tempus, but a mensuration change to imperfect 22 The contratenor in Kyrie II and the Et in terra, though, in those sections, the contratenor does not quote the entire antiphon melody. 211 tempus, and with it a quickening of pace and change of texture, gives majesty to this text. Likewise, in this Missa Miserere mihi Domine, the brief passage in perfect tempus contrasts with the setting of gloria tua, in imperfect tempus, to splendid effect. As is often the case, the imitation here is replaced with homophony (after a minim rest at m. 64), and the section ends on G. In contrast to the Pleni sunt, the eight-voice Osanna is chordal, slow moving, and in perfect tempus throughout. The antiphon melody is quoted in tenor 1 and tenor 2, in canon at the fifth, and at the interval of two breves. Despite the similar texture of all eight voices and the melodic prominence of the first superius, the model is apparent, unlike in the Sanctus. This is, in part, because of the contrapuntal nature of the section. The position of the chords assigned to non cantus-firmus-bearing voices brings out the antiphon melody. The regularity of rhythms and the practically uninterrupted homophony impart the impression of tranquility. The Benedictus, like the Pleni sunt, is a light trio?though here between the three upper voices?and thus carries no cantus firmus material. A few brief instances of imitation on a scalar figure occur, for example at mm. 117-19, mm. 123-25, and mm. 127-28, each of which are preceded by an even briefer homophonic gesture. A minim rest separates each unit of text (before qui, in m. 119, separating qui and venit, in m. 121, before in nomine, in m. 122, and, finally, separating the two statements of in nomine Domini, in m. 126). The music on venit echoes that on qui (mm. 119-122) through voice exchange, adding interest. Thus the superius 1 line shifts to superius 2, the superius 2 melody to the contratenor, and the contratenor melody moves to superius 1 for the repetition of this melody. Though not indicated in the manuscript, the preceding Osanna 212 would follow this Benedictus to close the Sanctus. At the first Agnus Dei, the manuscript transmits no antiphon text at all, not even the incipit, and, like the Sanctus, this section does not contain a clear quotation of the cantus firmus. The two tenor voices do, however, open with the melodic incipit of Miserere mihi Domine, each stating the melody in a different rhythm (see Example 4.12). After this point, tenor 1 continues to paraphrase the antiphon, with each melodic gesture separated by rests. Thus in mm. 3-7 tenor 1 quotes exactly the opening gesture of the chant, that which accompanies the word Miserere (to the Mass Ordinary text Agnus Dei). In mm. 11-12 (at qui), we hear an ornamented version of the melody to which mihi is set, immediately following which tollis is set to an ornamented version of the Domine chant melody (mm. 13-15). The composer sets a repetition of qui tollis to a paraphrased citation of the antiphon melody which accompanies et exaudi (mm. 18-22); the peccata mundi melody is that which sets the antiphon text orationem (mm. 24-27). On miserere nobis (mm. 27-33), the anonymous composer outlines two descending triads, D-B-G and C-A- F, before settling on G, as the antiphon does on meam. As in the Sanctus, it would be possible, even logical, to assign the antiphon text to the first tenor melody; in the absence of any such indication in the manuscript, however, it is improbable that the anonymous composer intended this section to be polytextual. As he often does, the anonymous composer assigns each voice or pair of voices in imitation a short melodic unit, which he repeats several times. For example, in mm. 10- 15, the two top voices trade a ?cambiata? figure back and forth five times, while the two lowest voices exchange a simpler cadential figure, G-D-G, which this composer employs consistently in the lower voices throughout the mass, six times. As stated above, tenor 1 213 quotes two gestures of the antiphon melody here, though the manner in which the composer paraphrases these makes them almost identical, which is appropriate in such a repetitive passage. The contratenor repeats its high-register figure only twice, separated by a different motive in the lower register, and the altus holds long Ds throughout. This example is representative of the way in which the composer manages to maintain clarity and order in an eight-voice polyphonic composition. In effect, because he combines four voices into two pairs, he reduces eight voices to only six distinct vocal functions, two of which, the one carrying the cantus firmus and the one holding a single tone, are so simple that they barely complicate the texture. That he repeats the same motives over an extended passage further simplifies the contrapuntal character. The Agnus Dei I closes with a series of descending thirds at mm. 26-30, presented at different pitches and in different rhythms in different voices. Despite the absence of any antiphon text or direct quotation of its melody after the first half of phrase A 1 in this section, the anonymous composer still imparts its fundamental shape through paraphrase and motivic references. The Agnus Dei II, an excellent conclusion to the mass, presents the entire antiphon in long notes in the first tenor. At the opening, rather than alternating imitative and homophonic passages as he often does, the anonymous composer presents the two textures simultaneously. Thus, the two superius voices, contratenor, and tenor 2 enter with an imitative presentation of the same motive with which the Kyrie I opens, while the altus, tenor, and two bassi proceed together in long notes. These roles shift among voices until m. 49. 214 At this point, the repetition that characterizes this composer?s style emerges. While the first tenor begins the second half of the first antiphon phrase (on mihi), and the superius provides counterpoint in longer notes, three pairs of voices present similar or identical motives: superius 2 and tenor 2 have a similar figure, which they each repeat three times, the contratenor and altus move together in simple rhythmic counterpoint, and the two bassi proceed in exact imitation (mm. 49-52). Then, all voices cadence together in m. 52 on G. The pause on the first beat of m. 53 is interrupted by a G triad extended from the previous phrase (superius 2 / altus / tenor 1), and two sets of voices enter on qui tollis, the superius 1 and the two bassi in homophony against the homophonic contratenor and tenor 3. With each new note in the cantus firmus, the surrounding voices adapt to emphasize the change. Thus in mm. 58-60, a repetitive and imitative passage that continues that at mm. 49-57 occurs. Superius 1, altus, and tenor 1 hold long notes for three measures while superius 2 and contratenor each repeat their own motive, then the two bass voices trade their own motive back and forth, and finally, tenor 3 enters with a motive similar to that presented by the bassi. In the next passage, mm. 61-63, which is similar, the cantus firmus moves down a step, and each voice plays a different role and presents new motives. In this second passage, superius 2 continues with three repetitions of a new motive against two repetitions of two new motives in the altus and tenor 3, while the contratenor, tenor 1, and bassus 1 hold long tones. The composer continues to alter the texture and functions of the seven non cantus-firmus-bearing voices, all the while drawing attention to the cantus firmus throughout this last section by changing rhythms and textures with each 215 new note of the model. A descending scalar figure, presented in imitation in the two upper and two lower voices, against an ascending dotted figure in the contratenor and a repetitive cadential figure in the altus (on peccata mundi) leads into the final phrase, on dona nobis pacem. Here, the composer moves quickly from a triad on A to one on D to the final cadence on G, by leaps of thirds, fourths and fifths. Conclusions The composer of this lovely eight-voice cantus firmus mass, which was likely composed in the later 1520s, successfully blended older techniques with a modern musical style to create a new composition that is both retrospective and innovative. That most mass sections present a Gregorian cantus firmus in the tenor in long notes is a conventional practice; that this cantus firmus is presented in not one, but two tenors, and that it is occasionally paraphrased or absent, is not. While sequential repetition of short melodic motives is a typical of early sixteenth-century polyphonic music, this composer?s variation, development, and compulsive repetition of these motives are typical features of imitation masses, a newer compositional style. The motives employed by this mass composer recur in all five mass movements, though they are, for the most part, not derived from the model or from the other compositions based on the same antiphon that would be a likely source for this composer (see above). That the mass is so extremely focused in one modal center (G) and relies on open intervals are older traits, but the presence of thirds in final cadences, as well as the tonality of the mass, are forward-looking traits. The prominent Mass sections in perfect 216 tempus are traditional, though the majority of the mass is in imperfect tempus, a characteristic of the newer style. The presence of both imitative and homophonic passages is characteristic of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century polyphonic masses; the rate at which our composer alternates between the two, and that neither imitation nor homophony are pure, is inventive. The extent to which he uses changes in texture to distinguish between phrases of text is also a contemporary characteristic. The Missa Miserere mihi Domine is evidently polytextual?some voices sing mass ordinary text while others present that of the cantus firmus. As was shown above, in some sections polytextuality occurs even within one voice, as is the case with the Kyrie II and Et in terra contratenors, and possibly the two tenors in the Sanctus. Polytextuality in polyphonic masses dates back to the mid fifteenth-century, and, as Alejandro Planchart explains, probably originated as a scribal practice rather than as a compositional one. 23 Later in the fifteenth century, such scribal practices gradually created a compositional one, and by the sixteenth century, it was not at all unusual for composers to provide two texts to be sung simultaneously in one Mass. CONCLUSIONS The Missa Miserere mihi Domine has several traits in common with the Missa Du bon du cueur discussed above. The anonymous composer of this mass, like the composer of the Missa Du bon du cueur, took care to align textual phrases with musical ones, often relying on texture, and sometimes on a change of mensuration, to emphasize this 23 Alejandro Planchart, ?Parts With Words and Without Words: The Evidence for Multiple Texts in Fifteenth-Century Masses,? in Studies in the Performance of Late Mediaeval Music, ed. Stanley Boorman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 243-44. 217 distinction. Further, the stylistic and textural contrast between consecutive mass sections, as in the Pleni sunt-Osanna-Benedictus-Osanna, exaggerates the new section, which of course coincides with a liturgical event. In fact, in both masses, the Crucifixus and Et resurrexit are scored for a reduced number of voices, and in both, one is in the upper register while the other is in the lowest register. While, as one would expect, the Crucifixus is a low-register section and the Et resurrexit is in the high register in the Missa Miserere mihi, it is odd that the opposite is true in the Missa Du bon du cueur. Other elements in common with the Missa Du bon du cueur are the use of repetition of short motives, especially at cadences, the structural division of the five mass movements, the employment of an echo effect, though this is much more prominent in the Missa Du bon du cueur, the use of the mensuration sign O/3 (though admittedly this may be a scribal rather than compositional trait), and the attention paid to separating text phrases by musical means, just to name a few. Though it would be premature to conclude that these two masses are by one and the same composer, they do share enough common stylistic elements that it is indeed possible. They were both likely composed in the later 1520s, and their presence in MunBS 6 shows that they both apparently had some meaning or were of some use to Wilhelm IV, duke of Bavaria. 218 CHAPTER 5 The Anonymous Masses in MontsM 766, a Manuscript for Charles V Three anonymous masses form a codicological group at the end of Montserrat, Biblioteca del monestir 766 (MontsM 766), a manuscript thought by Herbert Kellman and others to be one of those compiled in 1524 in the workshop of Petrus Alamire to be sent to Charles V in Spain for the use of his chapel. 24 Once we have analyzed each mass, it will be possible to identify significant traits of their composers, to compare these compositional styles to one another, as well as to those of the composers of the other unascribed masses preserved in the Alamire manuscripts, and to place these masses in the context of the others in their only extant source, MontsM 766. MONTSM 766: CODICOLOGY, CONTENTS, DATING Table 5.1 shows the contents of MontsM 766. It is striking that six of the eleven masses or mass movements are based on works by Josquin. 25 Those remaining, with the 24 For a description of MontsM 766 and what follows, see Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 24, 114-15. 25 On the reception of Josquin?s music in Spain, see Robert Stevenson, ?Josquin in the Music of Spain and Portugal,? in Josquin des Prez. Proceedings of the International Josquin Festival-Conference held at The Juilliard School at Lincoln Center in New York City, 21-25 June 1971, ed. Edward E. Lowinsky, and Bonnie J. Blackburn (London: Oxford University Press, 1976), 17-246; Robert Snow, ?Toledo Cathedral MS Reservado 23,? The Journal of Musicology 2 (1983): 246-77; Bernadette Nelson, ?A 'Parody' on Josquin's Inviolata in Barcelona 1967: An Unknown Mass by Philippe Verdelot?? Journal of the Royal Musical Association 127 (2002): 153-190; Kenneth Kreitner, ?Ave festiva ferculis and Josquin's Spanish Reputation,? Journal of the Royal Musical Association 128 (2003): 1-29; Tess Knighton, ?Transmisi?n, difusi?n y recepci?n de la polifon?a franco-neerlandesa en el reino de Arag?n a principios del siglo XVI,? Artigrama: Revista del Departamento de Historia del Arte 12 (1996): 19-38; and Wagstaff, ?Mary's Own?: 3-34. 219 exception of Pipelare?s Missa Fors seulement, are specific to liturgical feasts and take Gregorian chants as cantus firmi. 26 FoliosComposerMassAnon in ms CanonicCantus firmus5 voices 1v-5[La Rue]Kyrie paschaleX X liturgicalX 6r [La Rue]Agnus de feriaX X liturgicalX 6v-18rForestierMissa Baise moy X JosquinX 19v-35vForestierMissa L?homme arm? super voces musicales X JosquinX 36v-56rLa RueMissa de Sancta Cruce32% free imitation liturgical + Josquin (Pleni sunt) X 57v-77r[Bruhier]Missa Hodie scietisX Isaac + JosquinX 78v-94rBarbireauMissa de Venerabili sacramento imitative openings liturgicalX 95v-111rPipelareMissa Fors seulementPipelareX 112v-134rAnonymousMissa de Assumptione beata Marie X imitative openings liturgicalX 135v-154rAnonymousMissa Cueur langoreulxX X JosquinX 155v-173rAnonymousMissa Memor estoX imitative openings JosquinX Table 5.1: Contents of MontsM 766 The codicological particularities of the Montserrat manuscript are important to our understanding of its contents, because it consists of fascicles copied at different times and pieced together later. Like many of the later Alamire codices, it is a large (550-55 x 385 mm) paper manuscript, except for two earlier parchment gatherings (ff. 6v-18r), which contain Mathurin Forestier?s five-voice Missa Baise moy. A brief musical phrase excerpted from the contratenor and bassus of the final Agnus Dei of Pierre de La Rue?s Missa de feria appears on folio 6r, but this fragment is included only as a result of it 26 Vincenzo Borghetti argues that Pipelare?s Missa Fors seulement was commissioned by the Burgundian- Habsburg court as a symbol of that dynasty?s glory between 1507 and 1515, so despite the fact that it seems not to fit with the other repertory in Montserrat 766, it was evidently of some importance to Charles V, and may even have been composed with his election to the position of Holy Roman Emperor in mind. See Vincenzo Borghetti, ?Il manoscritto, la messa, il giovane imperatore: La messa Fors seulement di Pipelare e la politica imperiale della Casa d'Austria,? Imago musicae: International Yearbook of Musical Iconography 20 (2003): 65-107. 220 having been copied earlier in the manuscript in the gathering with Forestier?s Missa Baise moy. 27 This detail has two interesting implications for the modus operandi of the workshop: 1) rather than being planned in advance and executed according to this plan, this manuscript (and probably not only this one) was compiled of fascicles copied independently and at different times; and 2) these scribes copied fascicles of music not only specifically for a particular codex, but also as entities that were to some extent interchangeable and could be destined for use at some future occasion. 28 The opening gathering (ff. 1-5), containing La Rue?s Kyrie paschale, though of paper and of the same size as the majority of the manuscript, is codicologically and paleographically dissimilar, suggesting that it also was copied either at a different time or was originally destined for a manuscript other than MontsM 766. Aside from a large calligraphic initial K, the first opening of La Rue?s Kyrie paschale is not decorated. Unlike most of the other first openings in the manuscript, this one contains no red text other than the title, which seems to have been hastily copied at a slant (the others are straight and written more neatly). Further, the first gathering differs in page preparation; while the other paper gatherings show prick marks and marginal rulings, the scribes of ff. 1-5 provided ruling only for the text. This codicological and paleographical evidence, together with the more ornate decoration that accompanies Forestier?s Missa L?homme arm?, and the obvious differences between the parchment folios and the rest of the 27 This is clear, because the fragment, the end of the contratenor and bassus voices of an Agnus Dei, was copied on a recto, and the opening of Forestier?s mass is on the verso of the same folio, the standard codicological arrangement for masses copied consecutively, not separated by a blank opening, in a manuscript in choirbook format. 28 This, along with other evidence to be discussed in Chapter 6, proves Charles Hamm?s famous hypothesis that, in the fifteenth century, music normally circulated between musical institutions in fascicle- manuscripts, and it suggests that Hamm?s explanation can be extended to include early sixteenth-century music as well. See Charles Hamm, ?Manuscript Structure in the Dufay Era,? Acta musicologica 34 (1962): 166-84. 221 manuscript, suggests that the first three works were copied at a different time, and probably by a different group of individuals, from the main body of the manuscript. Considering its gathering structure, decoration, and style, the manuscript?s original designer probably intended for it to open with Forestier?s Missa L?homme arm?; nevertheless, the binding is original, so we know that, at least by that last stage of manuscript production, the manuscript was conceived as one entity. If, as it seems, the manuscript was originally planned to open with Forestier?s Missa L?homme arm?, five out of eight compositions pay homage to Josquin, while the others were particularly meaningful to Charles V, or were composed for specific liturgical occasions. 29 Could the compilers of the codex, then, have meant it as an homage to Josquin, who died in 1521, as well as a source to be used by Charles V?s chapel? This explanation is logical, and though the earliest surviving archival reference to manuscripts prepared by Alamire for Charles is from 1524, the latter was in Spain from 1517 and was Holy Roman Emperor from 1519. Archival references are not detailed enough to match them with any extant manuscript, so MontsM 766 certainly may have been prepared for Charles V before 1524. 230 MontsM 766 is the work of several music and text scribes, most of whom were active in Alamire?s workshop during the 1520s; Flynn Warmington has identified them as 29 Pipelare?s Missa Fors seulement was in all likelihood composed for one or another engagement of Charles V?s siblings, Ferdinand to Anne of Hungary, Mary to Louis of Hungary, and Eleanor to Emanuel I of Portugal, according to Vincenzo Borghetti (Cf. note 226, above); Barbireau?s Missa Virgo parens Christi is titled Missa De venerabili sacramento in the manuscript, signifying its liturgical destination; and the anonymous Missa de Assumptione beata Marie is for the Assumption of the Virgin. 230 ?A Pierre Alamire pour plusieurs livres quil a faiz et livrez pour envoyer a lempereur pour sa chappelle par lettres du 15 davril 23 [o.s.] -- 200?.? Brussels, Archives g?n?rales du Royaume, Fonds des papiers d??tat et de l?Audience 873 (Revenus et D?penses de Charles-Quint, 1520-1530), f. 290. This document is also cited by Pinchart, ed., Archives, 237; Vander Straeten, La musique aux Pay-Bas, vol. 7, 343; Van Doorslaer, ?Calligraphes de musique, 91-101; and Schreurs, ?Petrus Alamire, 15-25. 222 D, F, K, and Z. 231 The parchment gatherings (ff. 6-18), however, were copied by Warmington?s scribe D, who was generally active between about 1512 and 1520, the period immediately preceding the one that saw the production of MontsM 766. That these two fascicles were included in the Montserrat manuscript from c. 1524 and copied by a different group of scribes, F, K, and Z, none of whom were active before about 1520, supports the hypothesis that there existed some continuity between two seemingly distinct periods of manuscript production. This manuscript is only one of many pieces of evidence that can lead us to a more complete understanding of this transition; other evidence will be explored in detail below (see Chapter 6, pp. 290-310). Unlike many of the Alamire manuscripts, MontsM 766 is plain, but has relatively accurate readings of its musical content, and consequently, was most likely intended for and used by performers?the chapel of Charles V in Spain. That, apart from gatherings two and three, the manuscript lacks elaborate decoration, was copied on paper, contains scribal mistakes such as notes crammed onto the ends of lines as well as numerous contemporary corrections to music and text, features rather careful text underlay, which many Alamire manuscripts do not, and contains repertory known to have been appreciated by Charles V, strongly suggests that MontsM 766 was in fact a codex intended for practical use by Charles V?s chapel. Though the three masses discussed here are all for five voices and are situated together at the end of the same manuscript, their unique source, the Missa Assumptione beata Marie is a straightforward cantus firmus mass, the Missa Cueur langoreulx is an 231 Warmington, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands,? 52. According to Warmington, the first fascicle, containing La Rue?s Easter Kyrie, was copied by Scribe K, who also copied the main body of the manuscript, the parchment gathering was copied by Scribe D, and Forestier?s Missa L?homme arm? was copied by Scribe F. 223 imitation mass that also features elements of a cantus firmus mass, and the Missa Memor esto is an imitation mass, with obvious borrowing of the entire polyphonic texture of the model. Since this group of masses was composed and copied during a time of transition between the long-established four-part polyphony and regular composition for five, six, or more voices, the anonymi?s approach to multi-voice composition is an indicator of date and influence, as well as of style. For example, in both the Missa Cueur langoreulx and its model, two of the five voices are in canon, and therefore they effectively create a four-part texture with one doubled voice. Likewise, in the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, a cantus firmus mass for five voices, the tenor presents the Gregorian plainchant in long notes that are rhythmically differentiated from the other four parts throughout the mass, producing a four-voice texture with an additional tenor. 232 In the previous generation of masses, canons tended not to be realized in the choirbook, in which four voices were distributed symmetrically across a single opening. That the scribes of MontsM 766 copied signa congruentiae (which must have appeared in the exemplar) and realized canons, therefore, is significant evidence that the canons were almost surely not written out in the exemplar, which may have reflected the composer?s own copy, and was definitely closer to the original version than the Montserrat manuscript. The layout for only four voices with signa congruentiae of the Agnus Dei of the Missa Cueur langoreulx (ff 153v-154r) verifies that the fifth voice was not realized in the exemplar. 232 Described respectively as ?4 engendering 5? and ?4 + 1? by Bonnie Blackburn, ?Josquin?s Chansons: Ignored and Lost Sources,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 29 (1976): 38. 224 The presence of signa congruentiae, as well as written-out canons, suggests that when MontsM 766 was prepared, probably around 1524, its scribes and the singers using it recognized that five-part composition was the emerging norm. That the scribes bothered to realize canons that were already indicated by signa congruentiae is another piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that MontsM 766 was prepared for practical use by a musical institution, rather than as a presentation manuscript. It cannot be assumed, however, that the composer of the mass did not conceive it as four voices engendering five, as described by Bonnie Blackburn, especially in light of the plausible argument that the exemplar of the Montserrat manuscript, and possibly earlier copies of the mass that no longer exist, featured four voices with signa congruentiae to indicate the fifth voice. With this in mind, Bonnie Blackburn?s description of five-part composition up to about 1515 as ?4 + 1 (=cantus firmus) or 4 engendering 5 (=canon)? becomes particularly interesting for the dating of these masses, since by the time they were copied into the Montserrat manuscript, it was typical practice, at least among this group of scribes, to write out canons. These five-voice canonic and cantus firmus masses, therefore, were likely composed after 1515 and certainly before 1524, the presumed date of copying of their source. If the manuscript was in fact compiled as a book of homage to Josquin, the possible dates of compositions for these masses narrows to about 1515 to 1521. As will be shown below, the style of all three masses supports this dating. 225 MISSA DE ASSUMPTIONE BEATA MARIE The Missa de Assumptione beata Marie and its Model The anonymous Missa de Assumptione beata Marie is based on the first antiphon for Lauds of the feast of the Assumption (15 August), Assumpta est Maria in caelum: gaudent Angeli, laudantes benedicunt Dominum. 23 We know that the antiphon is very old, because it appears in the earliest antiphoners. 234 The anonymous mass is one of only four known polyphonic mass settings of that antiphon in the sixteenth century, of which Pierre de la Rue?s setting for four voices seems to be the earliest. Interestingly, this mass also fits into a wider tradition of compositions on the antiphon, a surprisingly large proportion of which are by composers with connections to one of several institutions: the Burgundian-Habsburg court, the Spanish royal chapel, or both, and the papal courts of Pope Leo X and his successor, Clement VII (see Table 5.2). 235 23 The chant is edited in the Liber usualis, 1605; in the Antiphonale Monasticum, 1013; and in the Antiphonale Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae pro diurnis horis (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1919), 690. 234 A list of the earliest sources for Assumpta est Maria is in Ren?-Jean Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium officii (Rome: Herder, 1963-79), 6 vols., no. 1503. 235 The tradition of writing masses on this antiphon existed at various courts into the eighteenth century, as demonstrated by the masses by Marc-Antoine Charpentier (1699) for the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris (under Louis XIV) and Francisco Courcelle (1749), probably for the Spanish royal chapel under Ferdinand VI. 226 ComposerComposition 236 Vv.DateActiveSourcesRemarks Pierre de la Rue M. Assumpta est Maria 4 before 1506 237 Burgundy- Habsburg; Spain JenaU 22, VienNB 1783, SubA 248, AntP 18.13/2 AnonymousM. de Assumptione beata Marie 5 1500-30Burgundy- Habsburg; Spain? MontsM 766 Geert van Turnhout M. O Maria vernans rosa 5 before 1570 Antwerp Cathedral, Confraternity of our Lady; Spanish chapel RISM 1570 1 Written before he worked in Spain Pierluigi da Palestrina M. Assumpta est Maria 6 before 1585/6 Cappellae Giulia, Sistina, S. Giovanni Laterano, S. Maria Maggiore, Villa d?Este Vat S 76Julius III, Marcellus II, Paul IV; Ippolito II d?Este Marc- Antoine Charpentier M. Assumpta est Maria 6 + instr 1699?Sainte-ChapelleF-Pn Vm 1942 Under Louis XIV Francisco Courcelle M. Assumpta est Maria 6 1749Parma, SpainE-Mp Robert Wilkinson Salve Regina9 1490- 1502 Eton CollegeEtonC 178 ?Eton Choirbk.? cf=Assum -pta est Maria Jean ConseilAssumpta est Maria 4 Sainte-Chapelle, Leo X, Clement VII, Cambrai BolC Q20 Constanzo Festa Vidi speciosam6 1517-45?Leo X, Clement VIIVatS 20, PadBC A17 Franchinus Gaffurius Assumpta est Maria 4 after 1490Milan CathedralMilD 4 Jacquet of Mantua Assumpta est Maria 5 1539Este, Mantua, Ercole Cardinal Gonzaga (papal legate to Charles V) CasAC C, PiacD, Jacheti musici ? motecta quinque vocum (Venice, 1539) Praised by Leo X, Clement VII Ludwig Senfl Assumpta est Maria 4 1504-31Maximilian, Charles V, Ferdinand, Wilhelm IV RegB C120, ZwiR 81/2 Jheronimus Vinders Assumpta est Maria 5 before 1545 GhentRISM 1545 3 Pierluigi da Palestrina Assumpta est Maria 6 236 Items not identified as masses or Alleluias are motets. 237 See Meconi, Pierre de la Rue, 98. 227 Carlo Gesualdo Assumpta est Maria 6 1603Ferrara-Este, family appt. by Philip II (1560), Venice Sacrarum Cantionum Com- pleted by Stravinsky 1957-9 Giovanni Paolo Clima Assumpta est Maria 8 1610MilanRISM 1610 1 S Maria presso, S Celso Claudio Merulo Maria virgo Assumpta est 6 1605Venice, Ferrara, Parma Il terzo libro de mottetti a sei voci (Venice: Gardano, 1605); D- Mbs mus. 265 (organ tablature) Madrigals performed at Portu- guese royal wedding Peter PhilipsAssumpta est Maria 5 1612Antwerp, Brussels- Archduke Albert, Isabella of Spain Cantiones Sacrae Quinis Vocibus Sigismondo D?India Assumpta est Maria 4 1627Rome-Cardinal Maurizio of Savoy & Pope Urban VIII, Modena-Este, Maximilian of Bavaria Liber primus motec- torum Francesco Feroci Assumpta est Maria 1673- 1750 Florence CathedralI Fc Antonio Mazzoni Assumpta est Maria 2, inst1717-85BolognaI-Nc Alonso de Alba Alleluia Assumpta est Maria 3 1497- 1522 Queen Isabella, Juana; Philip the Fair TarazC 2-3 Heinrich Isaac Alleluia Assumpta est Maria 4 1509MaximilianChoralis Constantin us Francisco Garro Alleluia, ego vos elegi/Assumpta est Maria 8 1609Spain-Valladolid, Portugal-royal chapel, Siguenza Cathedral GB-Lbl, P- Cug, Braga, Arquivo da Universida de do Minho Dedicated to Philip III William Byrd Assumpta est Maria 5 1540- 1623 EnglandGradulia Thomas Stoltzer Assumpta est Maria 4 1520s?Mary of Hungary (daughter of Ph) ZwiR 81/2 Guillaume Bouzignac Assumpta est Maria 8 1587- 1642 France-Louis XIII Spain F-Pn fonds latin 16831 Table 5.2: Distribution of Compositions on Assumpta est Maria 238 238 Much of the information in Table 5.2 was derived from articles in Sadie and Tyrrell, eds., The New Grove. 228 Of the four sixteenth-century masses on Assumpta est Maria, three are by composers associated with the court of Burgundy-Habsburg. These are Pierre de la Rue?s four-voice Missa Assumpta est Maria, the anonymous five-voice Missa de Assumptione beata Marie under discussion here, and a five-voice Missa O Maria vernans rosa by Geert van Turnhout (composed before 1570). Apart from the two much later masses by Charpentier and Courcelle (see note 10 above), only the six-voice setting by Palestrina (likely composed before 1585/6) has no apparent connection to Burgundy. 239 In addition to the well-known fact that Pierre de la Rue was a singer in the Burgundian-Habsburg court chapel and one of that court?s most prolific composers, his setting of Assumpta est Maria appears only in manuscripts associated with the court. The earliest of these, JenaU 22 and VienNB 1783, were copied by the same scribe, called ?B1? by Herbert Kellman, probably between 1500 and 1505. 240 These manuscripts are further related by their near-identical codicological features and similar repertory. The two manuscripts have ten (out of fourteen total compositions in JenaU 22) works in common, many of them by La Rue, and both are unquestionably connected to the court. Based on its codicological and paleographic characteristics, the third source of La Rue?s mass, the Antwerp fragment AntP M 18.13/1, seems to have been prepared during the 239 Significantly, Palestrina composed masses on this antiphon and on Memor esto, another model for a mass to be discussed in this chapter. Exploration of these works and the possible connection between Palestrina?s compositions and those in Montserrat 766 unearth a possible relationship between the repertory in this manuscript and the papal chapel. 240 Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 21, 107, cat. no. 39, 141. The Jena manuscript was eventually acquired by Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony, while the Vienna manuscript was prepared for Philip the Fair?s sister-in-law, Maria of Spain, and her husband, Emanuel I of Portugal. Interestingly, another codex from a later period of manuscript production, Mechelen AS s.s., contains Pipelare?s Missa Fors seulement, a mass which also appears in MontsM 766 and which may have been written for the engagement of Emanuel I of Portugal to Eleanor, Philip the Fair?s daughter and thus the niece of Emanuel?s former wife, Maria. Cf. notes 226 and 229 above. 229 1510s in the workshop of Petrus Alamire. 241 The final source, SubA 248 was copied much later, probably in the early 1520s, for an unknown recipient, though it was prepared by scribes associated with Petrus Alamire, and it contains only works by La Rue, a feature shared by five other manuscripts with sure connections to the court. 242 That all surviving sources for La Rue?s setting can be connected to the Burgundian-Habsburg court is firm evidence that La Rue?s mass was of particular value to that house. The exact relationship between the anonymous Assumption mass and that of La Rue, if any exists, is difficult to determine. Though the anonymous setting was surely composed well after that of La Rue, the anonymous composer was more conservative in his presentation of the cantus firmus, which appears in long notes in the tenor throughout (except in the Credo, where it appears in long notes in the altus). La Rue, on the other hand, subjects the antiphon to transposition, paraphrase, and variation, as is common in his masses. The version of the antiphon set by La Rue is different from that used by the anonymous composer, because the first two phrases end on the fourth degree rather than the third, and the melody of his third phrase (laudantes benedicunt Dominum) matches neither that of the anonymous mass nor that in modern editions of the chant. 243 In the anonymous mass, there are a few instances where a note here or there is changed, or the distribution of antiphon text does not match that in the Liber usualis. For example, in the Christe, the anonymous composer conflates phrases B and C of the model. Still, his 241 Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 52.2, 166. 242 Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 32, 124. 243 See Pierre de La Rue, Opera omnia, ed. Nigel St. John Davison, J. Evan Kreider, T. Herman Keahey, vol. 1. Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 97/1 (Stuttgart: H?nssler-Verlag, AIM, 1989), xli. Davison recognizes that La Rue?s version adheres more closely to that presented in the Antiphonale Pataviense [Passau] (f. 196r), used in the region of Vienna and Wiener Neustadt, and some earlier chant sources. See Karlheinz Schlager, Antiphonale Pataviense: (Wien 1519), Faksimile (Kassel : B?renreiter, 1985). Likewise, a similar relationship exists between La Rue?s Missa de septem doloribus and an anonymous mass on the same subject that immediately follows La Rue?s setting in BrusBR 215-216, which sets a different version of the same cantus firmus used by La Rue in his setting. 230 straightforward presentation of the antiphon resembles almost exactly the version presented in the modern chant editions. Though Geert van Turnhout?s most obvious Burgundian-Habsburg connection was his position as maistro di capilla of the Capilla Flamenca in Spain under Philip II, he must have composed Missa O Maria vernans rosa before he began his engagement in Madrid in 1571, since it was already printed in 1570. 24 He spent the earlier part of his career in Flanders, at the Cathedral of Our Lady in Antwerp (where Alamire is known to have had connections) and the Church of Saint Gummarus in Lier (Low Countries). 245 Turnhout is known to have composed at least one work for a member of the Burgundian- Habsburg line, Margaret of Parma (of Austria from 1533), an illegitimate daughter of Emperor Charles V. 246 Turnhout composed his Te Deum for Margaret of Austria?s entry into Antwerp in 1564. She was raised, in part, in Mechelen at the court of her great aunt, also Margaret of Austria, and like her namesake, the later Margaret acted as governor of the Low Countries from 1559 to 1567 (under Philip II, her half brother). Evidently Turnhout was known and esteemed as a composer at the later sixteenth-century Burgundian-Habsburg courts. Other works on the antiphon that are contemporary to our anonymous mass include motets by Jean Conseil (Assumpta est Maria) and Constanzo Festa (Vidi speciosam), both of whom worked at some point in their careers in the Sistine Chapel (in the chapels of Popes Leo X and Clement VII); a motet by Ludwig Senfl (Assumpta est 24 RISM 1570 1 , Praestantissimorum divinae musices auctorum missae decem, quator, quinquae et sex vocum, antehac nunquam excusae. Quorum novina versa pagina invenies. Louvain: P. Phal?se and J. Bell?re, Feb. 1570. 245 Lavern J. Wagner: ?Turnhout, Geert van,? in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition, ed. Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell (London: Macmillan, 2001), vol. 25, 933. 246 For more on Margaret of Parma, see Seishiro Niwa, ??Madama? Margaret of Parma?s Patronage of Music,? Early Music 33 (2005): 25-37. 231 Maria), whose Burgundian connections are numerous, since he worked for Maximilian I, tried to get a job at the courts of Charles V and his brother Ferdinand, King of Bohemia and Hungary, later Holy Roman Emperor from 1558, and finally settled at the Bavarian court of Wilhelm IV, a cousin of Maximilian I; polyphonic alleluias from the Choralis Constantinus by Heinrich Isaac, who also worked at Maximilian I?s court, and Alonso de Alba, who remained in Philip the Fair?s Flemish chapel after Philip?s death and was royal chaplain and sacristan to Philip?s mother-in-law Queen Isabella and his wife, Juana of Castile; and a polyphonic antiphon by Thomas Stoltzer, who worked at the court of Mary of Hungary, daughter of Philip the Fair and sister of Charles V. The distribution of sixteenth-century polyphonic compositions on Assumpta est Maria is a significant and fascinating piece of evidence of the musical connection between these courts. Structure, Mode, and Borrowing in the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie This composer transmitted his model simply and faithfully in long notes in tenor 1 (altus in the Credo). Each of the five major mass sections carries at least one complete statement of the cantus firmus (see Table 5.3, and Example 5.1, below, for this paragraph and what follows). The contrapuntal voices also carry material, short motives as well as longer melodies, derived from the antiphon. Mass sections scored for fewer than the full complement of five voices do not present the model. 232 Example 5.1: Assumpta est Maria, Liber usualis 247 Mass Section Phrase of c.f. C.f. textVoiceScoringHMFinalMensuration KYRIE G Kyrie IA Assumpta est Maria in celum T1SCTTBXG O ChristeB Gaudent angeli laudantes T1SCTTBC Cut C Kyrie IIA-B-CAssumpta est Maria in celum Gaudent angeli laudantes benedicunt dominum T1SCTTBXG O GLORIA G Et in terraA-B-CAssumpta est Maria in celum Gaudent angeli laudantes benedicunt dominum T1SCTTBarricanorXG O Qui tollisA-BAssumpta est Maria in celum Gaudent angeli T1SCTTBC Cut C Cum sancto spiritu C Laudantes benedicunt dominum T1SCTTBG ? CREDO G PatremA-B-CAssumpta est Maria in celum Gaudent angeli laudantes benedicunt dominum A ASCTBXG O Et incarnatus est SC G Cut C Crucifixus TB G Cut C A-B-CAssumpta est Maria in celum Gaudent angeli laudantes benedicunt dominum A (x)(C)Cut CEt resurrexit (Confiteor) A-B-CAssumpta est Maria in celum Gaudent angeli laudantes benedicunt dominum A ASCTB G Cut C3 247 This example is taken from the Liber usualis, 1605. 233 SANCTUS G SanctusA-B-CAssumpta est Maria in celum Gaudent angeli laudantes benedicunt dominum T1SCTTBG O Pleni sunt SCB G Cut C OsannaA-B-CAssumpta est Maria in celum Gaudent angeli laudantes benedicunt dominum S & T1 SCTTB(x)G ?3 + black notation Benedictus SCTBG Cut C AGNUS DEI G Agnus DeiA-B-CAssumpta est Maria in celum Gaudent angeli laudantes benedicunt dominum T1 & T2 SCTTTBG O Table 5.3: Cantus firmus Distribution, Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie Text in italics=setting in black notation in manuscript The Missa Assumpta de beata Marie, like its model, is firmly situated on G; all major mass movements cadence on G, while some interior sections cadence on C, the fourth degree of the mode. It seems as though the composer chose the fourth, rather than the usual fifth degree for internal cadences, in order to create a suspension and the opportunity for modulation back to G for the final cadence. Only four sections (Kyrie II, Et in terra, Qui tollis, Patrem) have a third in the final cadence, and the duos and trios (Et incarnatus est, Crucifixus, Pleni sunt) end on unison Gs. As is common to masses of this period (including the Missae Cueur langoreulx and Memor esto, to be discussed below), the cleffing is consistently c1-c3-c4-c4-f4, except in the Patrem and Sanctus, in which one voice (tenor 1 and contratenor, respectively), switches from c4 to c3 in the course of the section. 234 Polytextuality in the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie The polytextuality of the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie is one of its most noteworthy characteristics, and one with obvious implications for the edition and performance of this and other masses that feature a text other than that of the Mass Ordinary. The question of multiple texts is also important to our understanding of the scribal practices and the performance practices at the Burgundian-Habsburg court, where these masses originated, and at the Spanish court of Emperor Charles V. The practice of multiple texting has its origins, of course, in the thirteenth-century motet, and it continued to develop during the Middle Ages and Renaissance as the motet evolved into the isorhythmic motet, which can be seen as a predecessor to the cantus firmus mass, as well as in textual tropes to the Mass. Alejandro Planchart explains that the tradition probably reached its fifteenth-century form when Continental musicians and scribes apparently misunderstood the polyphonic English repertory?which often featured tenors with Ordinary and cantus firmus texts, of which only one or the other was likely performed at a time?that they were imitating or copying. 248 One musician in the chapel of Philip the Bold of Burgundy, Johannes Franchois de Gembloux (fl. c. 1415-30), wrote a polytextual Credo (Alma redemptoris mater), which may be the impetus for the later fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Burgundian practice that would culminate in the repertory transmitted by Alamire and his colleagues. The sole source for the Missa Assumptione de beata Marie, MontsM 766, transmits the incipits of the Ordinary text along with the entire antiphon text in the first tenor (except in the Credo, in which the altus presents the cantus firmus). As is common in the Alamire manuscripts, the four contrapuntal voices present some form of the incipit 248 Planchart, ?Parts With Words and Without Words,? 244-47. 235 of the cantus firmus, ?Assumpta est Maria,? as an indication of identity only on the first opening of the mass. (The title of the mass, ?Missa de Assumptione beata Marie,? also appears on folio 112v). 249 Whether this polytextuality reflects a scribal tradition or a compositional one, or perhaps one that arose out of performance, it is a feature common to masses in the Alamire manuscripts over a period of at least a decade and is reflected in the work of different groups of scribes that may or may not have ever worked in the same place at the same time. 250 The most interesting question regarding the multiple texts is of course whether they were both performed, if so, how, and if not, which one was. In masses based on secular models, even though the cantus firmus text is normally absent and would probably not have been performed even if present, the meaning of the words is implied through clear statements of the melody that accompanies them in the original (for example, see the discussion of Missa Cueur langoreulx, pp. 245-62, below). In those polytextual masses with liturgical cantus firmi, it is indeed possible, and would not have been at all inappropriate, for several tenors to split the part, some singing the Ordinary text and others that of the model. In fact, we know that this mass was performed with several singers on a part (including the cantus-firmus-bearing tenor), because of the divisi on the final chords in the Et in terra (T2 x 2), Cum sancto spiritu (T1 x 2), Osanna (T2 x 3), and Agnus Dei (S x 2). 251 This aspect of the Assumption mass is of consequence for 249 The presence of these practical characteristics supports the argument for performance rather than presentation as the function of this manuscript. 250 Other polytextual masses copied by the later group of Alamire scribes include two masses for the feast of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin (one by Pierre de La Rue, in BrusBR mss 215-16, 6428, and 15075, JenaU 4, VatS 36, and VienNB Mus. 18832, and one anonymous, which is unique to Brus215-216); Missa Miserere mihi in MunBS 6 (Tenor 1 and Bassus 2 feature the cantus firmus text, ?Miserere michi domine. Et exaudi orationem meam,? in red ink, without Ordinary text). 251 For information on the performance practice of polyphony in the fifteenth century, see David Fallows?s important article, ?Specific Information,? 109-59. Fallows?s method, a simultaneous study of court records 236 its performance, certainly, but also probably for the performance practice of other masses in the Montserrat manuscript, and possibly for other masses by composers of this generation. Although the Alamire scribes were not often prudent in their underlay of text, in MontsM 766, probably because it may have been meant to be used in performance, the scribes produced logical text underlay, which we can, with few exceptions, confidently follow. In the Assumption mass, the cantus firmus text must have been intended to be performed by the first tenor. It fits the long-note tenor melodies perfectly, to which the Mass Ordinary text cannot easily be set to the melody. The cantus firmus text is distributed precisely and syllabically under the antiphon melody in the manuscript, and the melody suggests the underlay unambiguously, so it follows naturally that the antiphon text takes priority. The scribes were less clear in texting the first folios of the mass; it appears that perhaps both cantus firmus and Ordinary text could be performed, but it becomes clear at the opening of the Gloria that the Ordinary text functions only as an incipit, in other words to identify the Mass section. After the Kyrie, the scribes ceased to provide consistently even the identifying incipit, though most major mass sections (Kyrie, Et in terra, Patrem, Osanna, Agnus Dei) do carry the antiphon incipit. 252 Evidently, at least according to these scribes, the mass is polytextual. The cantus-firmus-bearing voice (or voices, in certain sections) sings the antiphon text, while the other voices perform the text of the Mass Ordinary. and the music itself, should be applied to the early sixteenth century to learn how many singers may have performed each part of these masses and other music of the same period. 252 There is no incipit in the tenor of the Sanctus (ff. 127v-128r), though the Osanna (ff. 130v-131r) presents an interesting anomaly. Apparently the text scribe copied the Ordinary incipit first, and he (or a colleague) had to go back later and squeeze the antiphon text in around the single statement of Osanna. The text scribe in question is the same who copied the text for the bassus, on f. 131r, but is different from the one who underlaid the discantus and second tenor, both of which are on f. 130v along with the first tenor, and the contratenor, which appears on f. 131r with the bassus. 237 Cantus firmus Treatment and Counterpoint in the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie The anonymous Missa Assumpta est Maria is a highly unified composition, characterized by very simple constructional elements, such as short motives that are repeated and often presented along with more complex contrapuntal procedures, such as the frequent use of double canon. The first three movements (Kyrie, Gloria, and Credo) are unified by a common imitative opening, which outlines the opening phrase of the chant and functions as a head motive. 253 Other conventional features of the mass, such as the faithful presentation of the cantus firmus in long notes in the tenor (altus in the Credo), and the intensely motivic imitative writing, suggest that this composer was a traditionalist, at least in this work. The mass is not entirely retrospective, however, since the manner in which the composer weaves the cantus firmus material through different contrapuntal voices in the mass reflects normal sixteenth-century practice. Rather than providing scaffolding, the cantus firmus permeates the mass texture. The melody cited by this composer is simply a rhythmic and melodic elaboration of the plainchant melody. The occasional presence of a third in the final cadence, passages of paired duos, frequent alternation between imperfect and perfect tempus, and syllabic passages with repeated notes that project the text clearly, are other qualities that reflect an up-to-date composer. The Kyrie provides a clear example of this composer?s style, specifically his consistent presentation of the cantus firmus in long notes, highly motivic writing characteristic of this mass, wide ranges, and frequent octave leaps (see Example 5.2, 253 The term head motive is used loosely here; the openings of each movement are not identical in all voices, though the same basic melody presented in imitation in all movements provides a strong sense of unity in this mass. 238 Kyrie, in appendix). Kyrie I is constructed of three recurring melodies presented in imitation between the four contrapuntal voices. Labeled a, b, and c, here, these melodies are simply rhythmic and melodic elaborations of the three corresponding phrases of the plainchant melody, and are presented on different scale degrees (see Example 5.3, below). The first melody, a, the head motive of the mass, is stated in the contratenor, tenor 2, bassus, and superius before appearing in long notes in tenor 1. After a clear cadence on C in m. 13, the superius introduces a repeated descending line that we hear three times (superius, tenor 2, bassus) before it gives way to counterpoint in the outer pairs of voices at m. 17. That counterpoint quickly deteriorates into repetitive statements of two successive short dotted rhythmic figures, x and y. Motive x, the ascending, 3-note dotted figure that first appears in the Kyrie, Example 5.2, mm. 2-3 in the contratenor, is a common ending to themes A and B, and we hear it or its inversion (descending) no less than 22 times in the 27 breves of the first Kyrie. Likewise, motive y, a dotted quarter note followed by three eighth notes, appears in both ascending and descending form (tenor 2, mm. 8-9). It surfaces 18 times in the same section. While certainly not uncommon, these motives are the basis of the more significant melodic content that defines this mass, and they are impressive in that they truly overwhelm the texture. Example 5.3.1: Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, Melody a Example 5.3.2: Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, Melody b Example 5.3.2: Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, Melody c 239 The four contrapuntal voices open the Christe in imitation on a motive that recalls themes B and C and closes on a series of descending major thirds that foreshadow the ascending thirds opening the Qui tollis and Sanctus. In mm. 48 through 52, a series of octave leaps in the tenor 2 is remarkable. The Kyrie II again opens with the head motive borrowing the beginning of the chant and, like Kyrie I, presents phrases A and B and revolves around a few simple motives that fill the texture. From m. 92 to the end, a series of sequences in the superius on motive x and a gradual diminution of note values in the upper three voices, result in a tour de force to the end. The Et in terra provides a fine example of the intensity of this anonymous composer?s imitative and sequential writing (see Example 5.4, Gloria, in appendix). In this section, the anonymous composer alternates between imitative phrases that border on the extravagant and freer contrapuntal passages that serve either to bridge them or that quickly dissolve into cadences. The section opens with a canonic duo between superius/contratenor and tenor 2/bassus, each pair presenting a canonic duo on the head motive (mm. 1-7 and mm. 7-13). A four-measure cadential phrase then leads to the tenor 1?s entrance with the cantus firmus at m. 16. Like the music, the Ordinary text is divided into clear phrases, so there is little question as to how the text should be underlaid. The introductory canonic duos present Et in terra pax hominibus, and bone voluntatis is sung by all four contrapuntal voices at the end of that section. On Laudamus te (mm. 16-18), the four contrapuntal voices, leaving the long cantus firmus to tenor 1, set off on a vigorous presentation of short figures in very close overlapping imitation, and they continue in this manner to the cadence on A in m. 26. Another bout of intense imitation follows (mm. 28-32), at propter magnam 240 gloriam, then the voices dissolve into freer counterpoint before they cadence on tuam on G in m. 34, where the tenor simultaneously enters with phrase B of the cantus firmus. After Domine Deus, Rex celestis is set by regal scalar passages that cadence firmly on C in m. 40. The composer again heightens the excitement with a series of condensed imitative sequences, on Deus Pater omnipotens. Domine (mm. 40-47). He appropriately slows down the harmonic rhythm and moves into a more homophonic texture at Fili unigenite, as is relatively common in masses of this period, then speeds back up at mm. 50-54 for a magnificent presentation of Jesu Christe. One final imitative section, on Domine Deus, Agnus Dei follows, and finally, the music to Filius Patris drives emphatically to the final cadence on G. In the Credo, an altus voice, unique to this movement, carries a complete statement of the cantus firmus in each of the subsections scored for all five voices (see Table 5.3, above). The Et incarnatus est and Crucifixus, both duos, do not present the cantus firmus. Apart from these structural differences, the motivic, imitative style of the Credo is like the rest of this mass. It is more melismatic than typical Credos of the period (Cf., for example, Chapter 3, pp. 73-76, and Chapter 4, pp. 171-76 and 208-09). The Patrem opens, as do the Kyrie and Gloria, with an imitative statement of the polyphonic head motive. Throughout this section, the three lower voices often form a contrapuntal and textural unit, distinct from the superius melody and emphasizing the altus cantus firmus presentation, as at visibilium omnium (see Example 5.5, Credo, in appendix, mm. 13-18) and consubstantialem Patri (see Example 5.5, Credo, mm. 46-52). The similar texture and simple counterpoint among the lower voices emphasizes the first entry of the altus in the first example, and the entry of the altus on cantus firmus phrase C 241 in the second. Following the first example, the contratenor and bassus pair continues in a supportive contrapuntal role through the end of the altus statement of cantus firmus phrase A, and through to the cadence on G at unigenitum (mm. 20-27). Between the end of the altus statement and the next phrase of mass text, a dotted descending figure presented in close imitation among the superius, contratenor, and tenor on Filium Dei drives to the cadence at m. 27. The cantus firmus-bearing voice rests at mass text phrases that emphasize the father: Patrem omnipotentem, factorem celi et terre (mm. 1-12), Filium Dei unigenitum. Et ex Patre natum ante omnia secula (mm. 24-32), and Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri (mm. 40-45). The Et incarnatus est and Crucifixus are both imitative duos at the fifth, the former between the upper voices (superius/contratenor), and the latter between the lower voices (tenor/bassus). Both are relatively melismatic and feature text repetition, especially emphasizing ex Maria virgine et homo factus est in the Et incarnatus est, and et sepultus est in the Crucifixus. Neither present the cantus firmus, although motives derived from the cantus firmus melody are evident. The Et resurrexit is divided into two subsections at Confiteor, with a change of mensuration, modality, and texture. The Et resurrexit opens with an imitative statement of the polyphonic head motive common to the first three movements of this mass, but the four non cantus firmus-bearing voices become relatively homophonic at the first entry of the altus with the cantus firmus, at m. 127. The cantus firmus text here, Assumpta est Maria in celum, coincides with the mass text Et ascendit in celum, to which the composer writes an ascending dotted figure in the superius and tenor (mm. 130-132) and an ascending octave leap in the bassus (m. 130). 242 The lively counterpoint on Et iterum ventures est cum Gloria (mm. 138-146) gives way to a striking passage constructed of slow-moving descending thirds that are passed among all four contrapuntal voices, emphasizing judicare (mm. 146-150), and which lead to a brief transitional passage featuring a dotted, scalar figure in the superius, contratenor, and tenor. The cadence on G in m. 154 coincides with the altus entrance with cantus firmus phrase B, accompanied by imitative counterpoint in the other four voices. Sequential statements of similar motives in the superius, contratenor, and tenor, accompanied by a slow-moving cadential figure in the bassus, move the modality from G to A and prepare for the cantus firmus phrase C statement in the altus at m. 174 (mm. 168-174). Another series of imitative sequences on descending third motives ensues on Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit and continuing to the cadence on G in m. 189. The simple, homophonic passage that follows (mm. 189-194) is an effective stylistic and modal transition to the homophonic Confiteor in Cut C3 (proportio sesquialtera), which begins in mode C. Like the Et resurrexit, the Confiteor also presents all three phrases of the cantus firmus. The entire subsection is homophonic and in long notes, resulting in extremely clear text declamation. Here, the composer uses descending and ascending thirds, fourths, and fifths, as he does often in this mass, to construct his melodies, as at Et expecto Resurrexionem (mm. 205-209). Confiteor is notated in black in all four contrapuntal voices (mm. 196-197), as is mortuorum in the three lowest voices (mm. 211-212), both instances resulting in a homophonic presentation of three equal imperfect breves, essentially producing hemiola. A long, glorious, majestic major triad on D leads to the 243 final cadence on G, at seculi. Amen in the contrapuntal voices, and on Domini in the altus (mm. 217-220). The Sanctus opens not with the polyphonic head motive, but with an imitative triad presented in long notes in all four contrapuntal voices, on C and G that, in effect, outlines the head motive that opened the first three mass movements (see Example 5.6, Sanctus, in appendix, mm. 1-4). The next passage emphasizes first G, then C, leading to the tenor entrance with the cantus firmus at m. 11, which is accompanied throughout by four-voice imitative counterpoint. The Pleni sunt, an imitative, melismatic trio for superius, contratenor, and bassus does not present the cantus firmus. Likewise, the Benedictus, a quartet comprised of alternating duos which present the same music (tenor 1/bassus and superius/contratenor), does not carry cantus firmus material. The mass composer evidently went to great pains to emphasize the Osanna, which was to be repeated after the Benedictus. As mentioned above, it is the only section of the Sanctus in which the scribe presents the incipit of the Mass Ordinary text, and where the music is presented in black notation throughout, in addition to its mensuration ?3, effectively producing a livelier tempo. 254 While many of the composers of other masses discussed in this dissertation used a change in meter to lend weight to the Sanctus (see pp. 22 and 25, below), this composer emphasizes the importance of the Osanna, because it, and not the Sanctus, opens with a variation on the head motive heard in the Kyrie, Gloria, and Credo. Even more impressive is the appearance of the cantus firmus in two of the five voices; the superius is in canon with the tenor 1 at the interval of two 254 Whereas the cantus firmus-bearing tenor (or altus) is often presented in black notes (see italicized text in Table 5.3), the Osanna is the only section in which all five voices are in black notation. The composer or scribes, or both, may have intended this notational peculiarity as an allusion to Christ?s crucifixion. 244 breves, so even though scribes seem to have instinctively entered (or copied) the Ordinary text under the superius, it is the antiphon text that fits the melody. The Single Statement of the Agnus Dei in the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie The three masses that close MontsM 766 share, in addition to their basic cantus firmus treatment and similar cleffing discussed above, one other striking feature: each has only one statement of the Agnus Dei. In that of Missa Assumptione de beata Marie, the composer expands the five-voice texture of the mass to six voices by adding a third tenor, while tenors 1 and 2 present the cantus firmus in canon at the fourth and at an interval of two breves. Apart from the Osanna, this is the only time in this mass when the cantus firmus appears in two voices simultaneously, and the effect is powerful. The first tenor enters with its presentation of the cantus firmus after a joyful six-measure double canon (between superius / contratenor and tenor 3 / bassus), the music of which is constructed from the same motivic elements that recur throughout the mass (x and y, see p. 238, above, and Example 5.7, Agnus Dei, in appendix). The entire section rejoices. Conclusions Despite the simple devices employed by this anonymous composer, his archaic, straightforward cantus firmus treatment, and the repetitive nature of his persistent imitation, Missa Assumptione beata Marie is a mass of extraordinary beauty. The simplicity of the composer?s material, and his repeated use of a few melodic and rhythmic motives?both alone and as building blocks of larger themes?do not detract from the quality of the music; on the contrary, these features serve to unify the 245 composition in a way that consistently provides points of reference, while maintaining variety. To listen to this mass is immensely satisfying. MISSA CUIER LANGOUREULX The Missa Cueur langoureulx and its Model by Josquin Like many of the masses in MontsM 766, the five-voice Missa Cueur langoreulx, which is unique to this source, is of particular interest, because its composer chose as his model a chanson by Josquin des Prez. Missa Cueur langoreulx is fundamentally important as the earliest surviving source of Josquin?s chanson. Chanson masses date back to the mid-fifteenth century, and to choose a vernacular song as the model for a mass was not at all unusual in the early sixteenth century. 25 In fact, some chanson masses, such as Guillaume Du Fay?s Missa Se la face ay pale and the masses on L?homme arm?, cite songs that have been shown not to be secular and to be rich in symbolism, 256 and it is thus reasonable to consider whether other chansons whose melodies were borrowed by mass composers were also vernacular, but not secular. The practice of setting a vernacular chanson in a mass was deeply rooted in 25 On chanson masses, see Mary Jennifer Bloxam, ?A Cultural Context for the Chanson Mass,? in Early Musical Borrowing, ed. Honey Meconi (New York: Routledge, 2004), 7-35; and eadem, ?Masses Based on Polyphonic Songs and Canonic Masses,? in The Josquin Companion, ed. Richard Sherr (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 151-209, esp. 176. 256 See Anne Walters Robertson, "The Man with the Pale Face, the Relic, and Du Fay's Missa Se la face ay pale," Society for Music Theory, American Musicological Society, Nashville 2008 6-9 November, Program & Abstracts (Brunswick, ME: American Musicological Society, 2008), 120-21, in which she demonstrates that the chanson text of Se la face ay pale came directly from an account of Christ?s Passion in the vernacular, so it is not a secular song at all. See Alejandro Planchart, ?Guillaume Dufay?s Masses: A View of the Manuscript Traditions,? in Papers Read at the Dufay Quincentenary Conference: Proceedings of the Conference Held at Brooklyn College, New York, December 6-7, 1974, ed. Allan W. Atlas (New York: CUNY, 1976), 26-60, esp. 37-43; Flynn Warmington, ?The Ceremony of the Armed Man: The Sword, the Altar, and the L'homme arm? Mass,? in Antoine Busnoys: Method, Meaning, and Context in Late Medieval Music, ed. Paula Higgins (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 89-130; and Rob C. Wegman, ?Another ?Imitation? of Busnoy?s Missa L?homme arm??and Some Observations on Imitatio in Renaissance Music,? Journal of the Royal Musical Association 114 (1989): 189-202. 246 an established tradition by the sixteenth century; in many cases the vernacular model had symbolic meaning to a patron, and that meaning was transferred to the mass. Why the anonymous composer chose this song, however, is less obvious, since the surviving source situation does not suggest that it was at all familiar when the mass was composed, either in the Low Countries, where the manuscript was copied, or in Spain, where it was presumably used. 257 Because the polyphonic chansons on which sixteenth-century masses were based were courtly songs meant for consumption by elite audiences, we may consider whether Cueur langoreulx, and thus the Missa Cueur langoureulx, had special meaning to the individual or court, or perhaps the singers of the chapel, for whom the manuscript was destined. Josquin?s chanson survives only in posthumous sources that are later in date than the Montserrat manuscript, which is not unusual for Josquin?s five- and six-voice chansons. Cueur langoreulx is preserved in four prints that span the sixteenth century: Nicol? del Judici?s Messa motteti canzoni of c. 1526; Susato?s 1545 Le septiesme livre contenant vingt et quatre chansons a cincq et a six parties?; Attaingnant?s 1549 (=1550 n.s.) Trente sixieme livre contenant xxx. Chansons tres musicales, a quatre, cinq et six parties?; and LeRoy & Ballard, Mellange de chansons? of 1572. Both Attaingnant and Le Roy & Ballard based their anthologies on Susato?s of 1545. 258 Thus, apart from the mass in MontsM 766, we have only two different sources for the chanson: Nicol? del Judici?s 1526 print, and the group of related northern European prints. Because all of the 257 To my knowledge, the only other composition on Cueur langoreulx is Clemens non Papa?s four-voice chanson, Cueur langoruelx. Its sole surviving source is RISM 1549 29 . Though it opens with the same motive used by Josquin, Clemens treated it differently, and his chanson is based on a completely different version of the poem. See Clemens non Papa, Jacobus, Opera Omnia, ed. K.P. Bernet Kempers, Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 4 (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1951), 10: 67-70. 258 Blackburn, ?Josquin?s Chansons,? 34, 54. 247 extant sources of Cueur langoureulx were made after Josquin?s death, we have no evidence regarding the original diffusion of the song. Though there surely existed other, now lost, sources for this and other Josquin chansons, it does not appear that Cueur langoreulx circulated widely in the first part of the sixteenth century, at least judging from Susato?s dedication in his 1545 collection: ??et ay voulu commancer a imprimer icelles oeuvres [5- and 6-voice chansons], affin que d?icelles chascung puisse avoir perpetuelle memoire, comme bien il a merite?? 259 That a composer based a mass on Josquin?s chanson is firm evidence that, despite the source situation, it was known and indeed esteemed during Josquin?s lifetime. That the mass in question was copied into a manuscript that emanated from a prestigious workshop, such as Alamire?s, and was in all likelihood destined for the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain speaks, of course, to the positive reception of the mass, but also to that of Josquin?s chanson. Given what we know of the limited diffusion of Josquin?s chanson, the mass composer must have been a musician with close ties to one of Josquin?s circles. It is possible that the anonymous composer saw in the chanson a Marian allegory, which would be transferred to his mass with the Cueur langoreulx melody. The second half of Josquin?s song is directed to a female lover, the ?belle maistresse? who, at the beginning of the song, was the cause of his anguish, and who, because she pities him, gives relief and finally pleasure to her lover?s weary heart. The notion that the Virgin 259 Le septiesme livre contenant vingt et quatre chansons a cincq et a six parties, compos?es par feu de bonne memoire et tres excellent en musicque Josquin des Pres, avecq troix epitaphes dudict Josquin, composez par divers aucteurs?nouvellement imprime en Anvers par Tylman Susato?Mille cincq cent XLV (RISM 1545 15 ), f. 1v of tenor partbook. 248 Mary gave forgiveness to ?weary? sinners is echoed in other masses of this period, including the two Missae de septem doloribus preserved in BrusBR 215-216. Like most of Josquin?s five-voice chansons, Cueur langoreulx sets the refrain of a rondeau cinquain, the form of which is outlined in Table 5.4. A version of the poem appears in the Jardin de Plaisance et fleur de rhetorique, a collection of ballades, rondeaux, and other poems printed by Antoine V?rard in Paris around 1501. 260 Phrase 261 SyllablesRhymeMusic 1 10 A A 2 10 A A? 3 11 B B 4 11 B C 5 10 A D Table 5.4: Form of Poetic Text of Cueur langoureulx Two of the five chanson voices, superius and quinta pars, are canonic throughout, the quinta pars following the superius a fifth below at the interval of four breves. The chanson is comprised of four musical phrases, the first of which is repeated to a different text, resulting in the form A A? B C D. 262 Each linear phrase is separated from the next by ample pause in the canonic voices. Nevertheless, the canon produces a seamless texture: 260 Eug?nie Droz and Arthur Piaget, eds., Jardin de plaisance et fleur de r?thorique, reproduction en facsimil? de l??dition publi?e par Antoine V?rard vers 1501 (Paris: Edouard Campion, 1925), f. 74r. 261 The analysis of the Missa Cueur langoureulx, below, will refer to the letters in the ?Music? column of Table 5.4, which have been assigned to each musical and textual phrase of Cueur langoureulx in the analysis of the chanson given here. Phrase A corresponds to the chanson superius and quinta pars, mm. 1- 10; A? corresponds to mm. 11-21; B1 corresponds to mm. 21-29; B2 corresponds to mm. 29-37; C corresponds to mm. 37-47; and D corresponds to mm. 46-56. 262 For an edition of Josquin?s Cueur langoreulx, see Josquin des Prez, Werken van Josquin des Pr?s, ed. Albert Smijers, vol. 3: Wereldlijke werken 1 (Amsterdam: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1923), no. 1, 1-2. 249 as the comes finishes its restatement of a melody, the dux enters with the next melodic phrase. This dovetailing provides continuity in a piece with an otherwise sectional phrase structure. The mass composer employs the technique in a similar fashion. Cueur langoureulx clearly fits the schema for Josquin?s settings of rondeaux cinquains in his five-voice chansons, aptly described by Bonnie Blackburn. 263 In Cueur langoreulx, phrases A, C, D, and the second part of phrase B all begin with a series of long notes followed by a passage in shorter note values. These opening melodic themes are prominent in the mass, and the anonymous composer derives features of his newly composed music from their simple rhythms and intervallic structures. The character of each phrase of the chanson appropriately reflects the mood of the corresponding text, even to the point of word painting. At the word ?souspirer? in the second phrase (A?), the canonic voices present a descending ?sighing? motive. The text of phrase B marks an optimistic change of mood at ?Resiouys toy? and corresponds to a quickly moving ascending passage that is immediately repeated. Phrase B continues, after a three-breve pause, with four long notes that precede a stepwise descent of a fifth. The declamatory, slow-moving melodic line of phrase C is appropriate to the narrative nature of the text (?Par sa piti? te veult donner liesse?). At the end of phrase C, the contratenor foreshadows the cadential motive that will appear in the canonic voices at the end of the chanson. The final phrase, which sets the text ?Ioye et plaisir pour te reconforter,? is brief, syllabic, and repetitive. The anonymous mass composer employs it ? sometimes strictly and sometimes varied ? as cadential material at the end of each movement. The contrapuntal material presented by the three non-canonic voices in the 263 Blackburn, ?Josquin?s Chansons,? 39-40. 250 final measures, pervasive descending minor thirds, also serves as cadential material in the mass, such as in the Et iterum, Et in Spiritum Sanctum, and Agnus Dei. Structure, Mode, and Borrowing in the Missa Cueur langoureulx This mass composer demonstrably emulated the style and quality of his model, as did the composer of the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie and, to lesser extent, that of the Missa Memor esto to be discussed below. All five phrases of the chanson are stated entirely and in order in all five mass movements. The mass and chanson are related by their structure, mode, motives, and rhythms, but the musical quality of the song also permeates the texture of the mass. The composer employs the two canonic voices of the five-voice chanson as a cantus firmus, but he assigns this canon to different voices throughout the mass. In sections in which the canonic voices are of similar range, such as superius/contratenor or tenor/bassus, the canon is consistently at the fifth. In those sections that feature canon between voices of different ranges (superius/tenor, for example), the canon is at the octave. A third canonic voice is often present at the openings of movements, as in the Kyrie, but this third voice continues in free counterpoint after an initial canonic statement. In addition to his direct quotations of the canonic chanson melody, the mass composer?s extreme sensitivity to his model results in a generally allusive style. Missa Cueur langoreulx, then, represents a step between masses that use the cantus firmus as a mere structural element (tenor as scaffold) and the pervasive allusive counterpoint of sixteenth-century parody masses. 251 Mass SectionFinal3 rd no 3rd MensurationCleffingKey signature Scoring KYRIED Kyrie IDX Cut Cc1-c3-c4-c4-f4noneSSCTB ChristeAX Cut Cc1-c3-c4-c4-f4noneSSCTB Kyrie IIDX Cut Cc1-c3-c4-c4-f4noneSSCTB GLORIAD Et in terraDX Cut Cc1-c3-c4-c4-f4noneSSCTB Qui tollisD X Cut Cc1-c3-c4-c4-f4noneSSCTB CREDOD PatremDX Cut Cc1-c3-c4-c4-f4noneSSCTB Et i!ncarnatus estD X Cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4noneSCTB Et resurrexitAX Cut Cc1-c3-c4noneSCT Et iterumD X Cut Cc4-c4-f4noneTTB Et in Spiritum Sanctum DX Cut Cc1-c3-c4-c4-f4noneSSCTB SANCTUSD SanctusDX O c1-c3-c4-c4-f4noneSSCTB Pleni suntAX Cut Cc1-c3-f4noneSCB OsannaDX Cut Cc1-c3-c4-c4-f4noneSSCTB AGNUS DEID Agnus DeiD X Cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4noneSCTB Table 5.5: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Cueur langoureulx The mass, like the chanson, is a D-mode piece with all major cadences on the final or fifth (see Table 5.5). The five major movements all end on D, and most cadences are strengthened by inclusion of the third. The exceptions are the cadences of internal subsections: Qui tollis, Et incarnatus est, Et iterum, and Agnus Dei. Voice ranges span one octave. Though there is no key signature in the mass, b-flats are occasionally required. The mass composer uses various techniques to draw attention to some of the more significant mass sections, most notably changes in mensuration and drawing attention to the cantus firmus. For example, in a mass that is otherwise entirely in Cut C, the change to O in the Sanctus to represent the distinct purpose of this part of the mass is conspicuous. As the music that accompanies the Elevation of the Host, this section is the liturgical climax of the Mass and thus, in the eyes of our composer, worth setting apart 252 from the others. In the Et in terra pax and the Et in Spiritum Sanctum, the most obvious method is his straightforward quotation of the cantus firmus. He also skillfully aligns musical phrases to textual phrases, employs carefully-considered textures, and assigns rhythmic and motivic music to the non cantus firmus-bearing voices, also lending weight to these sections. As will be shown in the analysis below, motives and rhythms from the chanson also figure prominently in the mass. The mass, like the chanson, exploits the sharp contrast between long-note motives and those that feature ascending or descending runs, and the composer borrowed rhythmic motives from the canonic and non-canonic voices of the chanson. The cantus firmus thus provides a clear foundation for the composition and acts as a generative force behind much of the music in the mass. A closer look at the composer?s treatment of his borrowed material is instructive. Borrowing and Paraphrase in the Missa Cueur langoureulx Though each of the five movements of the Ordinary present the cantus firmus in its entirety, the anonymous composer varies the treatment of his borrowed material throughout (see Table 5.6, below). Statements of the cantus firmus range from direct quotations to barely recognizable paraphrases. In some sections (Kyrie I, Qui tollis, Patrem), the composer interpolates one or more phrases of new material within his statement of the cantus firmus. These newly-composed phrases are usually derived from surrounding borrowed material and have intended functions: the new music serves as transitional or cadential material, or it is interpolated in order to fit text that the cantus firmus itself could not accommodate. In the first Kyrie, for example, the anonymous 253 composer interpolates a two-bar transitional phrase between phrases B1 and B2, foreshadowing the closing of B2 (see Example 5.8, Kyrie, in appendix, tenor, mm. 19- 20). This division of phrase B into two distinct sections recurs throughout the mass and reflects the clear division between the two halves of that phrase in the chanson. In the Qui tollis, the composer compresses phrase B1 and again interpolates two phrases of new material, which is related to both halves of phrase B, between B1 and B2. This new phrase thus provides an effective transition between the contrasting halves of the chanson phrase. Because phrase C cadences on E, the composer now interpolates six bars of new material that establishes the section comfortably in the D mode, before the final phrase of the model continues, uninterrupted. Mass sectionPhrase of modelDux/ComesMelodic IntervalTime IntervalScoring Kyrie IA-B-C + nT I / S8 va 4 brevesSSCTB ChristeB-C-DT 2 / B5 th 3 brevesSSCTB Kyrie IIC-D S / CT5 th 2 brevesSSCTB GloriaA-A-B-C-DS / CT5 th 4 brevesSSCTB Qui tollisA-B-C-D + nT 1 / S8 va 3 brevesSSCTB CredoA-B-C-D + nCT / S5 th 6 brevesSSCTB Et incarnatusX X X X SCTB Et resurrexitX X X X SCT Et iterumX X X X TTB Et in spiritumA-A-B-C-DT 1 / B5 th 4 brevesSSCTB SanctusA-B-C-DS / CT5 th 2 brevesSSCTB Pleni suntX X X X SCB OsannaA-B-C-DS / CT5 th 3 brevesSSCTB Agnus DeiA-B1-C-D2[S / T 2][5 th ] [4 breves]SCTB Table 5.6: Distribution of the Cantus firmus in the Missa Cueur langoreulx The cantus firmus and canons are absent from the internal subsections that are scored for fewer than the full complement of five voices, although each opens on points of imitation constructed from motives derived from the chanson. The listener 254 immediately recognizes the stylistic and motivic similarity between these freely composed sections and Josquin?s chanson. The Et iterum, for example, opens on a point of imitation on a motive generated by the first half of phrase A and the first half of phrase D of the model (see Example 5.9, below Credo, mm. 129-63). It ends with an imitative motive that pervades all three voices. Here is perhaps the most obvious instance of word painting in the mass. The composer portrays the text non erit finis (?there shall be no end?) by repeating a motive that recalls the minor thirds that close Josquin?s chanson. But the composer teases us first with several statements of the motive in which he substitutes a half step for the minor third. This will provide modal resolution as it does in the model (at the final cadence in the tenor 2 and bassus). Example 5.9: Missa Cueur langoureulx, Credo, mm. 129-163 255 Though the composer varies the manner in which he presented his borrowed material, he consistently transfers the first phrase of the chanson to the mass practically unchanged. The emphasis that the composer places on the openings of the chanson phrases in the Kyrie, for example, is representative of similar exaggeration of these long- note themes throughout the mass. In the Patrem, he disguises the chanson melody more than anywhere else in the mass; nevertheless, the only alteration of phrase A in this section is the division of some long notes into several shorter ones to accommodate the syllables of the Ordinary text (see analysis above). Characteristics such as the overlapping of borrowed material in all three sections and the consistent appearance of the chanson?s cadential material in each section at final cadences, even those sections that do not otherwise quote phrase D of the chanson, provide continuity to the movement as a whole. For example, in the Kyrie, the composer segments the cantus firmus: SectionPhrase of chansonCanon Kyrie IA-B-C + (d)S/T1 at octave ChristeB-C + (d)T2/B at 5 th Kyrie IIC-DS/CT at 5 th Table 5.7: Distribution of Borrowed Material in the Missa Cueur langoureulx, Kyrie While the Kyrie I and Christe do not quote chanson phrase D, the final cadences of both sections are borrowed from the final cadence of the chanson. The opening of the Gloria (Et in terra pax) and closing of the Credo (Et in Spiritum Sanctum) are the only sections of the mass in which the canonic cantus firmus melody is presented in its entirety, in order, and without variation of any kind or interpolations of non-cantus firmus material (see discussion below, and Examples 5.10, Gloria, in appendix, mm. 1-58; and 5.11, Credo, in appendix, mm. 154-217) The Et in Spiritum Sanctum is especially striking, because no borrowed material is present in any of 256 the three subsections immediately preceding it. The reduced scoring in these three consecutive subsections, Et incarnatus est, Et resurrexit, and Et iterum, is exceptional among early sixteenth-century masses. The Et in terra pax is the first instance where the entire cantus firmus is presented unsegmented and unaltered. Significantly, in this section, the Mass Ordinary text corresponds neatly to the chanson phrases, no text repetition is necessary, and, for the most part, all five voices present the same text at the same time. Example 5.12 shows the distribution of the Ordinary text aligned as it accompanies the phrases of the cantus firmus melody. A:Et in terra pax hominibus bone voluntatis A:Laudamus te. Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te. Gracias agimus tibi B1:propter magnam gloriam tuam. (Domine Deus rex celestis.) B2:Domine Deus rex celestis, Deus pater omnipotens. (B1 in comes) C:Domine fili unigenite Jesu Christe. D:Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius patris. Example 5.12: Distribution of the Ordinary Text in Missa Cueur langoureulx, Et in terra pax Italics = duxUnderline = comesBold = both canonic voices This composer, like many of the composers whose masses are analyzed in this dissertation, uses texture to delineate between text phrases. After two measures in which the three non-canonic voices sing Et in terra pax on motives that recall phrase A of the chanson, the superius enters with the cantus firmus on hominibus. Four bars later the contratenor joins the texture on bone voluntatis to conclude the first statement of A. At the canonic statement of phrase A, the tenors and bassus present Laudamus te. Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te clearly. The texture between the bottom three voices is largely homophonic; their mostly syllabic, declamatory ?recitation? fits the repetitive acclamation of this text. At the same time, the canonic upper voices 257 continue in imitation, closing the second statement of A on agimus tibi. The corresponding chanson text is similarly declamatory??To complain, to groan, to weep, and to sigh??so the borrowed music is well-suited to its new context. Immediately after the heavily disguised cantus firmus of the Patrem and the absent cantus firmus in the next three subsections, the Et in Spiritum Sanctum sparks the listener?s attention with its straightforward presentation of the entire chanson melody. The anonymous composer further exaggerates the cantus firmus by presenting it against a similar homophonic passage in the non-canonic voices at the opening of the section. As he does elsewhere in the Credo, he also uses contrasting textures, such as at Confiteor unum baptisma. The structure of the Et in Spiritum Sanctum is even more symmetrical than that of the Et in terra pax (see Example 5.13). A:Et in Spiritum Sanctum dominum et vivificantem A:Qui ex patre filoque procedit qui cum patre et filio B1:simul adoratur et conglorificatur qui locutus est per prophetas B2:Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam C:Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum D:Et expecto resurrexionem mortuorum et vitam venturi seculi. Amen. Example 5.13: Distribution of Ordinary Text in Missa Cueur langoureulx, Et in Spiritum sanctum Italics = duxUnderline = comesBold = both canonic voices Here, as in the Et in terra pax, the composer neatly aligns textual phrases of the Mass Ordinary with melodic phrases that he borrows from the chanson. Each phrase except the first and last is divided in half; the dux presents the first part and the comes the second. The texts of the first and last phrases are emphasized by the overlap of the two voices. This technique, along with the declamatory, recitational nature of much of the music, makes the Credo text extremely clear. The cantus firmus-bearing voices present 258 alternating statements of the Credo text in dovetailed phrases, once again resulting in a seamless texture between these voices. Given the care the composer took with the phrase structure of the Et in terra pax and Et in Spiritum Sanctum, one naturally wonders to what extent, if at all, he considered rhetoric in his distribution of the borrowed material. Melodic quotations of the cantus firmus in the mass may evoke the unquoted chanson text, with which the performers and listeners were likely familiar. Example 5.14 shows the distribution of the Ordinary text aligned with melodic phrases and the accompanying chanson text for the two sections in which he was most attentive to the text. A:Et in terra pax hominibus bone voluntatis And on earth peace to men of GOOD WILL. CUEUR LANGOREULX, QUI NE FAIS QUE PENSER, WEARY HEART, WHOSE ONLY ACT IS TO REFLECT, A:Laudamus te. Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te. Gracias agimus tibi 264 We praise thee. We bless thee. We adore thee. WE GLORIFY THEE. WE GIVE THEE THANKS PLAINDRE, G?MIR, PLOURER ET SOUSPIRER, TO COMPLAIN, TO GROAN, TO WEEP, AND TO SIGH. B1:propter magnam gloriam tuam. (Domine Deus rex celestis.) for thy great glory. RESIOUYS TOY, RESIOUYS TOY, REJOICE B2:Domine Deus rex celestis, Deus pater omnipotens. (B1 in comes) O LORD GOD, KING OF HEAVEN, God the Father Almighty. CAR TA BELLE MAISTRESSE FOR YOUR BEAUTIFUL MISTRESS C:Domine fili unigenite Jesu Christe. O Lord, the ONLY begotten Son, Jesus Christ. PAR SA PITI? TE VEULT DONNER LIESSE, THROUGH HER PITY, WISHES TO GIVE YOU MERRIMENT, D:Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius patris. O Lord, LAMB OF GOD, SON OF THE FATHER. IOYE ET PLAISIR POUR TE RECONFORTER. JOY AND PLEASURE, IN ORDER TO REVIVE YOU. ________________________________________________________________________ 264 This text is set syllabically and as recitation by the tenors and bassus. 259 A:Et in Spiritum Sanctum dominum et vivificantem And in the HOLY Spirit, LORD and giver of life WEARY HEART, WHOSE ONLY ACT IS TO REFLECT, A:Qui ex patre filoque procedit qui cum patre et filio Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, Who, together with the Father and the Son TO COMPLAIN, TO GROAN, TO WEEP, AND TO SIGH. B1:simul adoratur et conglorificatur qui locutus est per prophetas Is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets REJOICE, B2:Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam And in one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church FOR YOUR BEAUTIFUL MISTRESS C:Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins THROUGH HER PITY, WISHES TO GIVE YOU MERRIMENT, D:Et expecto resurrexionem mortuorum And I await the resurrection of the dead JOY AND PLEASURE, IN ORDER TO REVIVE YOU X:et vitam venturi seculi. Amen. And the life of the world to come. Amen. Example 5.14: Distribution of the Ordinary Text of the Et in terra pax and Et in Spiritum sanctum, Aligned with Melodic Phrases and the Accompanying Chanson Text Italics = dux; Underline = comes; Bold = both canonic voices; BOLD CAPS=text set by both canonic voices). In the Et in terra pax, there is no correlation between chanson and mass text, but in the Et in Spiritum Sanctum, there is a noticeable association between the melodic phrases and their original texts from phrase B1 through the end of the section. The worship and glorification of the Holy Ghost corresponds to ?Rejoice,? and ?your beautiful mistress? is certainly an appropriate metaphor for the (Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic) Church. Baptism for the forgiveness of sins may well evoke the mistress?s pity and her desire to give relief to her lover?s ?weary heart.? Phrase D contains perhaps the most obvious allusion. In the song, the despairing lover?s mistress ? the Church ? wishes to revive him by providing merriment, joy, and pleasure. The Credo text ?And I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come? certainly reflects this sentiment. If indeed these allusions were deliberate, they betray the skill of our 260 anonymous composer, who was working within the confines of two inflexible structures: that of the Mass Ordinary text and that of his cantus firmus. By contrast, in the Patrem and the Osanna, the anonymous composer freely compresses, expands, paraphrases, transposes, and otherwise alters the borrowed material to a great extent; he also interpolates several phrases of newly composed music. The result is a subtle hint at the cantus firmus rather than a direct statement of it. After an initial exact statement of chanson phrase A in the cantus firmus-bearing voices, the Patrem, which paraphrases chanson phrases A, B, C, and D, also incorporates newly composed material (see, for example, Example 5.11, Credo, superius, mm. 14-27, mm. 34-39, and contratenor, mm. 8-21, mm. 28-33). In the Patrem, the composer also uses non-cantus firmus material, this time to emphasize the Ordinary text. He interpolates several brief melodic phrases at key points in the text, such as filium dei? unigenitum?Et ex patre natum in the contratenor (mm. 28-33), and Deum de deo?de deo vero in the superius (mm. 38-39 and 45-46) and the contratenor (mm. 39-40). Likewise, in the Osanna, a clear statement of chanson phrase A is followed by some melodic elaborations of the phrase A material, before the composer continues with his paraphrased statements of chanson phrases B, C, and D (see Example 5.15, Sanctus, in appendix, superius, mm. 67-75, and contratenor, mm. 70-78). The Sanctus stands out as the only section in tempus perfectum. Like the Kyrie II, the superius and contratenor present the cantus firmus at the fifth and at the close interval of two breves, but here, all four chanson phrases are cited. While lightly paraphrased, the cantus firmus is easily recognizable in the canonic voices, and the free counterpoint in the lower three voices emphasize the cantus firmus by focusing on motives drawn from the 261 chanson. The three-voice, imitative Pleni sunt is not unlike that of the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie discussed above (p. 243). Although the cantus firmus is absent, references to the model are plentiful. This lovely trio between the two upper voices and bassus is light, melismatic, and reminds the listener of the most prominent gestures of the chanson. We will return to the problem of the missing Benedictus below. The single extant Agnus Dei (see Example 5.16, Agnus Dei, in appendix) is one curious exception to the composer?s cantus firmus treatment. It is scored for only four voices, none of which is canonic. Yet unlike the other sections scored for fewer than five voices, this one does present the entire cantus firmus. Whereas the canon is realized in all other sections of the mass and also indicated by a signum congruentia, here only the signum congruentia under the second half of the fifth breve suggests that a fifth canonic voice may have been intended in this apparently non-canonic Agnus Dei (see Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1: MontsM 766, ff. 153v-154r A second tenor, in canon with the superius at the fifth below, produces acceptable counterpoint, though elsewhere in the mass, canons between voices of different ranges, as 262 here, are consistently at the octave, while those of similar ranges are at the fifth (see Table 5.6, above). Yet here, canon at the octave is contrapuntally impossible. The presence of the fifth canonic voice explains the statement of the cantus firmus, which otherwise occurs only in mass sections scored for five voices. On the other hand, if no canon were intended, the Agnus Dei would be the only section scored for fewer than five voices to present the cantus firmus. Since the codicological analysis of the manuscript presented at the beginning of this chapter provides little guidance, it will remain unclear what the composer intended here, unless another source for the mass surfaces. Nevertheless, that the canon works is already sound evidence that a fifth voice was almost surely intended. Codicological Evidence Pertaining to the Missa Cueur langoureulx The stylistic features of this mass are not always separable from the codicological ones. Because Missa Cueur langoreulx is unique to MontsM 766, some of the issues it raises cannot be solved by looking at concordant sources. Its lack of ascription is only the most obvious. Also, oddly, there is no Benedictus. There are several possible explanations: scribal error (there are other inconsistencies in the manuscript); the exemplar may have lacked this section; or perhaps at this point in the mass an Elevation motet was intended to be substituted for the Benedictus. Interestingly, in Imperial Spain, it was left to the Emperor (Charles V, for whom the Montserrat manuscript was presumably prepared) to decide when a motet would be added to the mass. 265 Unfortunately, because the mass is unique to this source, we cannot know if the composer 265 Bruno Bouckaert, ?The Capilla flamenca: The Composition and Duties of the Music Ensemble at the Court of Charles V, 1515-58,? in The Empire Resounds: Music in the Days of Charles V, ed. Francis Maes (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1999). 263 never wrote a Benedictus or if that responsibility fell on the scribes. Since other masses in the manuscript do include a Benedictus, we can rule out the possibility that the scribes omitted the section in keeping with the practices of the institution for which the manuscript was copied. There is a staved but otherwise blank opening immediately following the Osanna (see Figure 5.2). This would seem to indicate that the scribes erred or that their exemplar did not contain a Benedictus for this mass. But it is not so simple as that, because immediately following that folio is the only Agnus Dei to appear in this manuscript. It is therefore difficult to say whether, at the layout stage of manuscript production, the scribes ruled this opening for the Benedictus that they assumed they would be copying or for one of the missing parts of the Agnus dei. Figure 5.2: MontsM 766, ff. 152v-153r 264 The Missa Cueur langoreulx is situated at the end of MontsM 766 among other anonymous masses that are also unica. It shares a particularity with the Missa Assumptione de beata Marie and Missa Memor esto: its single statement of the Agnus Dei. The Agnus Dei of the Missa Cueur langoreulx closes with the text miserere nobis, so it cannot have been intended as the third and final repetition, which normally ends with dona nobis pacem. If ff. 152v-153r were intended for Agnus Dei I, the surviving Agnus Dei would logically be the second statement. Whether there ever was a third Agnus Dei cannot be known unless other sources of the mass are discovered. It is common for sixteenth-century masses to have two statements of the Agnus Dei rather than the usual three, but it is unusual in this corpus of masses to have only one. The layout of ff. 152v-153r may suggest a solution to the missing-Benedictus, sole-Agnus Dei problem. The opening is ruled for four voices; the superius and contratenor are each allotted six staves, and the tenor and bassus four each (see Figures 5.1-5.3 for this and what follows). Because the Agnus Dei that does appear in the manuscript is also scored for four voices, we may infer that the blank opening was intended for Agnus Dei I. The layout of the unnotated opening resembles the opening that contains the three-voice Pleni sunt, however, more closely than it does the opening with the Agnus Dei (see Figure 5.3). Since in many sixteenth-century masses, both the Pleni sunt and Benedictus (the sections that precede and follow the glorious Osanna) are commonly scored for similar groups of reduced voices, it seems more likely that ff. 152v- 153r were originally intended for a Benedictus than for a missing first Agnus Dei. 265 Figure 5.3: MontsM 766, ff. 150v-151r There is further evidence in the manuscript to support the conclusion that the scribe responsible for layout intended that a Benedictus would be copied onto the blank opening and that the Benedictus in question does not appear in the manuscript, because it was not in the exemplar. In addition to the characteristics common to the three last masses in the manuscript discussed above, and much less apparent, is the fact that the openings for the Pleni sunt and those for the Benedictus in each of these masses are laid out for four voices, regardless of their actual scoring. The openings of all three Osannas are ruled for five voices, matching their scoring for the full complement of five voices. It would seem, then, that the scribe responsible for layout and ruling performed his tasks without having referred to the exemplar. This has interesting consequences for the larger questions concerning the workshop. If the Alamire scribes customarily laid out and ruled their pages generically?that is without regard for or knowledge of the particular piece to be copied?it would explain many of the inconsistencies, the necessity for so many 266 continuation signs, and other minor scribal errors throughout the complex. It would also tell us about one stage of manuscript production. Conclusions While Missa Cueur langoreulx is unquestionably structured around a cantus firmus, and there is no obvious borrowing of the entire polyphonic texture of the chanson, it displays traits common to sixteenth-century imitation masses. For example, all five movements open with a straightforward statement of the chanson?s opening canonic melody and close with material from the final cadence of the model. Even in sections in which the composer varies the borrowed material to great extent, he consistently quotes the first chanson phrase directly. Exceptions occur only in movements in which slight rhythmic alteration is necessitated by the text, as in the Credo and the Sanctus. Subsections of the mass in which no direct borrowing occurs, such as the Et incarnatus est and Pleni sunt, feature prominent points of imitation on motives from the chanson. Further evidence in favor of categorization of Missa Cueur langoreulx as an imitation mass is the consistent and pervasive presence of motives and rhythms borrowed from the entire song texture, not to mention the borrowing of its fundamental structure and modality. In transferring these non-cantus firmus elements of his model to the non- canonic, non-cantus firmus bearing voices of the mass, the anonymous composer effectively communicates the substance of Josquin?s original chanson. This discussion of the relationship between mass and model has allowed us to identify some aspects of this anonymous composer?s style, including his conservative treatment of his borrowed material, the techniques he uses to vary or transform this 267 borrowed material, and his well-organized large-scale structure. He successfully expresses the substance of Josquin?s song in the context of a new sacred composition, and his tasteful manipulation of melody, text, texture, and meter to emphasize important phrases and mass sections betrays his skill as a composer. It has also brought attention to musical choices that he made independently of his model, most obviously the ways in which he emphasized important moments in the mass. These include, among others, the change of meter in the Sanctus, the changes of texture to delineate phrases and sections throughout the Credo, and the straightforward quotation of the cantus firmus in the Et in terra pax and Et in Spiritum Sanctum. Given that the other repertory preserved in the Montserrat manuscripts, in particular, and in the Alamire manuscripts, in general, is mostly by Franco-Flemish composers, we may assume that the composer was a northerner. Because he must have had access to Josquin?s Cueur langoreulx, a chanson that does not seem to have circulated widely in the earlier part of the sixteenth century, he most likely worked in chronological and geographic proximity to Josquin. 268 MISSA MEMOR ESTO The Missa Memor esto and its Model by Josquin The third and final anonymous mass in MontsM 766 is identified in the manuscript as Missa memor esto quinque vocum. Each major section and some internal subsections of this highly-unified mass begin with the imitative opening of what is often regarded to be Josquin?s best psalm motet, Memor esto verbi tui. One sometimes questions whether an audience would perceive the presence of a model in a mass; in this case, the profusion of Josquin?s themes leaves no doubt that listeners would have associated Missa Memor esto with its model. Missa Memor esto is unquestionably an imitation mass. Unlike the Missa Cueur langoreulx, which takes a chanson with a paucity of sources as a model?all four existing sources of the chanson are posthumous prints, of which only two are autonomous?the motet appears in no less than fourteen sources and one intabulation, most of which date from during or just after Josquin?s lifetime (see Table 5.8). 26 26 For the list of sources, see Patrick Macey, ?Josquin as Classic: ?Qui habitat,? ?Memor esto,? and Two Imitations Unmasked,? Journal of the Royal Musical Association 118 (1993): 29. Dates and origins of these manuscripts are taken from Hamm and Kellman, eds., Census-Catalogue. Memor esto verbi tui is edited in Josquin des Prez, Werken van Josquin des Pr?s, ed. Albert. Smijers vol. 6: Motetten 2 (Amsterdam: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1936), no. 31, 3-11. 269 SourceTypeDateOriginRemarks LonRC 1070Manuscriptc1510-15Copied in London or France Owned by Anne Boleyn VatS 16Manuscript1512-27RomeFor Sistine Chapel FlorBN II.I.232Manuscriptc1515Florence BolC R142Manuscriptc1515-30Northern Italy BuffaloU A3Manuscriptc1520Norther Italy or Southern Germany ModD 4Manuscriptc1520-30ModenaFor cathedral RISM 1514 1 Print1514Petrucci RISM 1526 1 Print1526Pasoti MunU 322-5Manuscript1527BaselCopied under direction of Glarean MunBS 19Manuscript1531-40MunichFor chapel of Wilhelm IV Der ander theil des Lautenbuchs Intabulation1536Nuremberg, Hans Newsidler Brown 1536 7 RISM 1539 9 Print1539Petreius SGallS 463Manuscriptc1540GlarusCompiled by Aegidius Tschudi, a student of Glarean KasL 24Manuscript1534-50KasselFor court of Count Philip of Hesse RISM 1559 2 Print1559Berg and Neuber Table 5.8: Sources of Josquin des Prez, Memor esto verbi tui Significantly, most of these sources?10 out of 15?are manuscripts, most of which were copied in Italy or in Switzerland under the influence of Glarean, who famously described the motet?s function (see below). That Memor esto verbi tui, a motet composed for Louis XII of France, continued to be copied and printed, mostly in Italy and Germany, during the first half of the sixteenth century proves that it was an international success. That at least three other compositions, including the mass under discussion here, were based on it in the years following its composition (see Table 5.9, below) confirms its reception. Memor esto verbi tui is the subject of a well-known anecdote. According to the Swiss theorist Heinrich Glarean, Josquin composed the motet (on Psalm 118, verses 49- 270 64) to remind the French king Louis XII that he had promised the composer a benefice and had not made good on that promise. Josquin?s method was apparently successful: Louis XII, the French king, had promised him some benefice, but when the promises remained unfulfilled, as is wont to happen in courts of kings, Josquin was thereupon aroused and composed the Psalm Memor esto verbi tui servo tuo with such majesty and elegance that, when it was brought to the college of singers and then examined with strict justice, it was admired by everyone. The king, filled with shame, did not dare to defer the promise any longer, and discharged the favor which he had promised. 267 Patrick Macey and Ludwig Finscher, among others, apparently accept the anecdote, though Timothy Steele and Rob Wegman are more cautious. 268 Though Glarean?s story is, if true, no doubt embellished, one can certainly imagine a witty Josquin appealing to the French king for a promised salary in a time when musical composition served as a means of communication to win jobs, favor, or pardon. The internal evidence of the motet also argues in favor of Glarean?s account; other than the obvious textual metaphor (?Remember thy word to thy servant?), Josquin flatters Louis XII throughout the motet by comparing him to God?while the psalmist obviously addresses God, Josquin borrows the psalm text to address the king?and he uses devices such as sudden change of meter or texture, or both, to emphasize passages on texts such as ?thy law? or ?thy commandments.? This sudden change in musical style, which Josquin especially employed in the secunda pars (for example, in mm. 109-113, 132, and 136-139), attracts the listener?s attention, and since Louis XII would have known that Josquin was 267 Heinrich Glarean, Dodecachordon, trans. Clement A. Miller, vol. 2 (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1965), 271-72. 268 See Macey, ?Josquin as Classic,? 173-74; Ludwig Finscher, ?Four-Voice Motets,? in The Josquin Companion, 273; Timothy H. Steele, ?Tonal Coherence and the Cycle of Thirds in Josquin?s Memor esto verbi tui,? in Tonal Structures in Early Music, ed. Cristle Collins Judd (New York and London: Garland, 1998), 178-79, n.3. On the dependability of Josquin anecdotes in general, including this one, see Rob Wegman, ??And Josquin Laughed...? Josquin and the Composer's Anecdote in the Sixteenth Century,? The Journal of Musicology 17 (1999): 319-57, esp. 324-28. 271 addressing him, he would have paid special attention to sections speaking directly to him or of his rule. Further, as Ludwig Finscher points out, all of Josquin?s psalm motets, with the exception of Qui habitat, can be connected to the French court. 269 The origin and destination of the model is important to our reading of the mass, because the latter work emulates the former, and the mass composer presumably chose this motet, and not another composition, as his model, for a reason. It is difficult, however, to speculate on this question, since the only extant source of the mass has nothing to do with the French court. Rather it is a manuscript used by the chapel of Charles V in Spain ? quite a far cry from anything French, especially considering the rivalry between Francois I and Charles V. Still, the motet?s function, according to Glarean to remind a ruler that he had promised a favor to his servant, may well tell us something about that of the mass. Perhaps one of Charles V?s singers composed it to request something of him? It is hard to imagine that Charles, as knowledgeable about music as he was, did not know Josquin?s motet, so a mass that so obviously cites and imitates that motet could certainly have been interpreted in a similar fashion. Then again, maybe the anonymous mass composer was simply intrigued by the structure of Josquin?s motet. The Missa Memor esto and other Compositions on Psalm 118 In order to consider a possible context for the Missa Memor esto, it is necessary to consider other compositions written on verses 49-64 of Psalm 118 (see Table 10). 269 Finscher, ?Four-Voice Motets,? 273. 272 ComposerGenre Date Josquin des Prez4-vv motetbefore 1515? Maistre Jhan4-vv motetc1512-1538 Dionisio MemoKeyboard setting of Josquin?s motet c1516-25? Anonymous5-vv massbefore 1524 Johann Killianmotet (lost)1515/6-1595 Pieter Maessens6-vv motet William Mundy5-vv Latin sacred workc1528-c1591 Palestrina5-vv motet1572 Palestrina5-vv mass1599 Lassus6-vv motet1585 Lassus6-vv Magnificat1619 Table 5.9: Compositions on Memor esto verbi tui 270 (Shaded=Settings related to that by Josquin) Unlike the preponderance of settings of the antiphon that served as a model for Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, Memor esto verbi tui was set only eleven times (including Josquin?s setting and the anonymous mass) between the early sixteenth century and 1619, and there does not seem to be any pattern of influence for the latter tradition, except that the earlier settings seem to emanate from Josquin?s own. While not abundant, settings of Memor esto verbi tui exist by musicians working in Italy, Germany, England, the Low Countries, and Hungary-Bohemia, but they are not concentrated in any specific period. Josquin?s setting does seem to be the first. That by Dionisio Memo and probably that of Maistre Jhan were imitations of Josquin?s motet. This lack of an evident pattern of distribution makes it even more difficult to determine whether the anonymous mass, also based on Josquin?s setting, was composed by a musician associated with a particular court or region. It could equally have been written by Maistre Jhan, known for his skilled imitations of Josquin?s music, or by Pieter Maessens, with his numerous and varied connections with Charles V, or by a composer whose only composition on Memor esto was this mass. The composer of Missa Memor esto could have been a singer at the 270 The information presented in Table 10 is taken from the appropriate articles in Sadie and Tyrrell, eds., The New Grove. 273 French court of Louis XII, where Josquin?s motet was first performed, but he must also have had a connection to the Burgundian-Habsburg court or to that of Charles V in Spain, since MontsM 766 was prepared for Charles V. It would be irresponsible not to consider the unfortunate lack of existing French sources of this period, however, which may well have contained this and other anonymous compositions. A consideration of the style of the Missa Memor esto, along with a comparison of this mass with the Missa Cueur langoureulx discussed above, will clarify its composer?s working methods and techniques. Large-Scale Structure and Mode in the Missa Memor esto The Missa Memor esto is related to its model structurally and modally, as well as melodically. The mass composer begins each movement with the imitative opening of Josquin?s motet, he consistently borrows motives and even entire phrases from the model, his texture, like Josquin?s, includes many imitative duets, and possibly most important, he, like Josquin, plays almost relentlessly with the first species of the fifths D-A and A-E, as we shall see. The modal structure of Josquin?s motet is not immediately evident. While it seems like it should be in D, its two major finals are in fact on E (prima pars) and A (secunda pars). Timothy Steele?s explanation for what appears to be a lack of tonal clarity is that Josquin used it primarily as a rhetorical device, one that the composer used to emphasize the nature of the text. He cites as an example verse six, where the motet cadences on the tonally-distant E at the text, ?the place of my wandering.? 271 But Steele also concludes that the seemingly inconclusive tonality of the motet is in fact explained 271 Steele, ?Tonal Coherence,? 163, 155. 274 by a well-organized logical system that Josquin constructed out of the cycle of thirds, and points out that this kind of tonal structure is a phenomenon that occurs frequently in pieces that emphasize D or E, but cadence on A. As does Josquin in his motet, the anonymous mass composer plays with the species of the fifths D-A and A-E, yet for a different result. The mass, despite the tonal wanderings especially evident in the Credo, is firmly centered in D, with most cadences throughout and all major cadences on D. Some subsections cadence on A, which is perfectly normal for a D-mode piece, and all but three cadences include the third, a feature common in sixteenth-century polyphony (see Table 5.10). Mass SectionFinal3 rd No 3 rd MensurationCleffingKey signature Scoring KYRIED Kyrie ID X Cut Cc1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSCTBarricanor ChristeAX Cut Cc1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSCTB Kyrie IIDX Cut Cc1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSCTB GLORIAD Et in terraAX Cut Cc1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSCTB DX Cut CQui tollis Cum Sancto Spiritu DX 3 c1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSCTB CREDOD PatremAX Cut Cc1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSCTB Et incarnatus estGX Cut C CrucifixusDX Cut C c1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSCTB Et resurrexitA X Cut Cc1-c4-f3noneSTB Et iterumE X Cut Cc1-c3-c4noneSCT Et in Spiritum Sanctum DX Cut Cc1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSCTB SANCTUSD SanctusAX Cut Cc1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSTTB Pleni suntAX Cut Cc1-c3-c4-f4noneSCTB OsannaDX Cut C /C3c1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSTTB BenedictusD XCut C (C)c1-c3-c4-f4noneSC(T)B AGNUS DEID Agnus DeiDX Cut Cc1-c1-c3-c4-f4noneSSCTB Table 5.10: Structure, Mensuration, and Modality in the Missa Memor esto 275 The tonal structure of the Credo, with its cadences on A, G, D, A, E, and D is inconsistent, to say the least, but even so, it can be explained by the tonal plan of the model. In the Patrem, which cadences on A, the mass composer sets verses one through three of Josquin?s motet. The section moves from D to A, with internal cadences on D, F, and A. Significantly, Josquin also used a cycle of thirds, D-F and A-C, in order to fill in and provide coherence to the various fifths that are so prominent in the motet. 272 At measure 45 of the Patrem, where the mass composer borrows the third verse of Josquin?s motet, the tonality starts to move to A through a series of descending motives; as Timothy Steele explains, the motet also moves from D to A in verse three. The Et incarnatus est (cadence on G), Crucifixus (D), Et resurrexit (A), and Et iterum (E) are all extremely brief sections. The composer?s decision to separate the Credo in this manner seems to depend on his desire to create this specific modal structure; these short subsections basically function as self-contained modulations to the next fifth. Likewise, the prima pars of Josquin?s motet shifts by fifth from D to A and finally to E. The mass composer clearly consciously transfers the essence of Josquin?s modal plan to his new composition. That he manages to do so while keeping the mass firmly grounded in D proves that he is a skilled emulator, but even more, it reveals his own creative talents. The Sanctus stands out in its structure. Most obviously, the Sanctus and Osanna are scored for two superius voices, two tenors, and bassus, rather than the usual two superius, contratenor, tenor, bassus, though the cleffing is identical to that of movements featuring the latter scoring (c1-c1-c3-c4-f4). As did the anonymous composers of Missa Cueur langoreulx and Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, the composer of Missa Memor esto emphasizes the Osanna in a creative way (see Figure 5.4, below). Apart from the 272 For this and what follows, see ibid., 156. 276 odd scoring, the mensuration of one tenor is written C over Cut C, while the other four voices are in Cut C. The repeat sign at the end of the second staff makes it clear that this passage is to be sung twice, once in C and once in Cut C. The difference between these two signs is not immediately clear. 273 In this case, the tenor begins with the passage in C, in augmentation by two. The result is a clear presentation of the opening of Josquin?s motet, first in long notes (C), then in note values similar to those of the other voices (Cut C). Because of this technique, Josquin?s opening melody is more prominent here than anywhere else in the mass. The section closes with a short (11-breve) passage in ?3.? Apart from this phrase and the Cum Sancto Spiritu, which is also in ?3? and is also contained within a larger section (Qui tollis), the Osanna and Benedictus, both of which feature C in a tenor and other voices in Cut C, are the only sections of the mass not entirely in Cut C. 273 Despite the large amount of ink spilled over the issue for fifteenth-century music, the interpretation of these and other mensuration signs in the fifteenth century as well as in the sixteenth remains problematic. See, for example, John Caldwell, Editing Early Music (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985); Alejandro Planchart, ?Tempo and Proportions,? in Performance Practice: Music Before 1600, ed. Howard Mayer Brown and Stanley Sadie (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 1989), 126-44; Margaret Bent, ?The Early Use of the Sign !,? Early Music 24 (1996): 199-225, and ?On the Interpretation of ! in the Fifteenth Century: A Response to Rob Wegman,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 53 (2000): 597- 612; and Rob C. Wegman, ?Different Strokes for Different Folks? On Tempo and Diminution in Fifteenth- Century Music,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 53 (2000): 461-505. 277 Figure 5.4: MontsM 766, f. 170v Figure 5.5: MontsM 766, f. 171v The Benedictus is scored for four voices: superius, contratenor, and tenor, the canon inscription of which, Quere tenorem in discantu (?find the tenor in the discant?), tells us that it is derived from the superius; and bassus (see Figure 5.5, above). As in the Osanna, the two mensuration signs, C and Cut C, are used together here to indicate augmentation; the tenor, in C, features note lengths that are double those of the superius, in Cut C. It is not immediately evident how one should interpret the cleffing of the canonic voices. As is shown in Figure 5.5, before the musical notation starts, the first line of the superius features a series of notational signs: a c4 clef, which is common to the tenor throughout this and other masses; the mensuration sign C, denoting imperfect tempus for the tenor and, in this mass, augmentation by two; a custos on the second line of the staff; 278 a c1 clef, which is common to the superius in this and other masses; and finally the mensuration sign Cut C, indicating that the superius is in imperfect tempus. It would seem, at first glance, then, that the superius begins on ?F? and proceeds in rhythm with the notation, and that the tenor begins on ?G? and proceeds, doubling the note values. The result of two canonic voices beginning at the same time on pitches separated by one whole step, however, would be a contrapuntal catastrophe. The solution to the problem is the custos, which, in the context of this tenor voice, with its c4 clef, designates a starting note of ?F,? resulting in perfect counterpoint throughout the section. Since the tenor moves along at essentially half the rate of the superius, it necessarily ends about halfway through the notated music, after 24 of the 49 breves presented by the superius. One would expect a signum congruentia or another sign at this point, over the ?D? that occurs 1 1/2 breves into the the third staff, but there is no indication in the manuscript that the tenor does not complete the part as notated. Considering the similar interchange between Cut C and C in the Osanna, where the latter sign is unquestionably interpreted as an indication of augmentation by two, and that the counterpoint that results from this solution is impeccable, it is safe to assume that, despite the lack of any sign indicating an ending point for the tenor, the canon should be resolved in the way described above. Borrowing, Texture, Text Setting, and Counterpoint in the Missa Memor esto The Missa Memor esto, more than any mass studied in this dissertation, lacks clear citations of its model. 274 Nevertheless, each of the five mass movements opens with 274 The composer of the Missa Salve regina, discussed in Chapter 4, also subjects his model to a great degree of paraphrase and avoids using a cantus firmus as a structural element after the opening of each 279 a clear imitative statement of the opening of Josquin?s motet, and most of these present the first three phrases of Memor esto, verbi tui in paraphrase among several or all mass voices. In the brief Kyrie I and Sanctus, these citations are compacted and abbreviated, but the Kyrie I and Christe together clearly present motet phrases 1 through 3, as does the Benedictus alone. It is of structural interest that some subsections, notably the Kyrie II, Qui tollis and Et in Spiritum Sanctum present phrases from the secunda pars of the motet (phrases 9-16). After the imitative head motive in the Kyrie, the five-voice counterpoint that ensues is vivacious (see Example 5.17, Kyrie, in appendix). This section strongly evokes the melodies, style, and character of the model. It is built largely around two motives?the dotted scalar figure that characterizes the opening of Josquin?s motet and the ascending leap followed by a descending scale that opens phrase 3 of the motet. The Christe, which opens in a similar imitative style on the third phrase of Memor esto, verbi tui, and the final Kyrie, which similarly cites motet phrase 11, provide a fine symmetry to the preceding Kyrie. In fact, given the texts of the Kyrie and the corresponding motet phrase, the composer?s choice of citation here is likely not coincidental. Both mass and motet texts invoke compassion: Kyrie I (?Lord, have mercy?) cites the melody to motet phrase 1, Memor esto, verbi tui servo tuo, in quo mihi spem dedisti (?Remember thy word to thy servant: in which thou hast given me hope?); the Christe (?Christ, have mercy?) opens on motet phrase 3, Superbi inique agebant usquequaque, a lege autem tua non declinavi (?The arrogant were always persecuting me unjustly: yet from thy law I have not turned aside?), and Kyrie II jumps to phrase 11, mass movement. Yet individual phrases of the Salve regina, a monophonic model, are more easily detected in that mass than are phrases or sections of Josquin?s motet, Memor esto, verbi tui in this one. 280 Cogotavi vias meas, et converti pedes meos in testimonia tua (?I considered my ways: and turned my feet to thy testimonies?). In the highly-imitative Gloria, the mass composer uses texture and melody to separate phrases of mass text and to emphasize important passages (see Example 5.18, Gloria, in appendix). Thus, following the headmotive on motet phrase 1, different combinations of voices perform Laudamus te. Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te in different registers on motet phrase 2 (mm. 8-20), following which Gratius agimus tibi? is set in five-voice polyphony to motet phrase 3 (mm. 20-34). The composer takes care to set the important phrases of mass text, Domini fili unigenite Jhesu Christe (mm. 37-43) and Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris (44-54) apart in individual sections separated by strong cadences, and each in homophony with its own rhythmic character. The Qui tollis, which continues in a similar style, sets the opening of the secunda pars of Josquin?s motet. The mass text, miserere nobis is conveniently set to the motet melody on miserere mei (see Example 5.18, Gloria, mm. 59-64 and 83-86). The second of these passages is notable because all five mass voices present the motet?s ?miserere? motive homophonically. At Quoniam tu solus sanctus?, the mass composer returns to his characteristic imitative texture among different combinations of voices, bringing all five voices together in longer notes on Jhesu Christe. The Cum Sancto Spiritu is set apart from the Qui tollis not by a double bar line, but by a new mensuration (?3? in the place of Cut C, indicating proportio sesquialtera) and continuing the homophonic, slow-moving character that he employed at Jhesu Christe, moving back to a glorious Cut C on the text in gloria Dei Patris. 281 Unlike many polyphonic settings of the Credo, individual phrases of the model are equally identifiable in the Patrem as they are in other mass sections (see Example 5.19, Credo, in appendix). Its syllabic nature allows for clear text declamation, and the composer uses texture and melody to mark separate phrases of mass text as he did in the Gloria. The very brief, imitative Et incarnatus est and Crucifixus are likewise scored for all five voices, and set phrase 7 of Josquin?s motet: Memor fui nocte nominis tui Domine, et custodivi legem tuam (?I remembered thy name in the night, O Lord: and I kept thy law?). The Et resurrexit and Et iterum, both imitative trios, do not carry direct citations of the motet, although Joquin?s modal structure and motives are evident. Finally, the Et in Spiritum Sanctum opens in five-voice imitative counterpoint, like most major mass sections. As he does elsewhere in the Credo and the Gloria, the mass composer punctuates imitative passages with brief homophonic ones for all five voices, emphasizing important mass text. The Sanctus and Osanna present only the first phrase of the motet, the four-voice Pleni sunt, like the Et incarnatus est, features phrase 7, while the Benedictus, like most of the major mass sections, cites phrases 1 through 3 (see Example 5.20, Sanctus, in appendix). As discussed above, the composer draws attention to the model in the Osanna and Benedictus by setting it in augmentation, and also in canon in the latter, achieved by use of dual mensurations, C and Cut C. Finally, the single Agnus Dei presents motet phrases 1 through 3 (see Example 5.21, Agnus Dei, in appendix). It also focuses on the fifth D to A, especially in the bassus, tenor, and superius. For example, the superius outlines the fifth D to A at mm. 1-4, the tenor leaps from D to A at m. 7, and the bassus plays with the interval from mm. 1-8. 282 This section is of textural interest because, while imitative, different pairs of voices are often in homophony within the polyphonic texture (as in the contratenor and tenor, mm. 3-5; tenor and bassus, mm. 17-19; superius 2 and contratenor, mm. 20-21), thus simplifying the counterpoint. LIKE CHARACTERISTICS IN THE MISSA MEMOR ESTO AND THE MISSA CUEUR LANGOUREULX Missa Memor esto has several features in common with Missa Cueur langoreulx. Both masses are almost entirely in imperfect tempus; while the composer of the latter mass used O to set apart the Sanctus from the rest of the mass, the composer of Missa Memor esto uses proportio sesquialtera only in the Cum Sancto Spiritu (?3?) and in the last eleven breves of the Osanna (Cut C3) (both passages in perfect tempus are contained within subsections), to similar effect. Furthermore, the two masses have several prominent motives in common. Two cadential figures in particular, a descending line from D to A or A to E (see Examples 5.22 and 5.23, below) and a series of descending minor thirds, are significant. It is interesting, though not surprising, that Josquin used the motives in both his chanson Cueur langoreulx and his motet Memor esto verbi tui. 275 Obviously, the composer of Missa Cueur langoreulx cited the motives from the chanson and he who composed the Missa Memor esto borrowed the same motives from a different source, the motet. What is more significant is that these anonymous composers both chose to model their masses on D-mode compositions by Josquin that feature the same cadential motives. Though neither 275 Might this self-borrowing be evidence that the two compositions were written during the same period? This fascinating question would require the analysis of many more compositions and is unfortunately outside the scope of this chapter, though motives such as these that recur throughout the corpus examined in this dissertation will be discussed in the Conclusion. 283 of the musical figures is particular atypical in music of this period, the mere prominence and quantity of their repetition in the masses, and the fact that they are used in the same context as in Josquin?s chanson and motet is evidence for the type of borrowing employed by the anonymous composers. Example 5.22: Missa Cueur langoreulx, Kyrie, mm. 1-14 284 Example 5.23: Missa Memor esto, Gloria, mm. 22-35 It is dangerous to use motives such as these as signifiers of a composer?s style, because they are typical enough in Renaissance music, and composers generally imitated each other and themselves as a normal practice. But in this case, it is clear (and to be expected) that Josquin used and reused these motives, and that the anonymous composer or composers of Missa Cueur langoreulx and Missa Memor esto transferred them repeatedly and used them in the same context as did Josquin. Both the Missa Cueur langoreulx and the Missa Memor esto were definitely written by composers who knew Josquin?s music very well. The motivic and modal similarities between the two models, and the fact that the anonymous mass composer(s) chose to borrow like characteristics, suggests that the two masses may even have been created by the same composer. Like Missa Cueur langoreulx and Missa Assumptione de beata Marie, Missa Memor esto only has one statement of the Agnus Dei. Though it cadences on D, the cadence is so weak that it is difficult to imagine that the composer intended the mass to 285 end here. More likely, at least one additional Agnus Dei once existed, but for some reason the scribes of MontsM 766 did not copy it. That the anonymous composer so obviously borrows and employs Josquin?s melodies is evidence that he intended for the listener to recognize Josquin?s composition in his own, but there are other similarities between mass and model. For example, both composers manipulate the species of the fifth on D and A. The motet, as well as the mass, are written in a text-generated style, with extremely syllabic text declamation and repeated notes that project the text clearly. As Patrick Macey points out, however, these are traits common in music written around 1500. 276 The motet abounds in imitative paired duos that are periodically interrupted with homophonic passages and many of Josquin?s phrases exhibit similar melodic contours and share common motives. It is immediately clear that Josquin, from the outset, composed his motet according to a well-structured and well-thought-out plan. The anonymous mass, on the other hand, cites Josquin?s themes at the opening of each movement and incorporates motives from the model throughout, but the music is not at all structured according to Josquin?s plan. Instead, after imitative openings on the opening theme of Memor esto verbi tui, the music quickly dissolves into counterpoint that, while reminiscent of Josquin?s melodies, is more or less free and in a new style. Homophonic passages like Josquin?s are prominent, especially in the syllabic Gloria and Credo. 276 Macey, ?Josquin as Classic,? 30-38. 286 IMITATORS OF JOSQUIN Patrick Macey considers motets imitating Josquin?s motet to be necessarily inferior to their models, but nowhere discusses masses, 27 and Ludwig Finscher also considers Josquin?s imitators to be of lesser quality, noting that they ?imitated the mechanical aspects of the style in more or less a mechanical way.? 278 Finscher is speaking of next-generation composers of psalm motets, not masses, however. Here, we have a different kind of borrowing: masses that rework the borrowed material into a new type of composition that necessarily reflects both the style of the model (be it motet or chanson) and that of the composer of the new work. A mass that takes a motet or a chanson as a model is an example of emulation, not of straightforward imitation. CONCLUSIONS Similar compositional styles in masses copied into the same manuscript, such as the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, Missa Cueur langoureulx, and Missa Memor esto in MontsM 766, suggest that these masses may be the work of the same composer, or, if not, by composers who shared common techniques and employed them in similar ways. It also conforms to the tendency for individual Alamire manuscripts to transmit like repertoire, or repertoire that adheres to a common theme. As we have seen, all three anonymous masses discussed in this chapter are of extremely high quality. While those based on models by Josquin do not necessarily imitate his structure, it is clear that the new compositions were meant as a kind of homage to the master, and it is appropriate that they reflect both traits of Josquin and 27 See Macey, ?Josquin as Classic,? 43. The motet pairs in question are Qui habitat and Levavi oculos, and Memor esto verbi tui and Nunc dimittis. 278 Finscher, ?Four-Voice Motets,? 278. 287 qualities particular to the style of the anonymous composers. Still, these masses may have had additional functions; unfortunately, given the lack of multiple sources or other evidence, it is impossible to say with certainty what those functions would have been. Though we have a good idea about how these anonymous composers approached their work, we still have little evidence as to who they were. The analyses of the sources in which this repertory is found and the atelier from which they were issued, to follow in the next Chapter, will help to elucidate the context in which these anonymous masses were composed, copied, and performed, and will thus inform us as to their importance and reception in their own time. Comparison of what we now know about the methods and style of these composers to those of the other anonymous composers represented in the Alamire manuscripts, presented in the concluding chapter, Chapter 7, will help us to identify them, if not by name, then at least by compositional style and method. 288 CHAPTER 6 A New Interpretation of the Alamire Workshop: The Role of the Scribes as Creators of Anonymity Of seventy-seven unascribed masses and mass movements in the Alamire manuscript complex, twenty-four remain anonymous today. 279 Although only masses whose composers are still unknown were examined in the previous four chapters, in this chapter all masses that were transmitted without ascription are considered in order to understand the meaning of ascriptions in the Alamire manuscript complex, and, more broadly, the phenomenon of anonymity in this time. Drawing upon previous analyses of the music and text scripts in these choirbooks, 280 we begin by exploring the circumstances under which the Alamire manuscripts were produced. We then consider the presence and absence of ascriptions, asking if the scribes actively included or omitted them, or if they passively copied from the exemplars. As we shall see, the Alamire manuscripts, considered as individual physical objects, and as a complex, contribute significant evidence to explain how the scribes worked; in this way, they also reveal how anonymity could be ?produced? in the Renaissance. Past scholarship has emphasized the cohesiveness of the complex on account of the similar physical appearance and content of the manuscripts within it, even including the Scribe B manuscripts in this interpretation, 281 but new and detailed codicological and 279 This chapter is informed by Kellman, ed., Treasury. Information on individual manuscripts was derived from their catalogue entries in this volume, or from my own observations in situ, unless otherwise cited. 280 See, for example, Warmington, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands,? 41-52; eadem, ?A Master Calligrapher?; Kiel, ?An Introduction to the Scribes,? 39-40; and Kellman, ?Openings,? 11-29. 281 The earliest group of manuscripts included under the heading ?Alamire complex? consists of manuscripts prepared between about 1498 and 1508 by Kellman?s Scribe B, who has sometimes been associated with one Martin Bourgeois. The Scribe B manuscripts, while similar to those produced by 289 paleographic evidence supports the division of the Alamire manuscripts (excluding the Scribe B manuscripts) into two distinct chronological groups, thus bringing into question the concept of one Alamire workshop. Herbert Kellman was the first to suggest such a division, pointing to inconsistencies between these two periods and noting a shift in repertory from the Burgundian (focusing on the music of La Rue) to the French (represented by Josquin, Mouton, and F?vin) after about 1512. 282 Flynn Warmington also notes that one group of scribes was active before about 1520, while another worked after that date. 283 In what follows, I present new evidence to support this division and take Kellman?s and Warmington?s observations further, to question the existence of one court scriptorium always under the direction of Petrus Alamire. Alamire and his colleagues, are generally of smaller dimensions but contain more compositions. They were each copied by one or two scribes with fine handwriting, and their uniformity and decoration are sure indicators that they were prepared as presentation manuscripts. Musicologists generally accept that Martin Bourgeois is in fact responsible for the Scribe B manuscripts, and that the workshop associated with Petrus Alamire replaced that of Bourgeois after he was no longer active. In fact, very little is known about Bourgeois, a singer in the court chapel who was paid by Philip the Fair between 1500 and 1503 for the copying of luxurious music manuscripts. What is clear is that the Scribe B manuscripts, no matter the circumstance of their production, are a related group separate from the Alamire codices, copied by two scribes who followed more or less the same principles as the Alamire scribes. Conclusions drawn from examining these manuscripts, then, while pertinent to understanding the procedures and habits of their copyists, cannot be extended to the Alamire manuscripts. Further, since the purpose of this chapter is primarily to understand the methods of the Alamire sribes, in particular what factors contributed to the presence or absence of composer ascriptions, the fact that the Scribe B manuscripts already form a concise codicological group is all that is relevant to the question at hand. The identity of Scribe B and the relationship between his workshop and the Burgundian-Habsburg court chapel, while important and fascinating questions, must be put aside. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be assumed here that the institution headed by Petrus Alamire was not the same as that in which the Scribe B manuscripts were prepared, although some relationship between the two is apparent. The Scribe B manuscripts will be considered only insofar as their patterns of attribution are concerned; no conclusions gained from this analysis will be imposed on the situation of the Alamire scribes. Fabrice Fitch has questioned the continuity of Scribe B?s enterprise with that of Alamire, basing his observations on variant readings of Agricola?s compositions across the complex. See Fitch, ?Alamire versus Agricola,? 308; and idem, ?Agricola and the Rhizome,? 66-92. 282 See Kellman, ?Book Production,? 14-17; idem, ?The Role of the Empire;? idem, ?Josquin and the Courts of the Netherlands and France,? 200-01; and ?Openings,? 20. 283 See Warmington, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands,? 43. 290 THE EARLY AND LATE PERIODS OF ALAMIRE MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION The Making of the Manuscripts Table 6.1 (in Appendix III) shows the Alamire manuscripts containing masses, roughly in chronological order, grouped by common codicological and paleographic elements. 284 Codicological features, such as material, size (number of folios, dimensions, and staff height), gathering structure, layout, and evidence of page preparation; and paleographic characteristics such as scribal hands, extra-musical and extra-textual markings, corrections, the presence and type of continuation signs, and decorative elements such as the series of lines in the form of a triangle that sometimes occur after a final barline, support the division of the codices into two main groups. The first group consists of manuscripts of very high quality that were prepared between 1508 and c. 1518, and the second, characterized by manuscripts of slightly lesser quality, spans the years from c.1518 to 1534. 285 Most of the Alamire manuscripts copied before about 1518 284 An earlier analysis of a similar table is given in Saunders, ?Manuscripts in the Age of Print.? These chronological groupings are based on previous analyses of the manuscripts, on Flynn Warmington?s identification and chronology of scribal hands, and on my own work with the original manuscripts. Warmington?s scribal analyses and designations of scribes have been provisionally accepted here, despite the unfortunate lack of published evidence. The presumed datings of these manuscripts have been viewed with caution here, as Kellman has advised in ?Openings,? 12. By relying upon the presumed dates of the Alamire manuscripts to determine the period of activity of the scribes, we risk inaccurate conclusions, because, in most instances, the manuscripts are not dated precisely or with certainty. We likewise obtain unreliable results, when, by circular reasoning, the hypothetical period of activity of a scribe or group of scribes is used to date a manuscript. Previous datings of manuscripts, therefore have been accepted or revised only when convincing evidence has been found, and Warmington?s chronology has been viewed critically in this study as only one of many pieces of evidence to group manuscripts together. 285 See Lewis Lockwood, ?Jean Mouton and Jean Michel: New Evidence on French Music and Musicians in Italy, 1505-1520,? Journal of the American Musicological Society 32 (1979): 191-246. Lockwood identifies early sixteenth-century Ferrara as a ?point for collection and transmission,? and shows that, in order to fully comprehend the sources, we must support our study of the musical manuscripts with exploration of documentary evidence. It is not difficult to identify the corollary between the musical situation in the Burgundian Low Countries?specifically Mechelen, Antwerp, and Brussels?and Lockwood?s Ferrara during precisely the same period. Alamire and a group of scribes, acting on behalf of or at least in close proximity to, the court of Burgundy, essentially collected and transmitted a repertory of 291 are parchment presentation manuscripts, extravagantly decorated, and prepared for, or commissioned by, members of the Burgundian-Habsburg dynasty. Such manuscripts (e.g. BrusBR 6428 and BrusBR 15075) are the exception in the later period. Those elements that vary within each of the two periods, including size, height of staves, type of continuation signs, markings for private scribal use (which indicate what was to be copied on a given folio), and decoration, as well as any known recipient, 286 can be used to refine the assignment of the Alamire manuscripts further, and to break each period into smaller subgroups of a few manuscripts, which can, in turn, suggest more precise dates. The codices prepared during the earlier period were copied by one group of scribes (those in Warmington?s C family, and D, E, and X), while those prepared later were copied by a completely different group (F, H, I, K, Y, and Z). 287 The procedures and style of copying of both of these groups of scribes is similar, e.g. page preparation and design, quality, and style of script, style of the decorations, but those at work in the later period were consistently less fastidious. For example, after the contents had been decided, the earlier scribes prepared gatherings specifically designed to fit the individual compositions, but the later scribes made enough gatherings of equal size to fit the entire Flemish and French masses, motets, and chansons. The physical evidence of the sources tell us much; but in order to understand, as Lockwood puts it, ?the precise steps by which the manuscript was prepared by its scribes and those responsible for its decoration,? and to learn the identities of the music and text scribes, documentary evidence complements our study of the sources. Although there is abundant documentation of scribal activity in the accounts of the Burgundian-Habsburg courts, the entries do not provide detailed descriptions of how the scribes worked, and therefore, the sources themselves become the best witnesses to the circumstances of their production. 286 As noted in Saunders, ?Manuscripts in the Age of Print,? groups of manuscripts sent to the same patron normally resemble each other in physically, featuring like dimensions, decoration, and so on. 287 Based on extensive and detailed paleographic analyses, Flynn Warmington has assigned letters to each scribe so that they can be identified. See Warmington, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands,? 52. While Warmington identifies more scribes than likely worked on these manuscripts (some of her scribes are likely the same person), her recognition of two separate groups of individuals, two or three of whom usually worked together on the same manuscript, is supported by the codiological data presented in Table 6.1. 292 contents of the manuscript. Thus, the gathering structures of manuscripts copied before about 1518 are irregular, and there are many instances where a folio was cut or pasted in to adjust a gathering to fit a mass. 28 (Exceptions include BrusBR 215-216, the first fascicle of which is in regular quaternions with one ternion, a manuscript copied for and almost certainly commissioned by Charles de Clerc, 289 and MunBS 7, in regular ternions except the last gathering, which is a bifolio, for Wilhelm IV of Bavaria, a paper manuscript which consistently stands apart from the early group.) There are also more blank openings between compositions in early manuscripts, a striking formality in a period when materials were so expensive that unused space was rare. In the later period, only BrusBR 6428, BrusBR 15075, and MunBS F feature gatherings constructed carefully to contain a composition, and use blank openings or folios to separate compositions. The other late manuscripts are made of regular gatherings, mostly ternions (six folios), by far a simpler process, and little space was left unused. Manuscripts in both periods feature sets of abbreviated, usually lightly-written pencil markings (though occasionally, in later manuscripts, they are heavier and in ink) at the top, bottom, or side margins of folios. Written at the earliest stage of page preparation, before staves had been ruled or music or text copied, these markings indicate the mass by title, composer, or both on the first openings or at the end of the group of gatherings that contain that composition, and mass sections, text incipits, number of staves needed, initials for voice names or decorated initials, and some other rubrics whose purpose is unclear, mostly small letters or numbers, on most folios within each 28 In JenaU 5, JenaU 7, JenaU 12, MechAS s.s., and VatS 160, among other early manuscripts, gatherings are comprised of varying numbers of folios. 289 See Robijns, ?Eine Musikhandschrift,? 28-43; Haggh, ?Charles de Clerc,? 185-202; and Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 1, 67. 293 gathering. 290 Some of these manuscripts also include indications that were certainly written after the music was copied, such as a faint ?x? where a continuation sign would be added (MontsM 773). Only the later scribes sometimes marked an ?x? or ?8? in the margins next to lines on which corrections were to be made, to signal them (VienNB 4810). Such informal rubrics are important evidence of private communication between the different scribes copying a single composition, or even of reminders from a scribe to himself. That they were not meant to be noticed by the manuscript?s readers is clear, and the position of most of them on the page indicates that they were intended to be cropped off in binding, but it is also a remarkable indicator of the lack of concern with perfection and uniformity on the part of the manuscript?s creators and recipient that so many of them are still visible. Manuscripts copied in the early period exhibit evidence that their scribes were more attentive to page preparation and layout than those who worked on the later manuscripts. Existing prick marks (some have evidently been cropped off in binding) show that the scribes regularly ruled symmetrical margins and staves (prick marks correspond most often to one line of the staff, and to vertical and horizontal margins), while the later scribes most often simply folded the paper or drew dry point lines. The scribes of all of the early manuscripts under consideration here, except MunBS 7, took care to line up the staves from recto to verso precisely. In the later period, this is 290 Manuscripts in which such indications are still visible include VienNB 15495, VienNB 15496, JenaU 7, JenaU 2, VatS 160, JenaU 4, JenaU 12, JenaU 5, and MunBS 7 from the first period, and BrusBR IV.922, JenaU 21, SubA 248, VienNB 4810, VienNB 11778, BrusBR 6428, BrusBR 15075, and MunBS 6 from the second. Further, VienNB 15497, MechAS s.s., VatS 36, JenaU 3 from the early period, and MunBS F, in the later, carry rubrics or guides denoting which initials were to appear in what space on the page, though because they refer to a decorative element, it is not certain that such notices were written before the staves were ruled and music was copied, or afterwards. BrusBR 215-216, BrusBR IV.922, BrusBR 15075, JenaU 9, ?s-HerAB 72A, ?s-HerAB 72B, and ?s-HerAB 72C have not been included in this list, because the data is unavailable. 294 accomplished only in the three formal parchment manuscripts (BrusBR 6428, BrusBR 15075, and MunBS F). It is clear that the scribes knew the layout of each page in advance for manuscripts copied in the early period, because they drew the correct number of staves on each folio and left indentations for initials in the appropriate places, but later scribes did not always follow these procedures. One finds folios with extra staves, entire folios with blank staves, and initials drawn over staves that were not indented (as in MunBS 6, VienNB 4809, VienNB 4810, among others). One to three music scribes would then copy the music, often correcting themselves as they progressed. 291 As will be shown below, scribes working in the early period generally transmitted more reliable readings than those who copied in the late period. Sometimes these scribes would add decorative lines in the form of triangles following final barlines. 292 Though these occur both in manuscripts copied before and after the change in manuscript production, they appear exclusively in the more formal manuscripts in the late period. After the music had been copied, the text scribes would underlay the text. Generally, in the more formal manuscripts, the text sits between two perfectly-ruled lines (usually at .5cm), whereas ruling for text in the later manuscripts, if present, is not as straight, and usually consists of one line on which the text was copied. The text scribe with the most formal hand would then copy any intended titles, ascriptions, cantus firmus texts, canon inscriptions and other instructions to the performer, and voice names, usually 291 What follows is informed by Warmington, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands,? 41-52, and by my own work in situ with 39 Alamire manuscripts. 292 As in BrusBR 215-216, VatS 36, JenaU 4, MunBS 7, among many others. See Table 6.1 for a complete catalogue of manuscripts with this feature. 295 in red ink. As expected, these identifying texts are normally more abundant and more neatly written, often on ruled lines, in the earlier, more formal manuscripts. After the music and text were copied, the manuscripts were proofread and errors in pitches, durations, rhythms, mensuration, and texting, among other musical matters, were corrected, often by scribes other than those who did the copying (see Table 6.1 for a catalogue of the types of errors corrected across the complex). 293 Though this stage occurred in both periods, the earlier scribes were apparently more attentive, since there are significantly more errors left uncorrected in later manuscripts. The amount and type of corrections present in the manuscripts can reflect the degree of care initially taken in the original copying, and the importance of providing an accurate reading. Thus, a manuscript that displays many corrections originally carried many errors, a sign of careless copying, but it also was meant to transmit accurate readings, since its scribes took the care to correct their work. Conversely, a manuscript with few corrections may have been copied with extreme care, or, it may still transmit many errors that went unnoticed or were not of importance to those who prepared and used the manuscript. The corrections in the more elegant presentation manuscripts tend to adjust layout and appearance (e.g. VatS 34, VatS 36, VatS 160, MunBS F), whereas those in paper manuscripts such as MunBS 7, MunBS 6, and MontsM 766, more often concern details in the music and the text, such as inaccurate pitches, rhythms, rests, or text underlay. 293 The role of exemplars in creating errors is examined later in this chapter. On proofreading, see Warmington, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands,? 41-42. Though some errors remain, these corrections to the musical text are evidence that the scribes strove to provide correct readings of the compositions they copied. Scholars have explored the possibility that these codices were copied with musical performance in mind. See vander Straeten, La musique aux Pays-Bas; van Doorslaer, ?La chapelle musicale,? 21-57, 139- 65; Kellman, ?Openings,? 28-29; and Meconi, ?The Function of the Habsburg-Burgundian Court Manuscripts,? 118-19. In many cases, such as SubA 248, VienNB 4809, among others, the errors that remain seem to render a copy unsuitable for performance, however. 296 Characteristic to manuscripts of both periods are extra staves, usually in the bassus, that were drawn to accommodate notes for which there was not enough space on the original staves. The scribes brought attention to these staves with continuation signs, which, while similar across the entire complex, show more variety and more decorative forms in manuscripts copied in the early period (see Table 6.1, in Appendix I). 294 Finally, the manuscripts were decorated. Elaborate decoration is, with three exceptions, a feature of manuscripts copied in the early period. Manuscripts decorated with painted miniatures, borders, coats of arms, donor portraits, mottos, and emblems, such as these, were typically decorated by professional illuminators. 295 Because manuscripts were often sent to illuminators? workshops, individual illuminators, or itinerant miniaturists, who would also have decorated manuscripts coming from other institutions, however, it is risky to group manuscripts by style of decoration. The plainer manuscripts copied in the later period were normally decorated with watercolor initials featuring grotesques, or only with inked, calligraphic, interlaced initials, maybe done by a text scribe. 296 In these instances, similar initial types probably indicate a close relationship, possibly extending to a close date of copying. The type and style of decoration, while almost always more sumptuous in manuscripts of the first group, is also similar enough between the two groups to suggest a close relationship. 294 As in VienNB 15495, JenaU 2, and VatS 36. 295 See, for example, Friedrich Winkler, Die Fl?mische Buchmalerei des XV. und XVI Jahrhunderts (Leipzig: Seeman, 1925); Kellman, ?The Origins of the Chigi Codex,? 6-19; idem, ?Josquin and the Courts of the Netherlands and France,? 181-216; and Dagmar Thoss, ?Flemish Miniature Painting in the Alamire Manuscripts,? in Treasury, 53-62. 296 For a discussion of the initials in the Alamire manuscripts, see Dagmar Thoss, ?Initialen und Bord?ren in den Musikhandschriften des Burgundisch-Habsburgischen Hofes,? in The Burgundian-Habsburg Court Complex, 149-60. Richard Sherr has also shown that some illuminations in manuscripts copied in the Vatican were done by a scribe. See Richard Sherr, ?The Papal Chapel ca. 1492?1513 and its Polyphonic Sources? (PhD diss., Princeton University,1975), 173-74. 297 The division of labor among music and text scribes sometimes differed from one manuscript to another, particularly between manuscripts copied in the early period, where manuscripts are more uniform, and the later, where hands change more frequently. 297 While scribes generally divided copying into logical units, such as compositions or gatherings, Flynn Warmington describes where changes of hand within these units indicate a more complicated division of labor. 298 In some instances, one scribe copied all of the composition except the first opening or beginnings of mass sections, leaving those more prominent passages to another with a more refined hand. 29 The main scribe of a copying unit sometimes left a cantus firmus-bearing or canonic voice for another scribe, especially in five- or six-voice compositions. 30 Often, the hand changes where revisions or corrections have been made. 301 A similar division of labor to that of the music scribes applies to the text scribes, though there is generally more uniformity in text scripts within a copying unit or even a manuscript. Nevertheless, the care taken by the text scribes varies across the complex: some manuscripts, regardless of chronology, feature very 297 In light of the lack of documentary evidence describing the work of the Alamire scribes, the example of music copying at Notre-Dame Cathedral in Cambrai in the latter half of the fifteenth century provides a point of comparison. The same scribes were sometimes paid, along with their other duties, for completing a combination of some or all of the following tasks: procuring paper or parchment, copying music and text, correcting errors, and illuminating initials. This suggests a similar division of labor to that found in the Alamire manuscripts. See Liane Curtis, ?Simon Mellet, Scribe of Cambrai Cathedral,? Plainsong and Medieval Music 8 (1999): 133-66. One extant payment, from January, 1511 (n.s.) (Lille, Archives d?partementales du Nord, B 2218, f. 337) describes that Alamire was paid for the parchment, ink, and other expenses related to the copying of two manuscripts given to Maximilian I and Margaret of Austria, but it does not indicate which tasks, other than procuring materials, were completed by Alamire or other scribes, nor does it break down the division of labor. First cited in Pinchart, ed., Archives, 236-37; also cited in Schreurs, ?Petrus Alamire,? 23, no. 5. 298 See Warmington, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands,? 41-42. 29 As in JenaU 8, JenaU 9, BrusBR 15075, and VienNB 18832, among others. The hands of Scribe X, in the early period, and Z, in the late period, are commonly found on the decorated first openings of compositions. 30 As in MechAS s.s., BrusBR IV.922, VienNB 11778, among others. 301 As in BrusBR IV.922, 298 careful text underlay, complete with repetitions and divisions of syllables, while others carry only text incipits. Distinct codicological and paleographical elements thus show that most manuscripts copied before c. 1518-20 must have been copied under different circumstances?by scribes of greater or lesser competence, with more or less money and time available for the project?than those copied between c. 1518-20 and 1534. This conclusion is supported by the evidence of Alamire?s career and travels: he was no longer a regular employee of the Burgundian-Habsburg court in 1517, and he traveled widely in Europe between from 1516 on for a variety of purposes, only some of which were related to his musical career. 302 We will return to Alamire?s biography as it pertains to his role in the copying of these codices below. Having considered how the process of manuscript preparation differed between the scribes of the first and second groups, we must now look more closely at an element with a crucial role in the production process, the exemplar. Fifteenth- and sixteenth- century scribes copied compositions into new manuscripts from less formal manuscript copies, each of which probably contained one composition or a set of related compositions. As Charles Hamm has hypothesized, these ?fascicle-manuscripts? were used both in performance and as models for new copies of the compositions they contained. 303 Such exemplars would be kept on hand at institutions at which new manuscripts were produced, and, as Hamm concludes, were the form in which music circulated between musical centers, likely in the possession of musicians. 302 For an overview of Alamire?s biography, see Herbert Kellman ?Alamire, Pierre,? in Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/00399 (accessed 25 August 2008); and Schreurs, ?Petrus Alamire,? 15-27. 303 Hamm, ?Manuscript Structure,? 184. 299 The Exemplars used by the Alamire Scribes An examination of variants in the musical texts of compositions copied into more than one Alamire manuscript reinforces our knowledge that these scribes were often working from different exemplars of the same composition, and further clarifies the relationship between codices copied in different periods of manuscript production. 304 It also reveals that these scribes took initiatives in their copying, which will be discussed in detail below. Conversely, identical readings, which suggest common exemplars, can be used to separate the manuscripts into even more precise groups. These observations provide a more nuanced understanding of the complex. They also support the hypothesis that manuscript production changed considerably around 1518. Although the Alamire and Scribe B manuscripts, as one group, usually stand apart from other, non-Netherlandish sources of contemporary compositions, it will be shown that the later Alamire scribes rarely used the same exemplars as the early scribes, and that manuscripts copied after 1518-20 generally transmit less reliable, perhaps even unperformable, readings, despite corrections. 305 304 I am not the first to suggest that there may have been more than one exemplar for many compositions available to the Alamire scribes, but this is the first comprehensive study, incorporating all of the Alamire manuscripts that contain masses, to point out the substantial differences in use of exemplars between the two periods of Alamire?s workshop?s production. See Kellman, ?Josquin and the Courts of the Netherlands and France;? Boorman, ?The Purpose of the Gift,? 110-13; Brown, ?In Alamire?s Workshop,? 15-63; and Meconi, ?The Function of the Habsburg-Burgundian Court Manuscripts,? 118. See also Stanley Boorman, ?Two Aspects of Performance Practice in the Sistine Chapel of the Early Sixteenth Century,? in Collectanea II: Studien zur Geschichte der p?pstlichen Kapelle: Tagungsbericht Heidelberg 1989, ed. Bernhard Janz. Capellae Apostolicae Sixtinaeque Collectanea Acta Monumenta, 4 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1994), 575-609, in which Boorman argues that variants among different sources reflect the preferences of scribes and institutions. In ?The Purpose of the Gift,? Boorman revises his previous view, indicating that the significance of patterns such as ornamented cadences is related to the function of the manuscript?whether it was meant to be performed from or simply viewed, and whether it was to be sent out or kept at court. The different solutions by same scribe, outlined above, however, suggest first, the existence of multiple exemplars for one compositions, and second, that the preferences of the scribes had more to do with copying than with performing tradition. 305 The following discussion derives from study of scholarly editions of the cited works. The editions are cited here as follows, and hereafter are abbreviated: Pierre de la Rue, Opera omnia, vols. 2-7, ed. Nigel 300 First, the manuscripts copied in Alamire?s late period consistently stand apart from those copied in his early period and the Scribe B manuscripts, and these later manuscripts typically transmit less reliable readings than their earlier counterparts. For example, SubA 248 and VienNB 4809, both dated 1521-25 and which have many concordances with earlier Alamire manuscripts, transmit significantly different readings from those in the early Alamire manuscripts (which are surprisingly closer to the copies in the Scribe B manuscripts). SubA 248 (copied by Warmington?s scribes F, I Z), which contains seven masses by Pierre de la Rue, has many scribal errors in the Missa O gloriosa Margaretha 306 and Missa Tous les regretz 307 that are considerably different from those in the concordant sources. 308 Furthermore, the scribes of SubA 248 copied poor readings of other La Rue masses, including the Missa de beata Virgine and the Missa Cum jocunditate. 309 ?s-HerAB 72B, the other late Alamire source of this last mass, also transmits a flawed reading, which is curious, given that it is thought to have been copied for use by the Confraternity of Our Lady in ?s-Hertogenbosch. 310 Davison, J. Evan Kreider, and T. Herman Keahey. Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 97/2-7 (Neuhausen: American Institute of Musicology/H?nssler-Verlag, 1989-96) [hereafter La Rue ed.]; Josquin des Prez, New Josquin Edition, vols. 3-13 and CC 3-13, ed. William Elders et al. (Utrecht: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1994-2003) [hereafter NJE]; Antoine de F?vin, Collected Works of Antoine de F?vin 1: Missa pro fidelibus defunctis, Missa de beata virgine salve sancta parens, Missa sanctorum meritis, Missa super O quam glorifica luce, ed. Edward Clinkscale, Institute of Mediaeval Music, 11 (Henryville, Pa: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1980) [hereafter F?vin ed.]; Mathurin Forestier, Opera omnia, ed. Nors S. Josephson, and Thomas G. MacCracken, Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 104 (Neuhausen: H?nssler- Verlag/American Institute of Musicology, 1996) [hereafter Forestier ed.]; Nicolas Champion, Collected Works, ed. Nors S. Josephson, Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 60. (Neuhausen: American Institute of Musicology, 1973) [hereafter Champion ed.]. 306 The concordant sources are VatS 36, MontsM 773, and JenaU 5. 307 The concordant sources are JenaU 12 and VienNB 15497. 308 This is despite the fact that the editors of the La Rue edition claim that SubA 248 was copied from the same exemplar as JenaU 12, which is different from the exemplar for VienNB 15497. La Rue ed. 5, no. 21, xv-xxvi; and 6, no. 30, xlvii-lxi. 309 La Rue ed. 2, no. 8, il-lx; and no. 7, xxiii-xlviii. 310 La Rue ed. 2, no. 7, xxvii. 301 Like SubA 248, VienNB 4809 (copied by Warmingtons?s scribes F and H) also stands apart from other manuscripts containing concordant masses. The numerous concordances of Josquin masses between BrusBR 9126 (from Scribe B?s workshop), JenaU 3 (from Alamire?s early period), and VienNB 4809 (from Alamire?s late period) are striking. 31 Yet the readings of these masses in JenaU 3 and VienNB 4809, the two Alamire manuscripts, are significantly different. That exemplars acquired and used by the Scribe B workshop, for example for BrusBR 9126, were reused later by Alamire or scribes working with or contracted by him, for example for VienNB 4809, suggests a closer relationship between Scribe B?s workshop and the early period of Alamire?s workshop than existed between the two periods of Alamire?s production. For example, Josquin?s Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie appears in three Scribe B or Alamire manuscripts, each from one of the main periods. 312 While the Scribe B and early Alamire manuscripts are similar?BrusBR 9126 and JenaU 3 share variants?VienNB 4809 stands apart. VienNB 4809 is also different from the other three Scribe B or Alamire manuscripts that transmit Josquin?s Missa Ave maris stella. 313 Although these four Netherlandish sources all have some of the same variant readings, differing from those in the three earliest, Italian, sources of the mass, they display too many other variants, including errors in pitches and rhythms, to have been copied from a common exemplar. As is often the case, VienNB 4809, the only one of these manuscripts to have been copied 31 These are the Missa Ave maris stella, Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie, Missa Malheur me bat, Missa Faisant regretz (JenaU 3 and VienNB 4809), and Missa Sine nomine (JenaU 3 and VienNB 4809). Most of these masses also appear in other Alamire manuscripts as well. See Treasury, 171. 312 BrusBR 9126, JenaU 3, and VienNB 4809. NJE CC 11.1, 33-45. As is well known, the Netherlandish scribes changed the title of this soggetto cavato mass to fit their needs, thus it appears as Missa Philippus Rex Castilie in the Choirbook of Philip the Fair and Juana of Castile (BrusBR 9126), as Missa Fridericus Dux Saxsonie in a manuscript sent to Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony (JenaU 3), and in its original form in VienNB 4809, a simpler book sent to the Fuggers in Augsburg. The original title in the latter proves that this mass was not copied there for presentation to any particular patron. 313 BrusBR 9126, VienNB 1783, JenaU 3. NJE CC 3.1, 18-26. 302 in Alamire?s late period, has the most variants when compared with the other three manuscripts, and the most remarkable ones, and is thus the least dependable. VienNB 4809 likewise carries poor copies of Josquin?s Missa Malheur me bat, Missa Faisant regretz, and Missa Pange lingua. 314 For this last mass, VienNB 4809 transmits rhythmic substitutions and unique variants in a reading inferior to the almost-perfect copies in BrusBR IV.922 (no errors, 1 correction) and JenaU 21 (1 error), which are very similar to each other (they share a rhythmic variant). 315 The discrepancy between the readings in VienNB 4809 and JenaU 21 is particularly curious in light of the extremely close codicological relationship between those two manuscripts, between which one would expect similar readings, or at least readings of similar quality. 316 In fact, the reading in JenaU 21 is close to that of VatS 16, which is not an Alamire manuscript. 317 VienNB 11778, another of the manuscripts to share codicological traits with VienNB 4809 and JenaU 21, is another of the few Alamire manuscripts to carry readings close to those in a source that was copied outside the Low Countries. Its scribes apparently had access to exemplars of the papal chapel, since the reading of Josquin?s Missa La sol fa re mi in VienNB 11778, along with the readings preserved in JenaU 32 and StuttL 44, is identical in some places to those in VatS 41 and VatS 26, as well as that 314 NJE CC 9.1, 21-27; CC 8.1, 14-18; and CC 4.3, 74-83. 315 NJE CC 4.3, 77-78. These two readings resemble each other despite the fact that the scribes of the ?Occo Codex? replaced two mass sections with sections by other composers (the Pleni sunt is anonymous, and the Benedictus is from Gascongne?s Missa Es hat ein sin). 316 Cf. Chapter 3, pp. 80-92, for a critique of the dating of these two manuscripts, along with three other codicologically-similar manuscripts, and a description of how JenaU 21 stands apart from the other four manuscripts (VienNB 4809, VienNB 4810, VienNB 11778, and SubA 248). 317 NJE CC 4.3, 78. 303 in Petrucci?s Misse Josquin (Venice, 1502) or in its source, none of which are Alamire sources. 318 Even the later parchment manuscripts transmit different readings than early Alamire sources of concordant masses. BrusBR 6428 and BrusBR 15075, two of the more formal manuscripts copied in the later period, stem from a different family of exemplars than their earlier counterparts, as in La Rue?s Missa de septem doloribus, Missa Paschale, and Missa de Sancta cruce, among others. 319 Furthermore, BrusBR 15075, despite its formal appearance, consistently provides faulty readings of La Rue?s masses (as in the Missa Sancta cruce, Missa de septem doloribus, Missa Ave sanctissima maria, among others). 320 Second, the variants show that, in some cases, the Alamire scribes used multiple exemplars for the same composition even within one period. Three unique readings of Josquin?s Missa Faisant regretz (in JenaU 3, VienNB 15495, and VienNB 4809) prove the existence of three different exemplars for this mass. 321 Among manuscripts copied in the late period, two separate exemplars existed for Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua: one possibly from the papal chapel (also used for VatS 16) for JenaU 21 (copied by Scribe D) and BrusBR IV.922 (copied by Scribe I, and perhaps D), and another exemplar for 318 NJE CC 11.2, 89. 319 La Rue ed. 3, no. 14, xlvi-lvii; 5, no. 23, xxxvi-xlvii; and 3, no. 11, pp. xiv-xxiii. This has been noted by Brown, ?In Alamire?s Workshop,? 15-28; and Boorman, ?The Purpose of the Gift,? 114. Both BrusBR 6428 and BrusBR 15075 are included in the five Alamire sources for La Rue?s Missa Ave sanctissima Maria that descend from the alpha source, however, since all five of these manuscripts omit the same two phrases of the Credo. See La Rue ed. 1, no. 5, lxviii-lxxviii. 320 Some of these variants are due to the initiative of the scribes, who sometimes, as in BrusBR 15075, updated readings to correspond to contemporary traditions. La Rue ed. 3, no. 11, pp. xiv-xxiii; 3, no. 14, xlvi-lvii; and 1, no. 5, lxviii-lxxviii. 321 NJE 8.1, 14-18. The editor of the NJE volume acknowledges that the three Alamire copies of this mass descend from a common ancestor, but that they were each copied from a different exemplar. 304 VienNB 4809 (copied by Scribes F and H). 32 Similarly, based on the pattern of variants among five Alamire readings of La Rue?s Missa Alleluia, the editors of the La Rue edition separate three groups copied from different, though related exemplars: MechAS s.s. and VatS 36, VienNB 15496, and MontsM 773 and JenaU 12. 323 The source stemma for the seven Alamire sources of La Rue?s Missa de Sancta Cruce is equally curious. 324 The four manuscripts copied in the early period descended from three different exemplars, thus MechAS s.s., JenaU 12, and VienNB 15496 and MontsM 773 constitute three separate groups, while the three later sources, BrusBR 6428, BrusBR 15075, and MontsM 766, were all copied from the same exemplar that was used for MechAS s.s. In light of the source stemma for the Missa Alleluia, above, this is strange. Though these two masses have four sources in common, the editors of the La Rue edition came up with a different stemma for each, separating VienNB 15496 from JenaU 12 and MontsM 773 in the former, and separating JenaU 12 from VienNB 15496 and MontsM 773 in the latter. It seems that these three manuscripts are in fact quite closely related, and that, in light of the evidence of individual scribal autonomy to be presented below, these variants may stem from errors made or editorial activity on the part of the scribes rather than different exemplars. Still, MechAS s.s. stands consistently apart from these three, proving that at least two exemplars for these masses existed in the workshop during the first period of manuscript production. 32 NJE CC 4.3, 74-83. 323 La Rue ed. 1, no. 1, xx-xxix. Thus, based on two unmistakable variants unique to these manuscripts, MechAS s.s and VatS 36 both descend from the alpha source (in both MechAS s.s. and VatS 36, the two bassus voices do not line up with the Contratenor in the Agnus Dei, and the Tenor 1 is written out twice in Kyrie I), while VienNB 15496 was copied from the beta source, and MontsM 773 and JenaU 12 were both copied from gamma (based on similar text underlay). 324 For what follows in this paragraph, see La Rue ed. 3, no. 11, xiv-xvii. 305 This source grouping?MechAS s.s and VatS 36 for the Missa Alleluia, and MechAS s.s., BrusBR 6428, BrusBR 15075, and MontsM 766 for the Missa de Sancta Cruce, on the one hand; and JenaU 12, VienNB 15496, and MontsM 773, on the other?raises an intriguing question. MechAS s.s., VatS 36, BrusBR 6428, BrusBR 15075, and MontsM 766 were all copied over a span of about nine or ten years, and, at least one mass contained in each of them was copied from the same exemplar as the others. The other manuscripts, JenaU 12, VienNB 15496, and MontsM 773, were copied around the same time as each other, probably 1515-16, and, at least for these two masses, from one exemplar for each mass, which was copied from the exemplar used for the other group of manuscripts. All eight of these manuscripts can be firmly connected to members of the Burgundian-Habsburg dynasty. 325 There must have been two exemplars of each of these works, at least one of which was available to the group of scribes active before 1518-20, as well as to those who worked in the later period. Because of the firm connection between these manuscripts and the Burgundian-Habsburg court, the most likely source of these exemplars is indeed the court chapel. Would the court also have been the source of the second exemplar, or is it more likely that Alamire or another scribe(s) had their own private or commercial exemplars of the same compositions, which they used interchangeably with those provided by the court? Unfortunately, we cannot know, since these exemplars no longer exist, but, considering the picture of the workshop that is emerging, with Alamire rather than the court as the consistent element between the two periods, it seems more likely that he or another scribe collected exemplars and used whatever model or models were available at the time of copying. 325 See Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 23, 112-13; cat. no. 36, 134; cat. no. 3, 71; cat. no. 5, 74-75; cat. no. 24, 114; cat. no. 18, 101; cat. no. 46, 154-55; cat. no. 25, 115. 306 That MechAS s.s. was grouped with three manuscripts copied in the later period in the stemma of La Rue?s Missa de Sancta Cruce brings up a third curious conclusion: even though the same scribes copying manuscripts in the workshop?s early period may have used different exemplars for the same masses, some of these early-period exemplars were available to the later scribes. While one would expect sources copied in the same workshop by the same scribe to display readings close to each other for the same compositions, this is not always the case, complicating the situation even further. Two of La Rue?s masses, the Missa Assumpta est Maria and the Missa de beata Virgine, were copied into two Scribe B sources, JenaU 22 and VienNB 1783, and one late Alamire manuscript, SubA 248. 326 A third mass, the Missa Cum jocunditate, is transmitted in the same three manuscripts as well as in ?s-HerAB 72B, also a late Alamire manuscript. 327 Surprisingly, the copies of the Missa Assumpta est Maria in the two Scribe B sources were copied from two different exemplars, while SubA 248, copied some 20 or 30 years later, was copied from the exemplar used for VienNB 1783. 328 For the Missa Cum jocunditate, the editors of the La Rue edition attribute all four sources to one common exemplar, though JenaU 22 is more reliable than VienNB 1783, and the two later Alamire sources, as expected, transmit flawed readings. 329 Also, Josquin?s Missa de beata Virgine is preserved in three Alamire manuscripts, JenaU 7, VatS 160, and VienNB 4809, the last of which is the only of these to have been 326 La Rue ed. 1, no. 3, xli-xlvii; and 2, no. 8, il-lx. 327 La Rue ed. 2, no. 7, xxiii-xxviii. 328 JenaU 22 is consistently more acceptable from a performance standpoint than its Scribe B counterpart, VienNB 1783, which has many uncorrected errors and less dependable text underlay. 329 La Rue ed. 2, no. 7, xxv. 307 copied in the late period. 30 All three share significant variants, but VatS 160 and VienNB 4809, copied in different periods of manuscript production, feature an anomaly?an odd page turn in the Credo?that convinces William Elders that they stem from a common exemplar. 31 That the later manuscript was not copied from the earlier one is evident, first, because VatS 160 had been given to Pope Leo X long before VienNB 4809 had even been conceived, and second, because the VatS 160 scribes did not transmit the second Agnus Dei, which is present in the later Vienna manuscript. Conversely, evidence that the scribes of different manuscripts used the same exemplars allows us to group such manuscripts together, further refining our concept of the workshop. For example, despite their differences in physical appearance and quality, MunBS 7 and VienNB 15497, both copied in the early period, transmit extremely close readings, both defective, of F?vin?s Misa O quam glorifica luce (both were probably copied from the same, likely French, exemplar, according to Keahey). 32 Also, as shown above, VienNB 15496, MontsM 773, JenaU 12, and MechAS s.s. all provide consistently close readings of concordant works. Of these four parchment presentation manuscripts, VienNB 15496 always provides readings superior to those of the others, and it is clear that its scribes took care to correct errors and provide precise text underlay (as in La Rue?s Missa de Sancta Anna, among others). 33 30 NJE CC 3.3, 86-104. It is not surprising that TolBC 23, another source of this mass copied in the Low Countries, though not in the Alamire workshop, also displays a reading close to the ones found in the Alamire manuscripts, and it has many physical characteristics in common with them. For more information on later manuscripts that resemble those copied in Alamire?s workshop, see Jacobijn Kiel, ?Terminus Post Alamire? On Some Later Scribes,? in The Burgundian-Habsburg Court Complex, 107-16. 31 NJE CC 3.3, 96. 32 F?vin ed. 1, vii. This mass is also attributed to La Rue, and is edited with the doubtful works of La Rue: La Rue ed. 7, no. D2, xxi. 33 La Rue ed. 2, n. 10, lxvii-lxxii. 308 In very few instances, one Alamire manuscript was almost certainly copied from another. For example, Nigel Davison claims that the anonymous Missa L?homme arm? in VatS 34 appears to have been copied from JenaU 2, because, aside from their similar readings, both manuscripts have almost identical initials. 34 VatS 34 and JenaU 2 were likely copied within one year of each other, and they share four out of five scribes. In another example, one of the scribes of the fascicle manuscript VienNB 11883 (Alamire?) copied Josquin?s Missa La sol fa re mi from VienNB 11778, according to James Haar and Lewis Lockwood. 35 As is often the case, the VienNB 11883 scribe altered the reading he was copying, however, this time providing, and perhaps recomposing, an alternate version of the Gloria, mm. 20-25 (with the rubric ?vel sic?). A more nuanced view of the workshop that produced these manuscripts has emerged out of this close look at the use of exemplars for the copying of masses in the workshop of Scribe B, in Alamire?s early period, and in Alamire?s late period. First, the early Alamire manuscripts generally carry readings closer to those in the Scribe B manuscripts than to those in the manuscripts copied after c. 1518-20 in Alamire?s workshop. Second, the late Alamire manuscripts consistently carry less reliable readings than the early ones, regardless of the presumed function of those manuscripts. Third, the few instances where multiple exemplars exist for the same compositions copied within one period has allowed us to break the manuscripts into even more refined subgroups (cf. pp.14-16, above). Finally, some manuscripts dating from both periods of Alamire?s production, and even from the earlier Scribe B period, were copied according to a 34 La Rue ed. 7, no. D3, xxx. The scribes of VatS 34 introduced variants in their copy, including more frequent use of the rhythmic pattern, M-Sm-M. 35 NJE CC 11.2, 89. VienNB 11883 is thus also related to the Vatican sources of this mass from which the version in VienNB 11778 was derived. 309 common tradition, despite internal variants, and some seem to have descended from common ancestors. Instances when scribes working in the same period and on the same compositions transmitted different readings shows that they must have made their own copying choices. In fact, in both periods, but especially in the later one, a certain degree of scribal autonomy is evident in the manuscripts, and this suggests that the scribes had some say in what they copied and how they copied it. One would expect scribes working in one location to make use of the same collection of exemplars, as well as to use the same conventions in paleographical and codicological matters. Yet as we have seen here, identical readings and physical resemblance cannot alone be considered conclusive evidence, given the possibility of scribal initiative. 36 Continuity in Manuscript Production Though these two periods of manuscript production have been shown above to be distinct, there is some continuity between them, as has been suggested by my observations here. First, and most obviously, Alamire?s own hand appears in manuscripts copied both before and after the break. 37 Second, documents describing Alamire?s employment at the Burgundian-Habsburg court and commissions of manuscripts from him also exist for both periods. 38 Third, though a clear change of clientele occurs around 1518, the few luxury manuscripts made for Burgundian-Habsburg nobility after this date 36 Margaret Bent has explored the effects of ?scribal intention? on the transmission of music. See, for example, Margaret Bent, ?Text Setting in Sacred Music of the Early fifteenth Century,? in Counterpoint, Composition, and Musica Ficta (New York: Routledge, 2002), 274-76, 285, 291-96. 37 Warmington, in ?A Survey of Scribal Hands,? 52, cites Alamire?s hand in the following manuscripts: BrusBR 228, BrusBR IV.922, JeanU 8, JenaU 21, MunBS 7, MunBS 34, VatP 1976-79, VienNB 9814, VienNB 11778, VienNB 11883, VienNB Mus. 15491, VienNB Mus. 18746, VienNB Mus. 18825, VienNB Mus. 18832. 38 See Schreurs, ?Petrus Alamire,? 23-25. 310 show that a relationship of some sort still existed between the court and the workshop. 39 Finally, as described above, the scribes in both groups followed a similar copying style and tradition, and scribes in both periods sometimes used the same exemplars, which would be expected in manuscripts copied in the same geographical area within several decades by a school of scribes who presumably worked with the same editor, Alamire. 340 Nevertheless, the evidence presented above suggests that in the earlier period the workshop had more money, time in which to complete a commission, and a higher quality of labor available. Despite the many characteristics common to all Alamire manuscripts, there was a significant change in personnel and affiliation, and possibly in location, around 1518-20. 341 Institutional and Biographical Evidence for the Early and Late Periods The historical evidence also supports a division of manuscript production under Alamire into an earlier and a later period. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 (in Appendix I) show the Alamire manuscripts copied by these two distinct groups of scribes, with those 39 BrusBR 15075, BrusBR 6428, and MunBS F. 340 Warmington?s scribe D is the only scribe thought to have worked on manuscripts from both groups. His hand is also found in BrusBR IV.922 and MontsM 766, both of which date from the late period, but contain fascicles copied in the early period. Oddly Scribe D is attributed with the early, parchment fascicles of MontsM 766, and later fascicles of BrusBR IV.922. His hand is found in only one manuscript copied after 1518-21, JenauU 21, dated 1521-25, but new findings suggest that it may have been copied earlier (cf. Chapter 3). Other manuscripts on which Scribe D worked were copied in the mid- to late-1510s, and include JenaU 2, VatS 34, VatS 36, JenaU 4, MunBS 7, JenaU 5. If Scribe D did in fact copy JenaU 21, and if that manuscript was indeed copied in between 1521 and 1525, a dating based on its almost-identical appearance with four other manuscripts firmly datable to that period (VienNB 4809, VienNB 4810, VienNB 11778, and SubA 248), then it follows that Scribe D did work during both the early and late period of manuscript production. If, as hypothesized in Chapter 3, JenaU 21 was copied significantly earlier than these other manuscripts, Scribe D?s hand would only be present in manuscripts dating from between about 1516 and 1518-20, thus it appears that he was an early scribe. 341 Events which coincide with and may explain this change in manuscript production have been suggested by various authors, including myself. They include Alamire?s irregular employment by and presence at the Burgundian-Habsburg court after 1517, the departure of the future Charles V for Spain (1517), Pierre de la Rue?s death (1518), and the death of Maximilian I (1519). See Warmington, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands,? 43; Kellman, ?Openings,? 13; and Saunders, ?Manuscripts in the Age of Print.? 311 manuscripts having a proven relationship to the Burgundian-Habsburg court marked in bold. It is immediately evident that the early period witnessed many more court commissions than the later one: at least twelve out of twenty-five complete manuscripts in the early period were commissioned by or given to members of the Burgundian- Habsburg dynasty, while only four out of eighteen in the later period can be shown to have any firm relation to the court. 342 Complementary evidence shows that the shift from court to independent workshop never ruled out copying for one or the other clientele. In this context, the later parchment manuscripts (BrusBR 6428 BrusBR 15075, and MunBS F), each of which can be firmly connected to a court patron, attest to a continuing relationship between the workshop and the court even after the 1518-20 break, while earlier sources commissioned by private patrons (BrusBR IV.922, BrusBR 215-216, and possibly MunBS 7), show that Alamire?s workshop took orders from outside the court during the first period. Biographical evidence lends further support to, and perhaps an explanation of, the change in manuscript production. 343 Probably not coincidentally, Alamire?s official and continuous employment by the Burgundian-Habsburg court chapel seems to have ended 342 Though some of the Alamire codices can be shown to have been conceived as gifts from the Burgundian-Habsburg court to other Burgundian or European sovereigns, including the Pope, it was rare for a sovereign to give a book to someone other than an equal. For instance, only a few examples of gift manuscripts from Margaret of Austria to Lalaing exist. Cloth, horses, and such commodities are normal gifts from the sovereign to noblemen or employees, but not manuscripts. The Alamire manuscripts prepared for Burgundian noblemen or officers of the court were probably commissioned by those individuals, not given as gifts from Burgundian-Habsburg nobility. On sovereign gift giving in the early modern period, see Jan Hirschbiegel, Etrennes: Untersuchungen zum h?fischen Geschenkverkehr im sp?tmittelalterlichen Frankreich der Zeit K?nig Karls VI (1380-1422), Pariser historische Studien, 60 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2003); and Brigitte Buettner, ?Past Presents: New Year's Gifts at the Valois Courts, ca. 1400,? Art Bulletin 83 (2001): 604. Also, as Stanley Boorman points out, recipients of multiple Alamire manuscripts (such as Frederick the Wise), and of plainer paper manuscripts (such as the Fuggers) would not likely have found so many similar objects to be unique and special gifts, so it is probable that many of these manuscripts were also commissioned by their recipients either directly from Alamire, or perhaps through their court connections. Boorman, ?The Purpose of the Gift,? 108. 343 See Schreurs, ?Petrus Alamire,? 15-27; and Kellman ?Alamire, Pierre,? in Grove (accessed 25 August 2008). 312 in 1517, after which time he is known to have traveled widely. That Alamire was often absent during the workshop?s most productive period (c. 1516-1520) brings into question his assumed role as the master editor, who planned and oversaw the execution of all of these manuscripts. 34 Beginning in 1517, Alamire?s travels included, among other commissions for foreign royalty, some involving espionage, work as a diplomat and courier for Margaret of Austria. Itinerant musicians naturally made good spies, diplomats, and messengers, since they had reason to move often and enjoyed connections at various European courts. Alamire, an especially impressive entrepreneur, benefited enormously, both financially and socially, from his situation. This international work naturally brought him into regular contact with courts outside of the Burgundian Netherlands, for instance Henry VIII, Frederick the Wise, presumably Louis XII and Francis I of France, as well as with scholars, such as Erasmus, wealthy merchants, and bankers, such as the Fuggers of Augsburg, and Pompeius Occo of Amsterdam. Although he was not consistently physically present at court after about 1517, Alamire?s association with the court was not terminated. Even during the later period of his career, Alamire continued to satisfy commissions for manuscripts of polyphonic music for the Burgundian-Habsburg royal family (Margaret of Austria, Charles V, Mary of Hungary), as well as for his private contacts, including Richard de la Pole, Occo, the Fuggers, perhaps Frederick the Wise, and various churches and confraternities. He received a pension from Mary of Hungary in 1534, suggesting that he was at some point reinstated as a regular servant of the court. Nevertheless, Alamire?s physical absence from the Burgundian Low Countries during this time would surely have affected the 34 Cf. note 343, above. 313 manner in which his workshop was run, and the change in the type of association he held with the court would certainly have altered the nature of the relationship between his workshop and the court. An attractive hypothesis emerges, given what we now know about the two distinct periods of manuscript production, each of which saw the work of a different group of scribes following similar, but not identical, procedures. We have observed a change in quality from more to less formal, a change of variant musical readings for the same compositions, a shift in repertory from Burgundian to French, and a change in clientele. Considered along with Alamire?s sporadic presence in the Burgundian Low Countries after about 1517, this suggests it was unlikely that Alamire in fact planned and oversaw the execution of all of these manuscripts in a single workshop that operated from 1508- 1534. Rather, while Alamire?s workshop almost certainly operated under the auspices of the Burgundian-Habsburg court during the first period (1508-1518/20), engaging scribes who probably also belonged to the court chapel, sometimes taking commissions from private patrons (Charles de Clerc, Ulrich Pfintzing, Frederick the Wise?), and producing luxurious, formal presentation manuscripts, his establishment likely became a commercial, autonomous one in the second period, when it served a more diverse clientele, including not only members of the court, but also private patrons, with manuscripts of varying quality that were prepared more quickly. Thus, though all of the Alamire manuscripts can be shown to be related on some level, no one explanation for the presence or absence of composer ascriptions, or any other generalization regarding manuscript production, function, or transmission of repertory, should or can be applied uniformly to all of the manuscripts. 314 SCRIBAL INITIATIVE AND ANONYMITY Central to the question of anonymity is the role of the scribe as author. As we have seen above from our study of exemplars, the Alamire scribes exercised their own copying habits and preferences in both periods, but especially in the second, did not always work from common exemplars, and may not have been working in a single location. This suggests that Alamire?s role was more limited than has previously been thought, and proves that complete uniformity, even among a group of related manuscripts, was not of great concern to the makers, senders, or receivers of these manuscripts. Just as variant readings of the same works across the complex have illuminated the use of exemplars, they are also firm musical evidence as to the type of editorial initiative the Alamire scribes took, and they illustrate specific ways in which these scribes exercised their own initiative in copying. In what follows, we will see examples of scribal initiative in regard to corrections, rhythmic variants, ornamentation, tacet inscriptions, canons, key signatures, clefs and mensuration signs, coloration, ligatures, text underlay, and voice labels. This will help us to understand their ascription practices. As Herbert Kellman and Thomas Schmidt-Beste have noted, the Alamire music scribes were undoubtedly musicians, and only semi-professional copyists, most likely singers from the Burgundian-Habsburg court chapel. 345 Given that the quality of the text 345 Thomas Schmidt-Beste, ??ber Quantit?t und Qualit?t von Musikhandschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts,? in Die M?nchner Hofkapelle des 16. Jahrhunderts im europ?ischen Kontext. Bericht ?ber das internationale Symposion der Musikhistorischen Kommission der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 2- 4 August 2004, ed. Theodor G?llner and Bernhold Schmid (Munich: Tutzing, 2006), 191-211; idem, ?Textunterlegung in den Alamire-Handschriften,? in The Burgundian-Habsburg Court Complex, 37-57; and Kellman, ?Openings,? 113. 315 script in the Alamire manuscripts is generally less professional than that of the music script, the text scribes were almost certainly not professional copyists, rather?considering also the musical knowledge needed to underlay mass text?the texting was probably also done by the music scribes. Beste even suggests that the scribes were employed based on their ability to copy music, not text. 346 Editorial Initiative Such scribes would thus have been qualified to make editorial decisions regarding the music during the copying process. Unmistakable evidence for editorial activity by the scribe includes, in almost every Alamire manuscript, the care to coordinate page turns and line ends, making each coincide with the end of a breve (or in some cases a semibreve); corrections of instances where not enough space was left for the music by extending staves into the margin, cramming notes onto the end of a staff, or by drawing extra staves and indicating where the voice continues with continuation signs; and scraping and correcting wrong notes and text. Most of these corrections were made after the initial copying, usually by a different scribe. That it was more important to these scribes to correct these errors of layout, which would have affected a performance, seems odd in manuscripts whose physical appearance otherwise suggests luxury gift codices. Not only did these scribes as a group exercise editorial initiative in their work, individual scribes asserted their own copying preferences and habits, sometimes even within the same manuscript, 347 reaffirming the notion that absolute uniformity of appearance was not yet an important aesthetic, though it was one that would come soon, with the advent and development of music printing. Some of the varying elements are 346 Thomas Schmidt-Beste, e-mail message to author, 25 March 2009. 347 See Warmington, ?A Survey of Scribal Hands,? 41-42, for a list of types of scribal interaction within a single manuscript. 316 directly related to the musical text, while others are purely graphic. 348 For example, despite a presumed common exemplar, variants exist among the five Alamire sources of La Rue?s Missa Ave sanctissima, proving editorial authority on the part of the Alamire scribes. 349 When correcting their work, the Alamire scribes often arrived at different solutions, as concordant sources of the same work show. For example, three like readings of La Rue?s Missa Inviolata, in VienNB 15496, MontsM 773, and JenaU 7, manuscripts copied around the same time by overlapping scribes, and which share common repertoire (four of the same masses by La Rue appear in all three manuscripts), transmit different corrections of the same error. 350 Further, despite the apparent care taken in proofreading, readings of many compositions in the Alamire manuscripts, particularly those copied in the later period, still contain errors that would be audible in performance. La Rue?s Missa Alleluia provides a fascinating example. Among readings of this mass in five Alamire manuscripts, the same error was treated in three different ways by scribes who worked during the same period, often on the same manuscripts. Warmington?s scribe C left the error uncorrected in JenaU 12, while her scribe C2 or X, who used the same exemplar for MontsM 773, corrected the error in a straightforward manner. Scribe C or X arrived at a more complicated solution in VienNB 15496 (this mass is also in MechAS s.s. and VatS 348 See Meconi, ?The Function of the Habsburg-Burgundian Court Manuscripts,? 118-19, for a description of some of these elements. Boorman, in ?The Function of the Gift,? 108-09, also discusses some of these variants, though he uses them as evidence for the function, whether for performance or presentation, of the manuscript. That even plainer manuscripts, such as SubA 248, use ligatures and coloration, but do not transmit accurately performable readings suggests that these variant elements are not reliable evidence for the function of the manuscripts. They do reflect the exemplar and scribal initiative. 349 La Rue ed, 1, no. 5, lxviii-lxxviii. 350 La Rue ed. 4, no. 17, xxxii-xxxviii. 317 36). 351 In another example, pitches and mensuration signs in Josquin?s Missa Malheur me bat were corrected by the scribes of JenaU 3. 352 Though the copy in VienNB 4809 was edited to a certain extent, performance instructions and signa congruentiae were omitted, rendering the reading very difficult for performance, as, we will see below, is often the case in this late Alamire manuscript. As mentioned above, the reading of Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua in VienNB 4809 is so poor that it precludes a satisfactory performance. 353 Similarly, VienNB 15496, MontsM 773, and MontsM 766, which were copied from two different exemplars, as shown above, all transmit rhythmic errors in their readings of La Rue?s Missa de Sancta cruce. The scribes of other sources 354 corrected these errors, however, even when copying from the same exemplar as MontsM 766, a manuscript which transmits the errors uncorrected. 35 Finally, although the six Alamire sources of La Rue?s Missa Conceptio tua descended from a common exemplar, their scribes did not correct errors in the same way. Only the scribes of BrusBR 15075 noticed and corrected an error present in other Alamire sources of this mass before they copied it. This same error was corrected soon after the mass was copied into JenaU 4 and BrusBR 6428, though with different solutions, while its version in VatS 34 was corrected in the Vatican, after it had been sent out. 356 In fact, errors left uncorrected were often corrected by a later hand at a manuscript?s destination, especially in the Vatican and at the court of Frederick the Wise. Resolutions to the canons in Forestier?s Missa L?homme arm?, left unresolved by the 351 La Rue ed. 1, no. 1, xxii-xxiii. 352 NJE CC 9.1, 21-25. 353 NJE CC 4.3, 77. 354 MechAS s.s., BrusBR 6428, and BrusBR 15075. 35 La Rue ed. 3, no. 11, xv-xvii. 356 La Rue ed. 2, no. 6, xv-xvi. 318 Alamire scribes, were added by later hands into VatS 160 and in JenaU 3. 357 Key signatures left incomplete by Alamire scribes were altered in the copies of Josquin?s Missa de beata Virgine in JenaU 7 and VatS 160, but, predictably, not in that in VienNB 4809, which consistently transmits careless copies. 358 Rhythmic variants, such as coloration and the division of breves, dotted breves, or semibreves into two notes, which occur often among Alamire manuscripts, can be the result of scribal errors or errors in the exemplars. The appearance of this type of variant occurs independently of the period in which manuscripts were copied, thus illustrating that scribes in both periods took liberties in their copying. The scribes of VienNB 4809 made rhythmic substitutions that do not appear in any other Alamire source 359 of Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua. 360 The rhythmic variants introduced by the scribes of VienNB 15496 in La Rue?s Missa Sub tuum presidium show that this manuscript was copied after JenaU 12, which does not contain those variants (this is a change to the currently accepted dating of these manuscripts). 361 The scribes of JenaU 12 and BrusBR 6428 made rhythmic changes which correspond to text syllables in their readings of La Rue?s Missa de Sancta cruce, while the scribes of the other four Alamire sources did not, regardless of exemplar. 362 The scribes of JenaU 4 and BrusBR 6428, but not those of VatS 34, altered rhythms in La Rue?s Missa Conceptio tua. 363 Rhythmic changes were 357 We even know the name of the individual who resolved the canons in Jena: Adam Rener, a singer and composer in Frederick the Wise?s chapel, signed the sheet of paper he inserted in the manuscript (?Adam Reneri all ragvol?). This is noted in Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 12, 87. 358 NJE CC 3.3, 97-99. 359 BrusBR IV.922 and JenaU 21. 360 NJE CC 4.3, 77. 361 La Rue ed. 6, no. 28, xxvii. 362 La Rue ed. 3, no. 11, xvi. 363 La Rue ed. 2, no. 6, xvi. 319 made in JenaU 5 in La Rue?s Missa de feria, but not in its other Alamire sources. 364 The picture that emerges is that the scribes of VienNB 15496, JenaU 5, JenaU 4, BrusBR 6428, and VienNB 4809 consistently introduced rhythmic variants, while those who copied MontsM 773, MechAS s.s., VatS 34, JenaU 12, BrusBR IV.922, MontsM 766, BrusBR 15075, and JenaU 21 did not. Similarly, the amount of ornamentation varies between concordant sources of the same masses. As Stanley Boorman points out, some scribes simplified cadences, while others left them ornamented, 365 although ornamented cadences are the exception rather than the rule in the Alamire complex. 36 For example, although five Alamire sources of La Rue?s Missa Ave Maria 367 descend from a single exemplar, each displays its own ornamental variants and different articulations. Boorman provides the example of La Rue?s Missa de Sancta cruce: the scribes of VienNB 15496, MontsM 773, and BrusBR 15075 simplified cadences throughout; those of MontsM 766 simplified some cadences; and those of JenaU 12 and BrusBR 6428 simplified cadences, but at different points. Only MechAS s.s. presents ornamented cadences. Since this pattern does not correspond to the exemplars from which these manuscripts were copied (see above, pp. 304-05), these variants could only have resulted from decisions made by the scribes. In at least one instance, though, the variation in ornamentation may derive from the exemplars: all of the Alamire sources of Josquin?s Missa de beata Virgine 368 present 364 MechAS s.s., MontsM 773, VatS 34, MontsM 766, and BrusBR 15075. Noted by Boorman, ?The Purpose of the Gift,? 113. 365 Boorman, ?The Purpose of the Gift,? 108-09, 112. Boorman also mentions that simplifying the cadences eases the work of the scribes and is appropriate in cases where performance was not an issue. 36 In fact, of the manuscripts surveyed, only three manuscripts copied in the early period, MechAS s.s. (La Rue?s Missa de Sancta cruce), and VienNB 15497 and MunBS 7 (Fevin?s Missa O quam glorifica luce), and one from the late period, JenaU 21 (Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua), feature ornamented cadences. 367 MechAS s.s., VienNB 15496, JenaU 12, MontsM 773, and SubA 248. 368 JenaU 7, VatS 160, and VienNB 4809. 320 simplified versions of cadences that are ornamented in other, non-Alamire sources of this mass. 369 In its reading of Josquin?s Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie, however, VienNB 4809 features under-third cadences. 370 The presence of both ornamented and simplified cadences in the same manuscript shows either that these two masses by Josquin were copied from different exemplars that followed different traditions with respect to ornamentation, or that they were copied by different scribes, here Scribes F and H, who exercised their own preferences. This also proves, once again, that consistency within one manuscript was not a priority, whereas matters of layout were. Though the degree and type of ornamentation depended on individual scribes, manuscripts copied in the later period more consistently transmit simplified readings. For example, despite the ornamented cadences in VienNB 4809 for Josquin?s Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie, these same scribes simplified most (13 of 15) of the under-third cadences in Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua. Oddly, the scribes of Jena 21 (which is closely related to VienNB 4809 and SubA 248) suppressed only three under-third cadences and three anticipations, and added two anticipations. 371 It has been shown (see Chapter 3), and continues to be shown, that JenaU 21 stands apart from its four codicological counterparts. The scribes who copied the error-ridden reading of Josquin?s Missa Gaudeamus in VienNB 11778 also eliminated any ornamentation at cadences and anticipations. 372 Finally, both Alamire sources of Forestier?s Missa Intemerata virgo, 369 NJE CC 3.3, 95-97. 370 NJE CC 11.1, 41. 371 NJE CC 4.3, 77. 372 NJE CC 4.2, 26-27. 321 VienNB 4810 and ?s-HerAB 72B, both copied in the late period, transmit a simpler rhythmic style than the non-Alamire sources of that mass. 373 Simplification of cadential ornaments, like simplification of rhythms, may have been a way to make less work for the copyist, and may reflect a conscious effort on the part of the scribes, the editor, or both, to make manuscript preparation more efficient, saving time and money. It also suggests that completing a manuscript quickly was more important that transmitting a reading exhibiting the performing traditions of the home institution. Although one might expect the simplification in later manuscripts to represent a new aesthetic, as we see, for example, in the sixteenth-century chanson, the presence of simplified cadences in early manuscripts (all but MechAS s.s., VienNB 15497, and MunBS 7) and ornamented ones in later manuscripts (JenaU 21) discounts this possibility. Nevertheless, the early Alamire scribes were inconsistent with respect to ornamentation, while, significantly, the later Alamire scribes almost always simplified rhythms and cadential ornaments. Inscriptions and Canons Also, the texts of tacet inscriptions vary among Alamire manuscripts, 374 and canon inscriptions varied or were omitted entirely (as in MunBS 6, Missa Du bon du cueur, Agnus Dei, see Chapter 4). Although JenaU 7 is considered the most reliable of three Alamire sources of Josquin?s Missa de beata Virgine, it presents none of the verbal 373 Forestier ed., no. 7, xxi-xxv. 374 Bonnie Blackburn, ?The Eloquence of Silence: Tacet Inscriptions in the Alamire Manuscripts,? in Citation and Authority in Medieval and Renaissance Musical Culture: Learning from the Learned, ed. Suzannah Clark and Elizabeth Eva Leach. Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music, 4 (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 2005), 206-23. 322 canons. 375 Conversely, SubA 248, a consistently unreliable source, does transmit canon inscriptions. 376 In the copy of Josquin?s Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie in JenaU 3, the canon ?Criste in Alamire? indicates the correct transposition of the soggetto, and is also a clever reference to Petrus Alamire. This mass is in two other manuscripts in the complex, BrusBR 9126 and VienNB 4809, neither of which features this canon, so we may expect that Alamire himself had some hand in JenaU 3. Also, the two early Alamire sources of F?vin?s Missa O quam glorifica luce, VienNB 15497 and MunBS 7, feature different canon and tacet inscriptions, proving that their scribes did not follow the same procedures or, most likely, exemplars. 37 The readings of the tenor canons in the Sanctus are faulty in both. In the JenaU 8 copy of Champion?s Missa Maria Magdalena, but not in that in the later ?s-HerAB 72A, canons indicate the tenor?s absence in the appropriate sections. 378 The treatment of canons is another aspect of the musical text that was subject to variation among Alamire manuscripts. Some scribes wrote out canonic duos, while others indicated canons with signa congruentiae. For example, only the scribes of JenaU 4 did not write out both canonic voices for canonic duos in La Rue?s Missa Ave sanctissima Maria, whereas those of the other four Alamire sources for this mass 379 wrote out both dux and comes. 380 Other scribes copied a signum congruentia and wrote out the canonic voice, as in MontsM 766. Finally, in some cases, the scribes neither indicated the canonic voice with a signum congruentia, nor did they copy out the voice. In these manuscripts, as in SubA 248, the lack of any indication of a canonic voice clearly affects the 375 NJE CC 3.3, 53-141. 376 Ibid. 37 F?vin ed. 1, vii; and La Rue ed. 7, no. D2, xix-xxvii. 378 Champion ed., xi-xii. 379 VatS 36, JenaU 5, BrusBR 6428, and BrusBR 15075. 380 La Rue ed. 1, no. 5, lxviii-lxxviii. 323 performability of the copy and may be an indication that the manuscript in question was never meant to be used in performance, or that its scribes rushed production and, hence, were careless, as is often the case in the later Alamire manuscripts. The example of a mass with many complicated canons, such as Forestier?s Missa L?homme arm?, can be particularly telling. 381 Out of the four Alamire sources, 382 VatS 160 presents the clearest reading of clefs and canon signs, and is the only of these manuscripts to transmit verbal canons, which were resolved by a later hand in the Vatican. The scribes of the two late sources of this mass, 383 also employed melodic repetition signs, a telling feature of a later notational style. 384 Notational Choices The use of key signatures varies among Alamire manuscripts, and some scribes provided accidentals, even when redundant, while others left matters of musica ficta up to the performer, or reader. All three of the Alamire sources to transmit Josquin?s Missa de beata Virgine 385 feature partial key signatures, but those in the earlier Jena and Vatican manuscripts were added later, at their destinations. 386 The patterns of accidentals in the copies of Josquin?s Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie in BrusBR 9126 and JenaU 3 set those sources apart from VienNB 4809, the other Alamire source of this mass. As usual, this late Alamire source stands apart from those copied earlier. 387 381 Forestier ed., no. 9, xxix-xxxiii. 382 VatS 160, JenaU 3, BrusBR IV.922, and MontsM 766. 383 MontsM 766 and BrusBR IV.922. 384 Ibid. 385 JenaU 7, VatS 160, and VienNB 4809. 386 NJE CC 3.3, 53-141. 387 NJE CC 11.1, 1-74. 324 Clefs and mensuration signs provided scribes with another choice. The use of the unusual sign O/3 to indicate perfect tempus is one such example (see the discussion in Chapter 5), 38 and may indicate a tradition that began with Petrucci?s editor, Petrus Castellanus. 389 Also, two readings of Champion?s Missa Maria Magdalena, in JenaU 8 (early) and ?s-HerAB 72A (late), 390 feature different clefs and mensuration signs, among other variants, and the two readings of his Missa Ducis Saxsonie, in MunBS 6 and ?s- HerAB 72A, both late, feature different mensuration signs. 391 In the former example, these variants are to be expected, since JenaU 8 was copied approximately fifteen years earlier than ?s-HerAB 72A, but MunBS 6 and the ?s-Hertogenbosch manuscript were copied around the same time by the same group of scribes, and are further related codicologically, so such variants are more remarkable. Though the scribes of two late Alamire sources of Forestier?s Missa Intemerata virgo 392 likely used the same exemplar (the two copies feature a similar rhythmic style 393 ), they also used different cleffings and mensuration signs, evidence that the scribes of each manuscript were free to exert their own preferences on the musical text. 394 The frequency with which coloration and ligatures were employed also varies. For example, the scribes of SubA 248 employed coloration often. In some cases, coloration is redundant, as in some movements of the Missa Miserere mihi Domine, discussed in Chapter 4. Colored semibreves are a striking anomaly in the Alamire complex, as in the 38 This mensuration sign is found in VienNB 15495, VatS 160, MunBS F, MunBS 6, and VienNB 4810. 389 Blackburn, ?The Sign of 3.? 390 Champion ed., xi-xii. 391 Champion ed., xiii-xiv. 392 VienNB 4810 and ?s-HerAB 72B. 393 Cf. p. 320. 394 This is further evidence that such variants reflected details in the exemplars or scribal authority rather than the function of them manuscript (?s-HerAB 72B was copied for the use of the Confraternity of Our Lady in ?s-Hertogenbosch, while VienNB 4810 was more likely prepared as a repository for music). 325 copies of Josquin?s Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie preserved in BrusBR 9126 and JenaU 3. 395 In other manuscripts, coloration is a graphic element, maybe used as a symbol for the Crucifixion, as is the case with two Osannas copied entirely in black notes. 396 Likewise, the use of ligatures varies among the Alamire manuscripts. The scribes of the latest Alamire source for the Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie, VienNB 4809 (copied by Warmington?s scribes F and H), employ ligatures in a striking manner. 397 SubA 248 (copied by Scribes F and I), whose physical characteristics are nearly identical to those of VienNB 4809, also displays frequent use of ligatures. It seems odd that these manuscripts, which transmit such flawed copies of their repertoire and were copied in the 1520s, display such liberal use of coloration and ligatures, notational features meant to assist the singer that are typical of an earlier period. In fact, an individual other than one of the original scribes of SubA 248 added numbers, which correspond to the tactus, over ligatures and passages in coloration, suggesting that readers of this manuscript were not completely at ease with these notational features. 398 Still, given the unreliable readings in this manuscript, it is curious that somebody should have tried to put it to practical use. Finally, the two sources of La Rue?s five-voice Kyrie Paschale, JenaU 4 (early, copied by Scribes D and X), and MontsM 766 (late, the fascicle containing this Kyrie was copied by Scribe K), feature an identical use of ligatures. 39 Other variants are purely paleographic, and often correspond to the quality of the manuscript. These include the shapes of note heads and tails, custodes, signa 395 NJE CC 11.1, 1-74. 396 The Missa N?avez point veu, in ?s-HerAB 72B, and the Missa Assumptione de beata Marie, in MontsM 766. It is probably not a coincidence that Scribe K worked on the manuscripts with both of these masses. 397 NJE CC 11.1, 1-74. 398 SubA 248. 39 La Rue ed. 7, xlviii-l. 326 congruentiae, clefs, continuation signs, the amount of space left between notes or between staves, the size of margins, and the layout of rests. The more formally-decorated manuscripts consistently display more ornate versions of these notational signs, whereas the simpler paper manuscripts correspondingly feature simpler styles of the same signs. Text Underlay Some variant elements are attributable to the text scribes. The most obvious is text underlay, whose quality is inconsistent across the complex. In some cases, the underlay in a manuscript is all but useless?only the first word or words of a given mass movement were copied. The scribes of JenaU 12, normally a reliable source for text, left the first opening of the anonymous Missa Sine nomine completely without text, so the identity of that mass is unknown to us today. Nevertheless, this prominent opening features a sumptuous miniature of the Virgin and Child enthroned, a Virgo lactans, and undoubtedly lacks Mass Ordinary text due to an oversight on the part of the text scribes, who often left a first opening blank to be texted by a scribe with a more refined hand. This is an exceptional error, though, since the scribes of JenaU 12 usually underlaid text carefully. 40 As it is with regard to other matters, VienNB 4809 is an unreliable source of text. For example, the tenor of Josquin?s Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie is barely underlaid with text, and the soggetto cavato is not written under the music, as it is in the other two 40 As in La Rue?s Missa Sub tuum presidium, which was underlaid with care in JenaU 12 and VienNB 15496. 327 Alamire sources, BrusBR 9126 (Philippus Rex Castilie) and JenaU 3 (Fridericus Dux Saxsonie). Other scribes carried on with complete or almost complete mass text, though they often did not underlay it in a logical manner, requiring more intervention on the part of the performer or editor. For example, some scribes placed the opening text under the first musical passage and continued without even matching text phrases to their corresponding musical phrases, as in VerBC 756, while others began each text phrase under its accompanying musical phrase, but did not place each word or syllable under the notes to which they should be sung, as in JenaU 21. Still others, such as the scribes of MunBS 6, underlaid the entire mass text with the utmost care for a logical, musically-sensitive reading, complete with repetitions and syllable divisions. VienNB 15496 consistently provides more precise text underlay than other sources of the same masses. Warmington?s text scribes C5, D, and X were considerably more careful in their underlay of the anonymous Missa L?homme arm? in VatS 34 than they were for the same mass in JenaU 2, writing out text repetitions and dividing words into syllables in the Vatican manuscript. In some cases, as in MunBS 6, even carefully underlaid text was redone or altered by later hand, probably at the manuscript?s destination. JenaU 22, a Scribe B manuscript, presents an interesting case: a later hand erased the original text to La Rue?s Missa Assumpta est Maria, replacing it with more precise underlay that conforms to the customs of the second quarter of the sixteenth century. 401 401 La Rue ed. 1, no. 3, xli-xlvii. 328 Similar texting solutions have often been used by scholars to group manuscripts by common exemplar. For example, BrusBR 6428 and BrusBR 15075, the only two of six Alamire sources of La Rue?s Missa Conceptio tua to have been copied in the later period, are underlaid in a similar way. 402 The six Alamire sources for La Rue?s Missa de feria are divided into two groups based on underlay. 403 Reasons for this inconsistency in text underlay may have been 1) the function of the manuscript?a manuscript not meant for performance would not have required careful underlay; 2) the formality of the manuscript? that it was meant to look uniform, attractive, or usable, or not; and perhaps also 3) the time and funds available for its production?one can imagine the time saved by skipping underlay, which translates directly to money saved on labor and ink. One last textual variant is the labeling of the bassus voice. In various cases, it is called Bassus, Bariton, Baritonans, Barricanor, Barripharius, or Vagans. 404 Although this may have been a compositional choice meant to denote a specific range or voice type, or reflect what was in the exemplars, most of the manuscripts with these labels have text scribes in common. For example, for the readings of Champion?s Missa Maria Magdalena and Missa Ducis Saxonie (Sing ich niet wol) in ?s-HerAB 72A, scribe F called bassus 1 ?vagans? in some sections, and bassus 1 and 2 were sometimes called ?Barricanor? in this source. 405 Likewise, Scribe Z (?) used ?vagans? in the MunBS 6 copy 402 La Rue ed. 2, no. 6, xiv-xxii. 403 MechAS s.s., VatS 34, MontsM 773, and MontsM 766 are all texted similarly, while JenaU 5 and BrusBR 15075 form a separate group. La Rue ed. 2, no. 9, lxi-lxvi. 404 ?Bariton,? ?Barriton,? and ?Baritonans? occurs in JenaU 8, JenaU 4, MontsM 766, BrusBR 15075, VienNB 4810, and MunBS 6; ?Barricanor? is found in VienNB 15496, MechAS s.s., VatS 36, BrusBR IV.922, JenaU 8, MontsM 766, MunBS F, VienNB 4809, SubA 248, and ?s-HerAB 72A; ?Baripharius? or ?Barripharius? occur in VatS 160, JenaU 4, and MunBS F; and ?Bagans? can be found in BrusBR IV.922, BrusBR 15075, MunBS 6, ?s-HerAB 72A, and ?s-HerAB 72B. For the usage of these terms by theorists, see the relevant entries in Center for the History of Music Theory and Literature, ?Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum,? http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/search.html (accessed April 18, 2009). 405 Champion ed., xi-xii and xiii-xiv 329 of the latter mass (only in the Christe), though neither ?vagans? nor its variation, ?bagans,? occurs in the JenaU 8 copy of the Missa Maria Magdalena, the only of these three manuscripts to have been copied in the early period. Though MunBS 6 never uses ?barricanor,? JenaU 8 does (Missa Maria Magdalena), though not in the same places as in ?s-HerAB 72A. The extent to which features of the music and texts vary throughout the Alamire complex proves that the Alamire scribes were familiar enough with the repertories they were copying and with the stylistic elements of those repertories to produce musically- sensitive readings, and to take some editorial initiative in their copying. While these variants are to some extent dependent on the exemplar, we have seen that most are indeed the result of individual copying habits and preferences. Thus, the Alamire scribes played a considerable authorial role in the production of the manuscripts. As we shall see below, this authorial role extended to the omission or inclusion of ascriptions. Ascription Practices Tables 6.4-6.34 (in Appendix I) show the patterns of ascription in the thirty-one Alamire manuscripts that transmit masses. 406 Of one hundred-thirty-two copies of masses and mass movements in the nineteen manuscripts made between 1508 and 1518-20, forty-two lack ascriptions. Of the one hundred-three total masses and mass movements copied into the fourteen manuscripts prepared between 1518-20 and 1534, thirty-five were not ascribed. 406 This data set is not limited to anonymous masses, because those compositions attributed to one or the other composer in our time were transmitted anonymously by the Alamire scribes, thus they must be considered in the same group as the masses which remain anonymous to us today. Manuscripts in which all masses are ascribed are included for comparison. JenaU 9 is not included in these tables because it is too fragmentary to give reliable evidence. 330 Various factors, which reflect both intentional and accidental scribal procedures, provide potential explanations for the lack of ascription (or mistaken attributions) in the masses copied by the Alamire scribes. Although it appears that the manuscripts copied in each period carry about the same ratio of composer attributions, these numbers are misleading, because absent ascriptions can often be explained by missing or vandalized folios on which ascriptions likely were copied. Because many more presentation manuscripts containing miniatures were produced in the early period, more folios were removed from early manuscripts for their decoration. Folios on which ascriptions likely existed were cut from no less than 50% of the early manuscripts, but only about 20% of the late manuscripts. Given these lacunae, the masses in these sources are not counted as unascribed works in this study, leaving 21 unascribed masses in eleven manuscripts from the early period (or 16% of all masses), and 28 in nine manuscripts from the later period (27% of all masses). Other codicological factors explain the lack of original ascriptions, particularly among manuscripts copied in the early period. First, it is clear that the physical appearance of a presentation manuscript was more important than a composer ascription. In many cases, painted borders or other decoration left no space for ascriptions on the first openings of many masses. 407 Likewise, the absence of composer ascriptions in MunBS F, a later manuscript, can be attributed to the extensive decoration and full borders on the first openings of all masses. 408 In cases where space was unavailable due to decoration or another reason, scribes apparently decided not to ascribe to preserve the layout of the page: ascriptions are generally placed evenly between the top of the folio 407 As in VienNB 15495, MechAS s.s., JenaU 2, VatS 36, JenaU 4, and JenaU 5. 408 The scribes did find space for a title and ascription to Gascongne for his Missa Mijn hert altijt heeft verlanghen, on f. 86v, however. 331 and the top of the first staff, often with about 2.5 cm on either side. Still, many ascriptions are missing, even on folios on which there is ample space, as in two masses in JenaU 21, Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua (ff. 1v-2r), and the anonymous Missa sine nomine (ff. 101v-102r). This last is particularly interesting from a codicological point of view: it is the only first opening in the manuscript not to have rulings for title and ascription, suggesting that the scribes knew in advance that they would not be copying any title or ascription. As mentioned above, the space left between the top of the folios and the top of the staves (4.5 cm on f. 101v, 2 cm on f. 102r) rules out the possibility that a title or ascription was cropped in binding. In some instances, though, there is inadequate space at the top of the folios of the first openings, where an ascription would normally be written. In some of these cases, if an ascription was originally copied, it was cropped in binding (MontsM 773, ff. 86v-87r, La Rue?s Missa de Sancto Job, VatS 34, ff. 2v-3r, Pipelare?s Credo de Sancto Iohanne). Other titles and ascriptions that barely escaped being clipped in binding attest to this possibility (VienNB 15495, f. 1v, title of Obrecht?s Missa Salve diva parens, VienNB 15497, f. 1v, ascription to ?Jacobus Barbireau? (unidentified Kyrie), VienNB 4810, Appenzeller?s Missa ad placitum, f. 85r), though, given the lacunae, we cannot know for certain when titles or ascriptions are missing due to this process. Although missing ascriptions may result from exemplars without ascriptions, at least two are likely attributable to scribal oversight or error, because of codicological peculiarities. For example, in VienNB 4810, all four voices of the first Kyrie of Appenzeller?s Missa ad placitum were copied onto one folio, 85r, and the facing verso (f. 84v) is blank (see Figure 6.1). The mass continues in normal choirbook format on ff. 332 85v-86r. As mentioned above, the title is inscribed flush with the top of f. 85v, so it was almost cropped off. Given that they did not copy any music on to f. 84v, it is unlikely that the scribes of VienNB 4810, who attributed all but this and the anonymous Missa supra Salve regina, discussed in Chapter 3, would have written a composer?s name on an otherwise blank folio. Since Appenzeller?s mass is the only exception in this anthology of masses by French composers, it appears that the scribes used a French exemplar with ascriptions, and filled out the repertory with Appenzeller?s probably new and readily available mass. In the case of the anonymous Missa sine nomine in JenaU 12, there is no text at all on the first opening, apparently a scribal oversight. Figure 6.1: VienNB 4810, f. 85r 333 The first seven of seventeen works in the ?Occo Codex? (five settings of O salutaris hostia, one other hymn, and an antiphon) were copied without ascription, but only one mass in this manuscript, Isaac?s Missa Paschale, was copied without ascription. In fact, this mass is a composite of two Easter masses by Isaac, and occupies the place in the manuscript where old fascicles (containing three Easter Kyries) were inserted among newly-copied gatherings. 409 Because only the Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei of Isaac?s six-voice Missa Paschalis were copied to accompany the Kyrie of his four-voice Missa Paschalis ad organum, which occupied an older fascicle, only the relatively nondescript title, ?Paschale,? appears on f. 123v. No ascription would be expected on ff. 12v5-126r, where the Gloria of the six-voice mass begins, so only the four-voice Kyrie Paschale copied in the early period should be counted as unascribed. In MontsM 766, the other manuscript made of fascicles copied in both periods, the opening Kyrie Paschale by La Rue, and four entire masses were transmitted anonymously in fascicles copied in the late period. 410 Once these codicological factors have been considered, we are left with only two unascribed masses and four copies of unascribed mass sections with no obvious explanation for their anonymous transmission in early manuscripts. 41 Conversely, even 409 An alternate interpretation of the copying and compiling of BrusBR IV.922 has been advanced by Theodor Dumitrescu et. al., eds., The Occo Codex, ?The Computerized Mensural Music Editing Project? http://www.cmme.org/ [accessed September 27, 2007-March 30, 2009]. Dumitrescu argues, based on internal and external evidence, that the entire manuscript was copied at the same time, around 1515-17. 410 See Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. no. 6, 76-77. 41 BrusBR 215-216, anonymous Missa de septem doloribus, Scribes C2, E, and X; JenaU 8, Bauldeweyn Missa Mijns liefkins bruyn ooghen, anonymous Credo, Scribes D, X; VatS 34, Pipelare Credo de Sancto Iohanne, Scribes E, X, C5, D; JenaU 4, La Rue Kyrie Paschale, Scribes D, X; BrusBR IV.922, Isaac Kyrie Paschale, Scribes C2, X. 334 after allowing for codicological explanations for anonymous transmission in manuscripts copied in the later period, we still have 20 copies of unascribed masses. 412 Because Bauldeweyn?s Missa Quam pulchra es was not ascribed in either of its two Alamire sources that were copied around the same time, we may conclude that the scribes did not know its composer, and that no ascription was present in the exemplar. Oddly, though, his Missa Mijns liefkins bruyn ooghen was not ascribed by Scribes D and X in JenaU 8, but it was ascribed in MunBS 7, to which these same scribes contributed (along with Scribes C2 and E), so no such conclusion is possible. Similarly, Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua is transmitted anonymously in JenaU 21, but was ascribed in three other late sources. 413 Forestier?s Missa Intemerata virgo was not ascribed by Scribe K in ?s-HerAB 72B, but was ascribed in VienNB 4810 (copied by Warmington?s scribes H, I, and Z, who left other works in that and other manuscripts unascribed). The prevalence of unascribed mass movements, three Kyries and a Credo, also suggest a pattern, but there are enough instances where individual mass movements were ascribed in other Alamire manuscripts so as to rule out any pattern. There are twelve copies of masses or mass sections by La Rue transmitted anonymously in the Alamire complex, not counting those with missing or cut folios. 414 All of these, except the Kyrie that opens MontsM 766, are probably unascribed because 412 JenaU 21, Josquin Missa Pange lingua, anonymous Missa Sine nomine, Scribe D?; MontsM 766, La Rue Kyrie Paschale, Bruhier Missa Hodie scietis, anonymous Missa de Assumptione beate Marie, Missa Cueur langoureulx, and Missa Memor esto, Scribe K; VienNB 4809, Josquin, Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie, Scribe F; VienNB 4810, anonymous Missa supra Salve regina, Scribes H, I, Z; MunBS 6, Bauldeweyn Missa Quam pulchra es, anonymous Missa Miserere mihi Domine, Missa Du bon du cueur, Vinders Missa supra Stabat mater, Josquin Missa Veni sancte spiritus, Scribes H, I, Z; ?s-HerAB 72A, anonymous textless composition on Du bon du cueur, Scribe F; ?s-HerAB 72B, Bauldeweyn Missa Quam pulchra es, anonymous Missa N?avez point veu, Forestier Missa Intemerata virgo, Scribe K; ?s-HerAB 72C, Mouton Missa Tua est potentia, Missa Verbum bonum, Missa L?oserai-je dire, Scribes F and K. 413 BrusBR IV.922, VienNB 4809, and VienNB 18832. 414 in JenaU 4, MechAS s.s., Vats 36, and MontsM 766. 335 the first openings of these masses are decorated. Of the two unascribed masses by Pipelare in the complex, that in MechAS s.s is on a decorated opening, while the folio on which the Credo in VatS 34 could be ascribed (f. 3r) is cropped. It would have been an unwise use of space to cram an ascription to Barbireau onto the decorated opening of VatS 160. Three masses by Josquin are not ascribed, all in late manuscripts. 415 One by Bauldeweyn (JenaU 8) has no obvious explanation, nor does that by Bruhier in MontsM 766, or that by Appenzeller in VienNB 4810. The one mass by Vinders in the complex (MunBS 6) is unascribed, as are two by Moulu in MunBS F, though Moulu?s Missa Missus est Gabriel, which opens MunBS F, lacks its opening two folios, and another by Richafort in MunBS F. Of the four masses by Obrecht in the complex, three in VatS 160 are on openings with missing folios, and the other is on the elaborately decorated first opening of VienNB 15495. Most of the manuscripts copied in the early period, whether for recipients in the Low Countries or to be sent out, carry ascriptions. Manuscripts sent to Pope Leo X, Frederick the Wise, as well as those made for Burgundian-Habsburg nobility, are presentation manuscripts which feature mostly music of Burgundian-Habsburg composers, and whose scribes consistently attributed those works. It is interesting that of the eight non-Alamire Jena choirbooks owned by Frederick the Wise, only JenaU 36 consistently has composer attributions. 416 As stated above, most missing ascriptions can be explained by codicological factors, either cut folios or decoration. Even the scribes of MunBS 7 (owned by Wilhelm IV of Bavaria), the plainest of these early manuscripts, which transmits French rather than Burgundian repertoire, ascribed all of its 415 JenaU 21, VienNB 11778, and MunBS 6. 416 See Duffy, ?The Jena choirbooks,? 266. 336 compositions. Among manuscripts copied in the later period, two of the more formal parchment manuscripts BrusBR 6428 and BrusBR 15075, both of which were likely commissioned by and for members of the Burgundian-Habsburg dynasty, feature regular composer ascriptions, though the other, MunBS F, originally prepared for Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, but which ended up in the possession of Wilhelm IV of Bavaria, oddly does not. Likewise, in MunBS 6, also made for Wilhelm of Bavaria, only two of seven masses are ascribed (to Divitis, in error, and to Champion). That one of these unascribed masses is by Josquin makes it unlikely that the scribes did not know the identities of these composers. MontsM 766, probably prepared for Charles V, lacks ascriptions for no less than four masses, three of which remain anonymous to us today. 417 Though it seems logical that the frequency of composer ascriptions in a manuscript would correlate to the formality of that manuscript, its function, the importance or preferences of its recipient, and the origin of its repertoire, the only such pattern of ascriptions in the Alamire complex is the aforementioned regularity of ascription in the early manuscripts and irregularity in the later ones. Since, as we have seen, each composition, gathering, or manuscript results from a different configuration of exemplars, each manuscript, or small group of manuscripts, must be considered individually. We can come closer to satisfactory answers for anonymity in the Alamire complex with the information provided by the manuscripts?the frequency with which the works of certain composers were ascribed, and inconsistencies in the way composer 417 The other, Missa Hodie scietis, was recently attributed to Bruhier by Richard Wexler, in ?Bruhier, Isaac, and Josquin: A Lost Mass Recovered? (paper presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Los Angeles, CA, November 4, 2006). 337 names and mass titles were written?which illuminate their approach to attribution as well as to copying in more general terms. Two of five relatively plain, codicologically-similar manuscripts copied in the later period, VienNB 4809 and VienNB 11778, were made for the Fuggers, who likely commissioned to complete their collection of Josquin?s masses (they owned many in print), explaining why they would have desired them. Indeed, most of the masses in this manuscript, almost exclusively by Josquin, were ascribed. It is strange that two of these masses lack ascriptions in VienNB 4809, 418 that Josquin?s Missa Gaudeamus was wrongly attributed in Ockeghem in VienNB 11778, and that the two Credos which close VienNB 11778, although ascribed to Josquin in the manuscript, are by Brumel. VienNB 4810, which was acquired by, though probably not originally made for, the Fuggers, transmits masses by French court composers. The last two masses, by Appenzeller and one anonymous, were not ascribed. Given that this manuscript is an anthology of masses, most, if not all, of which were composed outside the Low Countries, it should not be assumed that the scribes copying them knew their composers. Because its purpose was clearly not related to one composer, as that of VienNB 4809 and VienNB 11778 were, composer names were likely less important to its recipient. Also, as has been mentioned, Appenzeller?s mass stands out in other ways, as the only mass not by a French composer, in this otherwise French anthology. 419 It is fascinating that the frequency of ascriptions varies so greatly in the five manuscripts, JenaU 21, VienNB 4809, VienNB 4810, VienNB 11778, and SubA 248, the 418 Josquin?s Missa Hercules Dux Ferrarie and Missa Faisant regretz, both of which are ascribed in their other Alamire sources, BrusBR 9126 and JenaU 3 for the former, and VienNB 15495 and JenaU 3 for the latter. 419 Cf. pp. 331-32, above. 338 physical characteristics of which are so similar. SubA 248 consists entirely of masses by La Rue, and all but the first of these, two folios of which are missing, are ascribed. Though we do not know for whom this manuscript was made, given that it is now preserved in Subiaco, that individual may well have been Italian, 420 thus geographically removed from the Netherlands, where La Rue?s music was so well known. In this case, then, it is highly unlikely that the scribes of SubA 248 did not know that La Rue composed these masses, and, because the manuscript was sent far away, ascriptions were probably considered valuable. The last manuscript in this group, JenaU 21, was acquired by Frederick the Wise, though it is not clear whether it was made for him or another individual. Another anthology, JenaU 21 transmits masses by Josquin, Pipelare, La Rue, ?Io. de Pratis? (interpreted to be Josquin, but perhaps Johannes Stokem or another composer?see Chapter 3), Weerbeke, and one anonymous. The first, by Josquin, and last, anonymous, of these were not ascribed, and the last was also left without title or other identifying feature, and so remains sine nomine. This apparently illogical pattern of attribution takes on some meaning if in fact ?Io. de Pratis? is Stokem. In that case, the Alamire scribes would have attributed masses by composers native to the Low Countries (even though Weerbeke and Stokem spent much of their careers in Italy), and not those by non-Netherlandish composers. This would also be a clue as to the identity of the anonymous composer. While one would expect consistent ascriptions in the three manuscripts commissioned by the Confraternity of Our Lady in ?s-Hertogenbosch for use in their rites, some masses were left without ascription. All of the masses in ?s-HerAB 72A were 420 Though this reasoning is far from secure, most of the Alamire manuscripts are, in fact, currently preserved at the locations to which they were originally sent. See Kellman, ed., Treasury. 339 ascribed (to Willaert, F?vin, Champion, and Courtois), while those by Bauldeweyn, Forestier, and one anonymous were left unascribed in ?s-HerAB72B (the others are by La Rue, Moulu, and Richafort), and in ?s-HerAB 72C, all present ascriptions are to Mouton, though two of these may be by other composers (Josquin and F?vin), and two masses by Mouton were not ascribed. These discrepancies raise an interesting question: because many of these manuscripts were copied to be sent out, why would the Alamire scribes send out the manuscript and not provide ascriptions for all pieces? With few exceptions, the more formal manuscripts carry regular composer ascriptions, except in cases where decoration took the space that an ascription would normally occupy. It is probably because those manuscripts given to important recipients were more formal that they carried ascriptions, not because the recipients were high-ranking. Except in the isolated cases outlined above, the presence or absence of ascriptions does not appear to depend on the intended recipient of the manuscript, or even whether that individual is connected to the Burgundian- Habsburg court. Rather, it depends on the formality of the manuscript, which almost always corresponds to the period of manuscript production. Finally, the function of a manuscript, at least whether it was meant for presentation or performance, does not seem to have played a role in the presence of absence of composer ascriptions. Of course, those manuscripts whose primary purpose was to fill out a collection of the works by a certain composer, such as those sent to the Fuggers in Augsburg, and perhaps others that transmit masses by La Rue, do carry ascriptions, but they sometimes include anonymous works by other composers. Manuscripts sent to the Marian confraternity in ?s-Hertogenbosch for practical use feature no more or less 340 ascriptions than manuscripts?presentation-level or not?sent to major court milieux or to private patrons without the necessary performing forces. The explanations for absent ascriptions we have not touched on surely depend on the scribes?what they knew and did not know, what they chose to transmit, and how they chose to transmit it. Sometimes the editor, who planned the layout of the manuscript wrote the small, abbreviated notices at the tops, bottoms, or reverse sides of the page, indicated the composer?s name along with other information used in the layout of the manuscript. 421 A text scribe would then copy formal titles and ascriptions in red ink, based on these inscriptions, when present. In cases where no such indications were present, or where they lacked composer attributions, though, would another scribe have taken the initiative to attribute a composition if he knew, or thought he knew the composer? Would he have corrected the editor?s attribution if it had been (or if the scribe thought it had been) made in error? Did the exemplars carry composer ascriptions? Because we lack the evidence necessary to answer these questions, any hypotheses would be based on speculation, so these pertinent questions must be put aside for the time being. Composer Names: Orthography and Presentation Nevertheless, it will be shown here that the final decisions were made by the scribe who copied titles, ascriptions, voice names, and performance instructions in red ink. Tables 6.4-6.34 show that the Alamire scribes used various forms of composer names, including abbreviations, different spellings, and different use of capitalization (not considered a variation here, since capitalization was not a necessarily uniform 421 As in BrusBR 6428, f. 17v, f. 61v, among others. 341 element of Renaissance text). 42 In what follows, we will consider whether the same scribe copied a name the same way in different manuscripts, whether they copied the names as they appear in the exemplars, and whether uniformity was desirable in the same manuscript. To do so, we will examine the various forms in which composer names were written in the Alamire manuscripts, including spelling, abbreviations, Latinization, and indications of composer deaths; misascriptions; corrections of mistaken ascriptions; and forms of Mass titles, including subject matter or cantus firmus, liturgical occasion, and number of voices. One of the more obvious examples of the variety of ways in which one composer?s name was written is Pierre de la Rue, whose name appears in ten different forms in the complex. The most complete form of the name, ?Petrus de la Rue?/?Petrus de la rue,? is the most common, occurring in twelve manuscripts copied in both periods. 423 One of the more interesting of these replaces the ?la? with a symbol of the solmization syllable la (see Figure 6.2), thus ?Petrus de [la] Rue?/?petrus de [la] Rue,? ?de [la] Rue,? ?p. de [la] rue.? Figure 6.2: The Symbol ?la? as Part of an Ascription to Pierre de la Rue This decorative ascription appears in eight Alamire manuscripts dated around 1512-18, all but one of which feature the text hand of Warmington?s scribe X (the text of VienNB 15496 was copied by Scribe C3), though Scribes C4, C5, and D also contributed to these 42 This study does not include the three manuscripts copied for the Confraternity of Our Lady in ?s- Hertogenbosch (?s-HerAB 72A, ?s-HerAB 72B, and ?s-HerAB 72C), the data for which not available to me. See Roelvink, Gegeven den sangeren; and Kellman, ed., Treasury, cat. nos. 8-10, 80-83, for a detailed discussion of these codices. 423 These are VienNB 15495, JenaU 2, JenaU 4, JenaU 5, JenaU 7, JenaU 12, VatS 36, MontsM 766, JenaU 21, BrusBR 6428, BrusBR 15075, and SubA 248. 342 manuscripts. 424 Scribe Z calls him simply ?Rue? in BrusBR 15075 and SubA 248. The other six forms of La Rue?s name appear in only one manuscript each: ?Petr de la rue? in JenaU 5 (Scribes C5, D), ?Pe. Rue? in JenaU 4 (Scribes D, X), ?Pe.d e.la Rue? in JenaU 12 (Scribes C, C5), ?.PETRUS DE LA RUE.? in VatS 36 (Scribes C5, D, X), ?Petrus la vie? in JenaU 21 (Scribe D?; this form is the result of a correction of the misascription ?Petrus Alamyre,? to be discussed below, p. 343), and ?de la Rue?/?de la rue? in BrusBR 15075 (Scribe Z). Not only does the form of La Rue?s name vary within the complex and within one period, even the same scribe wrote La Rue?s name in different ways in different manuscripts. Mattheus Pipelare also worked in the same milieu as these scribes, who wrote his name in the following ways: ?Matheus pipe[la][re],? with a musical symbol (see Figure 6.3) (Scribes D and X, who also used this form in ascriptions to La Rue, in JenaU 4,), ?Matheus pipelare ?? (Scribes D, X, C5, in JenaU 2), and simply ?pipelare? (Scribe D? in JenaU 21, and Scribe K in MontsM 766). Pipelare?s works were left unascribed in MechAS s.s. and VatS 34, by Scribes C5, D, and X. Heinrich Isaac, who was employed at the court of Maximilian I, is always identified in a similar manner: ?heinricus ysac? (Scribe C2, in BrusBR IV.922), ?heinricus ysaac? (Scribe X, in VatS 160), and ?hynric ysac? (Scribes Y and Z, in BrusBR 6428). Figure 6.3: The Symbol ?la-re? as Part of an Ascription to Mattheus Pipelare 424 These are BrusBR 215-216, JenaU 8, MechAS s.s., MontsM 773, VienNB 15496, VienNB 15497, VatS 34, and VatS 36. As shown above, most of these manuscripts are related in other ways, including repertoire, accuracy and reliability of readings, and physical traits, suggesting that they comprise a subgroup among the early Alamire manuscripts. 343 Josquin des Pres presents another interesting example, since his masses appear in manuscripts copied both before and after the 1518-20 break in manuscript production. In earlier manuscripts, he is often referred to by his full name, ?Josquin des pres,? 425 or ?Josquin des pretz?/?Josquin des prez.? 426 Later scribes used the shorter forms ?Josquin?/?Josquin ?,? 427 and ?Jos. despres.? 428 The ascription ?io. De pratis ?? has been discussed in detail above and in Chapter 3, and may not refer to Josquin. Masses by Josquin were left unascribed in JenaU 21, VienNB 11778, and MunBS 6. The same variation of ascription occurs for less frequently encountered composers. Johannes Gascongne?s name appears variously as ?Johannes gasscoeing? (JenaU 2), ?Johannes Gascong? (MunBS 7), ?Mathias gascogne? (MunBS F), and simply ?Gascoing? (BrusBR IV.922). Another mass by Gascongne in MunBS F is left unascribed. Mathurin Forestier is ?Mathurin forestyn? in VatS 160, ?Mathurin forestier? in early and late manuscripts, 429 and is abbreviated ?hurin forestier? in MontsM 766 (in a fascicle copied in the early period). Though the spelling of Noel Bauldeweyn?s name varies slightly, even within one manuscript, the form is consistent: ?Noel Bauldevvijn? (JenaU 2), ?Noel bouldewijn? and ?Noel baudevvim? (JenaU 8), and ?Noel bauldewyn? (MunBS 7). A third mass by Bauldeweyn in JenaU 8, and one in MunBS 6, were not ascribed. The later Alamire scribes were more likely to abbreviate names, as was illustrated by the cases of La Rue, Pipelare, and Josquin above. Yet Jean Mouton is called by his full name, ?Johannes mouton?/?Johannes Mouton,? in all but one of the manuscripts that 425 JenaU 3, JenaU 7, and VatS 160. 426 VienNB 15495. 427 VienNB 4809, VienNB 11778, and BrusBR IV.922. 428 VienNB 11778. 429 JenaU 4, MontsM 766, BrusBR IV.922, and VienNB 4810. 344 transmit masses ascribed to him, 430 VienNB 4810, in which he is called ?Jo. mouton.? The name of Antoine F?vin, whose full name appears in the early Alamire manuscripts, is abbreviated as ?Anto. Fevin.? and ?Anotoni fevyn? in the later VienNB 4810. Another variation is the Latinization of names, a sixteenth-century humanistic practice that would also have been politically correct in the Low Countries, where both French and Flemish were spoken. Josquin?s name is never Latinized in the Alamire manuscripts, unless we accept that the ascription ?io. De Pratis? in JenaU 21 refers to Josquin, which is decidedly unlikely. 431 As discussed above, La Rue is ?Petrus la vie? in JenaU 21, but ?la vie? is only a convenient correction of ?alamyre.? 432 Apart from these exceptions, only first names, mostly of French composers, are Latinized. Thus Antoine F?vin is consistently referred to as ?Anthonius de fevin? or ?Anthonius de feuin? (with or without an indication of his death) in early Alamire manuscripts, 43 Robert F?vin is ?Robertus de fevin? in MunBS 7, and Antoine Divitis is ?Anthonius Divitis.? The first names of Mouton, Prioris, and Gascongne are consistently written as ?Johannes? rather than Jean, as that of De Vorda is written ?laurentius,? Champion is ?Nicolaus,? Barbireau is ?Jacobus? rather than Jacques, Isaac is ?heinricus? (except in BrusBR 6428, where it is written hynric, probably by a Flemish scribe), La Rue is consistently ?Petrus,? Pipelare is ?Matheus,? and Vinders is ?Jheronimus.? The final variant in composer ascriptions are the crosses or ?pie memorie? inscriptions added by the same scribe who wrote the ascription to indicate that the composer was deceased (see Table 6.35, in Appendix I). These indications are very 430 VienNB 15497, JenaU 2, JenaU 4, JenaU 8, MunBS 7, BrusBR IV.922, and VienNB 4810. 431 Cf. Chapter 3, pp. 81-90. 432 Cf. p. 341 and 343, above, and note 443, below. 43 JenaU 7, JenaU 5, JenaU 2, JenaU 4, JenaU 3, VienNB 15495, MunBS 7, and VienNB 15497. 345 useful in dating individual manuscripts, but cannot be used in comparative dating, since some of these composers are not indicated as deceased in manuscripts presumably copied after others in which they are marked dead. The manuscripts with crosses now in Jena, Munich, or Vienna, except OxfBL La.8, and were mostly copied by Warmington?s scribes C, D, E, and X. Of the thirteen manuscripts to features such indications, only three were copied in the late period (JenaU 21, VienNB 4809, and MunBS 34). Most of the composers whose names were followed by such an indication were employed at the French court (A. F?vin, R. F?vin, Comp?re, and Divitis). 434 The others are Josquin, Pipelare, and de Vourda. Kellman further hypothesizes, logically, that indications of death were copied by Alamire scribes directly from exemplars from the French court, so it would seem to be a French copying tradition, rather than a Burgundian one. On the other hand, we have seen that individual scribes had their own habits, so the presence of crosses may not have been entirely dependent on the exemplar. Misascriptions and Corrections As they did with errors in the musical text, the Alamire scribes corrected some, but by no means most, of their mistaken ascriptions. Though these errors occur in manuscripts copied in both periods of manuscript production, only the early scribes corrected mistaken ascriptions, as we will see below. Aside from two scraped misascriptions to be discussed below (of an anonymous mass to Pierre de la Rue, and a 434 Kellman, ?Openings,? 18-19. The ascription to Divitis is a misascription, in BrusBR IV.922, of F?vin?s Requiem mass. If these crosses were copied from exemplars, Divitis should not be included in this list, since the misascription, ?Antoine diuitis,? may stem from a misreading of ?Antoine defeuin? on the part of the Alamire scribes. On this possibility, see Dumitrescu, The Occo Codex; and Flynn Warmington, review of Occo Codex, by Bernard Huys and Sebastien A. C. Dudok van Heel (Brussels, Royal Library Albert I, MS. IV. 922), Notes 38 (1981): 406-9. The only indication of composer?s death to appear in a late Alamire manuscript is that which follows Josquin?s name for his Missa sine nomine in VienNB 4809. 346 mass by La Rue to Petrus Alamire), all of the misascribed masses in the Alamire manuscripts are by French court composers, most of whom were active at the same time as these scribes. While notable, this is not unexpected, given that the Alamire scribes were musicians who worked around, if not for, the Burgundian-Habsburg court, and would thus have been less familiar with French music. It would be alarming to find misascriptions to composers working in the Low Countries, however. The most remarkable consequence of these misascriptions in the complex is that the same composition may be ascribed to different composers in different manuscripts. For example, F?vin?s Requiem was ascribed correctly in JenaU 5 (C5, D, E) and VienNB 15497 (C5, X, C, C2, E), which were both copied in the early period, but to Divitis in BrusBR IV.922 (I), copied in the late period. 435 In JenaU 3, Forestier?s Missa L?homme arm? is ascribed to Mouton, but the scribes of VatS 160, MontsM 766, and BrusBR IV.922 correctly ascribed it to Forestier. Perhaps the oddest of all misascriptions is that of Josquin?s Missa Gaudeamus to Ockeghem in VienNB 11778, a manuscript devoted to masses by Josquin, and probably, as discussed above, meant to complete the collection of Josquin?s masses in the library of the Fuggers. An ascription to another composer, especially because Josquin is unequivocally accepted as the composer of this mass, is highly unusual. More understandable, though still incorrect, are the two misascriptions of Credos composed by Brumel?Credo Vilayge II and Credo Chiascun me crie?to Josquin at the end of VienNB 11778. 436 Since that manuscript otherwise transmits only works by Josquin, its scribes may have thought that he was the composer of these Credos, or they purposely 435 Two sections of this mass were transmitted anonymously in VienNB 11883. 436 It is rare to find works by Ockeghem and Brumel in the Alamire manuscripts. See Kellman, ed., Treasury. 347 misascribed them to fit with the other contents of the manuscript. Considering the incorrect ascription to Ockeghem, though, this last possibility seems unlikely. Because there is confusion in the modern literature regarding the authorship of some compositions, it is unclear whether these were misascribed in the Alamire manuscripts. First, a six-voice Credo ad placitum in JenaU 4 (early) and MunBS 6 (late) is ascribed to Divitis in both manuscripts, though it could be by Mouton. 437 Second, the Missa Sancta trinitate, ascribed to Mouton in both of the Alamire sources that carry ascriptions, VienNB 15497 (early) and ?s-HerAB 72B (late), is based on a motet by F?vin, and is attributed to F?vin in the print 1515 1 , but its six manuscript sources all ascribe it to Mouton. 438 The New Grove articles on F?vin and Mouton both claim that it is probably by the other composer, so it is unclear whether these Alamire scribes misascribed the mass or not. 439 Third, ?s-HerAB 72A ascribes the Missa Benedicta es to Willaert, while it may be by Hesdin. 40 When the Alamire scribes ascribed compositions in error, they sometimes amended them by scraping their mistaken ascriptions. 41 In BrusBR 215-216, a 437 See Howard Mayer Brown and Thomas G. MacCracken, "Mouton, Jean," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/51872; and Martin Picker, "Divitis, Antonius," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article /grove/music/07872 (accessed March 25, 2009). 438 This mass is in two other Alamire manuscripts, but the folio that would have carried an ascription in VatS 160 (early) has been vandalized, and VienNB 18832 (late) transmits several sections of this mass anonymously. 439 See Brown and McCracken, ?Mouton, Jean,? in New Grove; and Howard Mayer Brown and T. Herman Keahey. "F?vin, Antoine de," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/09569 (accessed March 25, 2009). 40 Lewis Lockwood, et al., "Willaert, Adrian," in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40122; and Joshua Rifkin, ?Hesdin,? in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/12925 (accessed March 25, 2009). 41 Scraped identifications are particularly prevalent in the Scribe B manuscript, VerBC 756, but since they cannot be identified as ascriptions and because an in-depth study of these earlier manuscripts is outside the scope of this dissertation, they will be considered elsewhere. Also, in VatS 160, an early Alamire 348 manuscript whose contents center on the feast of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin, the scribes of an anonymous Seven Sorrows mass originally ascribed it to ?Petrus de [la] Rue,? but scraped this ascription and did not replace it (f. 20v, see Figure 6.4). 42 Because La Rue?s own Missa de septem doloribus immediately precedes this anonymous mass in BrusBR 215-216, one logical explanation for this mistake is that text Scribe X, who presumably wrote the titles and ascriptions in this manuscript, was careless and assumed that the anonymous mass was the one by La Rue. That the exact titles of these masses as they appear in the manuscript are so similar and the ascriptions are of exactly the same type, size, and placement supports this hypothesis. We cannot know why this scraped misattribution was not replaced with a correct one, however. Perhaps the composer of this mass was not known, though this is unlikely given the popularity of the Feast of the Seven Sorrows in the Burgundian-Habsburg Netherlands in the early sixteenth century, and given that the entire contents of BrusBR 215-216 relate to that feast. It is more likely that Scribe X forgot to write in the real composer?s name after the original ascription had been scraped, but all we can know for certain is that the scribes of BrusBR 215-216 knew that this anonymous mass was not composed by La Rue. It is significant that the scribes took the care to correct this type of error. Figure 6.4: BrusBR 215-216, f. 20v manuscript, text was scraped from the top of f. 12v (between Barbireau?s Missa Virgo parens Christi and Obrecht?s Missa Ave regina celorum, where folios have been excised), but the missing text was written vertically, so was likely not an ascription. 42 This is the first time that this scraped ascription has been noticed. 349 Another example is on the first opening of La Rue?s Missa Sancta dei genitrix in JenaU 21 (copied by Scribe D and Alamire?), where the ascription ?Petrus alamyre? was scraped and converted to ?Petrus delavie.? 43 Though we have seen that the manner in which the Alamire scribes wrote composer names varies throughout the complex and even within a single manuscript, La Rue is never, apart from this instance, referred to as ?Petrus delavie,? which is clearly a convenient correction of the mistaken ?Alamyrie?: the ?a,? ?m,? and part of ?y? and ?r? were scraped off, the ?y? becoming a ?v? in the corrected attribution. The meaning of this form of La Rue?s name would have been clear to sixteenth-century musicians and patrons of music, who were familiar with Latinized forms of names (?vie? = ?rue?). There is further evidence that some rubrics in this manuscript were scraped. The number of visible errors made in one of the final stages of manuscript production illustrates suggests either that the production of JenaU 21 was rushed, or that the text scribe in question was generally careless or inexperienced. That all of these errors were made and corrected by scribes who worked in the early period could be coincidental, 44 but it most likely reflects the greater attention that those scribes consistently gave to their work. It is also intriguing that attributions made in error were corrected both in more formal parchment manuscripts 45 as well as in plainer paper ones. 46 The enormous care that the Alamire scribes took to scrape mistaken attributions proves that accuracy was important to them, more so than the consistency 43 Noted in Pierre de La Rue, Opera omnia 6, no. 26, xv; and in Meconi, Pierre de la Rue, though Meconi, following a private communication by Flynn Warmington, states that the ascription never read ?Petrus alamyre.? My own consultation of JenaU 21 confirms that it did, in fact, read ?Petrus alamyre,? and that this misattribution was scraped and corrected, conveniently, to read ?Petrus delavie.? 44 JenaU 21, though dated 1521-25, was copied by Scribe D, who worked between about 1516 and 1520. It is, however, possible that Scribe D worked into the early 1520s. Cf. Chapter 3, for a more detailed examination of this point. 45 BrusBR 215-216 and VatS 160. 46 JenaU 21. 350 that would result from leaving any attribution, even one made in error, in the manuscript. Still, the misascriptions left uncorrected in manuscripts dating from both periods demonstrates once again the inconsistency of different scribes in cases where the same composition carries different ascriptions in different manuscripts, and shows that the Alamire scribes did not always know who wrote a composition. Mass Titles It is also important to recognize that the manner in which masses were identified varies across the complex, and even within certain manuscripts. Attribution, like title, subject matter, and cantus firmus, was only one way to identify a composition, and, while desirable, was apparently not obligatory. Often, a scribe identifies masses by cantus firmus text, usually written in red ink in the tenor or in all voices, rather than with a formal title inscribed at the top of the opening folios. Sometimes, the rubric ?Missa supra? is used, though it is not useful as an indicator of relationships between manuscripts, since it appears with compositions by various composers, in manuscripts copied in both periods (see Tables 6.4-6.34, in Appendix I). In most cases where the subject matter is not indicated as a formal title, the cantus firmus text is underlaid in red ink, when appropriate, or simply consists of an incipit interspersed with mass Ordinary text in the tenor or in all voices. Since many composer ascriptions were frequently written as part of the mass title, as in ?Missa quattuor vocum Johannes Gascong.? in MunBS 7, or the common formula ?Missa [title] Rue,? as in SubA 248 and BrusBR 15075, the occasional lack of ascriptions of masses without a title in a given manuscript is to be expected. A formal title was often written at the top of the opening folios without 351 a composer ascription, though it is rare to find the name of a composer with no mass title. This argues for priority of mass title, an indication of its function. Alternate forms of mass titles also speak to the authorial role of the scribe, and perhaps even to the function of a manuscript. For example, Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua is identified by feast, as Missa de venerabili sacramento, rather than by its cantus firmus, in JenaU 21 (Scribe D) and VienNB 4809 (Scribe F). Despite the fact that it immediately follows Barra?s Missa de venerabili sacramento, referred to as such, in BrusBR IV.922 (Scribe I), it is called Missa Pange lingua in that same manuscript. That the readings of this mass in JenaU 21 and BrusBR IV.922 are close, while that of VienNB 4809 stands apart, suggests that this choice was not likely dictated by the exemplar. Rather, it seems that Scribes D and F preferred to call this mass by its liturgical occasion than by its model, or that the descriptive liturgical title was useful to the patrons of these manuscripts. The unreliable readings in VienNB 4809, however, make it unlikely that anyone would have used it for practical purposes. This phenomenon is not uncommon in the Alamire manuscripts. For example, Barbireau?s Missa Virgo parens Christi is called Missa De venerabilis sacramento in MontsM 766 and VatS 160, but not in its earlier Scribe B sources, VatC 234 and VienNB 1783. Likewise, the Missae de beata virgine of Josquin and La Rue are called Missa de nostra domina in JenaU 7 (Josquin), Missa de domina in SubA 248 (La Rue) and VienNB 4809 (Josquin). Further confusing the matter are two instances where masses now known by another title are called de beata virgine in Alamire manuscripts: in JenaU 4, La Rue?s Missa Ave sanctissima maria is called Missa de beata virgine sex vocum, and in MunBS 7 F?vin?s Missa Salve sancta parens is identified by both liturgical occasion 352 and cantus firmus, Missa de beata virgine Salve sancta parens. Finally, Mouton?s Missa Regina mearum is descriptively titled Missa de almania in MunBS 7 and VienNB 4810, and Missa d?allemangne in ?s-HerAB 72C. Because masses for more than four voices were a novelty at this time, and required a different ensemble, it is not surprising that most scribes considered the number of voices an important indicator in the identification of masses. Thus MontsM 773 depicts La Rue?s Missa Alleluia as Missa quinque vocum p. de [la] rue. The scribes of BrusBR 215-216 noted the number of voices (five) for La Rue?s Missa de septem doloribus, but not for the four-voice anonymous mass on the same subject that follows it. Other examples are in JenaU 8 (three of the four masses for five voices are referred to as Missa quinque vocum [title], and the fourth lacks any title at all), BrusBR IV.922 (Isaac?s six-voice Easter mass is differentiated from his four-voice Easter mass), VatS 160 (Isaac?s six-voice Easter mass), VatS 36 (La Rue?s six-voice Credo), MechAS s.s. (only two of six five-voice masses are titled as such), JenaU 2 (one of five masses for five or six voices), and JenaU 5 (one four-voice and two five-voice masses, all by La Rue). In JenaU 4, a particularly ornate manuscript, the number of voices for all titled compositions with more than four voices is specified. In MunBS 7, a relatively plain early-period manuscript, it is odd that five of seven four-voice masses are titled Missa quattour vocum [title]. Among late manuscripts to feature titles indicating the number of voices are MontsM 766 (some, but not all, of the five-voice compositions, in fascicles copied in both periods, are specified as such), BrusBR 15075, and MunBS 6. While the indication of number of voices occurs most often when a mass or a few masses for five or more 353 voices are the exception in a manuscript, this element is most often not treated in any consistent manner, even within the same manuscript. Given the lack of any emerging pattern across the Alamire group, anonymity cannot be explained by any single phenomenon, but resulted from the way the scribes worked and from the great variety of ways in which they copied music. The presence, absence, and nature of ascriptions in the Alamire manuscripts depended ultimately on scribal habit, or preference. For example, as shown above, Scribe X was likely the one who replaced syllables of composer names with a musical symbol (as in Petrus de [la] Rue and Pipe[la][re]). The earlier scribes tended to write out composer?s names, while the later ones often abbreviated. Though uniformity was by no means valued highly, traits such as type of ascription, titles underlaid with the mass text, and odd forms of titles are generally the same for consecutive masses in a given manuscript. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the inconsistent presence of ascriptions, the various ways in which scribes wrote a composer?s name, misascriptions, and the regular presence of other identifiers, such as title, subject, or number of voices, discussed extensively above, we can conclude that attribution on its own was not one of the more important factors of manuscript production in Alamire?s workshop. In fact, just as decoration took precedence over composer ascriptions, it seems to have been more important to identify a mass by subject or model than it was by composer, by function rather than authorship. 47 This also 47 Still, there are a few exceptions. In ?s-HerAB 72B, a manuscript copied for the use of the Confraternity of Our Lady in ?s-Hertogenbosch, Pierre Moulu?s Missa Alma Redemptoris is titled ?La nouvelle messe de molu a deux visaige ou plus.? at the top of f. 154v, while the cantus firmus incipit ?Alma redemptoris? is underlaid along with the Mass Ordinary text, in red ink. In other cases, the scribes went to great lengths to 354 corresponds to Rob Wegman?s contention that Renaissance audiences were more interested in how a piece sounded than in who wrote it. 48 It appears that, in some cases, the masses copied into the Alamire manuscripts were anonymous in their time, at least to the scribes who copied them, especially the compositions that originated outside the Low Countries. This corresponds to the frequency with which masses were left unascribed in the late period, when more of the Alamire repertoire was by French court composers. Barbara Haggh has suggested the possibility that some compositions, and thus their composers, were so well known at the place where the manuscript was copied or its intended destination, or both, that an ascription would be unnecessary, 49 but we have seen that this does not correlate to the frequency of ascriptions to La Rue, who was certainly active at the time and location where these manuscripts were copied. If there was no ascription in the exemplar of a given composition, a scribe copying without editorial intervention may not have included an attribution in the new manuscript even if he did know who the composer was. Given that composer attributions were not nearly as important to sixteenth-century artists and patrons as they are to us today, (see discussion in Chapter 1) and the evidence of scribal intervention presented above, however, it is more likely that some scribes habitually attributed compositions, where possible, while others did not consider this an important aspect of manuscript production. It has also been shown that the visual appearance of the manuscript identify a mass by composer, as in JenaU 2, the scribes of which wrote F?vin?s name twice on the first opening of his Missa de feria (ff. 33v-34r). 48 Rob C. Wegman, ??Musical Understanding? in the Fifteenth Century,? Early Music 30 (2002): 46?66. 49 As at Cambrai Cathedral. Private communication to author, May, 2005. 355 outweighed the necessity of attribution, so scribes copying elaborate presentation manuscripts more frequently omitted composer ascriptions. In only a few cases, the presence of ascriptions can be attributed to the individual who commissioned or who was to receive the manuscript, such as the manuscripts of Josquin masses made for the Fuggers. In other cases, masses are anonymous to us today because their ascriptions were scraped off the page, presumably by the same scribes who wrote them. Scraped ascriptions prove that accuracy was important to these scribes, though the numerous misattributions, especially to composers of the French court, tells us that in some cases, even when they were not certain, the Alamire scribes attributed compositions. Unfortunately, no evidence can prove where ascriptions were lost when folios were cropped during binding or restoration, though this is a distinct possibility for a few manuscripts. This study of the ascription practices of the Alamire scribes has shown that ascription was one way, though by no means the only way or the best way, to identify a composition. Even if significantly more compositions were transmitted anonymously in manuscripts copied after c. 1518-20, the knowledge, materials, habits, and preferences of the scribes working in both periods varied, and played a considerable role in the presence and nature of composer ascriptions. Although the Alamire manuscripts are similar in many ways and can thus all be grouped as one entity on one level, on closer examination significant incongruities with respect to the planning, conception and design, copying, and dissemination of these codices emerge. We have seen, first, that manuscripts produced after c. 1518-20 generally differ more in appearance, materials, repertoire, and attention to detail than those 356 produced between c. 1508 and c. 1518-20; second, that Alamire, not the court, provided the continuity between these two groups; third, that different Alamire scribes undoubtedly had different exemplars available to them and thus produced different readings of the same works; and finally, that despite the available exemplars, the Alamire scribes exercised a significant degree of editorial initiative in their copying. The implications of this are considerable: we can no longer view the repertoire transmitted in the Alamire manuscripts as one body of music, nor can we assume that this entire group of manuscripts represents the transmission and dissemination of music from the court of Burgundy-Habsburg. Most important to this study, we have established that anonymity was largely a consequence of the knowledge and choices made by the compilers and scribes, to whom authorship was much less meaningful than it is to us today. Thus, we have shown that there is no reason to regard the anonymous works transmitted in these manuscripts alongside works by renowned composers as having any less status and importance in their time. 356 CHAPTER 7 Alamire, Anonymity, and Quality A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE ALAMIRE WORKSHOP In the process of examining the possible reasons for anonymity in the Alamire manuscripts in Chapter 6, we have also identified an obvious change in manuscript production occurring around 1518-20, which contradicts the current view of the workshop as a single continuous institution, operated by Petrus Alamire, and attached to the Burgundian-Habsburg court chapel. The new findings confirm changes in working methods, as well as from whom and in what way the workshop obtained commissions, between the period before 1518-20 and the period afterwards. Indeed, it now appears that Alamire?s workshop produced manuscripts on order from the court, as well as from outside patrons, and contracted the work out to musicians who were also capable copyists, even when he was not physically present at court. That many of the finest musicians working in the Low Countries were employed by the chapel of the Burgundian-Habsburg court, and that Alamire was also on the court payroll for a number of years, suggests that many of the scribes who copied the Alamire manuscripts were also employees of the Burgundian-Habsburg court chapel, even if the workshop was not an auxiliary of that chapel, and, in some cases, may have been composers. 427 427 That the Alamire scribes were likely members of the Burgundian-Habsburg chapel has been suggested by Kellman, ?Openings,? 113; and Thomas Schmidt-Beste, ??ber Quantit?t und Qualit?t von Musikhandschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts,? in Die M?nchner Hofkapelle des 16. Jahrhunderts im europ?ischen Kontext. Bericht ?ber das internationale Symposion der Musikhistorischen Kommission der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 2- 4 August 2004, ed. Theodor G?llner and Bernhold Schmid (Munich: Tutzing, 2006), 191-211; idem, ?Textunterlegung in den Alamire-Handschriften,? in The Burgundian-Habsburg Court Complex, 37-57. 357 Furthermore, common codicological and paleographic elements in the manuscripts suggest more precise dates than currently exist for many of them, which enables us to contextualize them (cf. Appendix III, Table 6.1). 428 Even though this new interpretation of the Alamire complex helps to explain the diversity of style in the masses studied here, it also emphasizes the continuing role of the scribes in ?creating? anonymity throughout both periods. QUALITY AND MUSICOLOGICAL VALUE Anonymity and Quality As we learned in the previous chapter, the eight anonymous masses examined in this study are anonymous today largely as a result of coincidental circumstances: 1) they were transmitted without ascription by the Alamire scribes for the reasons outlined in Chapter 6?because they were anonymous to the Alamire scribes who copied them, because there was no space on the page for an ascription, because a scribe neglected to return to a first opening to inscribe the identity of a mass after it had been copied and text had been underlaid on all subsequent openings, or because the scribe opted, for reasons unknown to us, to omit an ascription; 2) all but one of these works are unica, and thus lack concordant sources that could provide an ascription; and 3) they have not been attributed to known composers by modern scholars. Consequently, as many scholars have surely assumed, but have not yet probed to any extent, their anonymity is entirely a 428 For example, scholars often consider events that provided possible opportunities for gift exchange as a basis for dating manuscripts; now, these more refined dates, based on evidence from the manuscripts themselves, can serve as the basis for finding events that coincided with the production of individual manuscripts. 358 product of external factors, and is thus unrelated to their intrinsic quality or value for historical and musicological research. Indeed, the positive reception of this music in its own time, deduced from the quality and survival of the Alamire manuscripts, clearly reflects its intrinsic value: the music is worth studying because it was important to the society in which it was created and consumed. Furthermore, because the anonymous masses in the Alamire manuscripts, along with ascribed compositions, were valued enough by those commissioning or executing the manuscripts?patrons and copyists?to be preserved and disseminated in such prestigious sources, they also deserve to be adopted and understood as an essential part of our canon of sacred Renaissance polyphony. Thus they have been treated in this dissertation as creations of composers whose names we happen not to know. Nevertheless, the quality of these masses, and hence the skill of their composers, has indeed been evaluated in the preceding pages. The analyses presented in this dissertation have shown that these anonymous works employ different compositional techniques, but that all embed their models with competence and even inspiration, that all were composed in full awareness of the meaning of the texts that were set, and that all use texture and counterpoint with relative inventiveness and creativity. Borrowing and Quality Of the eight anonymous masses examined in this dissertation, three are based on secular models; and four are based on liturgical models, two of which are Marian and two of which are psalm verses (Table 7.1). The subject of the Missa sine nomine in JenaU 21, if one exists, is unidentified. 359 MassVoicesManuscriptSecularMarianPsalmUnidentified Missa Alles regretz 3 VerBC 756X Missa Sine nomine 4 JenaU 21 X Missa Salve regina 4 VienNB 4810X Missa de Assumptione 5 MontsM 766X Missa Cueur langoreulx 5 MontsM 766X Missa Memor esto 5 MontsM 766X Missa Du bon du cueur 5 MunBS 6X Missa Miserere mihi Domini 8 MunBS 6 X Table 7.1: Anonymous Masses by Subject While most of the masses examined here do not fit neatly into one compositional category, it is notable that four of the eight masses most obviously display characteristics common to imitation masses, reflecting the early sixteenth-century penchant for that compositional technique, and common also at the relatively late dates when most of the anonymous masses were copied into their sources, as discussed in Chapter 6. Only two of them are cantus firmus masses, though both of these paraphrase their models, and one more (or two, if the Missa sine nomine in JenaU 21 is based on a pre-existing composition) is a paraphrase mass. Whether the Missa sine nomine in JenaU 21 is based on borrowed material is unknown (Table 7.2). 360 MassVoicesManuscriptCantus firmus ParaphraseImitationUnidentified M. Alles regretz3 VerBC 756 X M. Sine nomine4 JenaU 21 X M. Salve regina4 VienNB 4810X M. de Assumptione 5 MontsM 766X M. Cueur langoreulx 5 MontsM 766X M. Memor esto5 MontsM 766X M. Du bon du cueur 5 MunBS 6 X M. Miserere mihi Domini 8 MunBS 6X Table 7.2: Anonymous Masses by Compositional Technique A review of our conclusions about the methods and techniques of borrowing in each mass?how each composer borrowed and presented his borrowed material?will enable us to consider below the question of quality. In the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie in MontsM 766 (Chapter 5), a melodic and rhythmic elaboration of the antiphon Assumpta est Maria is presented as a cantus firmus in long notes in the tenor, except in the Credo, where the model is cited in the altus. Each of the five main mass movements presents at least one full statement of the antiphon, with cantus firmus phrases distributed among mass subsections. Non cantus firmus-bearing voices also cite motives and phrases derived from the antiphon, strengthening the melodic relationship between mass and model. Sections scored for fewer than five voices do not carry cantus firmus material. Although the cantus firmus presentation itself is archaic, its treatment reflects modern sixteenth-century practice. The composer weaves his borrowed material through all mass voices, the antiphon thus permeating the texture. This composer?s presentation of his cantus firmus in long notes in the tenor, the simplicity of his melodic and contrapuntal material, and his repeated use of melodic and rhythmic motives, provide clarity by means 361 of consistency, while maintaining variety. The Missa Assumptione beate Maria is a simple mass, but one of extraordinary beauty. The other mass to present exact citations of a monophonic melody is the eight- voice Missa Miserere mihi in MunBS 6, based on the antiphon Miserere mihi, Domine (Chapter 4). Although it resembles the traditional cantus-firmus mass, in which the borrowed melody is placed in the tenor, this anonymous mass is by no means an ordinary tenor mass. Its scoring for eight voices is not often found in this period. Its composer handled this difficult scoring by his careful organization of large-scale structure, by his logical distribution of his cantus firmus among mass sections, by assigning the cantus firmus to pairs of canonic voices which always include the first tenor, and by his separation of melodic ideas through frequent, strong cadences, thus avoiding a chaotic sound. His repetitive use of simple motives, as in the Kyrie (cf. Chapter 4, pp. 194-215) is not monotonous?rather, it provides consistency and contributes to the clear and majestic quality of this mass. While the two cantus firmus masses discussed above display traits of the paraphrase mass, the Missa Salve regina in VienNB 4810 (Chapter 3) is a textbook example of that genre. Its composer places prominent material from the model in prominent places in the mass, as at the openings and cadences of sections. Each movement opens with the striking beginning of the antiphon Salve regina in imitation in all voices. The citation stands out from what follows, because the exact quotation is not continued. The composer also uses paraphrase to condense or elaborate familiar phrases from the chant, and then continues with freely composed music. The extent to which this composer incorporates convincing new music into a mass so clearly based on the Salve 362 regina, while ingeniously weaving motives and melodies that recall, but do not quote, the antiphon throughout the polyphonic texture, demonstrates his compositional and rhetorical expertise. His reworking of his borrowed material is extensive, and his newly- composed material is related to, but not directly derived from the borrowed material. He does not stray too far, however, always maintaining contact with his model with recurring quotations of the first phrases of the antiphon at the openings of sections and with subtle allusions to the antiphon worked subtly into the new contrapuntal texture. As in the previous masses, the composer achieves clarity by his consistent approach to the borrowed material. With the possible exception of the Missa sine nomine in JenaU 21 (Chapter 3), whose model remains unidentified, if one exists, the remaining masses in this study have polyphonic models. Each composer treats his model differently, however. The composer of the Missa Alles regretz in VerBC 756 (Chapter 2) employs melodies from the tenor and superius of Hayne?s chanson, Alles regretz, but he also borrows gestures and motives from all three chanson voices and places them in all three mass voices, and he occasionally borrows Hayne?s entire polyphonic texture. This mass, probably composed in the last years of the fifteenth century, is thus both a cantus firmus and an imitation mass, although its composer was certainly progressive in his polyphonic borrowing. His frequent citation of prominent motives from the chanson, in particular, is an effective way to convey Hayne?s material while creating new music. This composer?s presentation of his borrowed material varies from exact to barely recognizable, but he always preserves the general character of Hayne?s melodies, and indeed of the chanson. In this 363 earlier mass, consistency is not the objective, however, but rather varietas. The mass is therefore a successful example of imitatio, a compositional ideal of the period. In the five-voice Missa Cueur langoureulx in MontsM 766 (Chapter 5), the composer clearly emulates the style of Josquin?s chanson: the mass employs melodic themes, structure, texture, mode, motives, and rhythms found in the chanson. The mass composer?s distribution of his cantus firmus provides a logical and clear structure for the mass. The entire chanson is presented in each of the five main mass movements, the two canonic chanson voices transferred to a pair of canonic mass voices, which vary throughout the mass. The two canonic voices stand out against the three contrapuntal voices, to which the composer often cleverly assigns motives drawn from the chanson, presented in imitation, thus resulting in a fuller communication of his model. A third canonic voice often begins a statement of the cantus firmus, but usually continues in free counterpoint, acting as a link between canonic and non-canonic voices. The composer interrupts extremely clear, canonic presentations of his borrowed material with newly composed music, which is usually derived from surrounding borrowed material and serves transitional or cadential functions. While mass sections scored for all five voices present the cantus firmus in canon, cantus firmus statements and canon are absent from internal subsections scored for fewer than five voices. These instead open on points of imitation of prominent motives from the model. This mass is a fine example of emulation, in which clear citations of borrowed material are accompanied by cleverly constructed new material, and frequent references to the chanson removed from their original context, especially repetitive statements of prominent motives and rhythms from the chanson, result in allusion which permeates the texture. 364 The superius of Mouton?s five-voice chanson, Du bon du cueur, provides the melodic foundation for the five-voice Missa Du bon du cueur in MunBS 6 (Chapter 4), where it is most often placed in the mass superius. Given the prominence of material from other chanson voices, which appear in all five mass voices, this is an imitation mass despite its presentation of a cantus firmus. All five main mass movements open with imitative statements of the chanson opening, the composer paraphrases melodies from Mouton?s chanson in all five mass voices, prominent motives from the chanson are treated as points of imitation in the mass, and the mass, like the chanson, features exaggerated use of fourths and fifths. Although the chanson permeates the mass texture, the mass composer succeeds in producing a unique composition by paraphrasing Mouton?s melodies and innovatively reworking his borrowed material to fit different combinations of mass voices. In the context of a culture that valued emulation and competition so highly, this mass is a particularly successful example of adapting pre- existent material to a new context in inventive ways, developing upon that material and using it as a means to create an original and unique composition. Like the composer of the Missa Salve regina, the composer of the five-voice Missa Memor esto in MontsM 766 (Chapter 5), a true imitation mass, opens each of the five main mass movements, as well as some internal subsections, with the imitative opening of Josquin?s psalm motet, Memor esto verbi tui. Like the composer of the Missa Cueur langoureulx, this one also consistently borrows prominent motives from the model. Aside from the imitative openings and motivic borrowing, however, references to the model are heavily disguised. Nevertheless, one regularly recognizes frequent allusions to Josquin?s melodies. Despite the lack of cantus firmus treatment in this mass, 365 its composer effectively communicates the melodic as well as modal and textural characteristics of Josquin?s motet (cf. Chapter 5, pp. 279-82). This mass is another fine example of emulation, the motet always present, but clearly in the service of new music. All of these mass composers have conveyed to listeners a pre-existing composition in the context of a new mass. They chose different types of models (monophonic versus polyphonic, liturgical versus non-liturgical), they chose to treat those models as cantus firmi, in paraphrase, or in imitation, and they decided to what extent the mass would resemble its model. Those composers who altered their borrowed material to a great degree while maintaining the general shape or character of their model, as in the Missa Salve regina and the Missa Memor esto, were particularly skilled at the craft of emulation, a highly valued compositional technique in the early Renaissance. Other composers who used material borrowed from their model in new contexts in the mass succeeded in providing consistent but subtle points of reference, as in the Missa Cueur langoureulx, the Missa Du bon du cueur, and the Missa Alles regretz. All of these works display a coherent approach to mass composition and the ability to employ varied compositional techniques within the same work to emphasize its structure. Text Setting and Quality Sensitivity to text setting is another feature by which we can evaluate a composer?s skill and creativity. In the Missa Miserere mihi Domine, changes of texture correspond to new phrases of Mass Ordinary text, as in the Gloria and Credo. Imitative passages alternate with homophonic ones, and the number of voices participating varies. Perhaps this composer?s most effective employment of texture to separate text phrases is 366 the alternatim effect in the Qui tollis (Chapter 4, pp. 203-204), a technique which the composer of the Missa Du bon du cueur, in the same manuscript, used as well. The composer of the Missa Du bon du cueur was particularly sensitive to text setting, skillfully using texture, mensuration, and melody to distinguish between musical and textual phrases. In the Gloria, for example, at the text Miserere nobis, he paraphrases the third melodic phrase of his model in five-voice counterpoint, changing to five-voice homophony and a new mensuration at Quoniam tu solus sanctus, to dramatic effect. He maintains this new texture and mensuration during his more straightforward, and hauntingly beautiful, quotation of the first half of the fourth chanson phrase, at Tu solus Dominus. Tu solus Altissimus, where he reserves the second, highly melismatic, half of this phrase for the important text, Jesu Christe. The composer also uses texture, new melodies, and silence to distinguish between phrases of mass text in the Credo (cf. Chapter 4, pp. 168-69). Two impressive bouts of word painting occur in the Credo of the Missa Du bon du cueur. In the first, a brief duo between the upper voices in contrary motion introduces the imitative stepwise descent that illuminates the mass text descendit de celis, then the superius, which had been descending, soars to D and falls back to settle on A on celis. In the second, all three voices rise on Et ascendit in celum, the bassus emphasizing in celum with a repeated cadential figure. The composer of the Missa Cueur langoureulx also employs word painting, as in the Et iterum, where a repeated motive continues to delay the cadence, on non erit finis. He also skillfully aligns musical phrases to textual ones, especially in the only two subsections to quote the entire cantus firmus in order, the Et in terra pax and the Et in 367 Spiritum Sanctum. This composer was also careful to match his musical style to mass ordinary text. Near the opening of the Gloria, for example, the texture between the three non-canonic voices is largely homophonic, their mostly syllabic, declamatory ?recitation? fitting the repetitive acclamation of the text, Laudamus te. Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te (cf. Chapter 5, pp. 255-59). The canonic, cantus-firmus bearing voices sometimes present alternating phrases of mass text, the two mass voices overlapping so as to provide a continuous texture, as in the Credo. Like the composer of the Missa Du bon du cueur, the composer of the Missa sine nomine was particularly sensitive to text setting. He also uses scoring and texture to mark new phrases of mass text. Perhaps the most effective examples are alternating paired imitative duos with homophonic passages for all four voices, as in the Gloria, Crucifixus, and Sanctus (cf. Chapter 3, pp. 71-80). The composer of the Missa Salve regina likewise uses brief homophonic passages to emphasize important mass text, especially at cadences. He changes texture at each new phrase of mass text, alternating brief duos and trios of varying registers with homophonic passages. The mass ordinary text is projected clearly throughout the mass, since the composer carefully aligned mass voices to sing the same words of mass ordinary text simultaneously. The Missa de Assumptione beata Marie is a fascinating example of a polytextual mass. The antiphon text, which is copied in MontsM 766, fits neatly under the cantus firmus melody, whereas the mass ordinary text does not conveniently fit. While one or two cantus firmus-bearing voices perform the antiphon text in long notes, the contrapuntal voices sing the same words or phrases of mass ordinary text simultaneously, 368 thus allowing both texts to be heard clearly. The composer of this mass also separates phrases of mass ordinary text with cadences or changes of texture, as in the Gloria (cf. Chapter 5, pp. 233-36). Because there is no cantus firmus in the Missa Memor esto, its composer relied on other, non-melodic, traits of Josquin?s motet. Both compositions are written in a text- generated style, in which largely syllabic text setting projects the words clearly. In fact, the Gloria and Credo are almost entirely syllabic. Homophonic passages for the full texture of five voices are prominent, though the composer employs changes in scoring and texture, especially imitative duos and trios, to mark new phrases of text and emphasize important phrases of mass text. The composer also cleverly chose to set melodic phrases from the motet whose text corresponds in meaning to the mass text, as in the Kyrie (cf. Chapter 5, pp. 279-82). Like the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, the Missa Alles regretz appears to be polytextual, though only at one isolated passage: in the Gloria, at Qui tollis, the tenor carries an exact citation of the cantus firmus, to which the mass ordinary text can not be conveniently underlaid. While not as concerned with text setting as the composers of the later masses?he does not, for example, take care to separate phrases of mass text with changes in texture or mensuration?the composer of the Missa Alles regretz uses proportio sesquialtera effectively to emphasize important mass text, as in the Gloria and Credo (cf. Chapter 2, pp. 29 and 44-46). Each of these composers was attentive to text setting, creatively changing texture, scoring, and mensuration to separate consecutive phrases of mass text, especially in the Gloria and Credo. Some, such as the composers of the Missa Du bon du cueur, the Missa 369 Miserere mihi, and the Missa Cueur langoureulx, were particularly sensitive, effectively employing word painting or proportions to emphasize especially important words or brief phrases of mass text. Quality in Texture and Counterpoint Each composer shows his inventiveness and creativity in approaching texture and counterpoint. Although no model has been identified for the Missa sine nomine in JenaU 21 (Chapter 3), recurring melodic material, especially at the imitative openings of sections, provides some consistency in the composition. Its composer?s masterly handling of counterpoint also contributes to the extraordinary beauty of this mass. His frequent use of parallel tenths, especially in the Kyrie, is backward-looking, but never monotonous. The variety of contrapuntal techniques that characterize this mass also include frequent imitative and homophonic paired duos, showing that this composer was also sensitive to texture as a compositional element. His use of sequence to close mass sections is skilled, effective, and delightful. A few unattractive dissonances detract very briefly from the contrapuntal flow of this mass, but with no other copy of the composition we cannot confirm that these are not errors on the part of the scribe of JenaU 21. Rather than detracting from the musical interest of the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, its composer?s repetition of short motives and his persistent use of imitation provide the listener with familiar points of reference, bringing coherence to the composition. Imitative and sequential passages derived from the model alternate with passages in free counterpoint that bridge citations of borrowed material or lead to cadences. While the texture and counterpoint of this mass are not as sophisticated, 370 complex, or striking as they are in most of the other masses examined here, this is a coherent and beautiful composition, the simplicity of which adds rather than detracts from its attractiveness. The composer of the Missa Cueur langoureulx does not vary texture often. Most of the mass is scored for five voices, two of which present the cantus firmus in canon, while the other three provide contrapuntal interest and support. In some passages, as in the Gloria, the three non cantus firmus-bearing voices proceed in three-voice homophony, in contrast with, thus emphasizing, the canonic cantus firmus statement in the other two voices (cf. Chapter 5, pp. 250-62). This composer often combines motives drawn from phrases of the chanson other than the one being presented as a cantus firmus with new material in the non-canonic voices, achieving increased contrapuntal interest and a close relationship with his model. Unlike most of the other masses studied here, duos and trios within fully-scored sections are rare. Only the Et incarnatus est, Et resurrexit, Et iterum, and Pleni sunt are reduced in scoring, and these are characterized by imitation alternating with passages where the voices come together in homophony. In the Missa Miserere mihi Domine, the composer?s uncomplicated, open counterpoint allows for an unexpected clarity and beauty in this mass for eight voices. He sets canonic cantus firmus statements, in pairs of voices, against contrapuntal voices that proceed in imitation, homophony, or long notes in simple intervallic counterpoint, emphasizing open fourths and fifths. What otherwise may be seen as simplistic and boring counterpoint is necessary in this mass in order to emphasize the cantus firmus, one clear priority of this composer, and to avoid an overly intricate sound. 371 Aside from the imitative openings of mass sections, the counterpoint in the Missa Memor esto is mostly free and in a new style. As in Josquin?s motet, imitative duos are plentiful, and are often interrupted with syllabic, homophonic passages, especially in the Gloria and Credo. This composer?s significant addition of unique counterpoint in a new style, essentially new music, to a mass so clearly based on Josquin?s motet, demonstrates his individuality, creativity, and skill in the technique of emulation. The composer of the Missa Du bon du cueur varies the texture to great extent, both between mass sections scored for duos, trios, or the full complement of five voices, and within sections, especially to distinguish between phrases of text. He reserves homophonic passages for important phrases or words of mass text, and his changing use of homophony, imitative counterpoint, free counterpoint, and sequence corresponds to the melodic or textual context of the passage in question. He cleverly creates transitions between melodic passages, particularly preceding cadences. One voice often joins another in mid-phrase, and sometimes the composer passes a melody between one voice and another, both ingenious ways to change the functions of multiple voices. In the Missa Salve regina, extremely brief duos are punctuated by homophonic sections, especially at cadences and at important phrases of the mass ordinary text. Paraphrased statements of the model are most prominent in the superius and tenor, while the bassus often repeats short, cadential motives, and the contratenor effectively fills in the counterpoint. This structure, while not unattractive, is reminiscent of an older style of polyphony, in which the multiple voices were composed consecutively, the tenor first, followed by the superius, then the bassus and contratenor. 372 Like most turn-of-the-century polyphonic masses, the Missa Alles regretz is characterized by quick-moving, highly-rhythmic counterpoint. The composer uses this vigorous counterpoint effectively to set apart citations of the chanson, which usually proceed more slowly in imitation or augmentation. Each of these composers employed scoring, texture, and counterpoint successfully and creatively, although to different ends. Some alternate voice groupings or imitative textures with homophonic ones to set apart consecutive music and text phrases, as in the Missa Du bon du cueur, Missa sine nomine, Missa Memor esto, and Missa Alles regretz, some change texture drastically to emphasize important text, as in the Missa Salve regina and Missa Miserere mihi, and still others maintain a consistent contrapuntal texture in non cantus firmus-bearing voices that supports and emphasizes the borrowed material, as in the Missa Cueur langoureulx and Missa de Assumptione beata Marie. Nevertheless, the analyses have also shown that some of these composers were more skillfull than others. For example, the composer of the Missa sine nomine created a highly-unified and contrapuntally-interesting composition, even without a cantus firmus as a unifying device, whereas those of the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie or the Missa Miserere mihi Domine relied heavily on their models, resulting in extremely simple, sometimes even dull, counterpoint. Given that the manuscript evidence presented in Chapter 6 reveals anonymity to be a product of scribes? practices, and of their necessity to work with exemplars of varying accuracy, it appears that the scribes were, indeed, not moved by value judgments to omit ascriptions, confirmed further by the demonstration that the eight anonymous masses presented here are demonstrably fine compositions. 373 Musicological Value The analysis of these previously unknown masses in Chapters 2-5 and in the preceding paragraphs can also supplement our knowledge of the use of canon and symbolism in Renaissance music, of the structure of the Agnus Dei in polyphonic mass ordinary settings, and even provide clues regarding performance practices. Thus, anonymous masses provide crucial evidence both confirming and enhancing our knowledge of the musical language of this period. Several canons were identified in the eight anonymous masses studied above. The Agnus Dei canon in the Missa Cueur langoureulx was discovered and resolved, resulting in a second cantus firmus voice. The Agnus Dei canon in the Missa Du bon du cueur, unmarked in MunBS 6, but indicated cryptically with a verse from the Book of Job in another, non-Alamire, source, MunBS 5, was resolved. The Benedictus canon in the Missa Memor esto, marked in the manuscript with an inscription and a series of notational signs, was interpreted. Symbolism was explored in various contexts throughout the dissertation. For example, vernacular models often carried religious meaning or special personal meaning to a particular patron, which would be transferred to the mass based upon that model. A possible Marian context was proposed for the Missa Cueur langoureulx, based on one interpretation of the text of the chanson, Cueur langoureulx (cf. Chapter 5, pp. 247-48 and 258-60). Sixteenth-century polyphonic settings of the Agnus Dei were often rich in symbolism, through various devices, canonic tenors, cryptic canons, added voices, and number of breves among them. The canonic tenor of the Agnus Dei of the Missa Du bon du cueur may be symbolic of the Lamb of God at Easter (cf. Chapter 4, pp. 154-55), and 374 this particular canon, Noctem verterunt in diem: et rursum post tenebras spero lucem, which depends on the words ?night? and ?light,? emphasizes the resurrection of Christ. This canonic text, from which the motto ?Post tenebras lux? was derived, was suggested as a clue that this particular chanson text, and thus this mass based on Du bon du cueur, may have carried private meaning about the Protestant Reformation to Wilhelm IV of Bavaria, the recipient of MunBS 6 and the owner of MunBS 5, two of three extant sources of the Missa Du bon du cueur. The three-voice, thirty-three-breve second Agnus Dei of the four-voice Missa Salve regina emphasizes the important number three (representing the Holy Trinity). Further, the absent fourth voice, the tenor, has been interpreted in this study as the removal of Mary in favor of Christ, thus lending more weight to the importance of Jesus in a Mass section already devoted to him. The ascending scalar figure that is so prominent in all three voices was suggested as a musical image of the ascension of Christ into Heaven, already represented by the Agnus Dei. The question of the structure of the Agnus Dei has arisen in numerous cases throughout this study. Agnus Dei settings in the anonymous masses analyzed above vary considerably: four masses have only one statement of the Agnus Dei: the Missa de Assumptione beate virgine, Missa Cueur langoureulx, and Missa Memor esto, all in MontsM 766, and the Missa Du bon du cueur in MunBS 6. Two more have two statements of the Agnus Dei: the Missa supra Salve regina in VienNB 4810, and the Missa Miserere mihi Domine in MunBS 6. This irregularity is not only present among anonymous masses. Ascribed and attributed masses in the Alamire manuscripts are also inconsistent regarding the structure of the Agnus Dei, confirming the trend apparent among the anonymous masses. Masses 375 in several Alamire manuscripts, particularly those that were sent to Germany, omit the second statement of the Agnus Dei, most of which use the text, miserere nobis, for both remaining statements. 429 Concordant sources of the same masses in other Alamire, or even in non-Netherlandish sources, generally carry the standard three statements of the Agnus Dei, and present the text dona nobis pacem for the third. In some cases, an Alamire scribe even scraped dona nobis pacem and replaced it with miserere nobis, 430 suggesting that the exemplar likely transmitted dona nobis pacem (another example of editorial activity on the part of the scribe), and that the tradition of only transmitting two statements of the Agnus Dei, both with the text miserere nobis, is a Burgundian-Habsburg one. Identifying and defining such a liturgical tradition, through investigation of the Agnus Dei in all masses copied around the court of Burgundy-Habsburg in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, including plainchant masses, a comparison of concordant readings of the masses copied in the Low Countries and elsewhere in Europe, and a systematic examination of liturgical books used at the court and in ecclesiastical institutions in the Low Countries could result in a new understanding, not only of 429 As in La Rue?s Missa Sub tuum presidium in VienNB 15496; Josquin?s Missa Gaudeamus in VienNB 11778; Josquin?s Missa Pange lingua in BrusBR IV.922; La Rue?s Missa de feria in MechAS s.s.; and Josquin?s Missa Malheur me bat in BrusBR 9126, for which JenaU 3 and VienNB 11883 only transmit one statement of the Agnus Dei. Josquin?s Missa de beata Virgine, in JenaU 7 and VatS 160, also only has two statements of the Agnus Dei. Also, La Rue?s Missa Tous les regretz in VienNB 15497 omits Agnus Dei II. JenaU 12 transmits all three statements of the Agnus Dei for the same mass, but has only the first two statements, both with the text, miserere nobis, in La Rue?s Missa Sub tuum presidium. Another Alamire source of this mass, VienNB 4809, which was copied approximately ten years later from the same examplar as Vat S 160, transmits the second statement of the Agnus Dei. Either the scribes of VatS 160 intentionally omitted Agnus Dei II in their copy, or the scribes of VienNB 4809 found it in another exemplar and included it. Reaings of La Rue?s Missa Cum jocunditate in JenaU 22 and VienNB 1783 have two statements of the Agnus Dei with Miserere nobis in two voices, and dona nobis pacem in the other two voices. 430 As in La Rue?s Missa Assumpta est Maria in JenaU 22. In La Rue?s Missa sine nomine I, a different hand changed the original text dona nobis pacem to miserere nobis in the second and final statement of the Agnus Dei, and in La Rue?s Missa de Sancta Cruce, the text miserere nobis was added to the second Agnus Dei later (all other Alamire sources of this mass, BrusBR 6428, BrusBR 15075, MechAS s.s., MontsM 766, MontsM 773, and ViennB 15496, transmit the text dona nobis pacem with the final statement of the Agnus Dei. 376 polyphonic settings of the mass ordinary, but also of the milieux in which they were composed and performed. Some masses contain clues regarding the performance practice of the institutions from which they emanated. For example, the divisi at final cadences in the Missa Du bon du cueur and Missa Miserere mihi Domine, discussed in Chapter 4, and the Missa de Assumptione beata Marie discussed in Chapter 5, shows that these masses were expected to be performed with multiple singers to a part, and they conform to what is known to have been the standard voice distribution at the Burgundian court in the fifteenth century. 431 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Our determination that, 1) the Alamire complex and the repertoire it transmits does not comprise a homogenous group with a single context; 2) anonymity is the consequence of external factors; and 3) anonymous masses have much to contribute to the history of music, has considerable implications for scholarship. The Alamire manuscripts must be approached as diverse sources with common elements rather than as a common group with diverse aspects. More anonymous masses must be made available, and the history of music must be adjusted to take the anonymous repertory into account. Several urgent tasks emerge: 1. Further Work on the Alamire Complex: Scribes, Repertories, Patrons, and Recipients 431 Fallows, ?Specific Information,? 143-44. 377 It has become evident that the most urgent task regarding the Alamire complex is to complete and publish the work begun by Flynn Warmington on the Alamire scribes. To Warmington?s data identifying the music and text hands in each manuscript must be added specification of the gatherings, folios, and staves on which these hands appear, and the variants among the hands re-examined and interpreted, in order to establish a firm basis for knowing how many and which scribes were involved in the creation of each manuscript, and how many and which scribes worked together at one time. Only then can we confirm how the workshop functioned in each period of manuscript production. Further investigations of the repertories of individual manuscripts are needed to help clarify various contextual questions: how were the repertories chosen and who was responsible for choosing them? To what extent did a patron?s or recipient?s tastes determine the repertory copied in a given manuscript? Did the scribes participate in choosing the repertory, and, if so, to what extent were these choices governed by the availability of exemplars that could be copied. One strategy would be to pursue these questions by an examination of the manuscripts in recipient groups?for example the groups sent to Frederick the Wise, Wilhelm IV, Pope Leo X, and the Fuggers. A necessary component of such inquiries would be a detailed investigation of the musical, devotional, literary, and social milieu of each recipient. 2. The Study of Anonymity in Other Manuscripts Because the Renaissance aesthetic accepted anonymous works, the variety of reasons proposed for anonymity in the Alamire manuscripts may also govern anonymity in other Renaissance manuscripts. Such manuscripts could be scrutinized using the 378 methods employed here, in order to determine which explanations for anonymity are in principle more broadly applicable in the Renaissance. 3. Critical Editions A published critical edition of all twenty unedited anonymous masses and mass sections in the Alamire manuscripts is planned and under way. 432 The eight anonymous masses presented in this dissertation, and the remaining twelve masses yet to appear should be compared closely to works by known composers in order to further define their musical and historical context, and, where possible, to suggest potential attributions. Since it has been shown that anonymity is unrelated to quality in the Alamire manuscripts, that it appears not to have influenced the reception of a work, and that the anonymous masses presented in this dissertation contribute to our understanding of the larger repertory transmitted in the Alamire complex, the anonymous motets and chansons in the complex are also likely to extend our knowledge of those genres, and should be edited and examined along similar lines. 4. The Performance of Anonymous Works Once edited, these anonymous works will be available for recording and performance. Four of my transcriptions (Missa Alles regretz, Missa Cueur langoueulx, Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, Missa Salve regina) are already available to the public at Rob Wegman?s website, Renaissance Masses, 1440-1520, where he posts sound files of Renaissance masses, and others will be posted in the near future. Future 432 Aside from the eight masses presented in this dissertation, these are the Missa N?avez point veu (?s- HerAB 72B), the Missa O werde mont (MunBS F), the Missa Adiutorium nostrum (MunBS F and VienNB Mus. 11883), the Missa Sine nomine, Missa Crux fidelis, Missa sine nomine [2], Missa Pourquoy alles vous seullette, Missa L?amour de moy, Missa Noch weth ic ein so scoen joncfraw, Missa Ma bouche rit, and an unidentified Agnus Dei (all in VienNB Mus. 11883), and the anonymous Credo in JenaU 8. 379 performances and recordings of these anonymous masses by early music ensembles in the United States and Europe will bring the beauty of these works to a wider audience, and will demonstrate that anonymous repertories should not be excluded from the canon of often-performed Renaissance works. 5. A New Method for Naming and Identifying Anonymous Works Even without knowing the names of their composers, we could assign each mass a label, such as that used by art historians in instances where the artist?s name and biography are unknown, but his work is significant. 43 These individuals are typically named after their most important or famous work. For example, we may provisionally call the composer of the Missa sine nomine discussed in Chapter 3 the ?Master of the JenaU 21 Missa sine nomine,? and so on, which would bypass the immediate necessity of the composer?s actual name and, for the time being, biographical information, and would provide a practical point of departure for future discussions. 434 6. The Inclusion of Anonymous Works in Music Encyclopedias, Textbooks, and in the Historiography of Music Although anonymous compositions cannot be contextualized in light of their composer?s career or biography, fairly secure conclusions regarding their dating and origins can be posited. Anonymous works, therefore, can and should be listed and described in encyclopedic sources such as the New Grove Dictionary of Music and 43 Such as the Master of James IV of Scotland, the Master of Mary of Burgundy, and others. Cf. Hans M. Schmidt, et al., "Masters, Anonymous, and Monogrammists," in Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/grove/art/T055065pg1 (accessed April 19, 2009). 434 I thank Herbert Kellman for suggesting this method to me. Personal communication to author, April 17- 18, 2009. 380 Musicians. Articles on anonymous compositions organized by genre or compositional method, period, and source, would indeed be practical and useful. Anonymous Renaissance works should also not be excluded from music history textbooks merely on account of their anonymity. As has been shown, anonymous works can tell us much about compositional method and style, and they provide fine examples of the compositional techniques employed and valued in a given time and place. Anonymous medieval works are included in textbooks, while many medieval offices by named composers are excluded. While it is convenient to organize textbooks by composer, a section devoted to anonymous works or a structure that otherwise allows for the inclusion of anonymous Renaissance works would resolve the omission of these important works. CONCLUSIONS Authorship has served and still serves as a classification system for Renaissance works. Anonymous works have not fitted into that scheme, and scholars have not consistently sought a solution for their absence. Because modern criticism depends heavily on a relationship between the work and the person who created it, however, the trend in musicology has been to search long and hard for clues that may ultimately lead to a secure attribution, but in many cases, it has not been possible to determine authorship securely, or even to suggest it. 435 435 Studies attributing or re-attributing music to named composers abound in musicology, which verifies that the topic of authorship, in contrast to that of anonymity, remains current. The most obvious and numerous examples concern the oeuvre of Josquin: the Missa Da pacem and the Missa Alles regretz, Missa Une mousse de Biscaye, Missa L'ami Baudichon, Missa D'ung aultre amer, Missa Mater patris, Absalon fili mi, Misericordias Domini, Planxit autem David, Inviolata, integra, et casta es, Cueur desolez, and Allegez moy. A particularly fascinating and stimulating exchange about the authorship of the motet, 381 Yet there is another approach, one which we have taken here: to embark upon a thorough study of these anonymous repertories, thus allowing the quality, style, and function of those compositions to be judged critically and objectively. Indeed, the detailed analyses in this dissertation have been presented free of a priori knowledge of the composer, allowing for a neutral evaluation of the music of these eight masses. If we emphasize the work and not the composer, as I have done here, we are equipped to discover whole repertories heretofore neglected, and to approach and evaluate these forgotten works with objectivity not possible within the context of an author. This should make anonymous repertories more attractive to musicologists as objects of scholarly research, and to performers as a new and promising repertoire. Absalon, fili mi, among five musicologists over the period of twelve years, provides another fine example. Cf. Joshua Rifkin, ?Problems of Authorship in Josquin: Some Impolitic Observations, With a Postscript on Absalon, fili mi,? in Proceedings of the International Josquin Symposium, Utrecht 1986, ed. Willem Elders and Frits de Haen (Utrecht: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1991), 45-52; Jaap van Benthem, ?Lazarus versus Absalon: about Fiction and Fact in the Netherlands Motet,? Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 39 (1989): 54?82; Nigel Davison, ?Absalom fili mi Reconsidered,? Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 46 (1996): 42?56; and Honey Meconi, ?Another Look at Absalon,? Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 48 (1998): 3-29. 383 APPENDIX I: Models of the Masses in Modern Publications 384 Chapter 2 MassModel Edition Missa Alles regretz Hayne van Ghizeghem, Alles regretz Hayne van Ghizeghem, Opera omnia, ed. Barton Hudson, Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 74 (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1977), 3-5. Chapter 3 MassModel Edition Missa sine nomine NA NA M. Salve regina Salve regina Liber usualis (Tournai: Society of Saint John the Evangelist, Descl?e, 1954), 276; Antiphonale monasticum pro diurnis horis (Tournai: Society of Saint John the Evangelist, Descl?e, 1934), 176-77. Chapter 4 MassModel Edition Missa Du bon du cueur Jean Mouton, Du bon du cueur Charles Jacobs, ed., Le Roy & Ballard?s 1572 Mellange de Chansons (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1982), no. 86, 304-07; William M. McMurtry, ed., Selected Chansons from British Library, MS Additional 35087, Recent Researches in Music of the Renaissance, 68 (Madison: A-R Editions, Inc., 1985), 20-21, no. 7. Missa Miserere mihi Domine Miserere mihi Domine Liber usualis, 266 Chapter 5 MassModel Edition Missa de Assumptione beata Marie Assumpta est Maria Liber usualis, 1605. Antiphonale monasticum, 1013; and Antiphonale Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae pro diurnis horis (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1919), 690. Missa Cueur langoureulx Josquin des Prez, Cueur langoureulx Josquin des Prez, Werken van Josquin des Pr?s, ed. Albert Smijers, vol. 3: Wereldlijke werken 1 (Amsterdam: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1923), no. 1, 1-2. Missa Memor estoJosquin des Prez, Memor esto verbi tui Josquin des Prez, Werken vol. 6: Motetten 2 (Amsterdam: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1936), no. 31, 3-11. 385 APPENDIX II: Transcriptions of Masses Discussed in Chapters 2-5 386 APPENDIX II.1: Incipits of the Masses Transcribed in Appendix II 387 CHAPTER 2 Missa Alles Regretz, VerBC 756 KYRIE GLORIA Superius Tenor Bassus CREDO SANCTUS Superius Tenor Bassus 388 CHAPTER 3 Missa sine nomine, JenaU 21 KYRIE GLORIA CREDO Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus SANCTUSAGNUS DEI Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus 389 Missa Salve regina, VienNB 4810 KYRIE GLORIA CREDO Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus SANCTUSAGNUS DEI Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus 390 CHAPTER 4 Missa Du bon du cueur, MunBS 6 KYRIE GLORIA CREDO Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Bassus SANCTUSAGNUS DEI Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Bassus 391 Missa Miserere mihi Domine, MunBS 6 KYRIE GLORIA Superius 1 Superius 2 Superius 3 C ContratenorT1 Tenor 1 T2 Tenor 2 T3 Bassus 1 Bassus 2 392 CREDO SANCTUS AGNUS DEI Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Tenor 3 Bassus 1 Bassus 2 393 CHAPTER 5 Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, MontsM 766 KYRIE GLORIA CREDO Superius Altus Contratenor S Tenor 1 C Tenor 2 T Bassus SANCTUSAGNUS DEI Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus 394 Missa Cueur langoureulx, MontsM 766 KYRIE GLORIA CREDO Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus SANCTUSAGNUS DEI Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 [canonic with Superius] Bassus 395 Missa Memor esto, MontsM 766 KYRIE GLORIA CREDO Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Bassus SANCTUSAGNUS DEI Superius 1 Superius 2 Tenor 1 C Tenor 2 T Bassus 396 APPENDIX II.2: Missa Alles regretz, VerBC 756 & V ? b 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius Tenor Bassus w.? J i Kyri w ? Kyri ? ? ? Kyri ? ? ?b ? ? .? J ? e, ? ? ? ? ? ? i ? ? ? ? ? Ky ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? e,Ky . ? ? ? ri e ?? ? ? J ? e,Kyri ---- ------- ----------- -- ------------- -- & V ? b ?? ? ri ? ? .? J ? ele ? ? ? ? ee ? ? ? e e ?? ? . ? yson, ? ? ? le . w le ? ? .? ? Ky ?.? J ? .w . ? ? J ? J ? . ? J . ? . ? y --- ------- ---- ---------- -- ------------- & V ? b . ? ? ? .? J ? j ? ri ? ? ? ? son,Ky ? ? ? y .? j ? ? ? ? ? ? j ? rie,Ky w ? son, ? J ? ? ? e,Kyri .? ? . .? J ? ri ?? Kyrie ? ? ?? eele ?.? ? ee --------- ---- -- ---------- -- ---- ------ --- & V ? b ? ? ? e ? ? ? ? yson, .? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ? e ? . J ? ? le .? j ? ? ? le . ? ?? le . ? j ? ? y ? ? ? y ? . ? ? ? y ? ? ? ? son,Ky ---- ----------- ------------------ -------------- - 397 Kyrie 5 9 13 & V ? b ? ? ? ? son,Ky ? ? ? ? son,Ky ?. ? J ? ri ? ? ? ? ? ? ri ?. ? ? w ? ri ? ? ? ? e,Ky .? j ? ? e ? ? ? ? ee ? ? rie ? ? ? J ? e --------- -- ---------- --- ------------ ---- & V ? b C C C ? j ? ? ?? ?. ? ? e ? ?? le ?b . j ?? ? ley ? ? ley ? ? y .w son. .w son. .w son. .w .w .w ? ? Chri ! . ? ? Chri ? ste ! ? ? ------- ----- -- - -------- ---- & V ? b w e ! ? ? .? ? i le ! . ? ? ste i ? ? ! ? ? e ? ? ? Chri ? ? . j ? w .? ? le ? ? ? .? j ? ? ? ? ? I y ? ? ? ? y ---------- ----------------- --- ------------- & V ? b ? ? ? son,Chri ? ste,Chri ? .? son, ?? ste, ? ? ?? ? Chri ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Chri ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? .? ? w ste, w ste, -------------- - -------- - ---------- 398 17 21 27 34 & V ? b ? ? ! ? ? Chri ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? ste .? J ele . ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? w e .? ? w ste ? ? ? ? ? ? e ------------ ------- ----- ------------ --- & V ? b ?. j ? le ? ? ? ? le ?? ? ? ? ? ? y ? y ? ? ? y . j ? son, w son, ? ? son, ? i ? ? ? Chri ? ? ? Chri ! ?? stee ? ? .? J i ? Christe, w le . ? J ? ------- - --- --------- - ------- ------- & V ? b ? i ? w ? ? ? ? Christe ? yson, ? ? ? ? . ? ? i Chr ? ? ??b ? e ? ? ? stee ? ?b ? ? . j ? le ? ste ? i ? ?. ? ?? e ? ? ? ? ? ? le ---- - -------- - --------- ---------- -- & V ? b ? ? ? ? son,e .? ? i le ? . j ? ? ? ? y ? ? ? le ? ? w son. ? i ? ? w ? ? yson, ? yson, w ? ? . J ? ele ? ? . j ? eley w . J ?. ? yson. w son. w ------- ------------- --- --------- --- 399 41 48 55 62 & V ? b w w ! ?? Kyrie ! ! ? e ! ?? Kyrie ?? ! ?b e ? ! ?? wb ! ? . j ? le .? j ? le ?? Kyrie --------------- -- ------- -- & V ? b ? ? ? .? J ? e ? . J ? i ? ? ? ? ? ? .? ? i ? ? i ? ? ? ? .? J ? le ? ? y ? y .? j ? ? ? i ?. J ? son, ? ? y .? i ? son,Ky ? Ky ? ? ? son,e ----------- - --- -------------- - --------------- - & V ? b ? ? ? ? ?b ? ? ? ? ? ? rie, ? ? ? le ? ? ? Kyri ? ? ? ? y . ? ? .? ? i ri w son, ? ? ? ? ! .? i ? ? ? ? ! i ? ? ? i ? i ! ------------------ ---- ------------ --------- & V ? b ? ? ? ee w e w Ky i ? ? ? ? ? i e ? ri ? ? le ? i . j ? le ? ?b ? e ? ? . ?b ? w ? . i j ? y ? yson, ? i e ? ? ? ? Ky w ? son,Ky ? ri .? ? le ------- -- ------------- - --------------- 400 70 77 84 91 & V ? b ? i ? ? ? ? ?b i yson,Ky ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ri ? ? ? ? rie ? ?b ? e, ? ? e ? ? e . i J ? ? e b? i ele ? le ? i ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? y ? . j ? le w son, . ? j ? ------- ------ ----- - ------- ------ --------- & V ? b ? ? i ? ? ?? ? e le ? ? ? ? ? ? ? y ? ? y ? ? ? y w son. w son. w son. w w w ----------- ------------ ------------ 401 98 106 & V ? b b b C C C Superius Tenor Bassus ! ! .? ? Etin ! ! ? ter ! ! .? ? ! .? ? Etin ? ! ? ter ? ? ? ! .? ? ? ? .? ? Etin w ra ? ? ter ? ? pax ? ra ----- ------------- - & V ? b b b 9 .? ? w ho ? paxho w ra ? mi . ? ? mi ? ? pa ? ? ? ? x w ? ? ho w ni ? ni ? ? w ? ? ? mi w .? j ? ? ? ni ? bus ? - ------------- ---------------- --- - -------- & V ? b b b 17 ? I .? ? bo w bus ? ? ? busbo w ne ? ? ? bo ? ? ne ? ? vo ? ? ne ? ? volun ? lun ? volun ? ? [ta w ta ? ? ta ? w w tis. w tis]. w tis. ? ? Lau ! w .? damus - ------- --- --- -- --- - ----- & V ? b b b 25 w Lau w ? . J ? te.Bene .? ? damus ! ? ? ? ? te.Bene w Lau .? j ? dicimus ? ? dicimus w ? ?? te.A ? ? te.A w ? ? ? ? dora w da ? ? dora ? ? mus w ? ? mus ------------ ------ ------- - ----- ----- 402 Gloria & V ? b b b 32 ? ? te. w ? ? ? te. ?n? ? Glori w mus ?? Glori ? ? w ? ? ? ? ? fi w ?? fi . J ? ca w te. ?? ca ? ? .? ? ? ? ? ? mus ? Grati ? muste. --- -- - ------------ ------------- & V ? b b b 39 ? ? te. ? ? . ? ? Gra ! ? asa ? tiasa ! ?? ? ? gi ? .? j Gratias ? ? gi ? ? musti ? ? ? agi ? mus ? ? bi ? ? mustibiprop ? ? tibiprop ! ? ? ter .? J ? ter ! --- ------ -- -- - - - ---- - - & V ? b b b 46 ? ? ? mag ? . ? J mag ! ? ? namglo ? ? namglo ! ? ? .? J ? ri ! ? ? riam ? . ? am ! ? ? tu ? ? tu ! w am. w am. . ? ? Domi w ! ? ? neDe --- ---- - --- --- ----- - & V ? b b b 53 ? ? Do ? ? ? Do ? ? us, ? mine ? ? mi ! w De ? ? ne ? ? Rex . ?b ? . j ? ? De ? i ?b w us, ? ? ? us,Rexce . ? ? ce ? ? Rex ? . J ? ?b ? le ?? ce ? ?? ---- --- ----- -- ------- -- ----- - 403 * marked "#" in VerBC 756 & V ? b b b 60 ? ? le ? ? le ? .? j w stis stis, .? j ? stis, w ? ? DeusPa ? ? DeusPa w De ? . j ? terom ? . J ? terom w ? ? nipo ? ? nipo . ?b ? usPa w tens. w tens. ? terom ? Domi ? Domi --- - - --- -- --- - - --- -- --- ------ - - & V ? b b b 67 ? ? ni ? ? ne ? ? neFi ? ? ? ? Fili ? ? li .? J ? ? ? uni ? ? uni ? ? po ? ? geni ? ? geni w tens. ? ? ? teJe ? teJe ? ? Do ? ? ? su ?? mine ? ? su . ? j ? b Chri -- - ---- ---- --- ---- -- --- ---------- ---- & V ? b b b 74 . ?? Fi .? J ? Chri ? . J ? i w li ? ? ? . J ? ? . ? u ?? ste. ? ? ste. ? ? nige ? .? J Do ?. ? J Do ?? nite ?? mineDe ? ? ? ? ? ? Jesu ? ? us, ? ? mi . J ? Chri w A ? ? neDe ------ ----- --- ------ ------- - - -------- - - & V ? b b b 81 ? ? ste. w ? ? us, .? ? Domi w w A w ne .? J ? gnusDe w ? ? Deus,A ? ? ? ? gnus ? ? gnusDe w ? . ?? De ? i,Fi ? i,Fi ? i,Fili ? lius ? lius . ? j ? usPa ----- ------- -- -- ----- --- -- - -- -- - - - -- 404 & V ? b b b 88 w Pa Pa w tris. .? ? w w w tris. tris. w w w -------- --------- & V ? b b b 92 ! w AL .? j ? Qui ! w ? ? ? tol . ? j ? Qui w LEZ, ? ? ? ? ? I tol w RE ? . ? ? lis ? ? GRETS, .?b ? ? pec ? ? ? ? ? lispec ? ? ca w . ? J b cata ----- - ---------- -- - --- & V ? b b b 99 ? ? ? tamun w VUI ? ? mundi, ?? ? di,mi w DEZ .? J ? b mise ? . j ? se w ? ? . j ? rere w ? ? rereno ? ? ? I no w ? ? bis. ? ? bis. w DE ? .?b J ? Quitollis ? Quitol ? ? MA ? i ? peccata - - ----- - -- - --- - - & V ? b b b 106 . ? ? lispec w PRE .? ? mun . j ? catamun w SAN .? ? di,suscipede ? ? di,suscipe ? ? ? precatio ? ? depreca ? ? ? .? j nemno ? ? tionem ? ? ? ? ? stram.Qui ? ? no w . j ? ? se w stram. w CE; . ? ? desad - ------------ - ----- - - ---- ----- - 405 c C C & V ? b b b 113 ! w ?? dexteramPa ? ? misere w ? ? tris, ? ? ? re w ? ? ? mise ? ? no ! ? ?b reno ? ? . j ? 3 bis.Quoni w AL ? ?? 3 bis.Quo w ? 3 am LEZ .? j ? ? 3 niam --- - - ---- -- --- --- -- & V ? b b b 119 ?. ? 3 tu w AIL ? ?? 3 tusolus ? ?? 3 solus w LEURS . ? ? ? 3 sanctus. b ? ? ? 3 san w QUE ? ? ? 3 Tusolus ? ? 3 ctus. w RIR ?? ? ? 3 Domi ??? ? 3 TusolusDo ? ? ? ?? 3 nus.Tu --- ---- - - - -- --- ----- -- & V ? b b b 124 ? ? ?? 3 minus.Tu ? ? VOSTRE ?? .? j 3 solusAltis ? ? 3 solusAl ? ? ACOIN ? ? ? 3 ? ? 3 tis ? ? TAN ? . j ? ? 3 simus ? ?? 3 si ? ? ? ? Je ? ? mus,Je w CE; ? ? ? suChri - ---------- -------- --- - -- - ------- - & V ? b b b 129 ? ? ? suChri w ? ? ?? w ?? ? ? w . ? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ? ste. w ste. AS ? .? j ? Cum------------ -- ----------- 406 C C 3 3 & V ? b b b 134 ! w SEZ ? .? San ! w A ? . ? ?.? j ? CumSan w VEZ ? .? ? ? w TOUR ? ? ? ?? b ? ? ? MEN ? ? --- ------ ---------------- --------- & V ? b b b 139 ? ? cto ? ? ?? ctoSpi ? ? Spiri w T? ? . ? ri ?? w MON ? I ? ? I ? ? ? tuinglo . ? ? . J ? tuin ? ? ? ? ? ? glo ? ? ? ? ?b ? ri --- ------ ------ -- ------ ------ & V ? b b b 145 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ri w ? ? a ? ? w w De w a w CUEUR, . ? j ? ? ? ? De ? ? MON ? ? ? ?b i ? ? LAS ? ? i--- ---------- --------- ---- & V ? b b b 151 ? Pa ? ? ? ? Pa ? .? J tris.A ? ? ? . ? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . j ? w ? ? tris.A ? ? w ? ? w U men. CUEUR. ? ? U men. w w ------- ----- -- --------- 407 & V ? b b C C C Superius Tenor Bassus w Pa ! . ? ? Pa w ? ? Pa ? tremom w trem ? ? trem ? ? w ?b ? omni ? nipo w om ? ? po w ten w ni ? . ? ? ? ? tem,fa w ? ? ten ? ? cto ? ?b ? poten w tem, w rem, - ------- - ------ -- ---- ------- & V ? b b 9 w i tem, w ? i fa w ? ? [fa w ? ? . ? ? cto w .? j ? cto w rem ? facto .? ? w ce ? ? rem w rem] w li ce ? ce w w ---- ---- -------- ---- ------- --- & V ? b b 17 w U . ? ? w U li w w li w w et ! ? ? etter ? ? terre, ! ? ? re, ? i ? vi ? vi ? vi ?b ? si ? si ? ? sibi ? i ? bi ? bi .? J ? li ? i ? lium ? ? lium ? ? um -- ---------- - ------ - --------- & V ? b b 25 ? ? ? omni ? ? omni ? . ? ? om ?b ? um,et ? ? um, ? ni ? ? in ? ? etinvi ? ? um,et ? ? visi ? si ? ? invi ? ? bili ? ? bili ? ? sibi w um. w um. .? j ? li w ? ? Et . ? um.Et ! ? ?? inunum ? ? ? inu -- ----- - - - ----- - -- ----- 408 Credo & V ? b b 33 ?? Etinu ? .? J Do ? ? numDo ? ? numDo ? ? minu ? ? mi .? J i ? mi . ? w num ? i nu ? ? ? Je ?? i ?. j ? ? su ? ? .? ? ? ? ? Chri ? ? i m ? ? ? ? ii ? 3 Je m w stum, ---------------- -- -- - ---- - --------- - & V ? b b 41 ? ? 3 ? ? 3 Je ! ? ? 3 sunChri ? ? ? 3 sumChri ! ? i ? i 3 ? ? 3 ! . ? i j ? ? 3 ? ? 3 ! w stum, w stum, ? ? Fi ! ? Fi ? ? ? li ! ? ? liumDe w um ! ? ? ? ? De --- ------ ----- ---- - --- ------ & V ? b b 49 ? ? Fi ? ? ? i ? ? ? . ? ? w li ? ? i ?? . ? ? um ? ? ? u ? ? . j ? i De . ? ? ? ? ? i u ? ? ? i ? ? ni ? ? i ? uni ? . J ? ? ? ? nige ? geni ? geni ? ? nitum. ------ ---------- --------- ------ ------- --- ---- & V ? b b 57 ? ? tum. ? tum. ? ? ? EtexPa ? ?? Etex ? ? . ? ? trenatum ?. j ? Patrena ! ? ? anteom ? ? tumante ! ? nia ? . j ? omniase ! ? . ? se ? ? cu ? ? Deum ? cula. ? ? la. ? ? de ? . ? ? De ! ? ? ode . j ? umdeDe - - - --- -- -- - - - ---- -- 409 & V ? b b 65 ! ? ? ? vero, ? ? o, ?. ? j Lumen . j ? lumen ? lumen ? ?b delu . ? j ? delu ? . J ? delu .? j mi ? mine,De ? mine, ?? ne. ? umve ? .? J Deum ! . ? j ? rumdeDe ? ? verumde ?? ? Ge ? ? ? ? ove ? ? Deo . j ? ni w ro. ? vero. - - --- - -- -- - -- - - - - -- ---- -- & V ? b b 73 ?? tum ? ? Ge ? Geni ! ? ni ?? ? tum,non w non w tum, ? factum, ? i factum, ? .? j nonfa ! ? con ? ? ! .? j ? sub ? ? ctum,[nonfa ! ? stanti ?? ? ?b con ?? ? alem ? ? ? ctum]con ? sub -- ---- --- - -- - - - - ----- & V ? b b 81 . ? ? Pa . ? J n ? substanti w stan ? ?n tri: ? alemPa ? .? J tialem ! ? ? ? ? tri: ? ? Patri: . ? j . ? perquem . ? ?. j perquem .? J . J ? perquem ? omnia . ? ? J ? omnia . ? omnia ? ? ? facta ? ? ? ? fa ? ? facta ?? sunt. ?n ctasunt. ? sunt. w ? ? ! --- - -- - ---- --- --- -- - & V ? b b 89 ? i ? Quipro ? Quipro ! ? ? pter ?b ? pter ! ? ?b i nos ? ? ? nos ! ? i ? homi ? ? homi ! ? nes, ? ? nes, ? ? ? Quipro ? ? ? etpro ! ? ? pternosho i . ? J i pternostram ! w mi ? ? ? I salu ! ? nes, - -- - ---- - ---- -- - 410 & V ? b b 97 ? ? tem ? . ? j etpro ? . J ? etpropter ! ? . j ? pternostramsa ? ? ? ? nostramsa ? ? de I ? lutem ? lutem ? ? scen ? . ? j de w ?? ? ? scen ? ? de ? dit, ? ? ? ? ? ? [de ? ? ? dit,[de .? ? scen ?. ? j scen ? ? ? ? ditde ---- ------ --- ---- --- - - ---- - - & V ? b b b 105 ? . ? j dit] ? ? . ?n J scen ? ? ce ? ? ? dece ? ? dit]dece ? ? ? ? ? ? .? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? w U lis. .? ? w U lis. w ? lis. w w w w w Et ! ! --- ------- -------- -- ------- & V ? b b b 113 ? incar ! ! . ? j ? na ! w Et ? . j ? ! ? incar . j ? w Et .? J ? na ? ? ? I tus ? incar ? ? tusest ? ? est . ? ? na ? ?b ? deSpi ??b ? deSpi ? tusest ? ? rituSan w ri w de . ? J ? --------- ----- --- - - --- - & V ? b b b 121 ? tu ? ? Spi .? ? w ? ? ritu ctoex . ? ? San ? ? San ?b. J ? Maria ? ? ? ctoex ? ? ctoex ? vir ? . j ? Mari . ? J . ? Mari ? gine: ? avir ? avirgi ! ? ? gine:Et ? ? ne:Et ? ? ? Et ? ? homofa ? ? homofa ? ? homofa-- -- -- --- -- - -- -- - - -- - -- -- -- 411 & V ? b b b 129 ?? ctusest. ? ctusest. ? ctusest. w ? ? ? ? Cru ? ? ? ? Cru ? i ci w Cru ? ci ? ? ? b cifi ? i fixus ? fixus ? ? ? xuse ? ?? eti ? . ? J e ?. j ? tiam . J ? ? i am ? tiam ? pro ? . ? J prono ? pro - - -- ---- - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - & V ? b b b 137 .? J ? nobis: ? bis:sub ? no ? subPon ? ? Ponti ? ?? bis:sub ? ? tio .? J oPi ? Ponti ? ? Pi ? . ? j la ? ?b ? o . j ? ? lato . ? ? to . ? ? Pila ? . ? j pas . j ? ? passus, ?? topas ? ? sus,et ? ? et ? ? sus,etse ? ? se ? ? sepultus ? ? pul - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - & V ? b b b 145 ?? ? pultus ? ? est.Et ? ? tus ? ? est. . J ? resurrexit w est. ! ? ? terti ? Etre ! ? adie, . ? ? surre ! ? ? secundum ? xittertia ! ? Scriptu ? ? ? diese ? ? Etas ? ? ? ras. ? cundum ? ? cenditince ? ? Et ?? Scriptu- - -- -- - - -- -- - ---- -- - - -- -- & V ? b b b 153 ?? lum: ? ascen ? ?? ras.Et ??b ? se ? ditin b ? ? ascenditin ? det ? ce ? cellum: ? ? addexte ? ? lum:se ?? i sedetad ? . j ? ? detad ? ? dexteram ? ram . ? j ? dexte ? ? ? ? ? Pa ? ramPa ?b ? Pa ? . J ? tris. ? ? tris.Et ? tris. - -- --- -- - - ------ - - -- - -- - - - - - 412 C & V ? b b b 161 ?? Eti ? ? ! ? ? terum ? .? J ite ? Eti ? ? ventu ? ? rumventuras w te ? rasest ? ? estcum ? rumven w cum ? ? glo ? ? ? turas ? glori ? ? ria, ? estcum ? ? a, ?? ? glo ? ? ? gloria, ? ? judica ? ? ? ria, ? judi--- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - -- & V ? b b b 169 ? ? ? re ? ju ? care ? ? di w ? vivos care ? b vi ? et ? vi ? vos ? mor ? voset ? etmo ? tuos: w mor ? tuos: ? . ?b J ? ? tuos: ? ? . ? ? cu ? cu ? cu -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - & V ? b b b 177 ? . j ? w ? . ? J . ? j ? ius ? ? ? . j ? w .? ? ? ? iusreg ? reg ? . ? J iusreg ?? ni w ?? ? ninon .? J ? non ? ni ?. j ? e ? e ? non ? ? ? rit ? e ? .? j ritfi ------- ---- ------- - ----- - ---- - - - & V ? b b b 185 ? ? ? fi ? ? ritfi ? ? nis. ? ? nis. nis.Et ??? Etin ? Etin ? ? inSpi ? Spiri ? ?n Spi ? ? ri ? tum ? ritum w tum ? Sanctum, ? ? ? San ? Sanctum, ? . ? Do ? ? Domi ? mi ? ? ? ? num, ? ? - - - - - -- - - - - ------- - --- -- --- 413 & V ? b b b 193 ? ? b ctum,Domi ? ? etvivi ? ? num,et ?? ? ? fican ? ? vivi ? ? ? num,et w ? ? ? ? ? vivifi ?? tem: ? ? fi ? cantem: ? qui ? ? can ?? quiex ? ?b exPa ?b ? ? i tem:qui ------ --------- ------ --- ---- - - - & V ? b b b 199 ? Patre ? ? tre ? i exPa ? ? Filioque ? ? Filio ? ? treFili ? ? procedit. ? ? ? queproce ?. j ? oquiproce ? . ? j QuicumPa ? ? dit. ? ? dit.Quicum ? ? treetFilio ? .? ? QuicumPa ? ? Patreet ? ?b simulado ?b ?b treetFi ? ? Filio -- - - -- --- -- -- --- -- --- - - --- - -- & V ? b b b 205 ? ? ratur, ??b lio ! ! ? ? ? simula ? ?b ? simul ! ? ? dora ? ? ado ! ? ? ? tur, et ? ? ? ratur,et ! ? ? conglo ? b ? conglori ??b ? Qui ? ? rifi ? i ? fica - - - - - - -- --- -- --- -- -- & V ? b b b 211 ? ? locu ? ? catur:qui ? ?b tur:quilo ?? ? tus ? ? locutus ? ? cutusest ? ? est .? j ? ? estperPro ? . ? per ? ? ? perPro ? ? ? phetas. ? ? Prophe ? ? ? phetas. ? .? J Etu ? ? ? tas.Et ? ? ? Etu ? ? ? nam ? ? ? u -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - 414 & V ? b b b 217 ? ? .? J nam ? ? san ? ? namsan ? ? ? San w ? ? ctam w n ctam ? ? ? ca ? ? ctam ? ? ca ? ? tho ! ? ? ? ? tho ? . J ? licamet ! ? ? ? licamet ? ? apo -- ------ - ------- - - --- --- - - -- & V ? b b b 223 ! ? ? ? apo ? ? stoli ! ? .? J stolicam ?? camEccle ! ? . ? J Eccle ? ? b ! ?? ? ? ? ? ? Con ? ? ? siam. ? ? siam. ? ? fite w . ? ? Confi -- -- -- -------- ------ - - - -- -- & V ? b b b 229 ? .? j orunum ? ? Con ? ? teor ? ? baptismain ?? fi ? ? ? unum ?? remissio ? ? teor ? . J ? baptis ? ? ? nempecca ! . J ? mainre ? ? torum. ! ? ? . ? J i missi ! .? ? Etex ? ? onempec - --- - -- - - --- - -- -- - - -- - - & V ? b b b 235 ?? ? Et ? ? pecto ? ? ? cato . j ? expecto .? j ? resur ? ? rum.[...] ? ? resurre ? ? ? rexio ! . ? j ? . j ? xionem ? ? nemmortu ? ? mortu ? ? ? mortuo ? ? o ? ? orum. ? ? ? rum.Et ? ? rum. ? ? . J ? Etvi- - -- -- -- --- --- -- ---- -- --- - - - 415 & V ? b b b 241 ? .? J vitam ? ? . j ? Etvi ? ? tam ?? ven . J ? tamven . J ? ven ? ? turise ? ? tu ? ? turi ? ? cu ? ? rise ?.? j secu ? ? b li. ? . J cu ? ? ? ? ? ? li.A ? ? li.A-- - - --- --- ---- ---- - - - - ------ ---- - - & V ? b b b 247 .? j ? ?? A ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?.? j ? ? ? ? ? . J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? w men. w men. w men. w w w ------------ ------------ ------------ 416 & V ? b 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius Contra [Tenor] Bassus w ? San ? . ? ? San w ? Sanc ? . b j ? ? ? ? ? ? . J ? b ? ? ? i ? ? ? . ? J ? ctus,San .? i ? ? ? tusSan ? ? ? ? i ctus,San ? i J ? ? .?? ? -------- ------ ------------ - ------- ------ & V ? b 5 ? ? . i j ? ? . J ? ? ? i ? ? ? J j ? ?? ctus,San ? i ? ? ? ? ? ctus,San ? j ?? j ? i ? i ? ctus,San ? .b ? ? b ? ? ? ctus[Do . ? . i ? j ? ctus ? j ? j ? ? ctus------ --------- ------ ------ - -------- ------- & V ? b 9 ?? ? mi ?? i ? ? [Do ? .? ? ? Do ?. ? ? nusDe ? .n ? n ? minus ? .? J ? mi ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? De ? ? ? ? nusDe ? ? ? us] ? . ? ? us] ? ? ? -------- ------ ----- --------- ------- ------ & V ? b 13 ? ? ? ? Saba ? ? i ? ? Sa ?? ? ? usSa ? ? i ? i ? . ? ? i ? ba ? ? ? ? J ba ? ? . j ? J ? ? . J ? ? ? . j ? ? . ? ? ? ? i ? ? ? ? ? --------------- ---------------- ---------------- 417 Sanctus & V ? b b b 2 C C 17 .? ?w U oth]. ? w oth. ? ? . ? ? ? U oth. . w . w . . w . w . ------ ---- ---- & V ? b b b 2 C C 20 w Ple ! . ? ? Ple w ? ? Ple ? ? w . ? j ? w ni w ? w w ?. J ? ! w ? ! w ni ? . j ? ni ? . ? J sunt w sunt ? ? sunt ? ? ---- ---- ------------ ---------- & V ? b b b 28 w [ce ! ? ? .? ? ? ? ? ce ? ? ? ce ? ? ? ? w li, ? . ? ? . j ? .? ? et ? ? .? ? ? li, ? li, .? ? ter ? ? ? et w et ? ? ? ? ter ? ? ter----------- - ------- ---- --------- - & V ? b b b 36 ? ? ? . J ? ? ? w ra, ? ? w .? ? glo ? ra,glo ? ra, .? ? ri ? ? ? glo w a .? ? ri ? ? tu ? w ri ? ? w a w a, .? ? tu w ------ --------- --- --- ---- ----- ------- - 418 c C S in Cut C from here until end of section & V ? b b b 44 ! ? . J ? w ? ? glo ? w .? ? ria ? w a ? tua. ? a. ? tua. ? ? O ? ? O ?b ? O ? san ? ? ? ? ?? ? san ? ? ? ? . ? j w san----- - ------ - -- - -------- ------- --------- & V ? b b b 52 ? ? ? ? w na, ? ? na,O .? J na,O ? O ? ? . ? ? .? ? san ?? ? ? ? . J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? j ? ? ? ? . j ? w --------------- --- -------------- -- -------------- & V ? b b b 60 ? na ? na ? ? ?b ? in ? ? in w san . j ? ex .? j . J ? ex ? nain ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ex ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cel ? cel ? ? cel w sis. w sis. w sis.-- -- ----- - ---------- - ---------- & V ? b b b 68 w Be .? ? Be ! w ne ? ? ne ?? Be ! ?? i ? ?b ? nedic ? ?b ?b dic ? ? dic ? ? tus, ? ? ? ? tus, ? ? Be ??? ? ? ?b? ? nedic --- --- ------ -------- ---- -------- - --- 419 & V ? b b b 74 ? ? ! ?? ?? ! ? ? tus, ? ? ? ? ? Bene ? ? Be ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ne ? ? ? ? ? dic ? ? dictus ---------------- ----- -------- ----- --- - & V ? b b b 79 ? ? tus w tus ? . ? j ? qui ? ? quive w ? ? . j ? ve ?? ? ? qui ? ? ? ? ? nit, ?? venit, ? ? ! ?? quive ? .? ------- ------------ - - & V ? b b b 84 .? ? [qui .? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ve ? ? ? ?b ? ? ? ? ? ? i w nit] .? ? ? ? nitin w ? ? ? ? no----------- ----------------- ------- ------ & V ? b b b 89 ? ? in ? ? nit ? . ? J ? ?? nomi ! ?? ? ? ? ? in ? ? mine ?? ? ?? ? no ! ? ? ne ? ? mi ? ? Do -- ------- ---------- - ------ - 420 & V ? b b b 94 ?.? j Domi ? ? ? neDo . ? j ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . j ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? mi ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ni,in ? ? ? ? ? ? nomi ? ? ? ? ? ? neDo------ ---------------- ---------------- --- -- - & V ? b b b 100 ?.? j ? ? ? ? mi ? ? mi w ni. ? ? w ni. ! ? ? ni. ?? Osan ! w O ? ? ? na,O ! ?? sanna, ?? w O ? O w --- -------- --- -- --- ------ - -- -- & V ? b b b 106 ?? sanna, . ? ? san ?? san w O ? ? w ?? sanna, ? ? ? ? ? ? .? j ? O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I ? ? na,-- - ---------------- -------------- ---- ------- & V ? b b b 111 .? j ? . j ? ? ? ? na,O ? . ? J ? O . ? ? ? ? . J ? . J ? san ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? san ? ? san ? ? ? . ? j ? ? ? san ?? ? nain ------------- -------- ----------- ---- ----- 421 & V ? b b b 116 ? ? . ? J ? in ?. J ? ? ? ? na ? .? J excel ? ? ex ! ? . ? ? . J ? ? ? ? in ? ? ? ?. J ? ? ? ex ? .? J ? ? celsis, . ? j ? w sis, ! ---- ----------- --------- ----- - & V ? b b b 122 ? ? ? ? inex ?? ? in ! ? ?? ? ?? ? ? . j ? cel ? ? ? ? . J ? ? ? ? ?? excel ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ------- --------------- ---------- ------- & V ? b b b 128 ? ?? ? ? .? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cel ? ? ? w sis. w sis. w sis. w w w -------- ----------- ----------- --- 422 423 APPENDIX II.3: Missa sine nomine, JenaU 21 & V ? b b b b 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus w Ky w Ky w Ky w Ky . ? ? ri ? ri ? ri ? ? ? ? .? ? ? ? ? ri ? ? .? j ? ee ? e ? ? ? . ? J ee ? ? ley ? ? e .? ? ee . ? J ? le ? ? ? son,[e . ? J ? le ? ? le ? ? ? ? ley ? ? y . j ? ? yson, ? ? ? ? ? son,]Ky w son,------- -------- ---------- ----- --------- --------- ------ --- --- - & V ? b b b b 9 ?? ? [e ? ? y ? ? ? ri ! ? ? ley ? ? son, ? ? I ? ? Ky ? ? son,] . ? J ? Kyri . J ? ? . ? j ? rie ? ? ? Kyri ? ? e ? ? e ? ?b ? e ? ? e ? ? ? e .? j ? e ? ? ?? ? e . J ? le ? . ? j ley . ? ? le .? ? le ? ? ? ? ? son,Ky ? ? -- ----------- ---- -- - - --- ---- -------- --------- ----- - & V ? b b b b 16 ? ? ? y ? ? y ? ? ? ? ? y . ? ? son, ? ? son, ? ? ri .? ? son, ? ? Ky ? ? ? Ky ? ? e ? ? Ky ? ? ri . ? j ? ri ? ? ? e .? J ? ri ? ? ee ? ? ? ? ? ? e ? . j ? ? ? ? e ? ? ?. J ? e ? . j ? ? ? e . ? J ? le ? . J ? --- -------- ------ ---- ------ ------- --- ------- - -------- ------------ & V ? b b b b 23 ? .? J ? le ? ? ? le .? J ? i ? .? ? le ? ? ? I y ? . ? y ? ? ? y ? ? ? y w son. w son. w son. w son. w w w w ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 424 Kyrie & V ? b b b b 27 ! ? ? Chri ! ! ! ? ? ? ! ? ? Chri ! ? ? I ? ? Chri ? ? ! . ? ? stee ? ? ? ? ste ? ? Chri ? ? ? ? ste ?? ? e ? ? ? ? ? ley ? ? ? e ?? ? ? stee ? ? son, . J ? le . ? J ? ley----- ------- ------ - -------- ------ ------ ----- & V ? b b b b 34 ? ? ? ? ? I Chri ? ? yson, ? ? son, ? ? le ?? ? ? ? Chri .? J ? Chri ? ? yson, ? ? ? ?? ? ? ste .? J ? Christe ? ? ste .? j ? ? ? eley ? ? e w e w ste ? ? son, .? j ? le . ? J ? ley .? J ? e . ? j ? Chri ? ? ? I y w son, ? ? . ? j ? --- --- ----- -------- - ------- --------- ----- -- -------- ----- & V ? b b b b 41 ? ? son, ! ? ? b . ? j ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ?b ? ? Chri ! . J ? le ?? ste ? ? ? ! ? ? y ! ? ? ste .? J ? Chri ? ? son, .? j ? e ! ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ! ? ? stee ! ? ? le------ -------- ------ ------ - ----------- & V ? b b b b 48 ? .? j ? e ? . ? J ? .? j ? ? e ?? yson, ? ? . J ? ? ? ? le ? ? ? [e ? . ? j ? ley ? ? ? I ley ? I ? y ? ? ley w son. w son. w son. w son.] w w w w -- -------- ----------- ----------- -- --------------- 425 & V ? b b b b 53 ! ? Ky ! ! ! ? rie ! ? Ky ! ? ? ? e ? ? Ky ? ri ? Ky ? ? ? ri ?? e ? ri .? J ? le .? J ? e ? ? e ? ? ee ? ? e ? le ? . ? j ? ? yson, ? ? le ? ? ? le ! ?b. ? J ? yson, ? ? . ? J ? Ky ? ? ! ---- ------- - - --------- -- ----------- -- ---- -------- & V ? b b b b 62 ? ? ? y ? ? ? I ri ? ? y ! ? ? son, w e . ? ? son, ! ! ! ? ? Kyri ? ? Kyri ! ! ?? e ? ? e ! ! ? .? J . ? ? e ! ! ? ? ? ? ? le ! ! ? ? ley ? ? y---- --------- --- ---- --- - - --------- & V ? b b b b 69 .? j ? Kyri . ? ? e ?? son, ? ? son, ? . ? J e ?. ? J le ! ! ? ? le ? ? ! ! ? ? ? y ? ? yson, ! ? ? Ky ? ? son,Ky ? ? ? Ky ? ? Kyri ? ? ri ?? ri ? .? ri ? ? e .? ? e ?? e ? . ? ? ? . ? ? e---- --- ------------ ----- - ----------- -------- ------- & V ? b b b b 76 ? ? ? ? le ?? ? e e ? ? ? .? ? le ? ? ? I y ? ? ? ley ? ? ? ley ? ? ? y w son. w son. w son. w son. w w w w ------------ ------------ ------- ------------- 426 * A c.o.p. ligature on G-A in JenaU 21 has been corrected here to minim G, semibreve A * * & V ? b b b b 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus ?? Etinter ?? Etinter ? ? Etinter ?? Etinter ? ? ? ra ? ? rapax ? ? ra ? ? ra ? paxhomini ? ? homini ?? paxhomini ? ? paxhomini ?? busbone . ? J ? busbone ? ? ?? busbone ? ? volunta ? ? volunta ? ? volunta ? ? volunta ? ? ? tis.Lau . J ? tis.Lau ? ? tis.Lauda ? tis.Lau ? ? damuste. ? ? damuste.Be ?? muste. ? ? damuste. ?? Benedici ? nedici ? ? Benedici ? ? Benedici ? muste. . ? J ? muste. ? . ? J muste. ? ? muste.A - -- ---- - --- - ------- -- --- --- -- ---- -- --- - -- ---- -- --- - & V ? b b b b 10 ? . j ? Adora ? ? ? Adora ? ? ? Ado ? ? ? doramus ?? muste.Glo ? ? musste.Glo ? ? ramuste.Glo ? ? te.Glo ? . J ? rifica ? ? rifica ? b rifica ?? rifica ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? I ? ? I mus ? ? mus ? ? mus ? ? mus ? .? j te.Graci ?? te. ? . ? J te.Graci ?b . ? j te.Graci ? . j ? asagimus ! ? . J ? asagimus ? . i J ? asagimus ? tibi ! ? tibi ? i tibi ? ? propter . ?? propter ? ? propter ! --- -------- - --- ------- ----- - --- -------- ----- - -- ------- ----- & V ? b b b b 19 ? ? magnam ?? magnam ? ? magnam ! ? ? gloriam ? gloriam ! ?? glo ? ? tuam. ?? tuam. ?? ? gloriam ? ? riam ! ! . j ? ? tu ? . j ? tu ! ? ? Domine ? ? I ? ? ?? Domine ? Deus, ? ? am. ? ? am. ? Deus, ? . ? ? Rex ! ! ? . ? ? Rex ? ? ce ! ! ? ? cele ? ? le ??? Rex ! - --- - - ------- - - ----- - - - - - -- -- ----- & V ? b b b b 28 ? I ? stis, ? ? stis, ? cele ?? ? De ! ! ? stis,DeusPa ? usPa ! ! ? . J ? terom ? ? terom ! ! ? ? ? nipo ? ? nipo ! ? ? Domine ?? tens. ? ? tens.Domi ! ? ? Fi ?? ? Do ? ? neFi ??? u ?? li ? mineFi ? ? li ? ? nige ! ? ? liuni ! ? ? I ni ! ? ? geni ! - ---- ---- --- --- --- -- --- - - - ----- -- - 427 Gloria * *Tenor, m. 4, semibreve 1 is a B-flat in JenaU 21. Replaced here with C, which works better in this context. & V ? b b b b 37 ? . ? te ? ? Je w te ! ? Jesu ? suChri ? Jesu ?b Jesu w Chri ? w Chri w Chri w ste, w ste, w ste, w ste, ! .? J ? DomineDe ! .? J ? Domine ! .? ? ! . J ? ? De ? ? A ? ? us, ? ? A ? ? us, ? ? gnusDei,Fi ! . ? J ? gnus ! ? ? li ? ? Fi ?b ? Dei, ? ? Fili ? ? us ? ? ? liusPa ? ? FiliusPa ? ? ? usPa - --- - --- --- - - -- - -- - - -- --- - - - -- -- - & V ? b b b b 47 ? ? ? I Pa ? ?. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? w tris. w tris. w tris. w tris. w w w w ---------- ---------- --------- ---------- & V ? b b b b 50 ? ? Qui ? Quitol ? Quitol ? Quitol ? tollispec ? ? lispecca ? ? lispecca ? ? lispecca ? cata ? tamun ? tamun ? tamun ? ? mundi,mi .? J ? di, ? i di,mi ? di,mi ? ? ? serere ? . J ? miserere ? ? ? serere ? ? ? serere ? nobis. . J ? ? nobis. ? nobis. ? nobis. ? ? ? quitol ? ? qui ? ? ? ? ? ? lispecca ? ? tollispe ! ! ? ? tamun ? ? catamun ! ! ? ? di, ? ? di, ! ! --- ------ --- - --- - --- - --- ---- - --- --- --- - --- - & V ? b b b b 60 ?? suscipe ?? suscipe ?? suscipe ?? suscipe ? ? depreca ? ? depreca ?? ? depre ? ? depreca ? ? tio ? n ? tio ? ? catio ? ? tio ? ? ? I nemno ? ? nemno ? nemno ? nemno w stram. ? ? stram. w stram. ? ? ? stram.Qui ! ! ?? Quisedes ?? sedesad ? ? Qui ! ?? addex ? ? dexterram ? ? ? sedesad ! ? ? terramPa ? Patris, ? ? dexterram ?? ? Mi ? ? tris, ! ? Patris, ? ? sere ! ?? ? Mi -- ---- - --- -- ---- - - --- -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - - 428 & V ? b b b b 70 ! ? . ? re ! ? ? sere ! ? ? ? no ! ? reno ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ? ! ? ? ? . ? J ? Quoniam . ? J ? bis.Quoniam ? . ? J ? Quoniam ? . j ? bis.Quoniam ?? tusolus ?? tusolus ?? tusolus ??? tusolus ? sanctus. ? sanctus. ? sanctus. ? sanctus. ? Tuso ! ? ?? Tuso ! ? . ? j lusDo ! ? ? lusDo ! - -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- ------- - - - & V ? b b b b 79 . ? j ? ! ? . J ? ! ? ? ? mi ! ? ? mi ! ? ? nus. ! ? ? nus. ?? Tu ! ? Tuso ! . ? J ? solus ! ? . J ? lusAl ! ?? Altis ! ? ? tis ! ? . J ? ! ? simus, ! ? I ? simus. ? Jesum ? Jesum ? Jesum ? Jesum w Chri w Chri w Chri w Chri .?? stum.Cum . ?? stum.Cum .?? stum.Cum . ?? stum.Cum - ----- - - ----- - - ----- - - - ------ - - & V ? b b b b 89 ? . ? j SanctoSpiri ? . ? J SanctoSpiri ? . ? J SanctoSpiri ? .? J SanctoSpiri .?? tuin . ?? tuin .?? tuin . ?? tuin ?? gloria ?? gloria ?? gloria ?? gloria ?? DeiPa ? ? DeiPa ? ? DeiPa ?? DeiPa ? ? ? ? ? tris.A ? ? ? tris.A ?? ? tris.A ? ? tris.A ?? ? ? ? ? ? I ? ? I ?? ? ? ? ? w men. w men. w men. w men. w w w w --- ---- ------- --- ---- ------- --- ------- ----- --- ---- ------- 429 & V ? b b b b 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus ! ? Pa ! ?? Pa ? ? Pa ? ? trem ? ? Pa ? trem ? ? trem ? ? omni ? ? tremom ? ? omnipo ? ? omnipo ? . J ? potem ? . J ? nipoten .? j ? ten ? tentem, ?? tem, ?? tem, ? tem, ? ? factorem ? ? factorem ?? factorem ?? factorem ? ? celiet ? ? celiet ?? celiet ? ? celiet ? ? ? ter ? . ? J ter ? ? ter ? ter ? ? ? re,vi . ? J ? re, w re, ? re,vi --- ------ - - --- --- ---- - - - - --- ------ - - -- --- ------- - - -- - & V ? b b b b # 10 ?. j ? sibilium . ? J ? visibili ?. J ? visibili ? . J ? sibbilium ? ? omnium,et ? ? umom ?b ? umomnium, ? ? omnium, ? ? invisi ? ? nium,etin ? etinvi ? ? etinvi ? ? ? I bili ? . J ? visibili ? ? sibili ? ? sibili w um. ? ? um.Etin w um. ? ? um.Etin ?? Etin ? ? unumDomi ! ? ? unumDomi ? ? unumDomi ? ? numJesumChri ! ?? ? numJe ? ? numJesumChri ? ? stum, ? ? ? JesumChri ? ? sumChristum,Fi ?? stum,Filium ? ? Filium ? stum,Filium ?? lium --- ------ ----- - -- - ---- ------ ---- ---- --- -- -- ---- --- ---- & V ? b b b b # 19 ? ? De . ? J ? Dei ? Dei ? Dei ? ? iunige ? ?? uni ? ? uni ? ? unige ? ? ni ? ? genitum. ? geni ? nitum. ?? tum. ? ? EtexPa ?? tum. ? ? EtexPa ? ? EtexPa ? ? tre ! ? ? tre ? ? tre ? ? na ? ? an ! ? natum ? tum ? ? ? teom ??? om ! ! ? ? niase .? J ? niase ? ? Deumde ! ? ? cu ? ? cu - --- - ---- ------ - - - - ---- - -- -- - --- - -- -- & V ? b b b b # 28 ?? De ! ?? ? la.De ? ? la. ? I ? o, ! ? umdeDe ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? lumende ! ?? ? De ? ? o, ?? lu ?? ? De ? umve ! ?? mi ? umverumde ?? rum ? ? de ? ne, ? ? De ? ? ? deDe ?? Deo ? ? ? deDeo ? ? ? I ove ? . ? ove ? ? ve ? ? vero. ? ? ro.Geni ? . ? J ro.Geni ? ? ro.Geni ? . ? j Geni - -- - - -- ---- -- --- - -- - ---- - - -- - ----- -- -- 430 Credo & V ? b b b b # 37 ? ? i tum,nonfac ? . ? j tum,nonfac ? ? tum,nonfac ? ? tum,nonfac ? ? tum,consub ?? tum,consub ? ? tum,consub ? ? tum, ? . j ? stantialem ? . j ? stantialem ?? stantia ! ? ? Pa ? ? Pa ? ? lemPa ! ?? tri:perquem ? ? tri:perquem ? ? tri:perquem ? ? perquem . ? J ? omniafac ?? omnia . ? j ? omniafac . ? j ? omniafac ? ? ta . ? J ? facta ? ?? ta ? ? ta ? ? sunt. ?? sunt. ? sunt.Qui ? ? sunt.Quiprop ! ! ?? propternos ? ? ternos - ---- - -- - - ---- - -- - - ---- - ----- - - --- - & V ? b b b b # 46 . ?? homi ? ? ho ! ! ? ? nes, ? ? mines, ? ? et ? ? et ! ! . ?? propter ? ? propter ?? nostramsa ? ? no ! ! ?? ? lutem ? ? stramsalu ?? ? de ?? ? de ! ? ?? tem ?? scenditde ? ? scenditde ?? ? de ?? ? de ? ? ? celis, ? ? ? celis, ?? scenditde ? ? scenditde ! ! ? ? ce ? ? ce ? ? dece ? ? dece ? ? ? ? . J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -- --- -- ---- -- --- -- ---- - -- - --- - -- - --- & V ? b b b b # 56 w lis. w lis. w lis. w lis. w w w w & V ? b b b b # 58 ! ! ! w Et ! w Et ! ? incar ! ? incar ! ? natus ! ? natus ! . ? j ? est ! . ? ? est ! ? ?b ? ! w w Et w w Et ! ? incar ? deSpi ? incar ! ? natus ? ritu ? natus ! ? estde . ? j ? Sanc ? estde ! ? Spiri ? ? ? ? Spiritu ? ? deSpiri .? j ? tuSanc ? ? to,[Sanc --- -- --- -- --- - - --- -- ---- - 431 & V ? b b b b # 69 ? ? Sancto ? ? tu ? ? ? ? ? to] ? ? exMari ? Sancto ? toex ? ? ? exMa ?? aVir ? ?? exMa ? ? Ma ? ria ? ? I gi ? ria ? ? riaVirgi ? ? Vir w ne: ? Virgi w ne: wb gi ! ? ? ? w Et ? ne: w Et ? ne:Et w . ? ? Et ? homo ? ? ho w ho ? ? ho ? ? ? ? mo .? ? mo ? mo ? fac ? ? fac ? fac ? fac -- - -- ---- - -- - -- --- - - --- ---- -- - -- -- --- --- - & V ? b b b b # 79 ? ? tus ? ? tus ? ? tus ? ? tus w est. w est. w est. w est. w w w w ! ! ?? Crucifi ?? Crucifi ! ! ? . J ? xuseti ? . J ? xuseti ! ! ? . j ? amprono ? . J ? amprono ! ! ? ? ? ? ?? . J ? subPonti ? ? . J ? subPonti ?? bis: ? ? bis: .? j oPila . ? J oPila ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ! ! -- ------ -- ------ -- ---------- -- ---------- & V ? b b b b # 89 ? . ? J topassus, ? . ? J topassus, ? . ? J passus, ? . ? j passus, ?? etsepultus ?? etsepultus ?? etsepultus ?? etsepultus w est. ? ? ? est.Et w est. w est. ? ? Etresur ? resurre ? ? Et ? ? Etresur ? rexit ? ? xitterci ? ? resurre ? rexit ? ? tercie ? . J ? edi ? xitter ? ? tercie . ? j ? die,se ? ? e, ? ? ciedie, ? ? die,se ? ? cundumScrip ? ? secun ? ? [secun ? ? cundum ? ? tu ? ? dumScriptu ? ? ? I dumScriptu ? ? Scriptu --- -------- -- -- - -- --- ----- --- - -- --- --- -- -- - -- --- ----- -- & V ? b b b b # 98 ? ? ras.Eta ? ? ras.Eta ? ? ras.]Eta ?? ras. ? ? scendit ?? scenditin . ? j ? ! ? ? ? ince ? ? ce ?? celum: ! ? . J ? lum:sedetad ? ? lum: ?? . J ? sedetad ! ? dexterram ! ? dexterram ! ? ? ? I Pa ! ? ? Pa ?? Eti w tris. ! ? ? ? tris.Et ?b ? terumventu ? ? ? Etite ! ? ? iterumven ? ? rusest ? rumventu ! ? turusest ! -- -- -- -- -- - ---- ----- - -- - - -- --- 432 & V ? b b b b # 107 ? ? rusest ? ? cumflo ! ? ? cumgloria, ? ? judi ?? ria,judi ! ?? judicare ?? carevi ? ? carevi ? ? vi ? ? vivos . j ?? vosetmor ? ? voset ?? voset . J ?? etmor ? ? tu ? ?? mortu ? ? mor ? ? tu ? ? ? os:cu ? ? os: ?? tuos:cu ? os: ? ? iusre ! .? j ? iusre ! ? gni ! ?? gni ! ?. j ? none ? ? none ! ! ------ -- -- ---- ---- ---- -- - --- --- - --- - -- & V ? b b b b # 116 ? ? ? ritfi ? ? ritfi ! ! ? ? nis.Etin ?? ? nis.Et .?? Etin . ?? Etin ? ? Spiritum ? ? inSpiritum . j ?? Spiritum . j ?? Spiritum ?? Sanctum,Do ?? Sanctum,Do ?.? j Sanctum,Domi ? . ? j Sanctum,Domi . j ? ? minum, . ? j ? minum, ? ? num,et w num, ? ? etvi ? etvi ? ? vifican ? ? etvifi ? ? ? I fican ? ? fican ? ? ? ? can w tem: ?? tem: ? ?? tem:qui w tem: ?? quiexPa ! ?? exPatre ! - - ----- ---- - - - --- ---- - - --- ----- - - --- --- & V ? b b b b # 125 ? ? ? treFili ! ?? Filio ! ? ? oquepro ! ? ? que ! ? ? I ce ! ? proce ! w dit. ? ? Quicum w dit. ? ? Quicum ! ?? Patreet ! ? ? Patreet ! ? ? Filio ! ? ? Filiosi ! ?? simula ! ?? mulado ! ? . ? dora ! ? ? ra ! ? ? ? ! ? i ? - - -------- --- - - ----- -- - - -------- & V ? b b b b # 134 ?? etconglo ?? tur, ? ? etconglo ? ? tur, ? . j ? rifica ! ? ? rifica ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ? I ? tur: ! ? tur: ! ? ? quilocutus ? ? quilocutus ! ! ? ? estper ? ? estper ! ! ? ? Prophe ? ? I Prophe ! ! ? ? tas. ? ? tas. ? ? Etunam ? ? Etunam ! ! ? ? sanctamcatho ? ? i sanctamca - -- -------- - -- -------- ---- - -- 433 & V ? b b b b 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 # 143 ??? et ?? ? et ?? licam ? ? tholicam . ? j apostoli . ? J apostoli ! ! ? ? camEccle ? ? camEc ! ! ? ? ? si ? clesi ! ! w? am.Con w ? am.Con ! ? Con ! ? Con w? fite w? fite w? fite w? fite w ? oru w ? oru w? oru w ? oru . ? ? numbap ? numbaptis .w num ? numbaptis w ? tis .w ma ? w baptis ? w ma w ? ma w ? inre w ? ma w ? inre -- --- --- --- - -- -- --- - - - -- --- - -- - --- --- - & V ? b b b b # 153 ! . w ? missi w ? inre w ? missi w ? inre w ? onem w ? missi w ? onem w ? missi w pecca w ? onem ? pecca w ? onem ? ? ? w ? pecca w ? to w ? pecca ?? to ? ? ? to .? J ? ? ? ? ? to w? rum. w ? rum.Et w ? rum. w ? rum.Et ? ? Etexpec ? expec ! . ? expec ? ? toresur w ? to ! . ? ? toresur ?? rexio ! . ! . --- --------- ------- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- -- --- ------- & V ? b b b b # 162 ?? rexio ? ? ? nemmortuo ! . ! . w? nemmor w ? tum. w ? mortu w ? mortu w tuo w Et w o w 0 w? rum.Et w ? vitam w? rum.Et w? rum.Et w? vitam w? ventu w ? vitam w ? vitam ? venturi w ri w ventu ? venturi ? . ? se . w se .w ri ? w se w ? cu ?w culi. ? ? se . w w? li. . ? ? ? A w ? culi. w ? culi. w ? A w ? w ? A .b ? ? A -- - -- --- ---- --- --- - -- ---- - --- - -- --- - --- - -------- - & V ? b b b b # 172 . ? ? ? ? . ? w ? w ? ? .? ? ? .? ? ? .? ? ? w ? .? ? ? ? ? ? ? w ? . ? ? w w ? ? ? w ? I ? w ? w ? w . w men. . w men. . w men. . w men. . w . w . w . w ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- 434 C & V ? b b b b 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus w Sanc w Sanc w Sanc w Sanc w w w w w . ? ? w w ? ? ? ? ? ? w tus, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Sanc ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I ?? ? ? ? b ? ? tus,Sanc . ? J ? ? ? tus,Sanc ? i ? i tus,Sanc ---------------- - ------- ---------- ----------------- - ----------------- - & V ? b b b b * 10 ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? I ? tus, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Sanc ? ? ? .? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I ? tus, ? ? ? ? tus, ? ? tus, ! ? ? ! ? ? ? Sanc ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ? ! ? ? ------------ ----- -------------- ------------ ----------- ------- & V ? b b b b * 18 ! ?? tus ! ? tus . ? J ? Sanc ! ? ? Sanc ! ? ? ! ? ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? I ! ? ? ! w tus ! w tus ! .?? Domi . ?? Domi .?? Domi . ?? Domi ? nusDe . J ? ? nusDe ? nusDe ? . ? j ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -------- -- ---- -- ------- --------- -- ---- -- -- ---- & V ? b b b b * 27 ? ? . ? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .? ? ? ? w us ? nus ? ? us w ! ? De ! ? ? us, ? Sa . ? ? ! ! ? ba ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? us ? ? Sa ? ? De ? ? ? .? J Sa .? j ? . ? j ? usSa ----- ---- ------ ---------- - ----- --- ------- ---- 435 Sanctus & V ? b b b b * 36 ? .? j ? ? ?? ba ? ? ? ?. ? ? ? ba ? ? ? I ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ba . j ? ? w oth. . ? ? oth. w oth. w oth. w w w w --------- --- ------------- ------------- & V ? b b b b * 40 ! ! w Ple .? ? i Ple ! ! w ? ? nisunt ! ! w ni ? ? ! ! . ? ? sunt .? i J ? ? ce ! ! ? ? ce ? I ? ? I . ? ? Ple w Ple w li, ? ? li, ? nisunt w ni . ? ? [Ple ? [sunt ? ? celiet . ? J ? sunt ? nisunt ? i ?? ce ? ? ter ? . J ? ce ? ? celi]et ? ? ---- -- - - - - - - - --- ----- ------- & V ? b b b b * 49 ? ? ? ? ? ? ter ? ? ? li]et ? ? ? i ? lietter ? ? ? i ter ? ? ? ?? ra ? ? ?? ra w ra . ? J ? gloria ?? ra ? .? J glori ? . ? J glori ? tua. .? J ? gloria ? atu ? atu ? ? O ? tua. ? ? a. ? ? a. . ? J ? san ! ? Osan ?. ? j [Osan ? ! ? na, ? ? ? I ? ? na, ? ? O ! ------- - - - --- - - - ------- -------- --- ---- --- -- - --- & V ? b b b b * 58 ? ? na,] ?? ? O . ? j ? san ? ? ? Osan ! ? ? san ?? na ? ? ? ? O w w w na, ?? ? sanna, . ? J ? na, w [O ! ? ? ? ? [O w ?? [Osanna] ? ? O ?? ? sanna,] ? ? sanna, ? ? ?? ? san ? ? w ? ? in ? ? na ?? inexcel ? O ?? ? excel ?? inexcel ? ? sis, w san ? ? sis, ---- ------ - - ----- -- -- -- - - -- ----- -- -- 436 & V ? b b b b * 67 ? ? sis, ? ? in w ?? inexcel ? .? j in ?? ? excel ? ? na ? ? sis, ? . J ? excel ? ? ? sis,in w ? .? j in ? . j ? ? ? ex ? ? inex ?? ex . j ? . ? J ? celsis, . ? j ? cel .? i J ? cel ?. j ? ? ? in .? J ? .? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ex . ? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cel ? .? j ? ? I ? . J ? w ? ? --- ------------ -- -- ------- -- --------------- -- - ----------- & V ? b b b b * 76 w sis. w sis. w sis. w sis. w w w w & V ? b b b b * 78 ! ! ? ? Benedic ! ? ? Benedic ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ?b ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ? ! ? ? ! .? j ! ? . J ? ! ? ? ? I ! ? ? ! ? ? tus ? ? . j ? quive ? ? tus ?? ? qui ------------------- - ---------------- & V ? b b b b * 87 ! ? . J ? ! . ? j ? ve ! ? . J ? ! ? ? ? ! .? ? ! . J ? ! ? ? I ! ? ? ?? ? in ? ? nit ? ? innomi ?? nit ? ? nomine ! ? . ? j ne ! ? ? ! . ? j ? ! ?? ? ! ? ? ! -- ----------- -- ---------- 437 & V ? b b b b * 95 ?? ? ?? Domi ?? ? ?? Domi ! ? ? ni. ! ? ? ni. ! ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? Do ? ? ! ? ? I ? ? mi ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ni. ? ? ? ? Domi ! ? ? ? [O ? ? ? ? ? ? O ? ? san ? ? [O ? ? ? ? san ? ? ? I ? ? sanna,] ? ? ? ? -------- -- -- ---- ----- -- ----- & V ? b b b b * 104 ? ? na,] . ? J ? O ? ? ? ni.O ? ! ?b ? san ? i ? san ? ? ? ? ? Osan . J ? ? ? ? ? ? na, ? ? na, ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? na, ? [Osan ! ?? ! ? ? ? ?? [O ? ? na, ? ? [O ? ? na, ? san ? O ? san ! ? .? j . ? j ? san ? ? na,O ? ? O ------- ----- --------------- ---- ---- ------ ----- ----- - & V ? b b b b * 113 ? ? ? na]in ? na] ?? sanna] ? ? b san ?? ex ? ? in w ? ? na, . ? j cel ? . ? J excel ? . ? j in ! ?? ? ? ? ?? excel ? ? ? inex .? j ? . J ? ? ? ? ? cel ?? sis, ? ? ? sis,[in ? .? j sis, ? ? sis, ! ?? excel ? ? [inex ? ? ? inex ! ? ? ?? cel ? ? cel ! ? I ? sis, ? .? j ? ? sis, -- ------ ----- ------- ----- --------- --- --- -- & V ? b b b b * 122 .? j ? [inex ? ? in ? ? sis,inex ? ? ? inex ? . j ? cel ? ? ? ex ?? cel ? ? cel ? I ? C3 sis. ? cel ? ? w w ? w ! ? ? ? ? ? in ? ? ? ? ? ex ? ? ? ? ? cel ? w ? ? ? w ? ? w w w ------------------ ------------------ ---- ------ ------------------- 438 * * Contratenor, m. 97, first two minims are F-E in JenaU 21. Replaced here with E-D, which works better in this context. & V ? b b b b * 132 .? ? ? sis, w ? ? ? ? ? in w ? ? .? ? ex w . ? w ? ? ? ? I sis. ? cel ? sis. ? b w ? ? w ? ? w ?b w ? w ? ? sis. w ? sis. w w w w w w w w --------- - ----------- ---------- ---------------- 439 & V ? b b b b 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus w A w A w A ! ? ? gnus ? gnus ! ? ? gnus . ? ? De w De ! ? De ? i, ? i, ! ? ?? i,[A ? ? [A ? ? ? [A w A ? ? gnus ? . ? J gnus ? ? gnusDe ? ? gnus ? ? De ? . J ? De w i,] ? ? De ? ? ? ? w ? ? i, ?? ? i,]qui w i,] ? qui ? qui - --- - - ---- --- ----- - -- --- --- --- ---- ----- & V ? b b b b 10 ? ? ? ? qui ? ? tol ? ? tol ? tol ?? ? tollis ? . ? ? ? ? pe ? lis ? lis ? lis ? ca w ? . ? ? pec . ? ? w pec . ? ? pec ? ? ca ? ? ? ? ? ? ca ? ? ? i ? ? ? ca ? i ? ?? ta ? ? . ?? tamun ?? ? ? ? ? ta ? ? ? ? ----- -------- --- ----- ----------- ---- -------- - ------------ & V ? b b b b 19 w mun ? ? mun .? ? ?? ta ? ? ? ? ? ?? ! ? ? ? .? ? ? ? ? di,[mun ! ? ? di: ? ? di: ? ? ? . ? J mun ? . ? J ? mise ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? re ?? ? mi ? ? di:] . ? ? ?. ? j ? ? sere ! ?? di: ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ------ ------ ------- -------- ---------- -------- ------ 440 Agnus Dei & V ? b b b b 27 ? ? ? .? J ? reno ! ! ? .? j reno ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ? mi ?? bis, w bis, w mi .? ? . ? j ? [mise ? ? [mi ? ? ? sere ? ? ? ? ? re ? se ? re ? se ? ? re ? re ? ? re ? ? no ? re ? no ? re . ? j ? ? ? no ? ? ? ? no ------ ----- ---------- --- --- ---- ------ --- ------ ------------ & V ? b b b b 36 ? ? ? I ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? w bis. w bis. w bis. w bis. w w w w --------- --------- --------- --------- & V ? b b b b 39 ! ! ? ? A ? ? A ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? I ? gnus ! ! ? ? gnusDe ? ? I De ! ! ? ? i, ? ? i, ! ! ? ? ? ? [qui ? qui ! ! . J ? tol ? ? tol ! ! ? ? ? I ? ? ? ? quitol ? ? quitol ? ? lis] ? ? lis ------- --- ----- ----- ---- ----- - - 441 & V ? b b b b 48 ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? I ? ! ! ? ? ? ? I ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ! ! . J ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? I ? ? ! ! w lis ? ? lis ? . ? ? pec ! ! ! . ? ? ?? pecca ---- -- ----------------- ----------------- & V ? b b b b 57 ! ! ? ca . ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? i ? ?? ? [pec ? ? ? pec ?? ta ? ? ta ? ? ca ? ? ca ! ! ? ? ta ? ? ta ??? mun ?? ? mun ! ! ?? ?? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ---------- ------ ---------- ------ ----- ----- & V ? b b b b 66 ! ?? ? mun ? ? di: ? ? ? ! ? ? ? I ! ? ? . ? j ? . j ? mise ? ? di: ? ? . ? j ? mi ? ? di: . j ? . j ? ! . j ? . j ? se ! . j ?? re ! . j ?? ! ------------- --------- -------------- ------- 442 & V ? b b b b 71 ? ? ! ? ? ? I re ? ? mi ? ? re .? j ? mi ? ? re ? ? ? se ! .? ? se ! .? ? ! ? ? ? re ! ? ? re .? j ? no ? ? re ? ? no ? ?? reno .? j ? ? . ? j no ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I ? ? ? ? ? ? w bis. w bis. w bis. w bis. w w w w -------- -------- ------ --- -------- ------- ---- & V ? b b b b 80 ! w A ! ! ? ? A ? .? j gnusDe ! ! ? gnus ? ? ? ! ! .? j ? De ? ? ! ! ? ? ?? ? ? A ! ? ? ? I ? i, ? ! ? ? ? i,qui . ? ? qui ? gnus w A ? tol ? tol ? De ? gnus ? ? ? ? i ? ? De .? ? . ? ? w w ---- ------ --- --- -- ------- ------ - -------- ------ & V ? b b b b 90 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? i, .? j ? . ? J ? lis ? ? i,qui ? ? qui ? ? ? ? ? pec ? ? tol ? ? tollis, ? I w w lis ? [quitol w lis . ? J ? b ca w pec . ? j ? ? ? ? i pec ? ? w ?? ? i ? ca . ? J ? i w w ? i ? ? ? ? i w w lis] ------ - ---------- ---- - --------- ------------ ------ ------ -------------- 443 & V ? b b b b 99 ? i ? ? i ? i w ca ! ? i ? ? ? ? i w ? ? pec ?? ta ? ? ta w ? ? ca .? j ? mun ? ? ? mun . ? j ? ta . ? j ? ta ? ? ? ? .? ? ? ? ? .? ? ? ? ? mun ? ? mun ? . j ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? di, ? ? ? ? ? ? -------- ------- ------ ------- ------- ------------ ------- ------------ & V ? b b b b 107 .? j ? pecca ? ? ? w di, . ? j ? ? . j ? ? ? ? ? [pec ? ? ? . ? j ? . ? J ? ? cata ? .? J ? ? ? tamun ? ? . ? ? mun ? ? ? ? ? I ? . ? ? ? ? ? di, w di: ?? di, w di:] ? ? [pec ! ? ? pecca ! ? b ca ! ? ? ? ta ! ? ? ta ---- --- ------------ ----- -------- ----- -------------- - - & V ? b b b b 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 115 ! ? ? ? mun ! w mun ! w C C ? di: . ? ? ? dona w ? di:] . ? ? ? dona ! . . ? ? ? no ! . . ? ? ? no ! . . ? ? ? ! . ? ? ? ! . . ? ? ? bis ! . w ? ! . w ? pa ! . w? bis . ? ? ? dona w? cem, ! . - -------- --- --- - --------- --- - & V ? b b b b 122 ! . . ? ? ? no ! . w ? dona ! . . ? ? . j ? ! . .?b ? . j ? no ! . ? ? I ! . ? ? ? . ? ? . j ? [dona w ? bis . ? ? ? do w ? bis ? ? no ! . ? ? ? na ! . ? . ? bis]pa ? ? pa . ? ? ? no ? ? pa ------ --- - ------- - - --- -- ---------- - 444 & V ? b b b b 128 .? ? ? ? w w ? bis . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ?b ? ? ? pa ? ? ? ? w ? I ? w ? w ? w . w cem. . w cem. . w cem. . w cem. . w . w . w . w --- --------- --------------- --------------- --------------- 445 446 APPENDIX II.4: Missa Salve regina, VienNB 4810 & V ? b b b b 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus ! ! w Ky ! ! ! ? ri ! ! ! ? ? e w Ky ! ! w e ? ri ! ! ? ? .? J i ? ? ? Ky ! ? ? ? ri ! ? .?b J le ? i ? ? e w Ky ?? ? i ? i ? . ? J e ? rie ?? ? ? ee -- ----------- ----------- - ---- - -- & V ? b b b b 10 ? ? ? le ?. J ? eley ? ? y ? i ? le ? I ? yson, w son, ? ? son,Ky ? yson, ! ! ? ?? Ky ! ! ? ? ?? ? Ky ! ? ? ? I ri ? ? ri ? ? ? Ky ? ? e ? e ? ri ? riele ! ! ? ? ? I e ? ? y ! ! . J ? e w son, . ? J ? e ? eley --- ------ - ---- ----- -- ---- ------ - --- ----- & V ? b b b b 19 ? ? ? le ?? ? Ky ?? ley ? i ? i ? yson, . ? J ? ? son, ?? ? son,Ky ! ?? ri ! . J ? ! ? ? I e ?? ? Ky ? ? ri ? ? Ky . ? e ? ? ri ? ? e ?? rie ? . ? J ee ? ? e ? ? I ley ? ley ? ? ley ? i ? ley w son. son. w son. son. --- -- --- --- ----- --- --- ----- ------ ------ & V ? b b b b 28 ! ! w Chri ! ! ! ? ! ! ! ? ? ste w Chri ! ! w e ? ! ! ? le ? ?? stee ! ! ? ? ? ! ! ? ? I y ? le w Chri ! ? ? ? son,Chri .? J ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? y --- -------- --- --- ---------- ---- 447 Kyrie & V ? b b b b 37 ? ? ste w Chri ? ? ? ste,[Chri w son, w e ? ? ? ? ! . ? J le ? ste ? ste] ! ? ? ? ? e ! ! ? . J ? le ?? ? e ! ? ? ? I y ?? y ? ? ! w son, son, . ? J ? ?? ? Chri ! ! ? ? ? ! ! ? . ? J ? --- -------- ---- --------- ---- ----- & V ? b b b b 46 ! ? ? Chri ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? Chri ? ? ? ? ? stee ? ? ? ? ? ?? ste,e ? ? I ley ? ley ? leyson, w son, ste ? ? son, ? Chri ! ! w Chri ? . J ? ! ! ? . ? J ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ? e ? ste w ste ------ - ------ ---- -- ------- - --- ------- - & V ? b b b b 55 w Chri ? . J ? ! ! ? .? J ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ley ! ! w ste ?? son, ? .? e ?? eley w e ? ? Chri ? ? I ley ? ? w ste ? ? son,[e w son, w le .? ? e ? ?? [eley w y . ? I ? ley ? ? ? ley ? ? w son. son. w son. son.] ---- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ------ - ---- & V ? b b b b 64 ! ! w Ky ! ! ! ? ri w Ky ! ! ? e ? ri ! ! ? e ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? e ! ! ? .? J ? . ? e ? ? Ky ! ? ? ? le ? .? J le ? ? Ky ? ? ? yson, ---- ----------- ------- ----- --- - 448 & V ? b b b b 72 ? ri ? ? yson, ! w e ? ri ! ! ? ? e ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ee ! ! .? J ? ? ! ! ?? I ley .? J ? ley ? ele ! ? ? son, ? son, ? .? j ?? Ky ! ! ? . j ? ? . ? ! ! . ? J .? - -------- ----- - --------- ------ ----- & V ? b b b b 81 ? Kyri ! ?? yson, ? ri ? ? e ? Kyri ? ? ? ? e ? ? e ? ! ! ? leyson, . ? J ? ? Ky ??? e ! ? . J ? ? ? rie ? ? le ??? Ky I ? e ? ? ? e ? yson, ?? ri ? ? e ? le ? ? Ky ? ? ? I ley ? ? ? ? ri ? e ? ? ? son,Ky ? . j ? yson, ? ee -- -- ------ - --- ---- - -- -- ----- --------- -- - & V ? b b b b 90 ? ? ? . J ? ri ? . ? J ? Ky ? . J ? ? ? ? ? e ? . j ? ? i ? ?? b .? J ? ? . J ? rie ? i . J ? ?? .? J ? ? ? ? e ? . j ? . ? j I ? ley ? ? ley ? ? ley ? i ? ley w son. son. w son. son. w w ------- ---- ------------- ----------- -- ------------- 449 & V ? b b b b 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus ! ! w Et ! ! ! ? inter ! ! ! ? rapax w Et ! ! ? . ? j ho ? ? inter ! ! ? ? minibus ? ? rapax ! ! ? ? bone ? .? j ho ! ! . ? J ? volun ? ? minibus - -- - -- - --- & V ? b b b b 8 ! ! ? ? ta ?? bone ! ! ? ? ? tis.[Lau ? ? vo ! ? ? Lau ? ? damus . ? J ? lun ! ? ? da ? ? ? ? tatis. w Lau ? muste. w te.] ! ? damus . ?? Bene ! ! ? ? te.Bene ? . J ? dici ! ! -- - ---- ---- --- -- -------- & V ? b b b b 15 ? ? ? dicimus ? . ? ! ! ? I ? te.A ? ? muste. ? ? ? Benedi ?? ? Be ?. ? j do ? ? ? Ado ? ? cimuste. ? i ? nedicimus ? ? ramuste. ? . J ? ramus ?? ? A ? ? te.Adora ? ? ? Glo ? ? te.Glo ? ? doramus ?b ? muste. ? ? ? rifi ? i . J ? rifi ? ? ? te.Glo ? ? ? Glorifi -- --- ----- --- --- --- --- --- - --- --- -- 450 Gloria & V ? b b b b 21 ? ? ? I camus ?? camus ? ? rificamus ? i camus w te. w te. ? te.Gra ? ? te. ! ! ?? tias .?? Grati ! ! . ? J ? a ? ? asa ! ! .? J gimus ? . ? gimus ! ! ? I ? ti ? tibi ! ! ? ? biprop ?? ? propter -- -- -- -- ---- - - - -- -- - - & V ? b b b b 28 ! ! ? termag ? magnam ! ! ? ? ? namglo ? . ? J glo ! ! ? ? riam ? ? riamtu ! ! ? ? ? I tu ? ? ! ? ? Domine w am. w am. ? ? Domine ? ? Deus,Rex ! ! ? ? Deus,Rex ? ? cele ! ! - - - - -- - -- - - -------- & V ? b b b b 35 ? ? ? cele w stis, ! ! ? stis,Domine ? ? Domine ! ? ? Domine . ? j ? De ? ? ? ? Do ? ? Deus, ? . j ? us,Rexce ? ? Deus, ? ? mineDe ? ? ? Rexce . ? J le ? ? ? Rexce ?? us,Rexce . J ? ? I ? stis, ? lestis, ? lestis, ? lestis, ? ! ? ? ? De ? ? DeusPa --- --- ---- - - -- --- -- - --- ----- -- 451 & V ? b b b b 42 ! ! ? ? i usPaterom .? J ? teromni ! ?? ? De ? ? nipo ? i ? i po ? ? DeusPa ? ? usPater w tens. ?? tens. ? ? i ? terom ? . ? i omni ! ! ? ? ni ? i i ? potens.Do ! ? ? ? Domine ? ? potens.Do ? ? ? mineFi ? ? ? Domine ? ? Filiu ? ? mine ? ? liunige ? Fili ? ? nigeni -- ----- -- -------- ---- --- --- - ---- & V ? b b b b 49 ? ? Filiu ? ? ? nite ? ? ? uni ?? ?b te,u ?. ? J nige ? ? Jhe ? ? genite ? ? nigeni ? nite w ? Jhesu ? teJhe ? ? ? Jhe ? su ? ? Chri ? su ? ? suChri wb Chri ? ? w Chri w ste. w ste. w ste. ste. w w w ----- - - - ----- --- ---- - ---- ---- - --- & V ? b b b b 56 ! ! ? ? Domine ! ! ! ? Deus, ?? Do ! ! w ?? mineDe ! ! ? ? A ? ?? us,A ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! .? J ? gnus . J ? gnusDe ! ! ?? ? I De ? ? --- ----- - --- ---- --- 452 c & V ? b b b b 63 ! ! w i, ? i,A ! ! ? ? ? A ? ? ! ! ? ?? ! ! ? . J ? gnusDe ? ? gnusDe ! ! ? I ? i, ? i, ! ! ? ? Filius ? ?? Fi ! ! .? J ? Pa ? ? liusPa ---- - - -- ------ --- --- & V ? b b b b 70 ! ! ? . ? J ? ? ? tris,Fi ! ! ? .? J ? tris,Fi ? ? ? ! ! ? ? lius ? ? liusPa ! ! ? ? ? I Pa ? ? ! ! w tris. w tris. ! ! w w ---- ----- -- ----------- & V ? b b b b 76 ! ! ! w Qui ! ! w Qui ? tol ! ! ? tol ? ? lispe ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ca ! ! ? ? lispec ?? ta ! ! ? ? cata ? ? mun ! ! ? mundi, ?? di, ! ! ? ? mise .? ? mise ----- -- - -- - ---- - -- 453 C & V ? b b b b 84 ! ! ?? rereno ? ? rere ? ? Mi ? ? Mise ? I ? bis. ? nobis. ? ? sere ? ? re ? ? ! ? ? no ? ? I no ? ? Qui ! ? ? bis. w bis. ? ? tol ?? Qui ! ! ?? lis ? ? tollispec ! ! ? . ? J pec ? ? -- -- ----- - - --- - - - ---- & V ? b b b b 91 ! ! ? . J ? ca . ? j ? ca ! ! ? ? tamun ? ? tamun ? ? Su w Su ? di,su ? i di,su ? ? scipe ? scipe ? ? scipe ? i ? scipe ? ? depreca ? ? de ? depreca ? depreca .? j ? tio ? ? precati ? ? ? tio ? . ? J tionem ? ? nemno ? ? ? onemno . ? j ? nem ? . ? no -- ------ -- ----- - - - - --------- ---- ------ - & V ? b b b b 98 ? ? ? I ? I ? stram. ? no ? stram. ? ? stram. ? Qui w stram. ! ? Quise ? ? sedesad ! ! ?? desaddexte ? . J ? dexteram ! ! . j ? ramPa ? ? Pa ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ! ! w tris, ? ? ? tris,mi ! ! --- - -- --- - - - ----- - -- - 454 & V ? b b b b 105 ? ? mi ? ? ? se ! ! ?? sereno ? rere ! ! ? ? bis. ? nobis. ! ? ? Quo ?? ?? ?? Quoniam ? ? niamtu ! ! ? tuso .? J so ! ! ? ? ? lusSan ? . ? lusSan ! ? ? Tusolus ? I ? ctus. ? ctus. ? ? Tusolus . ? J ? Dominus. ? ? ? Tusolus ?? -- - - ----- -- -- - - - ---- --- & V ? b b b b 113 . ? j ? [Sanctus.]Tu ! ? ? Dominus. ? ? Tu ? . ? j solusDomi ? ? ? Tusolus ? ?? Tuso ?.?b J solusDomi ? . J ? nus.Tu ?? Altissi . ? J ? ?? ? nus.Tu ? ? so ? ? mus, ? ? lus ? ? so ? ? ? lus ? ? ? Jhe ? ? Altis ? ? . ? j ? Altissi ? ? ? ? ? si ? . J ? lusAl - -- - -- - --- ----- -- ------ -- - --- ------ - & V ? b b b b 119 .? j ? mus,Jhe ? .? ? .? J mus, ? ? tissimus, ?? suChri ? ? ? suChri ? Jhesu ? Jhe ? ? I ? ? ste. ? Christe. ? suChri ? ? ste. ?? ? ? ? CumSancto ? ?? ste.Cum ! ?? ? Cum .b J ? Spirituin ? . J ? SanctoSpiri ?? ? Cum . J SanctoSpiri ? ? gloria ? ? tu ? . J ? SanctoSpiri w tu ? ? Dei, ?? inglori - --- -- --- - --- -- - - -- --- - - - --- - 455 & V ? b b b b 126 ? ? tuinglori ? ? ? inglori ! .? J ? aDei, ? ? aDei, ? aDeiPa ?? ? in ?? inglori ? ? inglori ?? tris, ? gloriaDe ? ? aDei, ? ? aDe . ? J ? Dei ? ? ? i,De ?? inglori ? ? ? i,in ?? ? Pa ? ? iPa ? ? i aDe ? gloriaDe ? ? ? tris,De ? ? tris.A ??? i,in ? ? iPa ? ? i ? ? ? ? gloriaDe --- -- - -- - ---- - - - --- - - --- - --- -- - -- & V ? b b b b 133 ? ? ? ? . ? ? Pa ? ? . ? J ? ? ? ? ? iPatris. ? ? ? I tris.A ? ? ? tris.A ? ? ? ? i ? A w men. men. w men. w men. w w w ------- - ----- --- ---------- - ----- 456 & V ? b b b b 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus ! ! ! w Pa ! ! w Pa ? ! ! ? ? tremom ! ! ? trem ? b ? ni ! ! . ? ? om . J ? ! ! ? nipo ? ? ? po ! ! . j ? ten . J ? ten ! ! ? ? ? n ? ? ---- -------- --- ----------- & V ? b b b b 9 ! ! w tem, ? ? ? tem,fa ! ! ? ? ? n factorem ? ? ctoremce ! ! ? celi ? . ? J liet ! ! ? ? etter ? ? ter ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vi ? ? Visibi w ra. w ra. ? ? sibilium ? ? liumomni ! ! --- - - --- --- ----- ----- & V ? b b b b 16 ? ? omnium,et ?? um,etinvi ! ! ? invisibi ?. J ? sibi ! ! . J ? li li ! ! ? ? ? I ? ? ! ! ? ?? um.Et ? ? um.Et ! ?? ? Et ? ? inu ? inunum ?? ? Et ? inunum ? ?? numDomi . ? J Dominum ? ? inunum ? ? Dominum - -------- - -- - --- ---------- - -- & V ? b b b b 23 ? ? ? numJhesum ? ? Jhesum ? ? Dominum ? ? Jhesum ? ? Chri ? Christum, ? Jhesum ? Chri ? i stum,Filium ? ? Filium ? Christum, ? ? ? stum,Fi ? . J ? Dei ? ? Dei ?? b ? Filium ? ?b liumDe ?. J ? u . J ? unige ? Dei ? ? ? i u ? ? nige ? ? ? ni ? ? unige ? ?b nigeni ? I ? nitum. w tum. ? nitum. ?? ? tum.Et - - - - ----- - - - - - --- - - --- ---- - - - ----- 457 Credo & V ? b b b b 30 ? ? ! ? ? EtexPa ? ? ? exPatre ! ! ? ? trena ? ? natuman ! ! ?? tumanteom ? ? teomnia ? .? j De ?? De ? niasecu ? ? secula. ? ? umdeDe ? um ? ? la. ! ?? o, ? ? deDe ! ! ? ? ? lu ? ? ! ! - - - - ------ - ---- - ---- & V ? b b b b 37 ? ? mende ? ? o,lumen ! ! ? ? lu ? delu ! ! ? ? ? I mi ? ? mi ! ! w ne, ? ? ? ne,De ! ! ? ? ? Deum ? ?b umve ! ! ? ? verumde ?? rodeDe ! ! ? Deove b. ? J ove ! ! -- ---- -- -- -- ---- - - - - & V ? b b b b 44 ? ? ? I ? ? ? ?? Geni ! w ro. ? ? ? ro.Ge ? ? tumnonfa ? ?? Geni ! ? ? nitumnon w ctum, ? ? tumnonfa ! ? ? 3 factum, ? . J ? consub ? ? ? ctum,con ! ? ? ? consub ? ? stantia ? ? substantia ?? ? Per ? ? stantialem ? ? lemPa ? lem --- -- - ------- -- - ------ --- -- - ----- & V ? b b b b 50 ? ? quemomni ? ? Patri: ?? ? ? Patri: ? ? ? afa ? ?? perquem ? tri: ! . j ? ? ?b omniafa ! ! ? ? ? cta ?? cta ! ? ? Qui ?? sunt. ?? sunt. ? Quiprop ? . ? J propternos ! ? ? Et . ? J ? ternoshomi ? ? homines, ? ? Etpropter . J propternostram ? ? nes, ! - ----- - --- - -- - - -- - - - -- 458 & V ? b b b b 57 . ? J ? no ? ? salutem ? ? ? de ??? et .? j stramsalu ! . J ? scenditde ? propternostram ? I ? tem ?? ? de ? celis, ? ? salu ? ? . j ? de ? scen ! ?? tem . ? j scendit ? ? ditde ! ? ? ? de ? . ? dece . ? j ? ce . J ? descen . J ? scenditde ? .? j lis, ? ? ditdece ? celis, - -- - - ---- ---- -- - ---- -- - - - - ---- & V ? b b b b 64 ? . ? j ? lis,dece ? . ? J ? dece ? . ? ? ? ? . ? j ? de ? ? ? I ? ? ? lis. ? ? ? i ? ce w lis. w lis. lis. w w ------- ----------- ----- ---- & V ? b b b b 68 ? Etin ? Etincar ! ! ? ? carnatus ? natus ! ! ? ? est ? ? est ? ?? DeSpiri ??? DeSpiri ?? ? ex ! ? tuSan ? tuSan ? ? Mari ? ? ? exMari ? ? cto ? cto . ? J aVirgi . ? J aVir ! ! ?? ne: ?. ? J ?? ? [ex ? ? ? exMari -- ---- -- - - -- - - --- ------ & V ? b b b b 75 ! ? . J ? gi ? . j ? Maria]Vir ? . J ? aVir ! ?? ne: ?? gine: ? gine: ! ? ? ? ? w Et Et .? ? Et w Et ? homo ? homo ? homo ? homo ? factus ? fa ? fa ? fa ? I ? I w ctus w ctus ctus w est. ?? est. w est. ? ? est. - - - -- - - - - - -- - --- 459 *Cut C in Superius, all other voices remain in C & V ? b b b b 83 ! ? ? Cru ! w Cru ! ?? ci ! ?? cifi ! ? ?? fixus ! ? xuse ! ? ? etiam ! ?? tiampro ! ? pronobis: ! ? nobis: ! ? ? sub ! ? ? ? subPon ! ? ? Ponti ! ?? tioPi-- -- - --- ------- - - & V ? b b b b 90 ! ?. ? oPi ! ? ? ? la ! ? lato ! w to . ?? [Passus, ? ? passus, . ?? passus, . ?? passus, ? etse ? etsepul ? etse ? etse ?? ? pultus ?? tus ?? pultus ?b? pultus w est.] est. w est. est. w w - -- - -- --- - -- ---- - --- & V ? b b b b 97 ! . ?? Etre ! ! . ?? Etre ? surre ! ! ? surre ? ? ? xitter ! ! ? xitter ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ti ! ! ? ? tia ? a ! ! ? ? I di ? ? di ! ! w a, ? ? a,secun ! ! --- ----- - --- ------- ---- & V ? b b b b 105 ? ?? secun . ? J ? ! ! .? J ? dumScrip ? ? dum ! ! ? ? tu .? J ? Scriptu ! ! ? ?# I ? ? ! ?? Et w ras. ? ? ras. ? Eta a ! ! ? ? scen ? ? ? scen ! ! ?? ?? dit -- ------ - ---- - ---- ---- ---- 460 *All voices in C & V ? b b b b 112 ! ! ? ? ditin ? ince ! ! ? ? ? I ce ? ? ! ! ? ? ? lum:se ? ? lum:sedetad ! ! ? ? detaddexte ? ? dexte ! ! . J ? ramPa ? ? ramPa ?? ? Et ! ? ? ? I- - -- ---- ----- -- ----- & V ? b b b b 118 . ? J ? iterumven ? . J ? Etite w tris. ? ? tris. ? ? turasest ? rumventuras ?? Cum ! ! ? ? est . J ? gloria,ju ? ? . J ? [Cumglori ? ? vivoset ?? vivoset ? dicare ? a,judica ? ? ? mor .? J ? mortu ! ? ? ? re]vi ? ? ? os: ? ? vivoset ? i vosetmor ? ? ? I tu ?? cu ? mortu ? i tuos: - -- - ------ --- - -- --- - -- --- - -- - & V ? b b b b 125 ? ? os: ? ? iusre ? ? ? os:cu ? ? cuius ? .? J [cuius ? ? ? gni,cu ? iusre ? ? regninon ? ? ?# I re ? ? iusregni ? gninone ? eritfi w gni] ? ? ? none .? J ? rit ? ? ? nis,non ? ? nonerit ? ? ritfinis. ?. j ? fi ? eritfi ?? finis. w w nis. nis. w w w w - - - - - - --- --- -- -- -- - - -- -- & V ? b b b b 133 ? ? ? Etin ! ? Etin ?? Et ? ? SpiritumSan ? ? Et ? ? Spiritum ? ? inSpiri ? ? ctum,Domi ? inSpiri ? ? San ? ? tum w num, ? ? tumSanctum, ? ? ctum,Domi ? Sanctum, ? ? ? Sanctum, ? Domi ? ? num, ? ? Dominum, ? ? Dominum, ? ? ? num,San . ? j ? etvifi ? . ? J etvi ?? ? et ? ? ctum,Do ? ? cantem, ? ? fican - --- -- - - -- --- -- - - --- - - -- - - 461 * Tenor in Cut C, all other voices remain in C & V ? b b b b 140 ? . J ? vifi ? minum, ? ? 3 etvifican ? tem: ? ? can ? ? ?? ? tem:qui ? ?? quiex ? ? tem: ! ? ? exPatre ? PatreFili ! ! ? Filioque ? oqueproce ! ? ? Quicum ? ? ? proce ? ? ? ? ? QuicumPa ? Patreet ?? dit. ? ? dit. ? treetFili ? ? Filio ! ! - - - -- --- --- -- - -------- - - -- & V ? b b b b 147 ? ? ? osimul . J ? simula ! ! ? ? adora ? dora ? ? . J ? Etconglo ! ? ? tur, ? ? tur, ? rifica ?? . J ? Etconglo ? ? . j ? etconglo ?? ? et ? ? tur: ? ? rifica ? ? rifica . J ? conglorifi ! ? ? tur: ? ? tur: catur: ! ? .? J quilo ! ! . ? J ? Quilocutus ? ? cutusestper ---- ---- ---- - ---- -- ---- ---- & V ? b b b b 154 ! ! ?? estperPro ? ? Prophe ?? ? Et ? ?? Etu ? phetas. w tas. ? ? unamsan .? J namsanctam w ?? . j ? ? ctamcatholi ? ? catholicam ??? Et ?? ? Et ?? cametapo etaposto ? ? apostoli ? . J ? apostoli . J ? ? stolicam ? . ? li ? ? ? ? ? camEc ----- ---- -- ------- -- ---- - -- -- ------ & V ? b b b b 160 ? ?? Eccle ? ? camEc ? ? camEc ? ? ? ? I si ? clesiam. ? ? clesiam. ?? clesi ? ? ? am.Con ? ? Con ? ? ? Confi ? ? am. . J ? fiteoru . ? J ? fiteor ? ? teor ! ? ? numbaptis ? ? unum ? ? unumbap ! ? I ? ma ? ? baptis ? ? tisma ?? ? In -- - ---- ---- -- --- - -- --- -- -- --- -- -- 462 & V ? b b b b 166 ? ? ? ? main ? . ? [inremissi ?? remissi ! .? J ? remissio ? .? j onempec ? ? onem ! ? ? nempeccato ? ? catorum. peccato w Et ? ? rum.Etexpec ? . ? j ? Etex ? ?? rum.Et ? ? expec ? ? to ? ? pecto ? expectore ? . ? J toresur ? ? ? resurre ?? resurre ?? surrexi -- -- --- -- -- --- ---- --- ----- -- ----- -- --- & V ? b b b b 172 ? ? rexionem ?? xionemmor ? ? xionem ? ? onemmo . ? ? mortu ? ? tuo ? . J ? mortu ? . ? tuo ? orum. ? ? rum.Et ? I ? orum. ? rum. ? ? Etvitam .? J vitamventu ? ? ?? . ? J ? venturi, ? ? ri, ? ? Etvitam ??? Et ?? ? et ! .? J ? venturi ? . J ? vitamventu ? . J ? vitamventu ? ? etvitam ? ? se ?? risecu ----- -- -- -- --- -- - - ----- ----- - --- --- - & V ? b b b b 179 ? ? ? rise .? J ? venturise .? J ? ? cu ? ? b ? . j ?? culi, ? . i J ? culi. ?? ? li. . i J ? ? li. ? ? I A ? A ? ? A ? ? A w men. men. w men. men. w w ------ --- ----- ---- -------- ---- ------- --- 463 & V ? b b b b 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus ! ! w San ! ! ! ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ctus,San w San ! ! ? ? ? ! ! . ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? I ? ? ! ! w ctus, ? ctus,San --- ----------- ------------ - & V ? b b b b 9 ! ! w San ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ctus,San ! ! ? ? ? ? ? w San ! ? ? ?. ? J ? ! ? ? ctus ? ? ? ctus,San w San w ctus ! ? ? ? ? ! ! ------------ --- -------- ----- ---- ----- & V ? b b b b 16 ?.? ? ! ! ? . J ? ? ? ! ! ?? ? I ? ? ! ! ? ctus, ? ? ? ctus,San ! ! .? j ? San ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ?? ! ! ? ? ? ? ctus,[San ?? ? Do ! - -------- -------- -------- ------ - & V ? b b b b 23 ?? ctus ? ? .? J ? ? ? Do ? ? Do ? ctus] ? ? ? ? ? mi ? ? mi ? Dominus ? ? mi ?? ? nusDe ? . j ? nusDe ? ? ? I De . j ? ? nus ? ? ? w us ? De ?? ? ussa ?? ussa w . ? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? sa ? ? sa ? ? ---------- - --- ---- ------ -- ---- ----- --- ---- - - - ----- 464 Sanctus & V ? b b b b 30 ?. ? ? I ? I ? ba ? ? ba .? J ? ? ba ? ? ba w oth. oth. w oth. oth. w w ---- ---- -------- -------- -------- & V ? b b b b 33 ! ! ! w Ple ! ! ! ? ! w Ple ! w ni ! ? ! ? su ! w ni ! ? . J ? ! ? su ! w nt ! ? ? ! ? ? ce ! ? ? I ! ? ? ! w nt ! ? ---- ---- ------- ---- ------- & V ? b b b b 42 ! ? ce ! ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ! .? J ! . J ? ! ? ? ! .? J ? ! . ? J ? ! w li ! ? ? li ! ? ? et ! w et ! ? ter ! ? ter ! . ? ? ! ? ? ---------- ---- --------- ---- & V ? b b b b 50 ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ?? ! ?? ! ? ? I ! ?? ! ? ? ? ! ??? raglo ! ? ? ? raglo ! ? ? ! ? ? ! . J ? ria ! ? ? ! ? ? tua,-------- ----- - ---------- ------ 465 & V ? b b b b 57 ! ? ? ? ? ! ? .? J ? glori ! .? J ? ? ria ! ? .? J ? atu ! ? ? ? I tu ! ? ? ? ! w a. ! w a. ! w ! w -- ------- -------- --- & V ? b b b b 62 ? O w O ! ! ? .? J ? ? san ! ! ? . J ? san ? . ? w O ! ?? na, ? ? na, ? ? san ? ? O ? ? ? O w ? ? ? ? san ? ? ? .? J ? Osan . J ? ? ? .? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ------------- --------- ------ - -------- - ------- ---- & V ? b b b b 69 . ? J ? ? . ? J w na, ? ? .? J ? ? ! ? ? na, ? . J ? san ? ? ? ? O ? ? ?? na, ? ? ? na,[O ? san ? ? ? O ?? ? . ? ! ? ? san I san ? na, ?? ? O ? ? ? ? na,] ? ?? Osan ?? sanna, ------- -- --- -- ------- - ------ -------- -------- & V ? b b b b 76 .? j ? ? ? ? ? ?. ? ? ? ? ? I ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? na,[O ? ?? O w ? ? O ? sanna] ? ? w ? san ? .? J ? in ? ? w .? j ? b ? ? ? ex w ? . j ? na ? . j ? w san w na, ? ?. J ? [inex ---------------- -------- - ------ -- ----- ---------- - 466 & V ? b b b b 83 ? . j ? w na ! ? . J ? cel ?.? ? . J in ? [O ?? ? siss,]in ? ? ? i ex ? sanna] ? b ex ? ? ? ? ?? ? in ? ? ? ? j ? J cel ? ex ? ? ? ? ? ? sis, ? ? ? j ? ? ?? in ? ? cel ?b ? ---- -------- --- ------------ ------------------ -------- & V ? b b b b 90 ? ? ? ? ? ex ? ? ? ? sis,in ? ? ?b ? ? ? ? I cel . ? J ? cel ? ? ? excel ? ? ? cel w sis. sis. w sis. sis. w w ------ ------------ ------- ---- ----------- & V ? b b b b 94 w Be Be ! ! w ? ne ! ! w ? . J ? ! ! ? ne ? ! ! ? ? dic ? ? ? ! ! ? ? tus, ? ? ? ! ! ?? [bene ? ? ! ! ? ? . J ? dic ! ! ------------ ----- ----------------- & V ? b b b b 102 ? ? ? I dic ? ? ! ! w tus] ? ? ? tusqui ! ! ? ? ? quive i ve ! ! ? ? ? . J ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! . J ? . ? J ? ! ! - - ----------- --- ------------- 467 *Contratenor in Cut C, Superius remains in C & V ? b b b b 109 ? . J ? . ? J ! ! .? J ? ! ! ? I ? nit ? nit ! ! ? ? in ? ? ? in ! ! ? ? no ? no ! ! ? mi ? mine ! ! ? . ? ? . ? j Do ! ! ? ? neDo ? ? ! ! ------ ------- - ------ -- ---- & V ? b b b b 117 ? ? ? I mi ? ? mi ! ! ? ? ? ni,in w ni, ! ! . J ? no ? ? . J ? inno ! ! ? ? mine ? mine ! ! ? ? Do . J Domi ! ! ? ? ? I mi ? ? ! ! w ni. ni. ! ! w ! ! -- ---- -- --- -- ---- 468 & V ? b b b b 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor Bassus ! w A ! ! w A ? ! ! ? ? . ? J gnus ! ! ? gnus ? ? De ! ! ?. ? j De ? ! ! ? i, ?? ! ? ? A ? ? ? ? ? A ? --- - ---- ---- ---- --------- & V ? b b b b 8 ! w i, ? ? gnus ! ! ? ? gnus . ? J ? ! ?? ? qui ? ? De ? ? ? ?? ? qui .? J tol ? ? ? ? ? tol ? ? ? ? ? i,qui ? ? ? lispeccata . j ?? lis ? tol ? ? i,qui-- ---- ---- - ----- ----- & V ? b b b b 14 ? ? mundi, ? ? [pec ? ? ? tol ? ? ? peccata ? ca ? ? ? ? ?? mundi, ? ? ? ? ? lispec ? ? ? peccata ? ? ? ? lispec ? ? b ?? mundi i ? ? ? catamun ? i ? ca ? ? ? pecca ? i ? ? ? di,pec ? i ? ----- --------- -------- --- - - -- - -- - -- -------------- & V ? b b b b 20 ? .? j ta ? ? ? catamun ? ? tamun ? . ? J mun ? . ? ? . ? j ? ? ? ? ? tamun ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I di, ? ? ? di, w di, ? ? di, ? [qui ! ? ? ? ? quitol ? . J tollis-------- - ----------- - -- ------- ------ --- 469 Agnus Dei Contratenor in Cut C, all other voices in C & V ? b b b b 26 ! ! ? ? ? lispec ? ? pecca ! ? ? quitollis ca . ? ? ta ! ? ? i ? pec ? ? ? ? mun ? ? [qui ? i ca . ? ? tamun w di:] ? . j ? tollis i ? ? i ? ! ? ? pecca ? i ? tamun ? ? di: ? mi-- -- - - ------ ------ - -- - ------- - & V ? b b b b 32 ? ? tamun ? ? ?? ? mi ? ? sere ? ? ? di:]mi ? ? di: ? ? sere ? ? reno ? ? sere ? mise ? ? ? reno ? ? ??? reno ? i ? rere ? ? ? ? bis,mi ? ? ? no ? ? ? bis,mi ? ? sere ? ? ? bis,mi ? ? bis, ? ? sere ? ? reno-- --- --- - --- ---- --- - --- ---- - ---- --- ---- & V ? b b b b 38 ? ? sere ? misere ? ? ? re,mi ? ? ? ? ? reno ? ? re ? ? serere ? ? ? bis,mi ? ? ? ? no ? ? no ? ? serereno w bis. bis. w bis. bis. w w ---- --- - --- ---- - - ----- ----- ---- & V ? b b b b 43 ? A ! ! ! ? ? ? ? A ! ! . ? j ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? gnus . ? j ? ! ! ? . j ? De ! ?? A .? j ? ? ! . ? ? ---- -------- ----- -------------- 470 Superius and Contratenor in Cut C, Bassus in C & V ? b b b b 49 ?? i, ? ? gnusDe ! ? . ? J gnusDe ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ! .? J ? ? .? j A ? I ! ? i, ? ? ? ? ? i,[A ! ? ? [Agnus ? ? gnus ? ? gnusDe ! ? . J ? De------- - --- -- ------ --------- - - & V ? b b b b 55 ? ? ? De ? ? ! ? ? i,] ? i,quitollis w i,] ! ? ? quitollis .? J ? pec ? ?? quitollis ! . ? J ? peccatamun ? ? ca . J ? pecca ! w di, ? ? ta ?? tamun ! ?? ? qui ? ? mundi,[qui ? ? di,[quitol ! ? ? tollis,-- ---- - - ------- - --- - -- - - & V ? b b b b 61 ? ? tollispec ? ? lispec ! ? .? J ? [qui ? ? ? ca ? . j ? ca ! ?? ? tollis]pec ? ? ? tamun ! ? ? ca . j ? ta ? ? ! ? . J ? ? ? mun ? ? di:]mi ! ?. ? J tamun ? ? ? I ? ? sere ! ? . J ? - ------- ---- - ------ ----- - ---- ---- --- & V ? b b b b 67 w di: ? .? J reMi ! ? ? ? di:mi ? . ? J ? mise ? .?b J sere ! ?? se . ? j ? rere ? .? j re ! ?? re ? ? no ? . j ? no ! ? ? reno ? ? bis, ? . J ? bis,mi ! ? ? ? bis,mi ? . ? J ? mi ? . J ? sere ! ?? sere------- - --- --- --- - ---------- --- 471 & V ? b b b b 73 ? . ? j ? sere ? . j ? re ! ? ? ? ? reno ? ? . j ? reno ? ?b no ! ? ? i ? w bis. bis. ! w bis. w ! w --- ------ ----- --- --- ----- 472 473 APPENDIX II.5: Missa Du bon du cueur, MunBS 6 & V ? b b b b b 2 2 2 2 2 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Bariton ! ! w Ky ! ! ! ! ? ri ! ! w Ky ! ? . ? J ! ! ? ? ri ! ? ? ? ! ! ? .? j ! ? ? ! w Ky ? ? ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ri ? ? e ! ? ? w Ky ? . ? j ----------- --------- ---------------- --- & V ? b b b b b # 8 ?? e ! ? ? e ? ? ri ? ? ? .? j .? j le w Ky ? ? ? ele ? ? ? ? ? ? ? i ? ? ri ? ?? i ? ? ? ? w son, w e, . J ? w e ? ? ? ee ? .? j ? Ky ? ? Ky ? ? son, ? ? ? e . ? J ? le ? ? ?? rie ? ? ? Ky ? ? ? ? ?? ri ? ? ele ? ? ? ? le ? ? ------ -------- -------- -------- ------ -- -- --------- --- -------- ------- & V ? b b b b b # 15 ? ? ? ee ? ? ? i ? ? ? ? i ? ? ison, ? ? lei w son, ? ? ri ? ? ? son,Ky ? ? ? Kyri ? ? son, ? ? Ky ? e ? ? ri ? ? e ! . ?? ri w . ?? ee ? . ? ? e ! . J ? ee ? ? ? e . J ? le . ? ? le ! ? ? ? lei ?? ? ? y ? ? .? J ? Ky ? ? son, . ? J ? le w son, . ? ? ----- --- - -- ---------- - - --------- ------- ------ --- -- ------ 474 Kyrie & V ? b b b b b # 22 ? ? rie ? ? ? Ky ? ? ? ison, ?? ? Ky ? ? ison, ? ? ? . j ? ri ? ? ? Ky ? ? ri w ! ?? ? ? ? ? e, ? ? ? Ky ?? ? e ? .? j ?? ? ? ri ! ? ? ri ? ? w e e, ? ?? Ky w e, ? ? ? le ! ? ?? Ky ? ? rie ? ? ? Ky ? . ? ?? ? e ? ? ? ri ! ? ? ri - --------- - ---- -- ---------- - -- ----- ---- ---- -- & V ? b b b b b # 29 ? . ? ? ? ? ? le w e ? ? ? ele ? ? ? e e .? J ? ? .? j ? i ? ?? ele ? ? ? i ? ? ? le ? ? i w son. ? ? i w son. ? ? i w son. w son. w w son. w w w w ------------- ----------- --------- ------ -------- & V ? b b b b b # 34 ? ? Cri ! ? Cri ? Cri ! ? ? ! ? . ? J ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ste ? Cri ? .? j stee ! ? . ? J stee ? ? ele ? ? ? . j ? le ? ? Cri ?? lei ?? i ? ? ?? ison, ? ? w son, ? ? ? son,Cri ? ? stee ! ? ? w ? ? ? ? le ------ ------ ------- ---- ------- ------- - -- ------ ----- --- 475 & V ? b b b b b # 41 ! ? .? j stee ? . ? J Cri ? .? J ? ! ? . j ? le ?? ?? ? ? ? ?? Cri ?? i ? stee ? ste, ? ison, . ? j ? ?. j ? ? ? ? le ! ! ? ? ste ?? son, ? ? ison, ! ? ? Cri ? ? . j ? ele ? ? ? e ? ? ? Cri w Cri ? ste ? . j ? ? ? leison, . J ? ?? stee w e ----- ----- ------- -- --- ---------- -- ---- ----- ---- ------- --- - & V ? b b b b b # 48 ? ? ison, ??? Criste w ? .? j le . ? j ? lei ? .? ? Cri ? ? ? e w ste .? ? i ? ? ? son,Cri ? . j ? ?. j ? le w ? ? ? son,Cri ? ? ? ? ste ? ? ! ? ? stee ? ? ste ! ?? ? ?? e ? ? ? ? ele ?? ? e ? ? ison, . J ? ? leison, ? ? le ? ? ison, - ------- - -- ---- --- - ----------- --- ----- ------- - -------- & V ? b b b b b # 54 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Criste ? ? ? ? e ? ? ? ? ? ? ele ? ? ? le ? ? ele ? ? ? lei ? ? ? ? .? ? y ?? i w son. w i w i w son. w son. w son. w son. w U w w U w ------------ ----------- -- -------- ------- ------------- 476 & V ? b b b b b # 59 ?? Kyrie ! ?? Kyrie ! ?? Kyrie, ? ? ? ! ? . j ? ! ? ? ? ? ? ?? Kyrie ? ? ? e ? ?? Kyrie ? ? ! ? ? .? j ? b ? ? ! ? ? . j ? ele w ? ? lei ? ? ? e ? ?? Kyri ? ? ! ? ? son, ?? le ? ? ele ? ? ison, ?? ? Ky ?? ? Ky ? ? ison, ? ? ison,Ky -- ------- -- ------ - - -- ----- - - - -- & V ? b b b b b # 66 ? ? ? ? rie ? ? ri ! ? ? riele ! ? . ? j lei w e ? ? Ky ? ? ison, ? ? ? Ky ? . j ? son,Ky ! ? ? ri ! ? rie ? ? j ? riee ! ? . ? J ee ! ! ? ? le ? ? e ? ? le ! ! .?? ? ? le ? ? ! ! ?? y ? ? ? ? i ? ? i ! -- ---- ---------- ------- - - ------- ----- --------- & V ? b b b b b # 73 ? ? ? elei ? ? son, ? ? son, ? ? ? son,Ky ? ? ? Ky ? ? son, ! ! ? ? ri ? ? ! ! ! ? ? e ? . j ? ? ? ? Ky ?? ? Ky ? ?? Kyri ? ? e ? ? rie ? ? ? ? ri ? ? e ? ? ? ? ? e .?? ri ? ? ? ? ? e ? ? ? ? ?? e ? ? e ? ? lei ? .? j le ? ?j ? le --- -------- -------- -------- ------- -- ---- ----- ----------- 477 & V ? b b b b b # 80 ? ? ? e ? ? ? e ?? son, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .?? ?? ? e ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? lei ? ? ? ? i ? ? .? ? w son. .? J ? le w son. .? j ? . j ? ? lei w ? ? i w ?? i w son. w son. w w son. w w w w ------------ -------------- -------- ---------- --------- 478 & V ? b b b b b 2 2 2 2 2 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Bassus ! ! .?? Etin ! ! ! ! ? terra ! ! ! .?? Etin ? . ? J paxho ! ! ! ? ? terra ? ? ! ! ! w pax ? ? .?? Etin ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? terra ! ! ! ? ? mi .? ? pax .?? Etin - ------------ - - & V ? b b b b b 8 ! ? ? homi ? ? ? .? j ? ho ? ? terra w Ho ? ? nibus ? ni ? . ? mi ? . ? j paxho ? ? mini ! ? ? bus ? ? ni ? mini w bus ? ?? bonevo ? ?? bonevo w bus ? busbo ?? ? bo . j ? lunta ? ? ! ? ?b ? nevolun ? ? nevo ?? tis. ? ? lun ? ? bo ? tatis. . ? j ? lunta ! ? ? ? ? ?b ? nevolun ! ----- - --- - ---- - --- ------- ---------- -------- - -- --- --- - & V ? b b b b b 15 ?? tis. ? ? Lau ? tatis. ? tatis. ? ? Lau ! .?? damus ? ? . J ? Lauda .?? Lauda . ?? damus ! ? ? te.Benedi ? ? muste. ? ? muste.Bene ? ? te.Benedi ! ? ? cimus ? Benedi ? ? dicimus ? ? cimus ? ? Lauda ? ? ? te.A ? ? cimus w te. ? ? ? te.A ? ? muste.Be ? ? do ? ? te. ? ? ? Ado ? ? do ? . j ? nedici ? ramuste. ! . ? j ? ramus ? ? ramus -- -- ---- -- ---- --- - ---- --- - -- --- --- -- ---- ---- 479 Gloria & V ? b b b b b 22 ?? muste. .? J ? Glori ?? Glorifi ? .? j te.Glori ? ? te.Glori ! ? ? ? fica ? . j ? camus ? ? fica ? ? fi ?? ? Gra ? ? muste. ? ? ? te.Gra ? muste. ? ? camus ? tias ! ? ? tiasa ! ? ? te. ?? agimusti ! ? ? gimusti ? ? ? Gra ! ? ? bi ? ? ? Gratias ? ? bi .? ? tias . ? ? Gra ! ? ? agimus ! ?? a ? ? tias - -- - - ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- -- --- ---- - -- & V ? b b b b b 29 ! ? ? tibi ! ? ? ? gimus ? ? agi .? ? propter . ? j ? propter ! .? ? ti .? ? mus ? magnam ? ? ? magnam ? ? ? prop ? ? ? biprop ? ? tibi ? ? ? glo . j ? ? glo ?? .? j ? ter ! ? riam ? ? ? ? ? ter ? magnam ?? ? prop .? j ? tu .? j ? ri .? j ? mag ! . ? j ? ter ? ? ? ?? am ? nam ?? ? glo ? magnam - - --- ----- -- - - - ------ --- -- --- - - - - - - --------- & V ? b b b b b 36 ? ? .? j ? tu .? j ? gloriam ? ? ? riam ! ? ? ? ? ? ? tu ? ? tu ? ? glo w am. ? .? J am,tu w am. ?? am,tu ?? riamtu w am. ? .? ? Do ? ? ? am.Do ? ? ? am.Do ! ! ? ? mineDe ? ? ? ?b mine ! ! ? ? ? us, ? ? mi ? ? Deus, ! ! .? ? Rex ? ? neDe .? ? Rex ------ --- -- -- ----- -- -- -- --- - ------- - ------ - 480 * * Text in MunBS 6 reads ?tens?. Replaced here with ?am? to compete ?tuam? & V ? b b b b b 43 ! ! ? ? celestis, ? ? us,Rex ? ? ce ! ! ?? ce ?? ce ? .? j les ! ! ? ? ? les ? ? les ? ? tis, ? ?? DeusPa ? ?? DeusPa ?? tis,DeusPa ? ? ? tis,De w w ter w ter ? ? ? terom ? ? usPater ? ?? DeusPa ??? omnipo ? ?? omnipo ? nipotens. ? ?? om w ter w tens. w tens. ? ? ? Do ? ? nipotens. ? ?? omnipo -- -- ----- -- -- -- - - -- --- - - - - -- --- -- -- & V ? b b b b b 50 ? ?? Domi ? ?? Dmi ?? miniFi ? ? ? Do w tens. ? ? niFili ? ? niFili .? J li ?? miniFi ? ?? Domi ? ?? u ? ? ? u ? uni w li ? ? niFili ?? nigeni ? ? nigeni ? genite ??? uni ? ? ? u .? ? te .? ? te ? ? ? ? genite ?? nigeni w w ? ? ? Je ? ? ? teJe ? ? ? Je ? ?? JesuChri ? ? suChriste, ? ? Je ? ? us --- ---- - --- ---- --- --- ---- -- ---- ---- --- --- ---- -- & V ? b b b b b 57 ? . ? j suChri . ? ? ste, ? ? Jesu . ? j ? su w Chri ? ? ? ? ? ? Christe, ? ? Chri ? ? ste, ? ? ! ? ?? Je ? ? ? ? Jesu ? ? ? ? Jesu ? ? ? ? ? ste.Je ? ? Christe, w ste, ? ? Chri w su ? ? su ? ? ? Je ? .? J ? Jesu ? ? w ? Chri ? ? su ? Chri w ste. ? Chri w ste. ? Chri - --------- - - --- - - - - - - ----- - ------ --- --- - ----- 481 & V ? b b b b b 64 w ste. w ste. w w ste. w w U w w & V ? b b b b b 66 ! ! .?? Domi ! . ? ? Domi ! ! ? ? neDe ! ?. ? neDe .?? Domi ! ? . ? J ! . ? ? ? ? neDe ! ? ? ? ! ? ? us, .? J ? ! ? ? us,A ! . ? ? A ? ? ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? . J ?? us,A ! ? . J ? ! ? . j ? -- ------- - -- ------ -------- -- ------- ------- & V ? b b b b b 73 ? ? ? ! ? ? ! ?? ? . j ? ! ? . J ? gnusDe ! ? .? J ? ? gnus ! ? ? ! ? ? ? j gnusDe .? ? De ! ? ? ? i,Fi ! ? . j ? ? ? ! . ? J ! ? i, ? ? i,Fi ! ? ? ! ! ? ? li ! ? ? ? li ! ?? ? Fi ------- ----- ---- ------- ---- - --- ----- ------- 482 & V ? b b b b b 80 ? . j ? ! . ? J ? us ! ? . j ? li ?? ! ? ? ? i Pa ! ? ? usPa ? ? us ! ? ? ! ? ? ? . j ? Pa ! . ? j ? ! ? . j ? ? tris, ! ? ? j ? tirs,Fi ! ? tris, ! ! ? . j ? li ! ? ? Fi ! ! ? ? usPa ! ? . j ? lius ------ ---- --- ------- ---- -- ------- ----- & V ? b b b b b 87 ! ! ?? tris, ! ? ? Patris, ? ? ? Filius ! ? ? ? Filius ! ? ?? Filius ? ? Pa ! ? .? J Pa ! ?? Pa ? ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ? j ? tris,Fi ! ? ? tris,Filius ! ? ? tris,Filius ? ? lius ! ? .? J Pa ! ? ? Pa ? ? ? Pa ! ? ? ! ? ? - ----- -- - - - ------------ -- - ------------ & V ? b b b b b 94 w tris. ! w tris. ! w tris. w ! w ! w 483 & V ? b b b b b 96 ! ! ! w Qui .? ? Qui ! ! ! ?? tollis ? ? tollispec ! ! ! ?? pecca ? ? ca ! ! ! ? . ? j ? tamun . ? j ? tamun ! ! ! ? ? ? ? w Qui . ? ? Qui .? ? Qui ? ? di, ? ? di, ?? tollis ?? tolis ? tollispec ! ! - - ---- ---- -- - -- ---- - & V ? b b b b b 103 ?? pecca ? ? pecca ? ? ca ! ! ? . ? j ta ? ? ? tamun . J ? tamun ! ? ? ? pecca ? ? ? mun ? ? ? ? ! ? ? tamun w di, ? ? ? di,mi w di, mi ? ? ? di,mi ! ? ? sere ! ? ? sere ?b ? se ! ? ? no ? ? misere ?? re ? ? re ! ? ? bis. ?? reno ? ? no ? ? reno -- - -- - ----- - ---- --- --- - --- - - -- --- --- - & V ? b b b b b 110 ?? ? Qui ! ? ? ? bis.Qui ? ? ? bis.Qui ? ? bis. ? ? tollispec ! ? ? tollispec ? ? tollispec ! .? j ? cata ! . ? J ? catamun ? ? cata ! ? ? mun ! ? ? ? ? mun ! ? ? ? di,Qui ? ? Qui ? ? ? di,qui ? ? ? di,pec ?? ? Qui ? ? tollispec ?? tollis ? ? ? tollis ? ? ca ? ? tollis ? ? cata ? ? ? peccata .? ? pec ? ? tamun ? ? pecca --- - ---- - -- --- ---- - - --- --- -- - --- 484 & V ? b b b b b 117 ? ? ? mun ? ? ? mun ? ? catamun ? ? ? ? ? ? tamun ? ? di, ? ? di, ? ? di, ? ? di, ? ? di, ! .?? susci .?? susci ! . ?? susci ? ? su ? ? pe ? pe,su ? ? su ? ? pe ?? scipe ! ?? scipe ?? scipe ! ? ? ?? depre ? ?? depre ? ?? depre ? ?? depre ! ? ? cationem ? ? catio . j ? cationem ? ? catio ! ? ? ? no ? ? nemno ? ? no ? ? nemno -- -- - - -- ----- - -- -- -- ----- - --- -- ---- -- - -- ----- - & V ? b b b b b 125 ? ?? depre w stram. ? ? ? stram,de ? ? ? stram,de ? ? stram,depre ? cationem ! ? precatio ? precati ? ? cati ? ? ? no ! ? ? nem ? ? onemno ? o ? ? stram. ? ? ? Quise ? no ? ? stram. ? ? nemno ? ? ? Quise ? ? desad ? ? stram. ! ? stram. ? ? desad ? ? dexte ! ! ! ? ? dexte .? j ? ram ! ! ! ---- - --- -- ------- --- ---- -- ----- --- -- & V ? b b b b b 132 ? ? ? ram ? ? Pa ! ? ? ? Quise ! ? ? Pa w tris, ? ? ? Quise ? ? desadde ? ? ? Quise ? ? tris, ! ? ? desad ? ? xtre ? ? ? desad ! ! ? ? dexteram ?? ramPa ? ? dexterram ! ? ? mi ? ? ? ? Pa ? ? tris, ? ? Pa ! . ? j ? se ?? tris,mi . ? j ? mi ? ? tris, ? ? mise ? ? ? ?? sere ? ? se ? ? mise - --- -- - --- - -- - -- - --- - - ----- -- ------ 485 & V ? b b b b b 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 139 .? ? re ? ? re ? ? reno ? ? ? ? ? ? ? re ? ? ? ? ? bis, ? ? re ? ? re ? ? ? ? ? reno ? .? ? no ? ? re ? ? re ? ? ? no ? ? ? ? bis. ? ? ? ? nobis. w ? bis. ? bis. w ? Quoni w ? bis. ? Quoni ! . w ? Quoni ? ? amtuso w ? Quoni w ? am ---- --- ------- - -- ---- ---- -- - ------ -- ------ ---- -- & V ? b b b b b 145 w ? Quoni ? ? amtu ? w lussan ? ? amtu w ? tu w ? amtu ? ? so w ? ctus. w ? solus ? solus ?. ? solus ? w lus ! . ? ? san ?? san w ? san ? ? san ! . ? w ? .w ctus. w ? ctus. ! . w ? ctus. ? ctus. w ? .? ? ? Tu ? ? Tu .? ? ? Tu w? Tuso -- -- --- - ------ - - -- ------ --- --- --- & V ? b b b b b 151 w? Tuso w? solus solus w ? solus ? lus ? ? lusDo w ? Domi w? Domi . ? ? ? Do w? Domi . ? ? ? mi w? nus,Do . ? ? nus. ? w mi . w nus. . w nus. ? ? ? mi w ? w ? nus.Tu ! . ! . .? ? ? nus. ? ? Tu .? ? ? so w? Tuso w? Tuso w? Tuso ? so w ? lusAl ? lusAl -- ---- - -- -- - - - -- - - ------ --- - - -- ----- - 486 o & V ? b b b b b 157 ? ? lusAl w? lusAl ? lusAl . ? ? ? tissi w? tissi . ? ? ? tis w? tissi ? tissi w ? mus, . mus, ? .? simus, . w mus, .? ? ? mus, ? ? Je ! . ? ? ? Jesu ! . w ? Jesu ? ? ? suChri w ? Jesu .? ? ? Chri ? w Je ? Chri ? w ste, ? Chri -------- --- --- -- --- - -- - --- --- -- --- - --- - & V ? b b b b b 162 . w ste, ?? .w ste, ?? Je .w ste, ! . w ? ? Je ? w ? Je ! . ? . ? su ? w suChri ?? seChri ?? suChri ? ? Je w ? Chri ? ? ? w ? .? ? ? suChri .w ste. . ste. .w ste. .w ste. .w U ste. .w U . .w .w U - - - ----- - ------ ------ ----- ------- --- & V ? b b b b b 168 ! . ! . w ? Cum ! . ! . ! . ! . .? ?? San ! . w ? Cum ! . ! . w ? cto ? Cum .? ?? San w ? Cum ! . ? ? Spiri .? ?? San w ? cto w ? Sancto w ? Cum ? tu, w ? cto ? Spi w ? Spiri ? San ? w inglo w? Spiri ? w - -- --- ----- ----- -- - --- -- --- 487 & V ? b b b b b 174 w ? tu, w ? cto ? ? ria w ? tu,in ? ritu, ? ? in ?w Spi ? ? ? in ? w glo ? b in ? ? glo w ? ri ? glo ? w ri ? ? glori ? ria w ? tu, ? ria w ? a w ? a, ? ? De ! . ? w De ! . ? ? inglo w i ? ? in ? ? ? ! . w ria ---- ---- - -- -- - ---- ------ ----- ------ & V ? b b b b b 2 2 2 2 2 180 ? ? Pa w glo w ? i Pa ? glori ? w De ? ? ? ? tris,in ? ? ? ? tris, ? w aDe ? ? i ? w glori w ? ria ? ? Dei ? w iPa ! . ? w aDe ?? De .? ? ? Pa ? ? tris, ? ? Pa w ? i Pa w iPa tris, ? ? in ? w tris, ? ? tris. w tris, ? ? in ? ? ? glo ? inglo --- -- - - --- --- - - - ---- -- --- - - ------- --- --- & V ? b b b b b 186 ! ! ? ? glo ? ? . j ? riaDe ! ? ? ? in ? ? ? ri ? ? ri ? ? iPa ? ? in ? ? ? ? ? ? aDe ? ? ? aDe ? ? tris, ? ? glo .? ? glo ? i ?? i ! ? ? ? ri ? ri ? ? Pa ? ? Patris, ! ? ? ? aDe ?? ? ? tris, ? ?? inglo ? ? ? inglo .? ? ? ? aDe ? ? ? inglori ? ? ria ? ? ? ? ?.? j aDe ? Dei ? . ? ria ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- - - -- - ----- ---- -- - -------- ---- 488 C & V ? b b b b b 194 ? ? i ? ? ? i ? ? i .? J ? Pa ? . ? j DeiPa .? ? Pa ? ? Pa ? ? ? Pa ? ? tris. ? ? ? ? ? tris. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? A ? ? ? A ? tris.A .? ? tris.A w men. w tris. ? ? ? ? men. ? w ? ? A w men. w men. w w men. w w w w -- ---- ---- ------- --- -- ----- ---- ----- --- --- ------ --- 489 & V ? b b b b b 2 2 2 2 2 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Bassus ! ! ! ! w Pa ! ! ! ! ? tremom ! ! w Pa ! ? . j ? nipo ! ! ? tremom ! ? ? ? ten w Pa ! ? . J ? nipo ! ? ? tem, ? tremom ! ? ? ! ? ? Pa w ni ! ? . J ? ten ? ? Pa w trem ? ? po ! ? ? tem, ? ? ? ? omni ---- --- --------- - --- - - -- -- ------ & V ? b b b b b 9 ? ? ten ! ? fa ? . ? ? . j ? po ? ? tem, ! ? ctorem ? ? trem ? ? ? . j ? omni w Pa ? . j ? ce ? .? j ? omni . J ? ? ? poten ? tremom ? ? li ? po ? ? ? ? ? ? . j ? nipo ? ? etter ? ? ? ? ? ? ten ? ? ? ten ? ? ? ? w tem, ? ? tem, ? ? re, ? tentem, w tem, w ? facto ? facto ? ?? facto w ---- ---------- -- -- ---- --- -- --------------- ---- ----------- --- --- - -- & V ? b b b b b 17 ! ? ? rumceli ?? remce ? ? rumce ! ! ? ? etter ? ? lietter ? ? liet ! ! ?? re, ? ? ? ? terre, ! ? facto ? ?? visi w re, ! ? facto ? ? remceli ?? bili ! ! ? ? remce ? ? etter ? ? umom ?? ? et ! ? ? liet ?? re, ?? ni ? ? terre, ! ? ? terre, ! (...) w um, .? visi .?? visi .? visi - --- - -- - - ---- - -- -- --- - -- --- ---- -- --- ---- -- 490 Credo & V ? b b b b b 25 ! ! ? ? biliumom ? ? biliumom ? ? bilium ! ! ?? ni ? ? ? ? om ! ! ? ? ? um, ? ? ? ni ? . ? ni ? ? et ?? ? et ? ? ? ? um, w um, .?? invi ? ? in .?? etin ? ? ? etin . ?? etin ? ? sibi ?? visibi ? ? visibili ?? visivili ? ? visibi ? ? li ? ? li ? ? ? ? um. ? ? li - ------ ------ - ---- ------- - ----- ------ ---- - ----- & V ? b b b b b 32 ? ? um. w um. w um. ? ? Etin w um. ? ? Etinu ! ! (...) ? ? unum ? ? ? ? ? ? Etinu ! ? ? ? Do ! (...) ? ? numDo ? ? ! . j ? ? minum, ! ? ? ? ? numDo ! ? ? ? Do ! ? ? mi ? ? ! ? ? ! ?? num ? minum ? ? Je ? minum ? ? Je -- - - ------ - - ---- ------- ---- ----- & V ? b b b b b 39 ? ? Je ? ? Je ? ? sum ? Jesum ? ? sum ? ? sum ? ? sum ? ? Chri ? Christum, ? ? Chri ? ? Chri ? ? Chri ? ? ? ? ? stum, ? ? ? stum,Fi ? ? ? stum,Fi ? ? stum, ! ! . ? j ? liumDe . ? j ? liumDe ! ! ! ? ? i ? ? i, ? ? . J ? Fili ? ? Filium ? ? Filium ! ? ? unige ?? ? umDe ? ? ? De ? ? De ? ? unige ? ? ni ? ? i ? ? i ? ? i - - -- - --- -- - - - - - - --- -- - - -- - - -- 491 & V ? b b b b b 47 ? ? ni ? ? ? tum,u ? ? . j ? uni ? ? ? uni ! ? ? ? tum,u ? ? nige ? . j ? ge ? ? ? ? ? u . ? j ? nige ? ? nitum. ? ? ? ? geni ? ? nige ? ? nitum. ?? ? Et ? nitum. ? tum. ? nitum. ? ?? Etex ? ? exPa ? ? ? ? w ? ? Pa ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? trena ? ? ? tre ?? Et ?? ? Et ! --------- --------- ---- --- ---- ---- - ---- ----- & V ? b b b b b 54 ?? tum ? natum ? exPa ? ? exPa ?? ? Et ?? ? an ! ? ? trena ? ? trena ? exPatrena ? teomnia ? ? anteom ? ? tum ? tumanteom ? ? tum ? ? secu ? ? ? nia ! ? ? niasecu ! ? ? la. ? ? ? ? anteom ? la,anteom ? ? anteom ! ! ? ? niasecu ? ? niasecu ? ? niasecu ?? ? De ?? ? De ? ? ? la.De w la. w la. ? ? umdeDe ? umdeDe ? ? umdeDe ! ! - - ---------- - - ----- - - -- ----- - -- -- - - - --- - - & V ? b b b b b 62 ? ? o, ? ? o, ? ? ? o,De ?? ? De ?? ? De ! ! ? ? umdeDe ? umdeDe ? ? umdeDe ? ? . j ? lumende ? ? . j ? lumende ? ? o, ? ? o, ? ? o, ? ? lumine, ? ? lumine, ?? ? lu ?? ? lu ! (...) ! ! . J ? mendelumi . j ? mendelumi ! ? ? ? Deum ? ? ? Deum ? ? ne, ? ? ne, ! ? ? verum ? ? verum ?? ? De ?? ? De ?? ? De ?? ? de ?? ? de ?? umverum ? ? umverum ? ? umverum - - - -- -- - - - -- -- - - -- -- --- -- -- - - -- 492 & V ? b b b b b 70 ? ? Deo ? ? Deo ! ! ! ? ? ve ? ? ve ! ?? ? de ! ? ? ro. ? ? ro. ? ? ? deDe ?? Deo ? ?? deDeo ! w ? ? ove ?? ve ? ? ve ! ! ? ro. ? ro.Ge ? ro. . ?? Geni ! ? ? Genitum, ? ? nitum,non .?? Geni ? ? tum,nonfa ? ? Ge ? ? ? nonfa ? ? factum, ? ? tum,nonfa w ctum, ? nitum, w ctum, ? ?? consub w ctum, - - -- - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - --- -- & V ? b b b b b 78 ! ? ? ? nonfa ?? consubstan ?? stantia ?? ? Ge ! ? ? ? ? tia ? ? lemPa ?? nitum,non ? ? consub ? ? ctum. ?? lem ? ? ? tri,con ? ? factum, ?? stantialem w Pa ? substanti ? ? consubstan ?? ? Pa ! (...) w ? ? alemPa ? ? tialemPa w tri: ? ?? perquemom w tri. ? ? ? tri:per w tri. ? ?? perquemom ? ? ni ! (...) ?? quemom ! (...) -- - ------ - ------ ----- -- - --- - ---- - - ------ ---- & V ? b b b b b 85 ? ? ? ni ? ? a ! ? . ? j ni ! ? ? a ? ? ? fa ! ? . ? j efa ! ?? fa ? ? cta ! ? ? ! ? ? ctasunt. ? ? sunt. ? ? Qui ? ? ctasunt. ! ? ? ! ?? propternos ? ?? Quipropter ?? Quipropter ! ! ? . j ? ho ? ? nosho ? ? nosho ?? ? Qui ! ? ? . j ? .? ? mi --- ---- - ----- - ----- - ---- ---- --- -- ----- 493 & V ? b b b b b 92 ? ? prop ! ? ? ? mi ? ? ? mi ? ? ? ? ter ? ? ? Quiprop ? ? nes, ? ? nes, ? ? nes, ? . J ? nosho ? ? ternosho ? ? ? ? ? etprop ?? ? et ?? mines, ? mines, ?? ? et ? ? terno ? ? propter ? ? ? etpropter ! ? ? propter ? ? stramsa ? ? nostram ? ? nostramsalu ! ? ? nostramsa ? ? ? lu ? ? sa ? ? ? temde ? ? de ? lutem w tem ? lutem - - - - ---- ---- - - -- --- - - ---- ---- ----- ---- - - -- - & V ? b b b b b 99 ? ? scenditde ? ? cendit ! ! ! . ? j ? ce ?. ? dece ! ! ! ? ? lis, ? lis, ? ? de ?? ? de ?? ? de ! ! ? ? scen ? ? scenditde ? b ? scenditde ! ! ?. j ? ditdece . j ?? ce . j ?? ce ! ! ?? lis,de ? ? lis, ? ? lis, ?? ? de ?? ? de ? ? ce ? ? ? descendit ? ? ? descendit ------- -- --- - -- -- ---- -- - ---- - -- ---- - & V ? b b b b b 106 ? ? scenditdece ? ? scenditde ?? ? lis, ?? ? de ? ? dece ? ? ?. j ? ce ? . ? j descen ? ? ce ? ? ?? lis, ?? lis, ? ? ? ? ? lis,de ? ? ? lis,de ? ? ? descendit ? ? ? descendit ? ? ? dit ? ? scendit ? ? ? ? decelis, ? ? dece ? ? de ? ? ? de ? ? scen ? ? descenditde ? ? ? . ? j ? ce ? ? celis, ? ? ditde . J ? ce w lis. ? ? ? lis,de ? . ? de .? j ? ce - -- - - -- ------ --- - ---- ----- --- - ----- -- --- --- - --- -- ---- 494 & V ? b b b b b 113 ? ? ? ? ? w ? ? ? ? ce ? ? ? ce ? ? ? w lis. w w lis. w lis. w lis. w w w w w -------- --------- --------- --------- & V ? b b b b b 116 w Et w Et w Et w Et w Et ? incar ? incar ? incar ? incar ? incar ? natus ? ? ? natus ? natus ? ? natus ? ? natus w est .? ? est w est w est w est ? ? de ? de ? ? de ? ? de ? ? de ? Spiri .? ? Spiri ? Spiri ? Spiri ? Spiri ? . j ? tuSan ? tuSan ? . J ? tuSan ? ? ? tuSan ? ? ? tuSan ? ? ? ? ? ? ? w cto w cto cto w cto w cto --- -- ---- --- -- ---- --- -- ---- --- -- ---- --- -- ---- & V ? b b b b b 125 ? ? ex ? ? ex ? ? ex ? ? ex ? ? ex ? Mari ? Mari ? Mari ? Mari ? Mari ? ? avir ?? a ? ? avir ?? avir ? ? a ? ? ? gi ? ? virgi ? ? gi ? ? gi ? ? virgi ? ? ? ne,ex ? ? ? ne,ex ? ? ? ne,ex ? ? ? ne,ex ? ? ? ne,ex ? Maria ? Maria ? Maria ? Maria ? Maria ? ? virgine,vir ?? vir ? ? virgi ? ? vir ? ? vir ? ? gi ?? ? gi ? ? ? ne:Et ? ? gi ? ? gi ---- -- - ----- ---- -- - -- --- -- - ----- -- - - - ---- --- -- - ---- 495 * * MunBS 6 features two tenor pitches at this point, the top a white semibreve, and the bottom a black semibreve. & V ? b b b b b 133 ? ? ? ne:Et w ne: ? homo w ne: ? ? ? ne:Et ? homo ? ? Et ? ? ethomo ?? ? Et ? homofactus ? ? factusest, ? homo ? . J ? factusest, ? homofactus ? ? est,et ? ? ? fa ? ? factusest, w ? ? ? est,et ? ? homofactus ? . ? tusest,fac ? ? ? etho ? ? ? ethomo ? ? homofactus ? ? est,et ? . ? ? ? mofa ? . J ? factusest. ? ? ? est,et ? ? homofactus ? tus ? ? ctusest. w ? homofactus ? est, ? ? ? est,et w U ? ? ? est,et ? ? ? et -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- - - - ---- - - - - & V ? b b b b b 141 ?? ?? homofactus w ?? . ? j ? homofactus ?? .? j ? homofactus w est. w w est. est. w w w - --- - --- - - & V ? b b b b b 144 ?? Cruci ! ! ! ! ? . j ? fixuse ? ? Cru ! ! ! ? ? ti ? ? cifi ! ! ! . J ? am ? .? j xuse ! ! ! ? ? pro ? ? ? tiampro ! ! ! . ? j ? no . J ? no ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ------- ------- --- -- ------- 496 & V ? b b b b b 152 w bis: ? ? ? bis:sub ! ! ! ? ?? subPonti ?? PontioPi ! ! ! ?? oPila ? ? la ! ! ! .? ? ? . ? ! ! ! ? ? to, ? to, ! ! ! ? ?? subPonti ? ? sub ! ! ! ? ? ? oPi ? ? Pontio ! ! ! ? ? lato ? ? Pila ! ! ! ------- -- -- -------- -- -- & V ? b b b b b 160 ? ? ? pas ? ? ? topa ! ! ! ? ? ? sus ? ? ? sus ! ! ! ? ? ? etse ? ? et ! ! ! . ?? pul ? . ? sepul ! ! ! ? ? tusest. ? ? tusest. ! ! ! w w ! ! ! w w ! ! ! ------- ---- --- - - & V ? b b b b b 167 ! ! ! ? ? Etresur ! ! ! ! ? rexit ? ? Etresur ! ! ? ? Etresur ? ? tertia ? rexit ! ! ? rexit ? . j ? die, ? ? ? tertia ! ! ?? tertia ?? ? die, ! ! ? ? ? ? di ? ? ? secun ? secun ! ! w e, ? ? dumScrip ?? dum ! ! w ? turas, ? ? ? Scrip --- - - -- -- --- - --- --- --- ---- - 497 & V ? b b b b b 175 ! ! w ? ? ? se ? turas, ! ! ? ? secundum ? cun ? ? secundum ! ! ? . j ? Scriptu ? ? ? dumScrip ? . j ? Scrip ! ! ?? ras. ? ? tu ? turas. ! ! ? ? ? ? ras.Et ? ? ? Eta ! ! ? ? Etascen ? ? ? a ? ? scen ! ! ? ? ? ? scen ? ? dit ! ! ? ? ? ?? ? ? ince --- ---- ------- -- -- ------ - -- ---- ---- - & V ? b b b b b 183 ! ! .? J ? dit . ? j ? ? ? ? lum,in ! ! ? ? in ? ? ditin ? celum, ! ! ? ? ? ce ? ? ce ? ? ? ince ! ! . J ? ? ? ? ? lum:se w lum, ! ! w lum: .?? detad ? ? sedetad ! ! w ? dexteram ?. j ? dexte ! ! ?? se ? ? ? Pa ? ? ramPa ! ! ? ? detad w tris, w tris, --- - - -- - -- ----- - - - - -- - & V ? b b b b b 191 ! ! ? ? dexteramPa ? ? ? ? ? sedetad ! ! ? ? ? tris, ?? ? sedetad ? ? dexteram, ! ! ? ? ? sedetad ? ? dexteram ? ? ? ad ! ! ? ? dexte ? ? Patris. ? ? dexteramPa ! ! ? ? ramPatris. ? ? ? Etite w tris. ! ! ? ? . j ? rumventuras ? ? ? Etite ! ! ?? ? Etite ? ? ? estcum ? ? rumventuras - -- - --- -- - - --- -- - -- - - --- 498 & V ? b b b b b 198 ! ! .? J ? rumventuras ? ? gloria, ? ? ? estcum ! ! ? ? ? estcum ? ? . j ? iudica . j ?? gloria, ! ! . J ?? gloria, ? ? ? revi ? ? iudica ! ! ? ? ? iudica . j ? voset ? ? revi ! ! ? ? revi . ? j ? mor .? ? vos ! ! ? ? voset ? tuos: ? etmor ! ! ? ? mortu ? ? ? cuius ? tuos: ! ! ? ? os: ? regni ? ? ? cuius - --- - --- - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - & V ? b b b b b 206 ! ! ?? ? cuius ? ? none ? regni ! ! ? regni ? ? ? rit ? ? none ! ! ?? none ? finis, ? ritfi ! ! ? ritfi ?? ? cuius ? ? ? nis,cu ! ! ? ? ? nis,cu ? ? re ? ? iusre ! ! ? ? iusre ? ? gninone ? ? ? gninon ! ! ? ? ? gninon ? ? ? ? erit ! ! ? ? eritfi ? ? ritfi ? fi - - - -- --- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - & V ? b b b b b 214 ! ! ? ? ? ? nis. ? ? nis. ? ? nis. ! ! w w w ! ! w U w w ----- ----- ----- 499 & V ? b b b b b 217 ! ! ! . ?? Etin ? ? Et ! ! ! ? Spiri ?? inSpi ? ? Et ! ! ? ? tumSan ? ritum ?? inSpi ! ! ? ? ctum,Do . ? j ? San ? ritum . ?? Etin ? ? Et ? minum, ? ctum, ? ?? Sanctum, ? Spiri ?? inSpi ! .?? Domi ? Domi ? tum ? ? ritum ! ? ? num, ? ? ? ?? Sanctum . ? J ? San ! ! -- - -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- ------ -- - & V ? b b b b b 225 ? ? num, ? ? Domi ? ? ctum,Do ? ? etvivi ? ? etvivi ! . j ? num. ? ? mi ? ? fi ? ? fi ? etvi ?? ? ? ? num,et ? cantem: ? cantem: ? ? vifican ! (...) . ? ? vi ! ! ?? tem:quiex ! ? ? vificantem: ! ! ? ? Pa ! ? ? quiexPa ? ? ? quiex ! ? ? tre ? . ? j Quiex ? ? tre ? ? Patre ? .? J quiex ------ - -- - - ----- - ----- --- - ----- & V ? b b b b b 232 ! ? ? ? Pa ! ? ? Fili ?? Patre ? . ? j Fili ? ? tre ? ? Filio ? oque ? Fili ? . j ? oquepro ? ? ? Filio .? ? que ? ? ? pro ? ? ? oque ? ? ? ce ? ? queproce ? proce ? ? ce ? ? proce w dit. ? dit. w dit. ? ? dit.Qui w dit. ? ? Qui ? Quicum ! ? ? cumPa ? ? ? cumPa ? Patre ? Quicum ? ? tre,qui ? ? Qui ? ? tre ! ? ? Patre ? ? cumPa ? ? cumPa --- ----- - - -- -- - - --- -- - --- -- - - ---- - 500 * * The tenor is erroneously marked bassus in MunBS 6. & V ? b b b b b 240 ? etFi ? ? et ! ? ? tre ? ? tre ? lio ? Fi ? etFi ? et ? et ! ? li ? ? li ?? Fili ? Fili ?? ? si ? ? ? osi ?? o ? ? o ? mulado ? mulado ! ? ? o ! ? ? ratur, ? ? ratur, ? ? ? simul ? ? ? simul ? ? si ?? ? et ! ? adora ? adora ? ? muladora ?? conglori .? j ? etconglori ? ? tur, ? ? tur, ? ? tur, ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- -- ---- -- ---- ---- -- & V ? b b b b b 248 ? ? ficatur: ? ? ficatur: ? ? ? etcon ? ? ? etcon ? . ? J etcon ! ! ? glorifica ? glorifica ?b ? florifica ! ! ? ? tur: ? ? tur: ? ? tur: ? ? ? quilo .?? quilo .?? quilo .?? quilo .?? quilo ? cutusestper ? cutusestper ? cutusestper ? cutusestper ? ? cutusest ? ? Prophe ? ? ? Prophe ?? Prophe ? ? Prophe ? ? perProphe ? tas. ?? tas,perPro .? J ? tas,per ? ? tas,per ? . ? tas,per ! ? ? phe ? ? Pro ? ? Pro ? ? Pro ---- -- -- - ---- -- -- --- ---- -- -- - - -- -- - -- -------- & V ? b b b b b 256 ? ? Et ? ? ? tas. ? ? phetas. ? ? ? ? phe .? J ? unamsan w ? ? .? j ? ? ? tas. ? ? ? ctamca ? ? Et ! ? ? phe ! . J ? ? tho .? J ? unamsan ! ? ? tas. ! ? ? li .? J ? ctamca ! ? ? Et ! ? ? cam . J ? ? tho ! .? J ? unamsan ! ! ? ? li ? ? Et ? ? ? ! ------- - - --- - --- - - ------ - - - ------ 501 & V ? b b b b b 263 ! ? ? cam .? J ? unamsan .? J ? ctamcatho ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? li ? ? Etunam ! ! . J ? ? ctamcatho ? ? cam .? j ? sanctamca ! ? ? et ?? li ?? ? et ? ? ? tholi ? ? etapo ?? apostoli ? ? cam ? apostoli ? ? cam ? ? stolicamEc ? ? camEc ! (...) ? ? camEc ! ? . j ? clesi ? ? clesi ! ?? clesi ! --- --- --- - --- --- - - --- --- --- --- --- & V ? b b b b b 270 w am. ? ? ? am.Con ? Confi w am. ? eta ! (...) ? ? fite ? ? teoru ! (...) ? ? posto ! ? ? oru ? ? numbap ! ? ? licam ! .? ? num ? ? tis ! . ? ?b Ec ! ? ? bap ? ? ? ma ? .? j in ? ? clesi .? ? Inre . ? j ? tis ? ? ? ? ? remis ? ? am.(...) ? ? missio ? ? ? ma ? ? in ? ? sio ! ---- --- - ---- ---- ----- --- --- - ------- & V ? b b b b b 277 ? ? nem ? inre ? . ? remis ? ? nem ?? in ! ? ? missi ? ? ? sio ! ? ? remissi ? ? ? pec ? onem ? ? nem ? pecca ? onem ? ? ca ! ! ? ? ! ? torum. .? ? pecca .? ? pec ? torum. ? ? pec ! ? ? ? cato ! ? ? ca ? ? Etex ? ? torum. ? ? rum. ? ? Et ? ? torum. ? . j ? pectore ? ? (...) ? ? ?? expec ? ? ------ -- ----- ---- ---- --- ----- ---- ------ ----- 502 & V ? b b b b b 285 ? ? surrexi ! ? ? Etexpec ? ? ? ? Etex ? ? onem ? ? Re ?? to, ? ? ? tore ? pecto ? ?? surre w ? sur ? ? ? re ! ? ? xi ? ? ? et .? ? rexi ? ? surre ?? ? mor ? ? o ? ? expec ? onem ?? xio ? ? tu w nem, to ? ? mor ? ? ? nemmor ? ? ? o ! ? ? re ? tuo ? ? tuo w rum. .?? resur ? ? surrexi ? ? ? rum,re ? . ? rum,resur ! ? ? rexio ?? onem ? . j sur ? ? rexi -- ------ --- -- -- -- ---- -- ----- ------- ---- ----- ------- ----- & V ? b b b b b 294 ! . ? j ? nemmor .? ? mortu ? ? ? rexi .? J ? onemmor ? ? Et ? ? ? tuo ?? orum, ? ? onem ? ? tuorum. .? j ? vi ? ? rum. ? ? resurre ? mortu ! ? ? tamven ! ? xionem ? ? o ! ? ? ? tu ! ? ? mortuo ? ? tum:Et ?? ? Et ? ? ri, ? ? Etvi ? ? rum. ? ? vitam ? vitam ! ? ? tamven ! . ? j ? ventu ?b ? ven ? ? ? etvi ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? tu --- --- - ---- --- ---- -- --- - ---- - -- - --- - --- & V ? b b b b b 302 ?? tamventu ? ? tu ?? ? Et ?? rise ? ? ri,etvitam ? ? rise ? ? ? rise . J ? ? vitam ? ? culi, ? ? venturi ? ? culi, ? ? culi, ? ? . J ? ventu ? ? secu ? ? seculi, ?? secu ? ? secu ? ? ? rise ? li,se ? ? secu ? ? li. ? ? ? li,se . J ? cu ? .? J culi. ? ? li,se ? ? ? A ? culi. ? li, ? ? A ? ? culi. w men. .? ? A .? J ? A w men. ? ? ? A w ? ? ? ? w ? ? -- -- -- --- - -- ---- ---- - --- -- -- --- -- -- -- - --- -- -- ------- 503 & V ? b b b b b 310 w ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? w ? ? ? w w men. w men. w w men. w w w w w -------- --------- --------- 504 & V ? b b b b b 2 2 2 2 2 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Bassus ! ! ! ! w San ! ! ! ! ? ctus,San ! ! w San ! ? ? ? ! ! ? ctus,San ! ? ? w San ! ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ctus,San ! ? ? ! ? ctus, ? ? ? ! ? ? w San ! ? ? cuts, ! ? ? ? ctus,San ? ? San ! w San ?? cuts,San .? ? . ? ? - ---------- - - --------- --- - - --- --- ---- & V ? b b b b b 10 ?? ? San ? ? ctus,San ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? j ctus,San .? ? ? ? ? ctus,San ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ctus w ctus w ctus ? ctusDo w ctus .?? Domi ! ! ? ? mi . ?? Domi ? nus ! ! ? ? b ? ? ? ? De ! ? ? Do ? ? ? ? nusDe w us, .?? Domi ? ? mi .?? nusDe w us, -------- -- -------- ----- - - ---- -- --- --- -------- - ------ ---- - & V ? b b b b b 18 ?? ? Do ?? ? ? ?? ! ? ? mi ? ? nus ? ? nus ? ? ? ? Do .? ? nus ? Deus, ? . J ? De ? ? us, ? mi ? De ?? ? Do ?? us ? ? Do ? ?.? j usSa ?.? j mi ? ?? Sa ? .? j ? ? ? nusDe ? ? ? ba ? ? ? nus ? baoth, ?? mi ? ? ? ? oth, ? . J ? De ? ? . J ? Do ? nus, ? us, ! ? ? ? ? ? ? Domi ! ---- --- -- ---- ------ ----- ---- - - - ----- ----- -------- -- ---- --- ---- 505 Sanctus * * The two notes between the asteriks were added by a proofreader's hand to MunBS 6 as corrections, on f. 76v. They are a minim E and a semibreve F in MunBS 6. * & V ? b b b b b 26 ?? ? Do ? ? ? ? . J ? ?? nus ! ? ? ? ? us, ? minus, ? De ?? Do .? minus ? ? Do ? Do ? ? usSa ? ? mi ?? Deus ? . j ? minusDe ?? minus . j ? ? ba w nus ? ? Sa ? ? us, ? ? Deus, ? ? oth, ? ? Deus ?? baoth, ? ? ? Dominus ? ? De ? ? Saba ? Sa ! ? ? ? De ? ? ? ?? oth, ?? ba ? ? Sa w us us ? ? Sa ? ? ? oth,Sa ---- -- - ---- -- - ---- - ---- ----- -- - -- - ---- ---- - ---- - ---- - & V ? b b b b b 34 ? ? ? ba ? ? Sa ? ?? Saba ? ? ba ? ? ? w oth. .? J ? ? ba ? ? oth. w oth. ? . ? ? ba w ? ? ? ? ? w ? ? w w oth. w w w oth. w w w w w -- -------------- ---------- ----- ----- & V ? b b b b b 39 ! ! ! ?? Plenisunt ! ? ? Plenisunt ! ! ? ? ? ce ! ? ? ? ce ! ! ? ? li, ! . j ? ! ! ?? suntce ! ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ! ? ? li, ?? Plenisunt ! ? ? ? li,ple ! ? .? j ? Ple ? ? ? ce ! ? ? ni ! . j ? ni . j ? ! ? ? ? suntce ! - ----- - ---- ---- - - - -------- --- 506 & V ? b b b b b 47 ? sunt ? ? ? ! ? ! ? . j ? ce ? ? ! ? ! ? ? . j ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? ! ?? ! ? ? ? liet w li ! .? j ? li ! ? terreglo ? ? ? et ! ? ? etterre ! ? ? ?? terreglo ! ? ? glo ! ? . ? j ri ? ? ri ! ?b ? ria ! --------- ----- ---------- ----- -------- ------- & V ? b b b b b 55 ? ? atu ? ? ? atu ! ? tua, ! ? ? ? a,et ? ? a, ! ? ? ? etterre ! ? ? terreglo ? ? ? etterre ! ? ? glo ! ? ? ? ? glo ! ?? ! ?? ? ? ! ? ? ! ? ? ri ? ? fia ! ? ? ! ? ? ? ? tua, ! ? ria ! .? J ? ? ? ? glo ! ? ? ? tu ! - -------- - - - - ----------- -- - --------------- & V ? b b b b b 63 ? ? a ? ? ria ! ? ? ! ? ? tu ? ? ? tu ! ? ? a, ! ? ? a,et ? ? ? a,et ! ? ? etter ! ? ? ter ? ter ! ? ? re ! ?? ? . j ? re ! ? ? ? glo ! ? ? re ? ? ? glo ! ? ? ria ! ? ? ? glo ? ? ti ! ? ? ? tu ! ? re ? ? ! ? a, ! ? ? ? a . j ? a ! ? ? ? glori ! - - --- ----- ---- -- -- --- -- -- - ------- ---- 507 & V ? b b b b b 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 72 ? ? ? tu .? J ? ? tu ! ? ? ? a tu ! w a. w a. ! w a. ! w w ! w ! --- ---- ---- & V ? b b b b b 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 75 ! . ! . ! . w? Osan ! . ! . ? w O ! . w na, ! . ! . ? ? san ! . w ? O ? ? O ! . ? na, ! . ? ? ? ? san ! . .? ? w? Osan w ? w ? na, ? w O ? w O ? na, ? .? ? ? ? ? ? san ? ? w ? O ? ? san ? ? O --- - - - --- ----- ----- -- ------------- ---- & V ? b b b b b 82 ? w ? ? san ? w san ? w ? w san ?? w ? ? ? w ? w w ? ? ? ? w ? ? ? ? w ? na, . w na, ? na, w ? na, w ? na, ! . ! . w ? Osan w? Osan w? Osan ! . ! . . ?? . ?? . ?? ! . ! . w? na . ? ? w ? --------- ------- --------- -------- - -------- --------- -------- --------- 508 & V ? b b b b b 89 ! . ! . ? w in w ? ? w . ? ? ? O w ? Osan w ? excel .w ? ?b na w ? sanna .? ? ? ? w ? w in . ? ? ? in ? in ? nain ? ? sis, .w ? excel ? w excel w ? excel ! . ? w excel ? w sis, ? ? ? sis,O w ? sis, ? . ? Osan w ? sis, ? .? Osan ? ? ? san .? ? O ? w na ? .? ? O ? ? - -- --- - - ------ ----- -- --- ------- -- - ---- -- ---- & V ? b b b b b 96 ?? na ?. ? ! . ? ? ?? na ? ? inex w ? san ! . ? w san ? w . ? ? cel w ? na ? inex w ? na, w? inex . w sis, ? inex w? w? Osan w? cel ! . w ? cel w w? nain . ? ? . ? ? ? O . ? ? . w cel w? excel . w sis, .? ?? san w ? sis, ? sis, .? ?? ! . --------- -- ------- --- --- - --- --- -- ----- ---- ------ & V ? b b b b b 103 ? ? na w? Osan .? ? Osan w ? sis,O ? ? Osan w ? inex w ? nain ? na ? ? san w ? . ? ? cel . ? ? ex w? inex .? ? nain . ? ? w? sis, ? ? w? celsis. ? w ex ? w ? w w ? cel ? w ? w cel ? w w ? .w sis. .w w ? sis, w ? na w ? inex .w .w w ? inex w ? inex -- - -------------- - -- --------- ---- ------ - - - 509 & V ? b b b b b 2 2 2 2 2 110 ? w cel .w .w ? w cel ? w cel .w sis. .w .w . w sis. .w sis.---------- ---------- ---------- & V ? b b b b b 2 2 2 2 2 112 ! ! ! w Be ! ! ! ! ? ne ! ! ! ! ? ? ? dic w Be ! ! ! ? ? ? ne ! ! w Be ? . ? ? dic ! ! ? ni ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ? . J ? dic . J ? ? tus ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? qui ! ! w tus . ? j ? .? j ? ve ! ! ? ? . J quive ? ? tus ? . j - ----- - - ------ ---- ----------------- & V ? b b b b b 122 ! ! ? ? ? w ? ? ? ! ! ? nit, ? ? . J quive ? ! ! ?? ? qui ? ? ? ?? ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ve ? ? ? ? nit, ! ! w nit, ? ? ? ? ? ? qui ! ! w ? nit, ? ? ve ! ! ? ? qui ? ? ? qui ? ? ! ! ?? ve ? ? ve ? ? ! ! ? nit ? ? nit ? ? nitin --- - - --------- ------ ---------- --- 510 & V ? b b b b b 132 ! ! ! ? ? innomi ? ? nomine ! ! ? ? innomi ? ? ? ne ? Domi ! ! ? neDo ? . j ? Domi ? ? ? ni,in ! ! ? ? mini, ? ? ? ? nomine ! ! ? ? innomi ? ? ? Domi ! ! ? ? neDo . j ? ? ? ni ! ! ? mini, ? ? ? ni,in ? ? innomi ! ! ?? ? in ? nomineDo ? neDo ! ! ? nomineDo ?? mini, ? mini, -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- --------- - -- & V ? b b b b b 141 ! ! ? ? ? mi ? ? innomine ? ? ? innomi ! ! ? ? ? ni,in ? ? ? Do ? ? neDo ! ! ? ? nomine ? ? mini, ? ? mini, ! ! ? ? Do ? ? ? innomi ? ? innomi ! ! ? ? ? mi ? ? neDomi ? ? neDomi ! ! w ni. w ni. w ni. ! ! w w w -- - -- ----- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- 511 & V ? b b b b b 2 2 2 2 2 ! ! ! ! w A ! ! ! ! ? gnus ! ! w A ! ? . j ? De ! ! ? gnus ! ? ? ! w A ? . J ? De ! . J ? ! ? gnus ? ! ? ? ! .? ? De . J ? w? 3 Agnus ? ? ? i,A ! ? ? ? . j ? ? w 3 Dei, ? . ? J gnusDe -- --------- - - --- ----- - --------- - - & V ? b b b b b 9 w A ?? ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? gnus ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ? .? ? De w i, ? ? ? i,qui w? 3 Agnus ? ? ? i,qui ? ! ? ? tol ? ? 3 De ? tol . ? ? ! . ? . ? ? 3 . ? ? ? i, ? ? qui ? ? w ? 3 ? ? ?? quitol .?? tollis w lis .w 3 i, w lis ? lispecca ? peccata ? ? pec ! ! ------ ------ - -------- ------ - -- --- -------- --- ------ ------ & V ? b b b b b 17 ? ? tamun ? ? ? mun ? ? cata ! ! w di, w di, .? J ? mun ? quitol ? . ? J pecca ! ! ? ? ? lispec ? ? ! ! ? . j ? ? ? ? ? ? ? qui ? quitol ? ? ? ? ? ta .? J ? tol ? ? w di, .? cata ? .? ? mun ? ? ? lis,qui ? ? ? ?? quitol ?. j ? mun ? ? di,mun ? tol ? ? ? ? lispec ? ? ?? --- -------- - - - ------ ---- - -------- - - --- -- -------- - --- 512 Agnus Dei * [Canon] * A missing canon in MunBS 6 should read "Noctem verterunt in diem: et rursum post tenebras spero lucem," a text from Job 17:12. From this point to the end of the Agnus Dei, all black notes are transcribed as white notes, and white notes are transcribed as if they were black in the tenor. This canon is present in MunBS 5, another source of this mass. For a more detailed description of this canon, see Chapter 4, pp. 32-33. & V ? b b b b b 25 w ? ? lis ? .? j ? ? di: ? . ? J di,pec w ! ? ? cata w ? 3 mi ? ? w lis, . ? ? pec ? mun . ? ? 3 se ? ca ? ? ? pec ? ca ? ? di: .? ? 3 re ? tamun ? cata ? ? ! . ? ? 3 ? ? ? ? mun ? ? ta ! w ? 3 re ? ? w di: .? mun ? ? mi . ? no w di: ! ? di: ? ? ?? ? mi ! ? ? mi ? se ? ? ? ? ? se ------ ---- - ----- ------ -- ------ - - ----- -- - ----- ----- -- & V ? b b b b b 34 ! ? ? sere .? J ? re w bis, ? ? re ? ? mi ? ? ? ? ! ? ? reno ? se w re ? . ? j reno ?? 3 misere ? ? bis,mi ? ? ? ? . ? j ? w ? 3 re ?? sere ? ? ? re ! ? ? . ? 3 no ? reno ? ? re ? ? no ? ? ? bis,mi . ? ? 3 .? j ? .? ? no .? ? . J ? ? se ? ? bis,mi .? ? ? ? bis, ? ? ? bis,mi ? re ? ? sere ? ---- ------ ---- -- ----- --- ---- ---- - ---------- - ---- --- -------- & V ? b b b b b 42 . ?? mise . ?? se w re ? w ? ? re .? ? re ? no .? ? re ? bis,mi ? ? re ? ? ? bis, ? no ? se ? ? no w re . ? ? mi w w re w bis. ? .? J no .? sere w bis. ? reno w ? ? ? ? w ? ? w ? ? ? bis,no ? . ? J reno w . J ? w ? ? ?? w ?? w w bis. w bis. w w bis. --- ----- --- --- ---- ------- ---- --- --- - -- --- -------- 513 514 APPENDIX II.6: Missa Miserere mihi Domine, MunBS 6 & & V V ? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Superius 1 Superius 2 Superius 3 Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus 1 Bassus 2 ? ? Ky ! ?? Kyrie ! w MI ! w Ky ! ? . J ? rie ?? Kyrie ? ? ! w ! w ri ! ? ? e ? ? e ? . ? ? e ! w SE ! ? ? e ! ? ? le ? ? ? ? ? le ! w RE ! ? ? e ! . ? ? y . j ? . j ? ley ? ? y ? ? Ky w RE ! w ley ! w son, w son, w son, ? rie w ! w ! .? J ? Kyrie . ?? Kyri w ? ? ! ! .?? son, w MI ? ? e ? ? e w ?? ! w Ky ? ? Ky w SE ? ley ? ? ele ! ? ? ! w ri ri w RE w ? ? y ? ? Ky ?? ele ! w ? ? ee w RE w son, w son, ? ? ? w ! w e ley w ----------- --------- -- -------- ---------- -- ------ - ---- -- --------- ---- -- ----- -------- ------ -------- ---- --- & & V V ? 12 ! ? ? ? eley ? .? w y w MI w w son, ! ! ? ? ? son,Ky ? ? e,e w wb HI w w ! ! w ?? w w w e ?? Ky ! ! ? ri ? ley w son, w DO ? le w ri ! w Ky ? ? e, w w MI ? ? y w ! w ? ? ? Ky w son, w w son, w e w MI w .? ? ri ! ! w NE, w wb HI w ri ?? e w Ky ! ! ? ? Kyri ? ? e w w w e ? rie . ? J ? Kyrie ! .?? ee ? le w DO .? j ? e w w e ? ? e ? ? DO ? ? leyson, ? ? w MI ? ? ? e . ? ? ley ? le ? w MI w Ky . ? ? w I ? ? I ley ? ? son. ? ? y ?? ley w w .? ? y w --- ------ ------ --- ---------- ------------ ----- --- ------- ------- ------- --- -------- ---- -------- -------- -- ------ -------- -- -- ----- ------ ------------ & & V V ? 24 w son. w son. w son. w NE. ? ? ? ? rie e w son. w NE. w w w w ? ? ley w w w w w w w son. w w w w w w w w w --- ----------- 515 Kyrie & & V V ? 28 . ? ? Cri .? ? Cri ! ! ! ! w Cri ! ? ? ? ? ste ! .? ? Cri ! ! w ! ? ? ste ? e ! ? ! ? Cri ? stee ! ! ? ? ! ? ? ste ! ? ? ? ! w e w ley ! ? ? e ! ? ? w ! w w son, ! .? ? ! ? ste .? ? w ET ? ? ley w .?? Cri ? ? ! ? ? w w EX w son, w ? . J ? ? ! ? e ? w AU ! w .? ? ste ? ? ley w ET w ? ? ley w .? J ? Cri ! ? .? J ele ? ? son, w EX ? ? w son, w DI .? J ? ! ? .? J ! w AU ?? ! ! .?? ! ? ? y ! w ? ? ley ! ! ------- -------- ----- ------- -------- --- -------- ----- ------- ------ ----------- ------- ------------ ----- ---------------- & & V V ? 40 w ste ! ? son, ! w DI ? ? son, ! ! ! .? J ? Criste w Cri .? j ? Cri ! ! ! ! ! .? J ? e ? ? ste .? j ? ! ! ! ! ! .? ? ley .? ? e .? ? ste ! ! ! ! ?? e w son, .? J ? .? ? e ! .? ? Cri .? ? Cri w O ? ? ? I w ? ? ley ? ? ! ? ? ? ? w RA . j ? w Cri ? ? son, ?? le ! w ste ste w .?? le w ? Cri w y w O .? ? e .? ? e w TI . j ? ? y w ste w ste ? ? son, w RA ? ? le ? ? w ? ? son,Cri w ! ?? Criste, w TI w .? j ? ley w O w w ! ? ? w w .? ? son, w ? w ! w w O w Cri w - --------- -------------------- ------------- ------ - ----- ----- ---------------- - ----- ------------ - --------------------- ----- ------- - & & V V ? 52 w ste w w e ? .? J ? Cri w .? J ? y w ste w NEM w w w ?? ste w NEM ?? son, w w ? ?? e .? J ? e w ley ? ? e w ME ? ? Cri . ? ? e w ME ? ? ? ? ? ley w w w ? ? . ? ley w . ? ? w son. son. ? ? w AM. ?? ste w son. w AM. ? ? w ?? w . ? ? e w w ? ? w .? ? w ? ? w w . ? ? w ?. j ? w ? ? le w w ? ley w . ? ? ley w ? .? J y w w w son. w w son. w son. w w w w w w w w --- ------ ------ -------------------- ------ ------------ --- ------------------ --- ----- ----------- ----- 516 & & V V ? 63 w Ky w Ky Ky ! w MI ! w Ky w Ky w ri ? ? ri w ri ! w SE ! .? J ? rie ? ? ri .? J ? e ? ? e ? ? e ! w RE ! ? ? e ? ? w e .? ? e w Ky w RE w Ky w ley .? ? w le w ri w ? ri w w ? ? .? j ? ? ? ? e w e ! . ? j ? ee ? ? son, ? ? e ? ? lei ? ? i ? ? w e ! ? ? lei ! ! w son, son, .?? ley w w MI w son, Ky w e w ! ? ? ? son,e w wb HI w w w ! ! ?? ley w ley w ? ? Ky ? ri w ! ? ? Ky w son, w Do ? ? e, ? ley ! .? J ? ? ri ! ? ? son, ? ? MI ? ? e ? ? Ky ? ? ------- -- ---- ----------- ------------- ----- ---------- ---- --------- ---- ---- ------- --- ---- ------------- ---- ---- ----- -- -------- ------- --- & & V V ? 75 w Ky ? I ? ? I w Ky w ? ? e ? ? rie w son, ? ri .? ? ee ? . ? J rie ? ? ? Ky w NE, w ? .? j ele ? . ? j Kyri ? ? ? ? le ? . ? J e ? ? rie w . ? j ? le ? .? j ? . ? j ? ? ? ? ? . ? J ? ? e w . ? j ? ? .? j ? . ? j ? ? e ?? ison, ? ? ley ? ? ley w . ? j ? ? ? ? ? e ? .? J ? e ? ? ? Ky w son, w son, ! ? ?? ? ? ?? ? e .? J ? ? ? w w ! . j ? ? .? J ? ? ? .? J ? ? ? w w ! . j ? ? .? J ? ? ? .? J ? lei .? ? ri w w ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ley ? ? son, ? ? ? I w w ?? ORA ? ? i ?? yson, w son, --- -- ---------- ------------ ------------- ---------- --- --------- -------------- ---- -------- -- ---- ---------------------------- - ------------------------- & & V V ? 85 . ? J .? ? Ky ? .? j ee w w w TI w son, w .? j .? j Ky . J ? . ? .? j .?? ? ? Ky ! w ? ? Ky ? ? Ky .? ? ? ? . j ? ? w ri w Ky w O ? ? ? ?? rie .?? ri w ri ? .? J le w ? ? ri w ? ? rie ? ? e ? ? e ? ? e ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? NEM ? ? ? ? ley ? ? e w e ? I ? ? I i w e e w w e .? ? son, w . ? ? w son, . ? ? e w w ME ? . ? le w e w ? ? lei ? . ? j elei ? ? ley ? ? ? eley ? ? AM. ? i ? ? ley ? ? ley w son. w son. w son. w son. w w son. w son. w son. w w w w w w w w ------------- --- ------------ ------------ ------------- -------- ----------------- -- ---------- ------ --------- -- ------ --------- ------------ ------ 517 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Tenor 3 Bassus 1 Bassus 2 ! . . ?? Etinterra ! . ! . ?? ? ? Etinterra . ? ? Etinterra ! . ! . . ?? Etinterra ? ? paxhomini ! . ! . ? ? paxhominibua ? ? ? paxhominibus ! . ! . ? ? paxhomi . ? J ?. ? ! . ! . ? . J ? ? bonevo ??? bone w? homini ! . ? . ? J ? nibus.bo ? ?? busbone ! . ! . ? ? lun ? ? ?? volun ? ?? busbone ! . ? ? . ? nevo ? ? ? volun ! . ! . ?? tatis. ? ? tatis. ? ? vo ! . . ? J ? ? lunta ? ? ? ? I ta . w MI ! . ! . ? ? ? ? Laudamus w? lunta ! . ?? ? tis.Laudamus ? ? ? tis.Laudamus . w SE . w MI ??? Laudamuste. ? ?? te,Laudamus ? ? ? tis.Laudamus ? ? ? Laudamuste. ? ? ? te.Benedi ? ? ? te.Benedi .w RE . w ? ? ? Benedicimus ? ? ? te.Benedi ? ? ? te.Benedi ??? Benedici - -------- - ----- - -- - -- - - - -- - -- --- - ---- -- - -- - -- - ------- - -- - --- - -- - - - - -- - -- --------- ------ & V V ? 9 ? . ? ? cimus ? ? ? cimuste. . w RE . w SE ? te. ? ? ? cimuste. ? ? ? cimuste. ? muste. ? . ? ? te.Ado ! . .w .w RE ? .??? Ado .? J ? ? Adora ! . ? ? ? ? Ado ? ? ? ? I ramus ? ? ? Ado ! . .w . J ? ? ramus ??? ! . . ? J ? ? ramus . w te. ?? ? ? ramuste. . w MI . w RE . w te. ? ? muste. ? ?? . j ? Glorifica ? ? ?? te.Glorifi ! . ? ? . w .w ? ? Glori ! . . ? ? ? mus . ?b ? i ca ! . ! . . w HI .w ? ? ? ricamus ! . ?w te. ? . ? ? mus ? .?? Grati ? . ?? Grati .w . w MI ?.? te.Grati ? . ?? Grati ?. ? Grati ?.? te.Grati ?b . ? asagi ? . b? asagi . w DO . wb HI ? .? asagi ? . ? asagi ? . ? asagi ? . ? asagi - --- -- -- --- --- -- -- - -------- -- -- ---- ---- -- -- ---- -------- -- -- - ------- -- -- -------- --- ----------- --- & V V ? 17 ? ?b mustibi ?b . ? i j ? musti . w . w ? ? mustibi ? .? j ? musti ? . ? J ? musti ? . ?b j ? musti ? ? ? ? proptermag ? ? ? ? bipropter ? ? MINE, .w ?? ? ? propter ? ? bipropter ? ?? ? bipropter ? ?? ? bipropter ?? ?? namglo ? ?? magnam ? DOMINE, . w DO ? ?? ? magnamglo . ? j ? ?? magnamglo ? ?? ? magnamglo ? ? ? ? magnamglo ? ? ri ? ?? ? gloriamtu ? ? ? gloriamtu . w ? ? riamtuam, . j ? ? riamtuam ? ? riamtuam. ? ? riamtuam, .? ? ? am w ? am, ? am, .w MI ! . ? ? glo ?? glori . ? ? ? glori ? w tuam, . ? ? ? glori ? ? . J ? ? gloriam . w ? . ?? ? glori ? ? ? ? riamtu ?? amtu ?? amtu ?? ? glo .? ? ? am .? ? ? tu . w ? ? amtu ? ?? am, .? ? ? am,glo .? ? ? am,glo ?? riamtu ? . j ?? ? I tu ? ?? am. .w ? ?? ? am.Do ? ? ? ? tu ? ? ? riamtu ?? riamtu --- - - - - ----- ---- - - - ---- - -- - --- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- --- - --- - - - - - - -- - ----- - --- -- - --- ---- - -- - - -- --- -------------------- 518 Gloria * * Labelled Secundus puer in MunBS 6 & V V ? 25 ?? ?? am.Domine w ? ? am.Do ! . . w NE, ? . j ?? mineDeus, ? ? . j ? am.DomineDe . w am. . w am. . j ?? ? ? Deus,Rex ? . j ?? mineDeus, .? J ? . ? DomineDe . w ? ?? . J ? DomineDe w ? us, ! . w ? ? ? ? cele ? ? ? ? Rexcele ? ? ? ? us,Rexcele ! . ?? ? us,Rexcele ! . ! . ! . ??? stis,De ? ? ? stis,De ? stis,DeusPa ! . ?? stis,DeusPa ?? DeusPa ?w Deus ?? DeusPa ? usPater .? J ? usPateromnipo ? ? ter .w ET ? ? ? teromnipo ? ? teromnipo .? ? Pateromni . ? J ? ? teromnipo .? J .? J ? omnipo ? . j ?? tens.DomineFili, . J .? J .? J DomineFi .w EX ?. J ? ? tens.DomineFili ? . j ? ? tens.DomineFili ? ? ? potens.Do ? ? .? J ? tens.Domine ? ? ? ? tens.Domi ?? ? ? Domine ? . J ? ?? liunigeni .w ?? ?? unigeni ? ? . ? j ? unigenite, ? ? ? mineFi ? ? .? ? Filiu ? ? ? neFi ? ? Fi ? ? te, .w AU ? ? te, .? ? ? uni ? ? li ? ? ? nigeni --- -- ------- - -- --- ---- - - --- -- - - ---- -- - -- --- - -- ----- ---- - - -- --- ---- - - - - ----- --- -- -- - - -- --- ---- ----------- & V V ? 33 ??? ? liuni ? ? ? ? liuni ?? ? ? unigeni . w . ? J ? ? Filiu ? ? ? genite ? ?? ? unige ? ? ? ? te,uni ?? genite ? ? I ? genite ? ? ? ? teJhesu . w ? ? nigenite ? ? ? Jhesu ? w nite ? genite ? w Je ? .? ? Je ? ? Christe, .w DI ? . ? J ? Jhe ? ? Christe. ? w Jhe ?w Jhe ? w suChri ? w suChri ? Chri ? ?? ORA ? ? ? I ? I suChri ? ? ? Domi ? w suChri ? w suChri ? ? ste.Dominus ? ? ? ste.Dominus ? ?? ? ste.Do . w TI ? ? ? ste.Dominus ? ?? nusDe ? ? ? ste.DominusDe ? ? ? ste.Dominus ?? ? ? Deus,A ? ? ? ? Deus,A ? ? minusDeus, . w ?? Deus,A ?? ? us,A ? ? ? us,A ? ? ? ? Deus,A ?? gnusDei, ?? gnusDei, ? ? ? ? AgnusDe . w ? gnusDe . ? j ? ? gnusDe ? ? gnusDe ? ? ? gnus ! . ? ? ? ? FiliusPa ? ? ? ? i,Fili .w . ? J ? ? ? ? ?? i, ??? i,Fi ? ? ? ? De ---- --- -- - - - - --- ---- --- -- --- --- ---- --- - - - --- - - --- --- - - - - ------ ---- --- -- - - - --- -- - - -- --- ---- - --- - - -- --- - - -- ------- ---------------- & V V ? C C C C C C C C 41 ?? ? FiliusPa ??? tris,FiliusPa ? ?? us, . w O ? ? ?? i,Filius ! . ? ? ? liusPatris, ? ? ? ? i,Fi ? ? ?? tris,Filius ? ? ?? tris,Filius ?? FiliusPa .w ? Patris, ?? ?? Filius ? ? ? FiliusPa ? ? ? liusPatris, ? ??? Patris,Fi . J ? ? ? Patris, ?? ?? tris,Filius . w NEM ? ? ?? Filius ? ?? Patris, ? ? ? ? tris,Fi ? ?? Filius ? . J ? ? liusPatris, ? ?? ? FiliusPa ? ?? ? Patris,Fi . w ME ? Patris, ?? ?? Filius ?? ? liusPatris, . w Pa ? ??? FiliusPa ? ? ? ? I ? ? ? liusPa .w ?? ?? Filius . ? ? ? Pa ? ? ? ? FiliusPa . w . w tris. . w tris. . tris. . w AM. . ? ?? Patris. . w tris. . w tris. . w tris. . w . w . . w . w . w . w . w -- - -- --- -- ------ -- - -- - --- -- - -- ----- --- -- - -- --- -- - -- - ---- - -- --------- -- - -- ----- -- - -- - -- --- -------- --------- 519 & V V ? C C C C C C C C 48 w Qui ! w Qui w MI Qui w Qui w Qui ! ? tollis w Qui . ? ? tol w ? tollis ? tollis w tol ! ? pecca ? tollis ? lispec w SE ? pecca w pec ? lispec w Qui w ta ? pecca ? ca w ? tamun ? cata w ca ? tollis ? . ? i mun w ta w ta w RE di, ? mun ? ta ? pecca ? ? ? I ? ? mun ? mun w ? ? mun ? di, ? mun ? tamun ? ?? di,mi ?? ? di,mi w di, w RE di, ??? mi w di, w di, ?? sere ?? sere ! w ?? sere ! w ? reno ? reno ! w ! w re ! ! ? ? ? ? ! w ! ? ? ? no ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ! w ! ? ? ! ! w bis. w bis. ?? misere ! . ?? mise w bis. ? ? misere ? ? misere ! ! ? ? reno ! ? rere ! ? ? re ? ? reno - -- - --- ------ ---- ---- --- ------ - -- - -- - -- - - --- - -- - -- - - -- -- --- ----- - -- - --- ------------- & V V ? 61 ! ! ? ? ! ?? nobis. ! ? ? no ? I ? ? ?? Quitol ?? Quitollis w bis. ! ? ? Quitollis ? ? Quitollis w bis. bis. ?? lispecca ? ? peccata ! (...) ! ? ? peccatamun ? ? peccata ! (...) ! (..) ?? tamun ?? mun ! ! ? I ? I ? ? mun ! ! ? di, ? di, ! ! ? di, ? di, ! ! . ?? susci . ?? susci . ?? susci ! .?? susci . ?? susci . ?? susci . ?? susci ? pede ? pede ? pede ! ? pede ? pede ? pede ? pede ?? precati ?? precati ?? precati ! ?? precati ?? precati ?? precati ?? precati ? onem ? onem ? onem w MI ? onem ? . ? J o ? onem ? onem ? ? ? ? ? no ? ? w HI ? ? no ? ? ? nemno ?? no w no w no I ? ? I ? ? no w ? ? ? ? w ? ? ? stram.Qui . ? j ? stram.Quise ? . J ? ! w stram. ? ? stram. ??? stram.Qui ? ? ? stram.Qui -- - -- ---- ---- - --- - -- ---- --- -- -- ---- ---- - -- --- -- ---- ---- --- -- ---- ----- --- -- -- ------ --- --- -- ---- ---- --- & V V ? 73 ? ? sedesaddex ? ? desaddex ? stram. ! ?? ? Qui ! (...) ? ? sedes ? ? sedes ? I ? teram ? ? teram ! (...) ! ? ? sedes ! ? ? addex ? addex ? . J ? Pa ! ?? ? Pa ? DOMI ? addex ! ? ? teram ? ? teram . j ? I w Pa w ? ? ? teram ? Pa ? Pa ? Pa w tris, ?? ? tris,mi w tris, ? ? NE, ? ? Patris, w tris, w tris, w tris, ? ? mise ? sere ! (...) ! ! (...) ! (...) ! (...) ! (...) ? . J ? rere ? . j ? reno ! ! ! ! ! ! ? nobis. ? I ? bis. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! . ?? Quoni w ET ! .? ? Quoni . ?? Quoni . ?? Quoni ! ! ? ? amtu w EX ! ? ? ? amtu ? ? ? amtu ? ? ? amtu ! ! ?? solussan w AU ! ?? solus ? ? solus ? ? solussan ! ! w ctus, w ! ? ? sanctus.Tuso . ? J ? sanctus. ??? ctus.Tu - -- --- --- - - -- ---- --- - - --- --- -- -- - - -- - - -- --- -- --- - --- -- -- - - - --- -- -- ----- -------- 520 & V V ? 85 ! ! w w DI ! ? ? lusDomi ?? Tusolus ? ? solusDomi ? ? Tusolus ? ? Tusolus ! (...) w ! ? nus. ? Dominus. ? nus. ? ? Altis ? . ? Altis ! ! ! ? ? ! (...) ! (...) ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? Tuso ? ? (...) ! ! ? ? ? I si ? ? si ! ! ? lusAltissi ! ! ! ? ? mus, ? ? mus, ! ! ? ? mus, ! ! ! w Jhe w Jhe . ? ? Jhe w O Jhe w Jhe w Jhe w Jhe w su w su ? su w RA su ? w su w su w Chri w ? ? w ? .? ? su ? Chri w Chri w ste. ? ? Chri ? Chri w . ? ? Chri ? Chri w w w . ? ? . ? J ? w TI ste. ? ? ?? ste.CumSancto ?? ste.Cum ! (...) w ste. ste. w ? ?? CumSancto ? ? ste. ? ? Spiritu, ? ? SanctoSpiri --------- - ---- - ------ - - - - - ---- -- --- - - - --- - ---- -- ---- ---- ---- --- ----- ------------ & V V ? 97 ! ! ?? ? Cum w O ? ? Spiritu, ? ? ? CumSancto ?? ? ? tuinglori ?? inglo ? ? ? CumSancto ? ? SanctoSpiri w NEM ? ? ? ? Spiritu, ?? inglori ? ? aDe ? ? ria ? ? Spiritu, ? ? tu, w ? ?? inglori ? ? in ?? aDe w i w De ? ? in ? ?? inglori w ? ? I aDeiPa ? ? ? gloria ?? i Pa w ?? i . ? J ? gloriaDe w a w tris. ?? Dei ? ? ? ? Pa ? ? ? Pa ?? i ! w ME ? ? Pa ? ? tris. w tris. ? I ? ? I tris.A ? ? Patris. ?? Dei w ? ? A ?? tris.A w A w A w men. . ? ? A ?? Patris.A w AM. men. w men. w men. w men. w w men. w men. w w w w w w w w w w w - -- --- - --- -- --- - -- -- - ------ --- -- ---- - --- - --- --- - -- -- - --- - --- -- - -- --- ------ 521 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Tenor 3 Bassus 1 Bassus 2 . w Pa .? ? ? Patrem . ? ? ? Patrem ! . ! . .? j ?? Pa ! . (...) . ? j ? ? Patrem . w ? ?? omnipo ?? ? omni ! . ! . ? w tremom ! . ? .? J ? omnipoten . w trem ? ? ? ? tentem, .? ? ? poten ! . ! . ? ? ? nipoten ! . ? ? ? tem,fac .w om ??? factorem ? ? ?. J ? tem,factorem ! . ! . ? ? ? ? tem,facto ! . ? ? ? toremce . w ni . ? j ? ? ? celiet ? ? ? celi, ! . ! . ? ? ? ? ! . ? ? ? ? lietter w? poten ? w terra. ? celiet ! . ! . ? ? ? remce ! . . w ra. ? ? ? tem,(...)vi ? . J ? ? visi ?? terra. ! . . w MI ? ? lietter ? ? Visibi ? ? Visibi--- ---- -- - - --- ---- ------ ------- --- -- - - ----- - - - - - ------ -- -- - --- --- --- -------- -------- -- - & V V ? 8 ? . ? ? sibili ? ? bili ?? visibi ! . . w ? ? ? ra, ? ? liumom . ? ?? lium ? .?? umomni .? j ? ? ? umom ? .? j ? liumom ! . . w SE ? . ? J ? visibili ? ??? nium,et ? w omni . ? ? J ? . j ? . j ? ? ni ? ? ? ? ni ! . . w ? ? ? umomnium, ? ? ? invisibili ? ? ? um,et ?? ? um,etinvisi ? ? . ? j um,etinvisi ? ?? um,etinvisi . w MI . RE ? ? ? ? etin ? ? ?? um.Etin ? ? ? invisibi ?? ? ? bilium.Et ? ? ? bilium. . J .? J bilium.Et . w ? ? ? RE ? ? ? visibilium. ? .? J ? unumDominum ? ? ? lium. ? ?? inunumDomi ? ??? Etinunum ? ?? inunumDomi . w SE ! . ? ? . ? j Et .? J ? ? Jhe ? .? J ? Etinu ?! num ? ? ? Dominum ? ? ? numJhe . w ! . ? ?? inunumDomi ?? ? ??? numDominum ---------------- - ----- ------- - -- -- ------ ----- --- ---- ----- ------ -- -- - --- ----- ----- -- ---- -- -- ----- --- -------- ----------------- --- ------ ----- --- & V V ? 15 ? w Jhesum ? w Jhesum ? . ? J ? sumChri .w RE ? MI ? ? ? ? numJhesum ? w sum ? . ? ? JhesumChri ? ?? ? Christum,Fi ? ? ? ? Christum,Fi ? I ? ?? stum,Fili ? ? RE . w ? ? Christum,Fi ? ? Christum,Fi w? stum, ?? ? liumDei ?? ? liumDei ? ? ? umDeiu ! . . w HI ??? liumDei ?? ? liumDei ! . (...) . ??? unigeni ! . (...) ? ?? ? nigeni ! . . w ? . ? ? unigeni ? ? ? unigeni ! . ? ? ?? tum.EtexPa ? ??? EtexPatrena ? ! tum. ? w MI . ??? tum.EtexPatrena ? ?? tum.(...) ? ??? EtexPatrena ? ? ? ? trenatuman ? ? ?? tumanteom ? ??? anteomnia . w . ? ? ?? tumanteom ? ??? anteomnia ? ? ?? tumanteom ?? . J ?b teomniasecu ? . ?b ? niasecu ?w secula. . wb HI ! . b ? . j ?? niasecula. ? ? ? secula. ? ? ? niasecula. ----- ------- - - -- ----- - - --- ---- -- ----- ---- -- ------- -- -- - - --- -- --- -- -- - --- ---- -- -- ------- - - --- ----- -- ----- 522 Credo & V V ? 22 w i ? la. ? ? ? ? la.Deumde . w . w ! . ? ? ? ? De ? ? . b j ? ? DeumdeDe ?? . j ? ?b Deum ? ? ?? DeumdeDe ??? Deo.Lu ? ? ? ? DeumdeDe .w ! . ? ? ? umdeDeo.Lumen ? ? ? o.Lumende ? ?? deDeo.Lumen ??? ? o.Lumendelu ? ? ? mendelumi ? ? ? o.Lumende .w ! . ? ? ? delumi ? ? ? lumine. ? ? ? delumine.Deum ? ? ? ? mi . w ne. ? ? ? ? lumi ! . . w DO i ?? ? ? ne.De . w . ve ? ?? ne.Deumve ? ? ? . j ? Deumve ? ? ? ? ne.Deum ! . .w MI . ? ? ? umve ? ?? Deumve ? ? ?? rum,Deumve ???? rumdeDeo ? ? ?? rumdeDe ? ? ?? verumdeDeo ! . . w ? ? ?? rumdeDe ?? ?? rumdeDeo ? ??? rumdeDeo .w ve ? . ? ove ?? vero, ! . .w ?? ove ?? vero. ? ? vero.- -- -------- -- -- ---- -- ----- - - - -- - - - ----- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - --------------- - - - ------ - ---- & V V ? 29 . w ro. . w ro. ?? ? deDeove . w DO . NE, ? ?? ro.Genitum, ? ?? Genitum,non ? ? ? Genitumnon ! . ! . . w ro. .w MI . ? . ? ? nonfa ? w factum, ? . ? ? factum, .?? ? Genitum, . ? ? ? Genitum,non ? ?? Genitum,non . w ! . ? ??? ctum,consubstanti ???? consubstantia .? J ? ? consubstantia ? w nonfa . J ? ? ? I fa ? ? fa .w ! . ? ? alem, ? w lemPa ? w lemPa ?? ?? ctum,consubstan w ? ? ctum,con . ctum, . w NE, ! . ? ??? consubstantia . w tri: . tri: ? ? ? tialemPa ?? ? substantialem ??? ? con . w ! . ? ? ? lemPatri: . w . ? ? .? J ? tri:perquem ?? ? Patri:per ?? ? substantialem ! . .w ET ? ?? perquemom ! . ! . ---------------- - -- ---- --- - ---- ----- ---- - -- - -- --- ---- -- --- ----- - -- - ---- --- -- - --- - - & V V ? 36 ? ? ? ? om ? ? ? ? quemomniafa ? ? ? Patri: ! . .w EX ? ? ? ? niafa ! . ! . ? ? ? ? niafacta ? ? ? cta ? ??? perquemomni ! . .w AU ? ? ? cta ! . ! . ? ! sunt. ? ! sunt. ? ? ? a ! . . w ? ! sunt. . ? ? ? perquemomni . ? ? ? perquemomni ! . ! . w ? facta .w ET . ! . . ? ? ? afacta . ? ? ? afacta ! ? Quiprop !? ? Qui ? ? ?? sunt.Quipropter .w EX ? ! DI ? ?? Quipropternos ? ? ?? sunt.Quipropter ? ? ?? sunt.Quipropter ??? ternoshomines, ?? ? propternoshomines, ? ? ? noshomines, .w AU ! . ??? homines, ? ?? ? noshomines, ?? ? noshomines, ? ? ?? etpropternostram ? ? ? ? etpropternostram ? ? ? ? etpropterno . w ! . ? ? ? ? etpropternostram ? ? ? ? etpropterno ? ? ? etpropterno ------------ -- - - -- -- ------- - -- -- - -- - - -- -- -- ---- --- -- -- - - -- -- --------------- ----- - --- -- 523 & V V ? 43 ?? salutem ? ? ? ? salutem ? ? stramsalutem . w ! . ? ? salutem ? ? stramsalutem ? ? stramsalutem ? ? ? ? de ? ??? etpropternostram ? ?? ? descen ? ! DI ? w O ? ?? ? descendit ??? ? descendit ??? ? descendit ? ? ? ? scendit ?? ? salutemde ? . ? ? ditde ! . . w RA ? ? decelis, ? ? ? dece ? ? ?? decelis, ? ? ? dece ? ? ? scenditdece ?? ? ! . ? ? ? TI ?? ? ? descendit ? ? ? ?? ? ? de ? . ? J ? ? ? . ? J lis,dece ? ? ? celis, ! . ? w O ? w dece ? ? w ? ? ? . j ? lis,dece ? ? ? ? lis,de ? ? . J ? ? de ? w O ? NEM ?! lis, w ? lis, ? w scendit, ? ? ? lis,de . j ? ? ? scendit ? .? J scen . w RA ? ! . ! ? de w? de ---- ------- -- -- - ------- - -- -- -- -- --- -- ----- - -------- -- --- ---- --- --- -- -- -- ----------- - --------------- -- ------- ----- --- - & V V ? C C C C C C C C 50 ? ? ? scendit ? ? ? ? dece ? ! dit ? ? ? TIO ! ? ME ? ? ?? descenditde ? ? ? scen ? ? ? scen w ? descel ? w ? w de ? w NEMME w? ? ?? celis, ? ? ? dit ? ? ? dit ? . J ? . ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ce . w AM. .? ? ? w ? dece w? dece w ? dece . w lis. . w lis. . w lis. . w . AM. . w lis. . w lis. . w lis. . w . w . w . w . . w . w . w ------ ---- ------- ------- -- - --- ------- ----------------- -------- --- --------------- -- - --------- & V V ? C C C C C C C C 55 w Et w Et w Et ! w Et w Et w Et Et ? incar ? incar ? incar ! ? incar ? incar ? incar ? incar ? ? natus ? ? natus ? ? natus w MI ? ? natus ? ? natus ? ? natus ? ? natus w est w est w est w SE est w est w est est ? ? de ? ? de ? ? de w RE ! ? ? de ? ? de ? ? de ? Spiri ? Spiri . ? J ? Spiritu w RE ! ? Spiri ? Spiri ? Spiri ? tuSan ? tuSan ! w de ? tuSan ? tuSan ? tuSan w cto ? ? cto,deSpiri w San w MI .? J ? Spiritu ? ? cto ?? ? ctoex ? ? ? ctoex ? ?? exMari ? ? ? tuSan . ?? ctoex w HI ? ? ? ?? exMari ? ? Maria ? Maria ? ? a w ? ? Ma w ? .? J San ? ? ? aVir ? ? Vir ? ? Vir ? ? ? ? ctoex ? ? ri w DO ?? cto ? ? gine: ? ? gi ? ? gine: ? ? ? ? Ma ? ? a w MI ? ? . J ? exMa ? ? Et ? ? ? ? Et --- - --- ---- --- -- - - -- --- -- - -- -- --- - --- ------- --- -- - ------- - --- -- - - ------ --- - ---- - --- -- - -- 524 & V V ? 67 ? ? Vir . ? j ? ri ? ? ? ir w ? ? riaVir ? ? ? ? ? ? homo w gi w a ? ? gi w ? ? gi w ho w ?? factus ? ne:Et ? Virgi w w NE, ne, w mo w ne: est, .? ? ho .? ? ne, ? ne:Et w ET ! ! ! ! ? ? mo ? ? Ma ? homo w EX ! ! ? .? ? Etho ? .? ? Etho ? fa ? ria ! w AU ! ? ? fa ? mofa ? mofa w ctus ? ? Virgi . ?? factus w . ?? Virgi ? ? ctus w ctus . ? j ? ctusest, ? ? est, ? ? ne: ? ? est, w DI ? ? ne: ? ? est, ?? est, ?? w Et w Et Et w O Et w et w Et w Et w w w RA w ho ho w w ho w i .? J . ? J ho w ?b ? ho w w mo ho w mo w ho ? mo w TI ? mo w mo w fa ? mo ----- -------- ------- - - -- - --- --- - ----- ------- - - ---- --- -- -- -- - ------ -- - - - ----- -- ---- ---- --- - --- & V V ? 79 ? ? fa w mo ? ?? fa w O fa ! w w fa w ctus .? j ? ? i fa w ctus w ? ? fa w ctus w ctus w est. ? ? ? I ctus w w NEM ctus ? ? ? ctus w ? ? w w est. est. w ME w est. w est. w est. est. w w w AM. w w w w w w w w w ----------- ---- ----- --------- --- ------- ------ ----------- -- & V V ? 85 ! ! ! ! ? Cruci ! ! ? ? Cru ! ! ! ! ? fixus ? ? Cru ? Cruci ? cifi ! ! ! ! ? ? etiam ? cifi ? fixus ? ? ? xuse ! ! ! ! ? prono ? ? ? xuse ? ?? etiam ? ? tiampro ! ! ! ! ? ? bis, ? ? tiampro ? prono ? nobis: ! ! ! ! ? eti ? nobis, ? ? ? bis:sub ? ? ? sub ! ! ! ! ? ? amprono ? ? e ? ? Pon ? ? Pon ! ! ! ! ?? ? bis:sub ?? tiampro ? . ? ti ? ? ti ! ! ! ! ? Ponti ? nobis: ? ? oPi ? oPi ! ! ! ! ? ? o ? ? ? subPonti ? ? ? la ? ? la ! ! ! ! ?? Pila ? ? ? ?? to,sub ! ! ! ! ? ? ? oPila ? ? to, ? . J ? Pon--- ---- --------- -- --- ---- -- - ---- -- --- - -- ----------- --- - -- ----- ---- ----- 525 & V V ? 97 ! ! ! ! ? ? to, ? ? ? ! ? ? ti ! ! ! ! ? ? ? sub ? ? ? ? ? Pila ? ? o ! ! ! ! ? ? Pontio ? ? ? to,sub ? ? to ?? ? Pi ! ! ! ! ? ? Pila ? ? Pon ! ? ? la ! ! ! ! ? ? to ? ? tioPi ? ? ? pas ? ? topas ! ! ! ! ! ? ? lato ? ? sus, ? ? sus, ! ! ! ! . ? J ? passus,etse ! ? ? et ? ? etse ! ! ! ! ? ? pultuset, ? . ? J passus, ? ? se ? ? pul ! ! ! ! ? ?? passus, ? ? etsepultus ? ? ? pul ? ? tus ! ! ! ! ? ? etsepultus ? ? ? est,pas ? ? tus ?? ? est,pas ! ! ! ! ?? ? est,pas ?? sus,etse ? ? est, ? ? sus,etse--- -------- ----- - - ----- ---- - -- - - -- ---- ------- -- ---- - -- - -- - & V V ? 108 ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? pultusest, ?? ? pas ? ? pultusest, ! ! ! ! ? ? sus,et ? ? ? pas ? ? sus,etse ! ! ! ! ! . ? j ? ? se ? ? sus, w pul ? ?? passus, ! ! ! ! ?? pul ?. ? j ? etse ? . ? j ? ? ? ? etse ! ! ! ! ? ? tus ? ? I pultus ? ? tus ? . J ? pul ! ! ! ! w est. w est. w est. ? . j ? tus ! ! ! ! w w w est. ! ! ! ! w w w - - --------- - ----- ---- - ----------- ---- ---------- & V V ? 116 ?? Etresur ! ?? Etresur ! ! ! ! ! ? ? re ? ? Et ? ? re ! ! ! ! ! ?? ? ? resurre ? ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ? ? xittertia ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ? . ? j di ? ? xitter ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ? . j ? ? . j ? tia ? ? ? xitter ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? e,se . ? j ? di ? ? ti ! ! ! ! ! ? .? cun ? ? e, ?? ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? secun ? ? tia ! ! ! ! ! . ? j ? dumScrip . ? ? .? ? di ! ! ! ! ! ------------ -------- --- ------- -- ----- ------ --------- ----- ------- - 526 & V V ? 126 ? ? turas, ?? dumScrip ? .?? ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? secundum ? ? tu ? ? ! ! ! ! ! . j ? ? Scrip ? ? ? ras,se ? ? e,se ! ! ! ! ! ? ? turas, ? . j ? cundumScrip ? .? J cun ! ! ! ! ! ?? ? secundum ? ? tu ? ? dum ! ! ! ! ! . J ? ? Scrip ? ?? ras,se ? ? Scrip ! ! ! ! ! ? ? tu ? . J ? cundumScrip ? ? turas, ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ras.Et ? ? ? ? ? se ! ! ! ! ! . ? ? ascen ? ? turas. ? ? cun ! ! ! ! ! ? ? dit ? ? ? Etascen .? ? dumScrip ! ! ! ! ! ------ - --- ---- ---- - -- --- -- ---- -- ----- -- - -- ---- -- ----- ---- & V V ? 136 ? ? ince ? ? dit ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? in ? ? turas. ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? I ? ? ce ? ? ? Eta ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? lum,in ? ? . ? j ? scen ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ce ?? lum, ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ince ? ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ? .? j ? ? ? . ? ? ditin ! ! ! ! ! ? lum: ? ? ? ce ! ! ! ! ! ?? ? sedet .? j ? . ? J ? ! ! ! ! ! ? ? addex ? ?? lum:se ? ? ! ! ! ! ! . J ? teram ? ? det ? ? lum: ! ! ! ! ! ---- -------- ------- --- - ------ ---------- - ------- --------- - -- & V V ? 147 ? ? . j ? Pa ? .? J addexte ? .? j se ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ramPa ? ? ? detad ! ! ! ! ! .? J ? . j ? . j ? dexte ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? tris,Pa ? .? J ? ? ? ramPa ! ! ! ! ! ? ? tris, ? ? tris, ? ? tris, ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? sedet ? ? ? Pa ? ? se ! ! ! ! ! ?. ? addexte ? ? ? tris,se ? detad ! ! ! ! ! ? ? I ? ? detaddex ? ? dexte ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ramPa . ? ? te ? ? ramPa ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? I ? ram ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? I ? ? ? Pa ? ? ! ! ! ! ! - -- - -- ------- -- ------- - - ----- - ------- - - ----- ------ 527 & V V ? 158 w tris. w tris. w tris. ! ! ! ! ! w w w ! ! ! ! ! & V V ? 160 ?? Etite ?? Etite ! ! ! ! ! ?? Etite ? ? rum ? ? rumven ! ! ! ! ! ? ? rumventu ? ? ven ? ? tu ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? turasest ? I . ? j ? ? Et ! ! ?? Et ? ? Et ? ? rasest ?? ? ? ras iterum ! ! ? ? iterum ? ? iterum ! ! ? ? ? estcum ? . ? ventu ! ! ? ? ventu ?. J ? venturas ! ?? ? cum ? ? gloria, ? ? ? ras ! ! ? ? ras ? ? estcumglori ! ? ? gloria, ? ?? iudica ? ? ? estcum w MI ! ? ? ? estcum ? ? a, ? ? cumglori ? ?? iudi ?? re ?? gloria, w SE MI . J ? ? gloria, ?? iudica ??? a,iu ? ? care ? ?? vivoset ?? iu w RE SE ? ? ? iudi ??? revi ?? dica ! ? mor ? dica w RE RE ? care ? voset w re --------- -- ----- -- --- - ---- -- --- - ----- -- --- -- -------- -- -- - - - -- -- --- - -- ---- -- --- & V V ? 171 ! .? ? w re w RE ? ? vivos . ? j ? mor ! (...) ? ? vi w ? ? vi ! w ?? et ? ? tu ! . ? ? vos . ? ? ? ? vos ! ! . ? ? mor ? ? os: ! ?? etmortu ? ? I tu ?? ? et ! ! ? ? tu ??? cu ?? et ? ? ? os:cu ? ? os: ?? ? mortu ! ! ? ? os: ? ? iusre ? ? mortuos: . j ? ? iusre ? ? cu ? ? os:cuiusre w MI ! ?? ? cu ??? gninon ? .? J cuiusre ? ? ? gninon ?? iusregninon ? ? gni w HI w MI . j ? ? iusregni ? ? erit, ? ? ? gninon ? ? erit ? ? eritfi ? .? J non w HI ? ? ? nonerit ? ?? nonerit ? ? eritfi ?? finis. ? ? ? nis,non .? J ? e ! w ? ? finis.Et ?? finis.Et ? ? ? nis.Et ! ? . J ? erit ?? rit ! ! ? ? inSpiri ? ? inSpiri ? ? inSpiri --- -- - - --- -- - ----- - - - - -- - ------ --- ------------ - - -- - ----- - - - -- -- - -- - - - - 528 & V V ? 181 ? ? Etin ? ? finis. ? ? finis. ! ! ?? tumSan ? ? ? tumSan ? ? ? tumSan ? ? ? Spiritum ? ? Et ! (...) ! ! ? ?? ctum,Domi ? ? ctum,Domi ? ? ctum,Do ? Sanctum, w in ! w DO ! ? ? ? num,et ? num,et ? minum, ! (...) ? ? Spiri ! w MI DO ? ? vifican w vi ? ? etvi ! ? ? tumSan ! w MI w tem: ? ? vifi ? ? vifi ! ? I ctum, ! w ? ? qui w can w cantem: ? ? ? etvi ?? Dominum, ! w NE, .?? exPa w tem: ? ? ? ? fi ? . J ? etvivifi ? ? qui ! w NE, ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? cantem: ? ? ex ! ! ? ? tre, ! ! ? can ! (...) w Pa w ET ! ? quiex w qui w qui w tem: ! .? J ? w EX w ET w Pa ex ? exPa - ------- - -- ---- - - -- --- ----- - - ---- - -- - - --- - -- ------ ------- -- - ------- - & V V ? 192 w qui ! ? ? tre w AU EX . ? ? tre ?? Patre .? ? tre ? . ? exPa ! ? ?? Fili w AU ?? Filio ? ?? Filio ?? Filio ? treFi ! ? o w DI ? quepro ? quepro ? quepro ? ? ! ? ? quepro ! w DI ?? ce .? J ? ce .? J ? ce ? ? lioque ? ? pro ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .? j ? proce ? ? ce w ce w O ! ? ? dit.Qui w w dit. ? ? ? dit.Qui ? ? ? dit.Qui w dit. w RA O ? cumPa w dit. ? Quicum ?? cumPa ? . J ? cumPatreet ! (...) w RA ?? treet w ?? Patre .? ? treet . ?? Fili ! w TI TI w Fi ! (...) ? et ? ? Fili w o ! w O ? ? lio ! ?? Fili .? j ? o ? ? si ? ? simul w O ?? simul ??? simul w o ----- --------------- --- ------- -- -- --- ------- - --- - -- ------ ------- - ---- - -- - - --- --------- - -------- -------------- - ------ -- - -- & V V ? 203 ? ? ? simula ? ? mula ? ? ado w NEM ? ? ado .?? ado ? ? simul ? . j ? dora ? ? dora ? ? ra w ME NEM w ra w ra ?? adora ??? tur, et ? ? tur,et ? ? tur, et w AM. ME ? ? tur, ? ? ? tur, et ? ? ? tur,et ? ? conglori ?? conglori ? ? conglori ! w AM. ! ? ? conglori ?? conglorifi ? ? ? ? ? I ? ? fica ! ! ? ? ? etcon ? ? ficatur: ? ? ca ? ? ? fi ? ? fi w tur: ! ! . ? ? glori ?? ? ? tur: ? ? ca ? ? ! ! ! ? ? fi ! ! ? I ? tur: ? ? catur: ? ? qui, ! ! ? ? catur: ! ! ? ? qui ? ? qui ? ? qui ! ! ??? qui ? ? qui ? ? qui ?? locu ? ? locu ? ? locu ! ! ? ? locu ? ? locu ? ? locu ?? tusest ? ? tusest ? . ? J tus ! ! ? ? ? ? tusest ? ? tusest --- - --- -- -- -- ----- ------- ----- ----- ----- ---- - ----- ------------ --- ----- ----- -- --- --- - --- ------------- -- 529 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 214 w ? ? ? ? est ! ! ? . J ? tusest w ?? ? per ? ? ? perPro ? I . J ? perPro ! ! ? ? perPro ? per ? Pro ? perPro w . ? J ? ! ! ? ? ? ? w w phe w phe ? ? I phe ! ! ? ? phe ? ? Prophe ? ? phe ? ? tas. ?? tas. ? ? tas. ! ! ? ? tas. ? ? tas. ? ? tas. w? Etu ?? Etunam ?? Etunam . w MI ! ?? Etunam w? Etu ? Etu w? namsan w ? sanctam ? .? san . w SE . MI w? sanctam ? namsan w ? namsan w? ctamca ? ? catholi . w ctam .w RE . SE ! . (...) w ? ctam w ? ctam w ? tholi . w cam ! . . w RE . RE ! . w ? catho ? ? catho w ? camet ! . ?? catholi .w . RE ! . w? licam w ? licam --------- ------- - - --- ------ - - ---- - - --- --- ---- - - - --- -- - - --- --- - - - - --- & V V ? 224 w? apo ?? etapo w? camet ! . .w ?? etapo w? eta ? eta w ? stoli ? stoli w? apo ! . ! . w? stoli ? posto ? ? posto w ? camEc w? camEc w? stoli . w MI ! . . w cam w? li ? li w? clesi w? clesi . cam . w HI . w MI w ? Ec ? camEc w? camEc ? ? ? am.Con ? ? ? am.Con ! . (...) .w . HI w? clesi ?? clesi w? clesi .? ? ? fiteor .? ? ? fiteor .? ? ? Eccle ! . .w .w am. .w am. .w am. ? ? ? ? unumbaptis ? ? ?# unumbaptis ? ? ? si ! . ! . ! . (...) ! . ! . ? ? ma . w ma ? ? am.Confi . w DO ! . ! . ? ? Confite ? ? Confite ! . ! . ? ? teoru .w MI . DO ! . w ? oru ? w oru --- ------ --- --- - ---- --- ---- ------- --- - ---- --- --- - -- ------ --- --- - ---- --- --- --- & V V ? C C C C C C C C 233 ! . ! . ? ? numbaptis . w . MI ! . ?? numbaptis ? ? numbaptis w? inre w ? inre . ma .w . w? Inre ? ? mainre w? main w? missi w? missi ! . . w NE, . w? missi ? ? missio w? remis w? onem w ? onem . ? ? ? inremis ! . . w NE, ? ? onempec ? ? nem w ? sio w ? pecca w ? pecca ?? sionem ! . ! . ? ? cato ? ? w ? nempec ? w to w ? I to ? ? peccato ! . ! . ? w ? ? peccato ? w cato w rum. w rum. rum. ! ! ? ? rum. w rum. w rum. ? Etex ? Etex . ? ? Etex w ! ? Etex ? Etex ?? Etexspec ? specto ? specto ? spec ? w ET ? specto ? specto w to ? ?? resur .?? resur ? ? ? tore w ? EX ? ?? resur ? ?? resur ? ?? resur ------- -- ---- ----- -- -- ---- -------- -- -- -- ---- --- -- - ---- ------ -- -- -- ---- --- -- -- - ---- ------ -- -- 530 & V V ? 243 ?? rexio ? ? rexio ?? surrexi w w ?? rexio ? ? rexio ? ? rexio ? nemmor ? ? nem(...) ?? onem ? w AU ? ? ? nemmor ?? nemmor ? nemmor ? ? tuo ? ? Et ? ?? mortu w ? ? ? tuo ? ? tuo ? ? tuo ? ? rum. ? vitam ? orum. w ? rum. ? rum. ? rum. ? ?? Etvi ?? ventu ? ? Et ? ? w DI ? ?? Etvi ? ?? Etvi ? ? Et ? tam ? ? riet ? vitam, w ? ? w tam ? ? tamven ? vitam, ? ? . J ? ? vitam ? ?? Etvi ? w O ! ? turi ? ? Et w ven ? ventu ? tam w ? RA w ven se ? vitam w tu ??? rise ? ven w ? tu w cu w ven ? rise ? ? ? ? turi ? w TI ? rise ? ? li, ? turi w ? ? cu ? w ? .? ? cu ! ? ? se w cu w ! w w li, ? etvi ? cu ? ? ? li,se ? ? ? li,et ? ? se w O ? ? ? etvi ? ? ? tam,et ?? li,et w cu ? vitam ? cu w ? ? tamventu ? vitam ? vitam-- --- - - -- -- -- --- - - - -- --- - ---- --- - - -- ---- -- - -- -- -- ------- -- -- --- - -- - - - - --------- -- --- - - - ---- -- & V V ? 257 ? ? li. ? ? ventu w li, ! w NEM ? ? ri ? ? ventu ?? ventu ? i ? ? ? A ? ? ? risecu ? ? ! ! ? ? se ? ? ? risecu ?b ? ? risecu ? ? ? I ? . J ? li.A . ?? secu ? ? ! ? ? ? culi. ? ? li. ? ? li. ? . ? j ? ? ? ? ? ? li. w ? ? ME ? ? A ? ? ? A ? ? A w men. w men. ?? Amen. w AM. AM. w men. w men. w w w w w w w w w w w w --- ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- - --- - - -------- --- ---- ----- --- -------------- 531 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Tenor 3 Bassus 1 Bassus 2 . ? ? ? San w ? San ! . ! . ! . ! . w ? San ! . w ? w ? . ? ? ? San ! . ! . w ? San ? . J ? ? ? ! . ?? ? ctus,San w ? ctus, ? . J ? ? ! . ! . ? . j ? ? ? . J ? ? w ? San . ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ! . ! . ? w ?? . ? j ctus,San ? w . ? ? ? . w ? ? ? . w MI ? MI ? . ? ctus,San ? ? . w ? w ! . w ? ctus, . w SE ? SE ? ? ? . ? ? . w .w w ? San ? . ? ? San .w RE ? RE .? ? ? ? ? ? . ? . w ? w ctus, ? . j ? ? . w RE ? RE ? ? ? ? .? ? w --- ----------- ------------ ------ ---- ------ ------------------ ---------- --------------- -------------- ------ -------------------- & V V ? 9 ? w ? .? ? San ? ? ? ? .w ? w ? ctus, ? ?? ctus, ? w ctus, ? . ? ? ? ctus, ! . ? ? ? ? San ? ? ctus, ? . ? San ! . ? ? ? ! . ! . ! . ?? .? J ??? . J ? San ? ? .? J ?? ? San ? ? ? ctus, w ? San ?? ? San ! . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ctus ? ? ? San w ? ?? ctus, ? ? MIHI ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? Domi ? ? ctus w ? ? ctusDo ? ? ? Sanctus, ? ? San ? ? ?? ctusDomi ? ? ? ? ? ?? ctus,Sanctus ? ? nusDe ? .? . ? J Domi ? . J ? ? mi ? ?? ? San ? ? ctus, ?? nus ?? ctus ? ? ? ? .? J us,Domi ? ? ? I ? ? ? nusDe ? ? ? ? ? ? san ? ? ? ? ? Do ?? ? Do - - ---- - - --- ------------ ----- --------- ---- ------ ---- - -- --- -- ----- -------------- --- ---- ------- ---- - ------------- - --- & V V ? 17 ? ? nusDeus, ? ? . ? J nusDe ? ? I ? us, ? ?? ? ctusDo ? ? ? ctus, ? ? . ? J De ? ? minus ? ? minus ?? ? Do ? ? ? I ?? ? Do ? I ? mi ? ? ? ? San ? ? ? us,Do ? ? ? De ?? ? De ? w mi . w us, ? ?? minusDe . w nus, ? ? w minus ? ? us,Do ? ? ? us,Do . w nus ? ? ? ? Domi ? ? us, ! . ? ?? ctus ?? ? ? I De ?? minus ? I ? minus . w ? ? ? ? nusDe ?? ? ? Dominus ! . ! . ? ? ? us,Do ? ? ? De ? ? ? I ? De . w . ? ?? us ? ? DeusSa ! . ! . ? I ?? mi ? . ? J us,Do ? ? ? ? De ? w Saba ? .? J ? baoth, w ? De ? Do .w nus, ? ? ? w us, . ? J ? us, ? w oth, ! . w ? us, ? mi ! . ? . ? J .? mi ! . --- --- -- ------ - --- ---- -- --- ---- ----- -- --- ---- - ----- ---- - --- -- ---- -------- --- -- --- -- - -- - ---- -- -------- 532 Sanctus & V V ? C C C C C C C C 25 ? ? .? J ? DominusDe w ? ? ? ? ? Do ! . ? ? nus, .w Do ? ?? nusDe .? j ? ? Do . J ? w usSaba ! ? w mi w? Domi ? Do ? ? ? mi ? .? J ? w ? w oth, ! ? ? nus w ? nus ? mi ? ? nusDeus ? ? us, ? ? mi ? .? ? Sa ! ? De w De ? ? nusDe ? ? Sa ? ? Domi ? ?w baoth, ! ? ? us ? ?? us ? ? us ? . ? j ? ? . J ? nusDe ? ? . ? nusDe ?? Domi ! ? ? Sa ? ? Sa ! . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? us ? ? us w ? nusDe ? Dominus ? ? . ? ba w ? Sa ? ? ? ba ?. J ? ? Sabaoth, ? ? Sa ? ? us ? ? ? I DusSaba ? ? ? ba ? ? ? ? ba ? ? oth,Sa ?? ? Sa ? ? ba . ? J w Saba . w oth. . w oth. . w oth. . ? j w baoth. ? ? ? ? ba . w oth. . w oth. . w . w . w . oth. . w . w oth. . w - --- ------- ---- --- --------- ------- ---------- -- -- --- ------- -- -- --- -- ----- ---- --- -- ----- ------- ---- ------- ------------ ---- ---- & V V ? C C C C C C C C 35 ! ! ? ? Ple ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ! ! ! ? ? Ple ! ! ! ? ? ni ! ! ! ? ? ? ? Ple ! ! ? ? sunt ! ! ! ? ? ni ? ? ! ! ? ? ! ! ! ? ? sunt ? ? ni ! ! ? ? ? ce ! ! ! ? ? ? ? sunt ! ! ?? ! ! ! ? ? ? ce ? ? ! ! ? ? li, ! ! ! ? . J ? ? ? ce ! ! w ple ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ! . ? j ? ni ! ! ! ? ? ? li,ple . J ? ? ------ ------- - ----- ---- --- ------ ------ & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 45 ! ! ? ?? sunt ! ! ! ? ?? ? ? ? ! ! ? I ? ce ! ! ! ? ? ? ? li, ! ! w ! ! ! ? ni ? ?? ce ! ! ?? li ! ! ! w sunt ? ? li ! ! w ! ! ! ? ?? ce ? ?? etter ! ! ? ? et ! ! ! ? ? li ? ? ra, ! ! w ! ! ! ? ?? etter ? ?? etter ! ! ?? ter ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! w ? ra,et ! ! ! ? ? ? ra,et . ? j ? ? ra, ! ! ? ? ter ! ! ! ? ? ter ? ? ? ? etter ------ ---- ---- --- ----- - --- ----- ----- - ---- --- 533 & V V ? C C C C C C C C 55 ! ! . ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? .? ? ? ! ! . ? j ? ? ! ! ! . ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ! . ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? .? ? ? ! ! w a ! ! ! ? ? ? raglo ? ra ! ! ??? gloria ! ! ! ? . J ? riatu ! ! ! . J ? tu ! ! ! .? J ? ! ! ! ? . J ? ! ! ! ? . J ? ! ! ! ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? gloria ! ! ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? atu ! ! ? ?? a,glo ! ! ! ? ? ? a,glo ? ? ? a,glo ---------- -------------- - ----------- - ----------- - ------------ --- - - & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 65 ! ! ?? riatu ! ! ! ?? riatu ?? riatu ! ! ?? ! ! ! ?? ?? ! ! ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? I ? ? ! ! ? ? a,gloria ! ! ! ? ? a,gloria ?? a,gloria ! ! ?? tu ! ! ! ?? tu ?? tu ! ! ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? I ? ? ! ! w a. ! ! ! w a. w a. ! ! w ! ! ! w w - ---------- -- -------- - ---------- -- -------- - ---------- -- -------- & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 73 w ? O . w O ? O ! ! w? Osa ? O w ? Osan ? w ? w ? ! ! ? w ? ? w w ? san ? . ? san . w w? MISE ! w ? w ? san . w na, ? w . ? ? I ? I w? san ? w RE ! ? w ? ?? O ? ? ? ? w ? w ? RE ? MISE .w ? .? ?? san ? w ? na, ? ? ? ? ? w RE ? . ? ? ? na, ? ? . w na, w ? O w ? ! w ? RE w ? ? O w ? na, ? ? O ? w w ? na,O ! ? ?? . ? ? I ? I na, ? w san ! ? ? . w san ? ? w ? MIHI ! . w w ? na, w ? Osan - ---- - ------ -------------------- ---------------- --------- ------------------ ---- ----------------- ------- --------------------- ---- ----- --------- -- 534 & V V ? 82 . w ? w ? ? w ! . ? ? ? O ? ?? ? w ? ? ? ? ? ? san ! w ? MIHI w ? san ! w ? na, . ? ?? san .w . ? ? ? ! ? w ? w ! ! ? ? w ? na, ? ? na, w ? DOMI ! ? ? ? ? O ? ? O . w na, ? w O . O ? w ! ? ? ? w ? ? ! ? ? san w ? w ? NE, ? DOMI ? ? na, ? ? san ? ? ! ? w .? ?? san ? ?? ? w ! ? w ? w . ? ? ? O ? w ? na ! w ? NE, w ? O w ? na ? ? ? san ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? w ! ? ? ------- -------- ----------------- ------ ---------- --------------- ------------- ------ ------------ ----- ---- --------- ---- ------------------ & V V ? 91 .? ? ? w ? na ? .? ? in w ? ETEX ! w ? ! ??? na .? ?? san ? w in ? ? ? excel ? w AU ! ? w ! ! .w na w ? excel . sis, w ? DI ? ETEX w? san .w in w ? inex ! ? w ! ! ? w AU ? w ? ? ex ? w . w in ? ? ? w in ! w ? DI ? ? ? ? .? ? ? .? ? ? cel . w ex . sis, .? ? ? ex w? ORA ! .w na .w cel .? ? ? ? w ! w ? cel ? w TI ! ! ? w ? w . ? ? ? cel ! .w sis, . w O ? ORA ! w ? sis, w? sis,in ? w ? w in ? in ? w ? w TI ! ? w in ? w ex ---------- - - - - - --------- -------- --------- -------- ------------ -------------- --- ------ ------------- --- & V V ? 100 w ? w ? ? ex ? ?? NEM . w O . w in . w ex w ? cel ? w ? ?? ? cel ! ? w ? .? ? ex .w ? w ? w sis,in ? w ex ? I ! ? ?? NEM ? w ? ? w w ? ex w ? . . w MEAM. ! w? cel w ? w ? ? ? ? cel ? . ? ? cel ? .? ? . w ! ? w ? ? ? cel ? w . w sis. . w sis. . sis. . w . MEAM. . w sis. . w sis. . w sis. . w . w . . w . . w . w . w --------- ---------------- ------------ ---------- --------- ---------------------- ---------------------- --- ------------------- 535 & V V ? 107 ? ? ? ? Bene w ? Bene w ? Bene ! ! ! ! ! ? ??? dictus,be ? ? ? ? w dictus, ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? nedic ? ? ? ? dic ? ? ? ? be ! ! ! ! ! ? ?? tus, ???? tus,be ? ? ? ne ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? be ? ? ? ? ? ? ? dic ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ne ? I ? ? tus, ! ! ! ! ! -------------- ------------ ----- ----- -------- ----- ---------------- & V V ? 113 . ? J ? ? ? ne ? ? ? . j ? . ? j ? ? ? be ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? dic ? ? ? ne ! ! ! ! ! . J ? ? ? ? ?? tus, . ? J ? ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ?? ? be ? ? ? dic ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ne . w ! ! ! ! ! ? .? ? dic ?? ? ? dic .? J ? ?? ! ! ! ! ! -------- - -------- - --------------------------- ---------------------------- & V V ? 119 ?? ? ? tusqui ? ? ? ? tusqui ? ?? ? tusqui ! ! ! ! ! . J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ?? ? ? ve ? ? ?. J ? ve ? ? ? ? ve ! ! ! ! ! ? ?? ? nitin ? ? ? ? nitin ? ? ? nitin ! ! ! ! ! ? . J ? ? nomi ?? ? ? nomi ? . J ? ? nomi ! ! ! ! ! . ? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ----- ---------- ----- ---------- ----- ---------- 536 & V V ? 125 ? ? ? ? ne, ? ? ? ne, ? ? ? ne, ! ! ! ! ! ? ? . ? ? innomi ? ?? . J ? innomine ? ?? . J ? innomine ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? neDo ? . ? J ? ? Do ? ? ? Do ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? mi ? ? ? ? I mi ? ? ? ? mi ! ! ! ! ! . w ni. . w ni. . w ni. ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ---- -- --------- ---- ------- ------- ---- -- ---------- 537 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Altus Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus 1 Bassus 2 . w A w ? A ? Agnus . ? ? A ! . w? Agnus . w A . w A . w ? w .? ?? De w ? gnusDe ! . ? w ? ? w ?? . j ? gnusDe ? ? nus ? ?? i, ? ? i,A . w A . w . ? j ? ? ? gnus . ? j ? ? ? gnusDe . ? j ? ? ? w? Dei, ? ? ? ? AgnusDe ? . J ? ? . w gnus ?? ? De .? ? ? De ? ! i, w ? i, ? w A ? ? ? i,A .? ? .w De w ? ? ? i, .? ? A ? w A ? . ? J ? gnusDe ?. ? J gnusDe ? ? gnusDe . w i, . w !? ? ? ? ? ? ? gnus ? w i, ? . ? ? . w .w w? i, ? . w ? ? ? De ?? .w i, ?? i, ! . ? ? ? qui ? . ? gnusDe ? . ? gnusDe ------ ------ ----- --- ------ --- --- -- - ------ - - --- ----- --- --- -------- ------- ---- --- - ---------- -------- ------ -- ------ - - ---------- -- & V V ? 9 ? .? j ! . ! . ? ? ? qui ! . ? ? ? ? ? i, ? ? i, ?? ? I ?? ? qui ?? ? qui . ? J ?? ! . ? ? ? tol ? ? ? ? qui ?? ? ? qui ? ? ? i,qui ? . ? ? tol ? ? tollispec . w . ? ? ? qui ? ? ? w? ? to ?? ?w ?? ? ? ? ca . w tol ? ? ? ? .? j ? ? ? ? lis, ?? ? ? tol ?? ? ? tol ? . ? ? lis, ? ? ? . w ? ? ? ? tol ? ?? ? lis,qui ? ? ? ? qui ? ?? ? lis,qui ?w lis, ? ? . ? J quitol ? ? ? tamun . w lis, ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? to ? ? tol ? ? . ? qui ?? ?? lis,quitol .w di, ? .? ? qui . w lis, ??? tollis ?? . ? lis,qui w ? lis ? ? tol . ? ? ? lispecca ! . ? ? ? tol ! . ? ?? ? ? tol ! . ------- ----- --- ---------- - - -- - -------- --- ------- - ------- ---------- - --- - - --- --- - ---- & V V ? 17 ? ? ?? tamundi, ! . ? ? lis ! . ! . ? ? ? lispecca ! . ? ? lis ? ? ? ? quitol ? ? ? ? quitol ! . .? J ? ? ? qui ! . ?? ? tamundi, ? ? ? pecca ! . ? i ? ? ? I ? . J ? ? ? ? ? ? pec . w ? ? ? ? pecca ! . . ? J ? ? tamun ?? ? ? I pecca ? ? ? . J ? lispecca ? ? ? ? lispecca ? ? cata . w ? ? ? ? tamun . ? J ? ? pecca ? ! di, ? ? . ? tamun ? ? ? ta ? . ? ? ta ? w mun . w tol .? j ? ? ? ! ta, ?? ?? peccata .w ? i ? ? I mun ? ? ? mun w ? .w lis ? ? ? ? . w pec . w mun . w . w di: ? ? ? di:mi ? ? ! . . w di, w? cata . w di: . ? ? ? di ! . ? ? . w w? pecca ? ? ? pec ? w ! . ---- -- --------- -- ----- ---- - ----- ----- ---- ----- -- ----- ------------- ---- -- -- --------- --- -- -- - -- ----- -- - -- ---- 538 Agnus Dei * ** * Labelled Tenor 2 in MunBS 6 ** Labelled enor tertius in MunBS 6 & V V ? C C C C C C C C 25 w ? : . ? ? ? misere ? w se ? . ? ? . ? ? ? ta ? ?? cata . ? ? ? w? mise w ? mise ? ? .w re ? ? ? di: ? . ? mun . ? ? ? mun w ? .? ?? re w ? rere ? ? renobis, . w re w ? ? . ? di:mise ? . di:mi w ? di: . ? ?? re ? . ? ? no ? . ? J . j ? misere . ? .? nobis, . w re . ? ?? rere, ? ? serere .? ?? mise ? . ? no ? ? bis,mise ? . j ?. j ? no w ? mise ? ? ? reno .? ?? mise ? ? ? nobis,mi ? ? ? re .? ? ? bis,no ? ? rere ? ? ? ? ?.? J ? re w ? bis, ? ? ? re ? ? serere ? ? ? re w ? w no ? ? ? I ? w ? reno ? ??? nobis,no w reno ? w no nobis. w . w bis. . w bis. . bis. . w bis. . w bis. .w bis. . . w bis. . w . w . . w . w .w . . w --- --- ----- --- -------- -- ---------- ------- - ------ - ---- --------- -- --- --- --- ------ - -- ---- --- - --- - -------- - -------- --- -------- & V V ? C C C C C C C C 34 ?? AgnusDe ? ? A ! w A w MI ! w A w A ? . ? j ? . J ? gnusDe ? ? A w w ?? AgnusDe w w ?? i, w i, ? . J ? gnusDe w w ? ? w w ? Agnus w . ? ? i,A w w SE ?? i,A ? . J ? gnusDe ? gnus w De ? ? A ? .? J ?? gnusDe w ? ? ? ? . J ? Dei, w ? . j ? gnusDe ? .? gnus ? ? w gnus .? J ? w A w ? . ? ? De ? . ? w RE w w i, w gnus w i, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? w w w w w i, ? ? w i, w w De w w ?? A . ? j i,A ?? A w RE w ? ? ? A w De ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? w w w w ------ - -------- - - - ------- ----- - - ---- ------- ---- ---------- --------- ----- ----------------------- - ---- ---- ------- ------- ------- ----- -------- - --- ----- & V V ? 45 w A w ? ? ? w w i, gnus w w w w . ? ? gnus w w w De w i, w gnus w ? gnusDe . ? J De w w ? ? A w w gnus ? ? ? w ! w i, ? ? gnus w De . ? j ? De ? ? ? ? i,A w MI . ? j ? A ?? ? A ? ?? De w ?? ?? ?? gnusDe w . ? j ? gnus ?? ?? w ?? ?? ?? w . ? j ? De ?? gnus ?? w i, w i, i, w i, w i HI w i, ?b Dei, ? i, ? ? quitollis, w ? ? ? quitol w w ? ?? quitol ? ? quitollis ?? quitollis ? i ?? quitol w ?? lis, w w ? i ? pecca ? pecca ? ? ? lispec ? .? J qui ? ? ! w ? ? lis, ? ta ? ta, ? ? cata w tol ?? ? qui ! w ? .? J quitol ? ? mun ! ---- -------- - - -- ------- -------- --- ----- ------------ - --- ----- - ---- -------- --- --- --- - ----- ---- - --- -- --- --- -------- --- 539 & V V ? 57 ? .? J ? mun w ?? .? J ? qui w w lis ? ? di, ! w di, ? . j ? ? ? ? tol w tol w DO ! ? ? quitollis ?? ? qui w ? . j ? ? ? ? w w ? ?? pecca ? ? pecca ? tol w ?? lis ? ? lis, w w ? ? ? ? ta ? lis ! ? . ? J ? pec ? ? qui ? . ? w MI ? ? w mun ! ! . ? J ? ?? tol ? . ? w ? ? w ! ! . ? J ? w w w ? ? w ! . ? J ? qui ? ? ? ? ? ? lis w w ? ? di, . ? ? pec ? ? ? ? ? ca ? ? lispec ?? ? pec w ? ? ta ? ? pec ? ? . J ? tollis, ? ? ta .? J ? ? ? w ? ? mun ? ? ? ? .? J ? qui w mun .? J ? .? J ? w ? w ca w ca - - --------- ----------- - ------ ------- ------ ------------------- ------ ------------------------- --------------- ---- - ---- ------- ----- ---- -------- - & V V ? 68 ? ? ? w di, ? ? ? ? w w w w ?? tollis w ? ? w ? ? di, w w ? ? ? ? ? pec ? . ? ca w ca w NE, ? ? ? quitol ? . ? ? ? ! ? ? ca ? ? ? w w ? ? lis ? ? ? ? ta ! w ta . ? ? ? ? ta w ET ? .? j ? pec ?? ta . ? J ? mun ! w ? ? ! w ? ? ? mun ? . ? ? quitol ? ? mun .? ? .? J . ? mun w EX ? ? di, w di, ?? lispec .? ? ? ? ? tamun . J ? . j ? w ? ? cata ! w ? ?? cata ? ? ?. J ? . ? ? w AU ? ? ? mun . ? ? pec . ? J ? pec w mun ? ? ? di, w w ? di, ? . ? J ca ? ca ? ? ? di,pec ? ? di, ! ? ? ? di,pec w DI ! ? ? ? ?? ta - -- -- - - ----- --------- ------------------- ----- ----------- ---------- - ------ --------------- ----- - -------- --- ----------- ---- -------- --------- ----- ------ & V V ? 79 ? ? ! ?? ? pec ? ? w ? ? pec ? ! ? cata ?? ? pec . J ? ? cata w ? ? cata ? ta ?? ? mun ?? ? mun ? ?? ! w O ! ?? mun ? . J ? ? cata, ? cata ?? ? mun w ?? ? mun ? ? ? di, ? ? ?? ? pec ! ? w RA ? ? ? di, ?? mun ?. ? j . J ? ? ! ? ? w ? di, ? pec ? di, ? ? ? di,pec ? ? taca ! ? ? ? w ! .? J ? ca ? ? pec ? ? . ? j ? ta ? ? mun ? . ? J w ! ? ? ta ? ? ca ? cata ! ? . ? ? w TI w pec w mun w ta ? ? mun ! ? ? w di: w w w w w di: ? . ? J mun ? ! w O ? cata w ! ? ? ? w ! w ? ? mun w ?? mun ---- -------- ----- - ---- -------- ---- ------- ----------- ---- ------------- ----------------------- -- ---- ---- - ---- ---- ------ -------- ---- - ---- - 540 & V V ? 91 .?? dona ? ? di: ? ? di: .?? dona w w di: ? ? di: w di: ? ? nobispa .?? dona ? ?? dona ? ? nobispa w ? ?? dona . ?? dona . ?? dona ? ?? cem, ? ? ? nobis ? ? nobispa ? ? ? cem,do w NEM ?? nobis ?? nobis ? ? nobispa ?? donano ? ?# pa ? ? cem,do ?? nanobis w ? ? ? w pa ?? ? ? bis w cem. no . ? ? pa w ME w pa w ? ? . ? ? pa w no w w w ? ? w cem. w . ? ? bispa w cem. w AM. w cem. w cem. cem. w w w cem. w w w w w w w w w - - ----- - --- --- -- - --- - - --- - --- - - - - ---- ------ ------- ------ - - ------ -- - ---------- -- - ------------ 541 542 APPENDIX II.7: Missa de Assumptione beata Marie, MontsM 766 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus ! . w? Kyri ! . ! . ! . ! . . ? . J ? ! . w? Kyri ! . ! . w? ! . . ? ? . J ? ! . ! . ? ? . ? j ? ee ! . . w ! . ! . w ? le ! . ? ? ? ? e w? Kyri ! . ?.? J ? ! . . ? ? e . ? . J ? e---- -------- -------- ---------- -- & V V ? 7 ! . ? . J ? ? y ! . . ? J ? ? ? w? e w? Kyri ? son, ! . ? ?? ley w ? le . ? ? . J ? ?w ! . ? ? ? ? son,Ky ? . ? ? y w? e ? w Ky ! . ? ? ri . j ? ? son,e . ? j ? ? ? e w ? ! . ? ? ? ?. ? ? le ----------- ---- ------ ---- ---- ------- -------- --------- & V V ? 12 ? . J ? ? leyson, .? ? ? ! . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? Kyri ? ? ? . J ? . w AS ? e .w y ? ? ? . j ? e .w ri . w SUMP ? ? ?? e w? son, w ? e ? . w TA ? ? . j ? le ? ? ?? Ky . ? j ? I ? ? ? .? ? ee . w EST . ? ? ? y .? ?? ri ------- -- ----- ------ ---------- ------- --------------- - ---- ---------- 543 Kyrie & V V ? 17 ? ? ? ? le .? ? . J ? le .w MA w? son, .? ? ? e ? ? ? . ? j ?? ? yson,Ky . w RI ? . ? ? Ky ? ? e . ? j ? .? .j ? ? ? ri .w ? . ? ? ri .? J ? ? ? le ? . J ? ? ? I y ? ? ? .w ? . ? ? .? ? ? w? son,Ky ? ? ? ? w ? A ? . ? ? ? . ? ? yson, -------------- -------------- - -- ---------- ----- ----------- -------------- & V V ? 22 .?? ? ei .w e .w IN .? ? . j ? e ? ? ?? Kyri . ? ? . j ? .w . w . w . . ? ? . J ? e ? ? ? . J ? e . w CE . w ? ee w? e ? ? ? le .w ? ? . J ? e ? . ? ? ? . ? ? le . ?? ? w ? LUM . ? J ? ? ? le ? ? ? le ------- ---------- ----- ----- ---------- ----------- -------- & V V ? C C C C C 27 ? ? ? ? ? I y ?? ? ? ? y ! ? ? ? ? ?? y ? ? ? ? ? y . w son. . son. . w LUM. . w son. . w son. . w . . w . w . w --------- --------- --------- --------- 544 & V V ? C C C C C 30 . ? ? Cri w Cri ! ! ! ? ? w ! ! ! ? ? ? w ! ! . ? ? Cri ? ? w ! ! ? ? . ? ? ste w ! .? ? Cri w ? ? ? e w ! ? ? w ?? . ? ? ! ? ? ? stee w ste ----------- ----- ---------- ----------------- ----- - & V V ? 37 ? i ? ? ? ? ! ? ? w . j ? ? ste w GAU ? .? ? e ? ? ?? e w ? le ? le ? le w w ?? ? ? ? ? y . ? J ? w ? ? . ? j ? w son, . ? J ? le w DENT ? . ? J .? J ? ? ? Cri ? ? y w ?? ? ? yson, ? w son, w AN .? ? son, ? ? e --------- - ------------ --- ------------ - --- ----------- ------------------ & V V ? 45 ? ? w w ? ? ? ? .? J ? ? ? Cri w ? ? Cri ? ? ley ? ? ste ?? ste w ? ? w ? ? e ? ? e w GE . ? j ? w son, ? le w w ? ? ? ? Cri .? J ? ? le w ? ? ste ? ? y ? ? w LI ? ? ? ? e -------- -------- ------- ---------- -------- --- --- ---- ----------- ---------------- 545 & V V ? 52 w son, .? J ? w ? ? w le ? ? Cri ? ? w LAU ?? stee w ? ste, .? J ? son, w . ? le w ? ? ? Cri ? ? w ? ? ? ? y I ? ? I ?? Criste w DAN w w son, ? ? stee ? ? w . ? j ? w Cri ?? le ? ? w ? ? w -------------- - ----- ---- ---------- ----- ------ - ---- -------------- & V V ? 59 . ? J ? ? ?? ele w TES ? ? ? . ? j ? ? ? ? y ?.? J yson, w ? ? ? ? ? ? ? son,Cri w w .? ? y w ste ?? stee ? ? Cri w ? ? ? son,Cri ? ? e w ?? steele w ?? stee ?? le ? ? le ? ? w . ? j ? le w y . ? j ? ? ? ? y w ? ? ? w son, ------ - --------- ------ ------- --- - -------- -------- - ------ & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 66 ? ? ? y son. ? ? ? son,e w ? ?? y ? ? ? e le w ? ?? ley w son. ? ?? y w son. w w son. w w w ----- ---------- ------- ------ 546 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 70 ! . w ? Kyri ! . ! . w? Kyri ! . ?. J ? ? e, ! . w? Kyri . ? . J ? ! . . ?? . J ? Kyrie, ! . . ? ? . J ? .??? eele ! . ? ? ? ! . . ??? eele ? ? ? ? w? Kyri ? ? . ? Ky ! . .w y .??? yson, . ? ? . J ? .?? . J ? ri ! . ? ? ?? son,Kyri ? ??? Kyrie, ------ ------ -------- -- ---- -- ----- ----- ----- -- & V V ? 76 . ??? eele . ??? eele ! . ?? e . ?? . J Kyrie ? ? ? ? ??? yson,ele ! . ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? y ! . . ? j ? ? ? ? ? i ? ? . ? ? . j .??? son,ele w? ASSUMP ! .??? eley . ? J ? ? ? . ? ? yson, ?w TA ! . w son, ?? yson, ? ?? . J ? Kyri w ? EST ? . j ? ? ??? Kyrie - - ---------------- -- --- -- -------- ----- -- & V V ? 82 ? ? ? Ky ? ? ?? ? w MA ? .? j ? .? . ? . ? j . ? J ? riee ? . ? ? e, w ? RIA ?? ? ? ? ? ? e ? ? ? ? ley ? ? ? ? Kyri ? w IN ? ? ? ? ? ? le w ? son, ? ? ? ? ee w? CELUM ? ? ? ? I .? ? ? ! . . ? ? ? I ley . ? ?? GAU . j ? ? ? ? ? ? yson, ---- - --- -- - -- ----------- ------- -- ----- 547 * 2 quarter-note Gs are editorial. This spot is illegible in MontsM 766. ** & V V ? 87 ! . .? ? ? son, . ? j ? ? ? DENTANGE . ? ?. j ? ? ? ? ? ? Kyri w? Kyri ? . ? Ky w ? LI . ? ? ? w? ee .? ? ? e ? .? ? rie .w LAU ? ? ? ? ? ? ? le . j ? .?? e ? ? e .w ? ? ? . j ? . ??? yson, .? ? . J ? le . ??? leyson, . w DAN ? ? ? . ??? eley -- ---------- -- ---- ---- ------- --- ----- --- & V V ? 92 ? . J ? ? ? ?? ele .w ? . j ? ? .? j ?? son, ? . J ? ? son, ? ?? ? yson, . w TES w ? ? ? . J ? ? Kyrie ?. J ?? e w ? e w ? BENE .? ? . j ? .? j ? ? ele ? . J ?? le ? ?? ? ley w ? DICUNT . ? ? . j ? ? . j ? ? ?. ? ? y ?? .? j ? ? . J ? . ? DO ? ? ?? w? ---- - -- ---- ----- ----------- -- ----------- ------- ----------- & V V ? 97 ? . ? j ?. ? II . ? j ? ? . J ? ? . ? J ? ? MI ? . ? ? ? ? I ? . ? ? ? ? y . w son. . w son. . w NUM. .w . w son. . w . w . w .w . w ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 548 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Barricanor w? Etin ! . ! . ! . ! . . ? . J ? ter w? Etin ! . ! . ! . ??? ? rapax . ? ? . J ? ter ! . ! . ! . w ? ho ??? ? rapax ! . ! . ! . .? J ? ? mi w ? ho ! . ! . ! . ? ? I ni ? ?? mini ! . ! . ! . - ---- ------ ---- --- & V V ? 7 . w bus . w bus ! . w? Etin ! . ! . ! . ! . . ? . J ? ter w? Etin ! . ! . ! . ??? ? rapax . ? ? . j ? ter ! . ! . ! . w ? ho ??? ? rapax ! . ! . ! . .? J ? ? mi w ? ho ? ? bo ? ? bo ! . ? ? I ni ? ?? mini - ---- ------- ----------- - & V V ? 13 .? j ? . ? ne w? nevo ! . ? ? ? busbo w ? busbo . ? ? . j ? vo ? .? ? lunta ! . . ? j ? . ? nevo w ? ? nevo ? ? I lunta ? ? tis. ! . ?? ? luntatis. ? ? lunta ? ? ? . J ? tis.Lau ? ?? ? Lau . w AS ? ? . J ? Laudamus . w tis. ? ? ? ? d?muste.Be . J ? ? da . w SUMP ? ? ? ? te.Be ? ? Lau ------ -- - ------- - ----- -- - - ----- - ------- ---- 549 Gloria & V V ? 18 ?? . ? j nedicimus ? ? ? muste. . w TA ? . ? j .? J nedi .? J ? ? damuste. ? . j ? ? ? ?? Benedici . w EST ?? ? . j ? cimus ? ? . J ? Benedi . ? ? ? te.A . J ? ? ? .w MA w? te.A .w ci . ? J ? doramus ? ? muste. . w RI ? ? . ? doramus ?? mus w ? te. ? ? .? J Adora .w A ? ? te.Glorifica ? ? ?? te.Ado -------- --- ------- - ----- --- --- --- -------- -- -- ------- -- & V V ? 23 ! . ?? ? ? mus .w ? ? ? ? mus ?.? J ? ramus ? . ? ?? Glori ? ?? te.Glorifica .w ? ? . J ? te.Graciasa ? ?? te.Glorifica ? ? ? I ficamus .? ? ? mus .w ? ? ? gimusti ? ? ? ? mus ? ? .? ? te.Graci w? te.Gra .w IN w .? J biprop w? te.Gra ? ? . J ? asagi . ? ? . J ? cias . w CE ? ? ? ter w? cias ----- -- -- --- - - --- - --- -- ------- -- --- --- - - & V V ? 28 w? musti ? ?. ? agimus .w LUM w? mag ? ??? agimusti ? ? . ? beprop w? tibi . w ? . ? ? nam w ? biprop ??? ter ? ? . ? propter ! . ? ? glo ? . ? ? ter ? ? . ? mag ?? ? ? magnamglo ! . ? . ? ? ri .w mag ? ?? namglori ? ? riam ! . .? ? ? am ? w - --- ---- -- ---- ------- -- - ---- ------- -- - - - -- 550 & V V ? 33 ? ? ? I amtu ? ? ? tu ! . ? ? ? tu ? ? ? namgloriamtu ? ?? am. ? .? . J ? am.Do . w GAU ? ? ? am.Do w ? am. . ? ? ? Domi . ? ? ? mi .w ? ? ? ? mi ! . w? neDe ? .? . J ? neDe . w DENT ? ? . ? ? neDe w? Domi w? us, . J ? ? ? I .w AN . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? neDe --- --- ---- ------- --- ---- ---- ----- - - - - -- --- ------ ------ & V V ? 38 ? .? . j ? Rexcele ? ? ? us,Rexcele .w ?? ?? us,Rexce w? us,Rex . ? J ? ? ? ? ? . w ? ? . ? j le ? ? ? cele w ? ? stis.De .w stis, .w GE w ? stis,De w ? stis, ? ? ? ? usPaterom ? ??? DeusPater .w LI ? ? usPater, ?? DeusPa ? ? ? ? nipotens,De ?? ? DeusPa ! . ? ? ? ? DeusPater, ? ? teromnipo ------ -- -- - -------- --- ---- - - -- ---- - - --- ------ -- -- & V V ? 43 ? . ? j ? usPater .? J ? ? teromnipo ! . ? ?? . j ? DeusPa w? tens,De ? ??? omnipo .? J ? ? tens, ! . ?? ? teromnipo ? .? j ? usPater ? ? ? I ? ? ? omnipo ! . ? ? ? tens. ? ? ? omnipo ? ? ? ? tens.Do ?? ? ? tens.Do ! . ? ? ? . j ? Domi .? ?? tens.Domi . j ?? mineFi . j ?? mineFi .w LAU . j ? ? ? neFi ?? ? ? neFi - ------ -- - --- - - ----- -- - - - --- -- - -- - - --- -- - 551 & V V ? 48 ??? liunige ? . ? ? liu . w DAN . ?? ? liu w ? li ? w ni ?? nigeni ? w ? ? nigeni ? w w? ? teJhe .? ?? te . w TES ? .? ? te ? ? unige ? ? I suChri ?? . J ? Jhe . w ? ??? Jhe ?? ? niteJhe w ? ? ste,Jhe .? J ? ? su ! . ? ? ? ? suChri ? ?? ? suChri ------ - - - ------- --- ------ --- --- ----------- - - --- ---- ----- & V V ? 53 ? ? ? suChri ? ? ? Chri ! . ? ? ? ? ??? ste. w ? ste. ? ? ?? ste.Domi .w BE ? ? ?? ste.Domi .??? Domine ? ??? DomineDe ? .? ? neDe ? w NE ? ? neDe ? w De . w us ? ? ? usAgnusDe . w DI . ??? us,Agnus ? ? ? ? us,A ?? ? ? AgnusDei, ? ? .? J i, ? w CUNT ? ? De ? ? ? gnusDei, - - --- -- ----------- ---- ----- - ---- -- ---- - -- --- -------- & V V ? C C C C C 58 ? . j ? ? ?? w? DOMI ? ? ? ? i,Fili .? ? ? Fi ? ? ? Fi ? . J Fili ?w NUM. ? ? ? ? ? lius ? . J ? ? ? lius ? ? usPa . w ?? ? us,Fi ? . ? ? Pa . J ? ? ? Pa ? ? .? ? tris,[Pa . w ?. ? ? liusPa w? tris,[Pa . w tris. . tris.] . w . .w tris. . w tris.] . w . . w . .w . w -- ---- - -- ---------- ------ --- ---- ---- - - 552 & V V ? C C C C C 64 w Qui ! ! ! ! ? tollis ! ! w Qui ! . ?? pecca ! ! ? tollis ! ? tamun ! ! ? pecca ! ?? di, w Qui ! .? ? tamun w Qui ? ? ? ? tollis ! w di, w ? .?? pecca ! ? ? mi ? tollis ? . ? mise ? tamun ! . ? J ? se w pec - -- - -- - -- - ---- -------- - --- - -- - & V V ? 72 . ? j ? rere w di, ! ? ? re ?? cata ? ? ? no ? ? mi ! ? ? reno w mun ? ? ? bis.Qui w se ! ? ? ? bis,[mi w di, ? tollis w re ! ?? sere w mi ??? peccata w ! ? ? nobis.] w ? ? w re ! . ? ? Qui ?? sere ?? mun ?? nobis. ! ? i ? w re - - - -- -- --- - --- - - - ------- ------- - & V V ? 79 ? ? ? I ?? Qui ! ? ? tol ?? nobis. ? ? di, ?? tol w AS ? ? ? lis,[Qui .? J ? Qui ? ? sus ? ? ? w SUMP ? ? tol ? ? ? ci ? ? ? lispec w TA ? ?? lis]pecca w tol w ? catamun w ? tamun w ? ? ? pede ? ? ? di,sus w EST . ? J ? ? ? ? lispec ?? precati ?? cipe w ? ? ?? catamun --- ----- --- --- - - --- ------ - ----- --- ------ --- -- 553 & V V ? 86 .? J ? o ? ? ? de w MA ? ?? di,susci ? ? ? di,sus ? ? nem ?? precatio w ? ? pedepre ?? cipede ? no . ? nemno w RI ? . J ? catio ?? precati ? ? ?? stram. w ? ? I ? onemno w stram. ? . ? Quise w A ?? nemnostram. w stram. ? ?? Quise ? ? ? desad w .? J ? Quise ? ?? Quise ? desaddexter ?? dexter w IN ? ?? desaddex ? ? ? ramPa .? ram w CE .? j ? des ? terram --- ----- - - - --------- - ---------- --- -------- ---- --- - - -- & V V ? 94 ?? ? Patris, w LUM. ? ?? addex . ? J ? Pa . ? ? tris,mi ?? misere w . ? ? terram ? ? ? tris,mi .? ? ? ? ! ?? Patris, ?? sere . ? se w re ! ? . J ? misere . j ?? re . ? j ? rereno ? . ? J no ! ? ? reno ? ? ? no ? ? ? I ?? ! ? ? ? ? w bis. bis. w GAU ? ? ? bis.Quo ? ? ? bis.Quo ?? ? Quo ? ?? Quoni w ? ni ? niam --- ---------- - ---- -- -- - --- -- - --- ---- -- - ----- ---- -- & V V ? 102 ? niam ? amtu w ? . ? amtu ? tuso ? tuso ? solus w .? ? [solus] ? lussan ?. j ? lus[san ? sanctus. w DENT ? sanctus. ? ? ? ctus.Tu ? ? ? ctus.]Tu ? ?? Tuso w ? ? Tusolus ? solus ? solus ? lusDo w AN ? . ? Do w Do ?. ? Domi ? minus. w ? mi w mi ? ? ? ? ? Tuso w ? ? nus. ? ? ? nus.Tu ? ? ?? lus w ? . ? j Tu ? ? so - - - - ------- ----- --------- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- - 554 *'d[omi]n[u]s' in MontsM 766 * 'dns' clearly underlaid under 2 semibreve As in MontsM 766 *'solus' not in MontsM 766 & V V ? 110 ? ? ? nus.Tu ? ? Altissi w GE ? ? ? so ? ? ? lusAl .? J solus ? . ? mus, w LI ? lusAl ? tissi . ? j ? Altis ?. J ? Jhe ! . ? J ? tis ? ? ? mus, ? ? I si ?? su ! ? ? simus, ? ? Jhe ? ? mus, ? ? Christe, ! ? ? ? Jhe ? ? ? suChri ?? ? Jhe ? ? ? [Jhe ! ? ? su ? ? .? ? suChri ? ? su ! ? . j ? Chri ? ? ? ste,[Chri ? ? ? ? Chri ! ? ? ? ? - --- - --- - - ----- --- ---- --- --- --- - --- - --- - & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 118 w ste. w ste.] w LI. w ste. w ste.] w w w w w w? CumSan w ? CumSan w? LAU w ? CumSan w ? CumSan ?? ?? ctoSpiri ? . ? ? ctoSpiri ? w DAN ? w ? ?? ?? tu,[inglori .? J ? ?? tu,[inglori .w TES ? ?? . j ? ctoSpiri .??? ctoSpiri ?? . ? ? a,in ? ? ? a,in . w . ? ? ? tu, .w tu, - -- -- ------ ----- ------ ----- -- - -- -- & V V ? 124 ? ? ? I glori ? . J ?. ? glo . w ? . ? J ? in ??? inglo ? . ? j ? a,gloria,] .j ? . ? ria,]in . w ? .j ? ? ? gloria,[in w? ria, ?? . ? j in ? ? ? glo ! . ? ? ? glori ? ?? inglori . ? j ? . ? gloria,glo . ? ria .w BE ? ? ?? a,inglo w ? a, ? . j ? ? I ri ?? Dei .w NE ? ? .? j ri ?? De -- -- - ----- ------- -- -- ---- ---- -- --- ----- ----- - 555 & V V ? 129 w ? a ? . ? ? Pa . w DI ? . ? ? a]De ? ? ? i Pa ? ? ? ? De . ? J ? ? ? .w CUNT ? ?. j ? ? ? ? ? . ? J . ? j ? i ? .? J ? tris,[De . w DO . ? j ? . j ? iPa ? ? ?? tris,[DeiPa . j ? ? ? Pa .? ? iPa . w MI . ? ? ? tris. w? tris,Pa . ? ? . J ? tris.A ? . ? j ? tris.A . w NUM. ? . ? ? A ? ? ? tris.]A --- --- - --- -------- ---------- --- ----- -- - - ------ ------ --- & V V ? 134 ? ? ? ? I ? ? ? ? ? ! . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . w men. . men. . . w NUM. . w men. . w men. . w . . . w . w . w --------- --------- --------- --------- 556 & V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Altus Discantus Contratenor Tenor Bassus ! . ! . w? Patrem ! . ! . ! . ! . . ? ? . J ? w? Patrem ! . ! . ! . w? om . ? ? . J ? ! . ! . ! . . ? j ? . j ? nipo w? om ! . ! . ! . .? J ?? ? ten ?? ? ? nipo w? [...]Facto - --------- -- - ----- & V ? ! . ! . ?? ?? tem,facto . ? j ? ? ? .? ? . J ? ! . ! . .? J ? rem ? ? ten w? remce ! . w? [...]Facto ? ? ? ? ce .? ? ? tem, w ? ! . . ? . J ? ? ? ? w w ! . w? remce ? ? ? ?? ? . J ? facto w? liet ----- - ---- ---------- ---- -------- -------- -- & V ? ! . . ? j ? ? ? li ? ? ? liet . ? J ? ? ? remce .? ? ? ter ! . ? ? etter ? ? ? ter ? ? lietter ? ? ? w? ASSUM ?? re,visibili w? re, ? ? ?? re,visi .w re, ?w PTA ? ? umomni ? ?? visibili ? ? biliumom ? ?? visibili . w EST ?? . J ? um,[om ? . ? ? umomni ? . ? ? nium,et ? ? ?? umomni - - -- - ---- -- -- -- ----- --- -- ------- --- -- --- -- --- -- 557 Credo 6 11 & V ? .w MA .? J ? ?? nium,] ? ? ?? um,etin ? ?? ? invi ?? ?? umetinvi . w RI ? . ? ? ? etin ?? ?? visi ? ?? . ? sibi ?? ?? sibi .w A ? ? ? ? visibi . J ? . J ? bi ? ? ? lium. .? ? ? lium. .w IN w? lium. ? ? lium. .? ? ? Etin ? ? ? ? Etinunum . w CE . ? . j ? Etinunum . ?? Etinu .?? unumDo . ?? Dominum ------- --- --- ----- - -------- - ------- - -- --- ---- - - & V ? .w LUM. .? ? . J ? Domi w? numDo .? ? ? minum w? Jhesum .w ??? numJhesumChri w? minum . ? ? . j ? Jhe w? Christum, . w . w stum, .? J ? ? ? Jhesum ??? sumChristum, .??? Filium ! . ? . ? ? ? FiliumDei ? . ? J ? ? Christum,Fili ? ? . ? ? Fi .??? De - - - - --- ---- - ----- - - -- ----- - ---- - --- & V ? ! . ?? . ? ? u ? . ? ? umDeiu ? . J ? liumDei w ? ? i u ! . ? ? I nigeni ?? ? nigeni ? ? ? unigeni ? ? nigeni ! . w ? tum. ? ? ? ? tum.Etex w ? tum. ? ? ? ? tum.Etex ! . ! . . ? j ? ? ? Patrena ? ?? ? [EtexPa ? ? ? Patre ! . ! . ? ? ? tumante . ? ? ? trena w ? na ----- - ---- - - - ---- --- --- - - --- - - 558 16 21 25 & V ? ! . ?? ? ...an ? ?? omni . ? j ? ? ? tum]an ? ?? tumante ! . . ? j ? . J ? teomnia ? ?. ? ? ase ? ? ?? teomni .? J ? . J ? omnia ! . ? ? ? ? I secu ? ?? cula. ? ? ? asecu ?? ? secu . w GAU ? ? .? ? la.Deumde ? . ? . J DeumdeDe ? ? ? la.De . w la. ---- - -- ---- - ---- ------ - - - -- ---- --- -- -- - & V ? .w .? ? I ? Deo, . ? J ? I o,lumen ? ? ? ? umdeDeo, ! . . w DENT ? ?? lumende ? ? delumine, ? ? ? lumende ??? [...]Lumendelumi .w AN .?? lumine,De . ??? Deumve .??? lumine, . ?? ne,Deumve .w ? ? . J ? umverumdeDeo ?? rumdeDe ? ? ? Deumverum ?? ? rumdeDeove w? GE . J ? w vero. ? ? ? ? ove ? ?? deDeove ? ? ? ? ro.Ge ---- ---------- -- - ---- -- - -- - - - - - -- -- -- - - - -- -- -- & V ? ?w LI ? ?? Genitum ? ? ? . J ? ? ? ro. ? ? ? nitum,non ! . ?? ? nonfactum, ? ? ? ? ro.Ge ! . ?? fa ! . ? ? ? ? consubstanti ?? ? nitum,non ! . ? . J ? ? ctum, ! . .? J ? ? ? alem ? ? . J ? factum, w? Geni w? [Geni ! . ? ? Pa ? ?? ? Ge ?? tum,nonfa ? ??? tum,]non -- -- - ----- --- ----- -- - - - ------ -- -- - - - 559 30 34 39 & V ? ! . ? ? ? ? I tri: ? . ? J nitumnon ? . J ? ? ? ? fa ! . w? perquem ? . J ? ? fa . ? j ? ? ? .? J ? ? .w LAU ? ?? ? om w ? ? ctum,con ? ? ?? ctum,consub ? ? ? ctum,consubstan . w DAN ? . ? j ? nia ? ? substantialemPa ? . ? I stantialemPa ? ? tialemPa .w w? facta .??? tri:perquemom . ?? . j ? tri:perquemom .??? tri:perquemom ---------- -- ----- - --- --- ----- - ------ --- - - -------- ---- - - & V ? . w TES ? . ? ? ? ? ? niafacta ? ? ? niafacta ?? niafacta .w BE ? ? ?? sunt.Quipro ? ? ?? sunt.Quipropter ? ? ? ? sunt.Qui .?? ? sunt.Quipropter .w NE ? ? ? pternos ? ? ? I noshomi .? j ? .? j propternoshomi ? ? ? noshomi . w DI ? ? ?? homi ? ? ?? nes,etpro ? ? ? nes,etpropter ? ? ? nes,etpropter .w CUNT .? ?? I ? ? pternostram ? . ? . j ? nostramsa ?? ? nostramsalu ---------- - ----- -- - -- - - - - - -- ---- -- - -- -- - & V ? C C C C C . w DO w ? nes,... ? .? J ? salutem ? ? ? ? lutemde ? ? ? ? temde . w MI ? ? descen ? ? [descendit] ? ? ? scenditde ? ? scendit . w NI. ? ? ? ditdece ? ?? ? de ? ? ce ? ? ? ? de . w ? ? ? ? .? ? ce ? w lis. ? w celis. . w . w lis. . lis. . w . w -------- -- ----- -- -- - -- - - - ---- ---- 560 44 49 54 & V ? C C C C C ! ?? Etincar ! ! ! ! ? natus ?? Etincar ! ! ! ? ? ? est ? natus ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? est ! ! ! ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ?? ! ! ! ? ? ? I ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? de ? ! ! --- --- & V ? ! ?? Spiri ? ?? deSpi ! ! ! . ? ? ri ! ! ! ? ? ? tu,de ? ? tu, ! ! ! ?? Spiri ? ?? deSpiri ! ! ! . j ? ? tu .? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? tu ! ! ! . J ? Sancto ? ? ? Sancto ! ! ----- -- - ----- ----- - & V ? ! ? ? ex ? ? ? ex ! ! ! ? . ? J Mari . ? ? Mari ! ! ! ? ? a ? ? a ! ! ! . ? j ? Vir . ? Vir ! ! ! ? ? ? gi ? gi ! ! ! ? ? ? ne,ex ? ?? ne,exMa ! ! ! ? ? Mari ? ? ria ! ! ---- ----- -- -- ---- -- 561 Duo 59 67 74 & V ? ! ? ? ? aVir ? ?? irgi ! ! ! ? ? gi ? ? ne:Et ! ! ! ?? ? ne:Et ? ? ho ! ! ! ?. ? j ho .? j ? ! ! ! ? ? ? mo ? .? J mofa ! ! ! ? ? fa ? ? ! ! ! ? ? I ctus ? ? ctus ! ! ! w est. w est. ! ! -- --- --- -- --------- & V ? ! w w ! ! ! ! ! ?? Crucifi ? ? Cru ! ! ! ? ? xus ? ? ? cifi ! ! ! ? ?? eti ??? xuse ! ! ! ? . ? amprono ?? tiampro ! ! ! ? ? ? bis:sub .? ?? nobis: ! ! ! ? ? Pon ? ? ? sub--- -- - --- ---- - & V ? ! ! ! ? ? ti .? J ? Pon ! ! ! ? ? ? I ? ? ti ! ! ! ?? o ? ? oPila ! ! ! ? ? ? Pi ? ? ! ! ! ? ? la ? ? topassus, ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? pas----- ------ - -------- --------- 562 Duo 81 89 96 & V ? ! ! ! . ? j ? ? . ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? sus, ! ! ! ? ? to ? . J ? etse ! ! ! ? ? ? pas ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? pul ! ! ! ? ? ? sus,et ? ! ! ! ? ? se ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? tus--- ----------- ----- ---- ---- & V ? ! ! ! ? . ? pul ? ? ! ! ! ? . ? j .? j ? ! ! ! ? ? ? tus ? ? ? ! ! ! ? I ? est. ? est. ! ! ! w w ! ! ?? Etresur ! w Et ! ! .? ? re ! ? resur ! ! ? ? xitter ! .? ? re --- - --- ------- & V ? ! ?? ...Tercia ? .? ci w ...Ter xit ! . ? ? di ? ? ? a ? cia ? terci ! ? ? ? die . ? ? di .? J ? a ! . j ? e, .? ? se w e, . ? J ? di ! ? ? se ?? cun w ?? e, ! ?? cundumScri w dum ?? secundumScri ?? secundumScri ! ? ? ptu ? .? ? Scriptu ? ? ptu ? ? ptu -- ------ -- -- --- - ----- -- -- ---- -- -- --- --- -- -- 563 103 111 119 & V ? w AS w ras. w ras. ? ? ? ras.Et w ras. w SUM ? ? Et ? ? Et ? ascen ? ? Et w PTA ? ascen ? ascen . ? ? ? ascen w EST ? .? . ? j ? ditin . ? j ? dit ? ditin w ?? ditin ? ? ? ? in ?? celum, w MA ? celum: ? celum: ? celum: ? celum: w ? sedet ? sedet ? . ? sedet w se w RI .?? addex . ? J ? addex ?.? j addex . ?? detad - - ----- ----- - - - --- - - - -- - - -- ------ -- - & V ? w ?? teram ? ? te ? . ? teram ?? dexte w A ? ? Pa ? ? ramPa ? . J ? Pa ? ? ? ramPa w ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? w IN .? J ? ? ? tris.Et ? ? ? tris.Et ? ? ? tris.Et w ? ? ?? ite ?? ite ?? ite w CE ? ? ? tris.Et .? ? rum ? ? rumventurus . ?? rumven w ? . j ? ite ?? venturus ?? estcum ?? turus --- ----- - --------- -- --- ---- -- - -- --- -- -- - ---- --- & V ? w LUM .? J ? rumventu ?? estcumglo ? ? glo w est w ? ? rus ? ? ? ? ! w w est ?? ri ? . ? j ri w cum ! w ?? ? ? ? ? ? glori ! ? ? cum ? a,ju w a, w a, ! ? glori ? dica ? ? ju w ! w a, re ? dica ? ? ju ! ? ? ju ? ? vi ? .? re ? dica -- -- - -------- --- - -- --- ---------- --- 564 126 134 141 & V ? ! ? dica ? voset ? .? vi ? revi ! ? . ? re[vi w mor ? .? voset w vos ! . ? j ? vosetmor . ? J ? tu . ? ? mor .? ? et ! ? ? ? I tu ?? os: ? ? tu ? ? mortu w GAU w os:] ? ?? cuius w os: ? ? ? os:cu w w ? regni ? ?? cuius ? iusre w ? ? cu . ? J ? nonerit ? re ? ? gninone ------ -- - -- - ------- - - -- - -- - - - --- ----- - --- & V ? w ?? iusre ? ? ? I fi w ? ? ritfi w DENT ? . ? gni ? ? ? nis.Et ? ? ? gninon ? ? ? nis.Et w ? ? none ?? inSpi ? ? e ?? inSpi w AN ? rit . ?? ritum .? ? ritfi ?? ritumSan w ?? fi ?? Sanctum, ? ? ? ? w .? ? ? Domi ? nis.Et w ctum, w GE ? ? ? nis.Et w num, ? in ? Domi --- ------- - ---- - ---- - -- - -- --- -- --- -- --- - ---- & V ? w LI ?? inSpiri ?? etvi ?? Spiri w num, ! ? tumSan ? vifi .? ? tum ? etvi ! ? ? ? ctum,Do .? J ? can ? . ? San ?? vifi ! ? ? mi ? ? ? . j ? ctum,Dominum, ? ? cantem: ! ? ? ? num,et ? .? j tem:qui ? . ? etvivifi w qui ! ? ? vivi ? . j ? exPa ? ? cantem:qui ?? exPa -- - ----- -- --------- - ------ - -- --- -- ---- 565 149 156 163 & V ? ! ? ? ? I fican ? ? ? ? exPa ?? treFi ! ? ? ? tem:qui ? . ? j treFili ? .? treFili ? io ! ? ? exPatreFi ? . j ? oquepro ? ? oquepro ?? quepro ! ? ? ? I lio ? ? cedit. ? ? ce w ce w LAU w que ? ?? QuicumPa w dit. ? ? ? dit.Qui w ? ?? procedit. . j ? treet ? ? ? [Qui ? . J ? cumPatreet ----- --- ---- -- --- --- -- -- --- ---- - - --- --- & V ? w DAN .? j ? [QuicumPatre . J ? Filio ? .? j cumPa ?? Filiosi w ? . ? j etFili ? ? simul ? ? treetFili . ? j ? mula w ? ? osi ?? adora ? ? osimul] ?? dora w TES w mul] ? ? ? tur, et ? ? ? adora ? ? ? tur, et w ! ? . ? conglori ?? ?? w ?? ? a ? .? ficatur: . ? j ? ??? conglori -------- - -- - - -- - --- ----- --- --- --- --- --- --------- & V ? w ? I ? I dora ?? quilo ? ? tur, ?? fica ! w tur... ? cutus ? ? [etconglo ? ? tur:qui ! w ? ? ? est[per ? ? rifica ? locutus w BE ? ? Etunam ? . J ? Prophe w tur:] .?? estper w . ? j ? sanctamca w tas.] ?? ? qui ? . j ? Prophe w NE ? ?? tholi ? ?? Etu ? locutusest ? tas.Etunam w ? ? I ?? namsan ? ? perProphe ?? Sanctamca ---------- --- - ------ -- -- - - -- - -- - -- -- ---- - -- 566 169 175 181 & V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 w DI ? ? ? camet ? ? ? ctamca ? ? ? tas.[...]San ? tholi w ? apostoli ? tholicamet ? ctamcatholi ? ? cametapo w CUNT ? ? ? camEc . ? J ? apo ? ? ? camet ?? stolicamEc w ? ? clesi ? ? stoli ? . j apostoli ? ? cle w DO . ? J ? ? ? ? camEc ? ? ? camEccle . ? j ? si w MI ? ? ? ? ? clesi ?? si ? ? w ? NUM. w ? am. w ? am. w ? am. w ? am. ---- ----- -- --------- -- ---- --- -- --- ---------- --- --- -- - & V ? w? ASSUM w? Confi w? Confi w? Confi w? Confi w PTA w te w te w te w te w ? ESTMA ? . ? oru ? ? orunum ? ? orunum ? ? orunum ? w RI .? ?? numbaptis ?w baptis ? w baptis ? w baptis .w A w ? ma w ? ma w ? ma .w ma .w ?? inremis ?? inremis ?? inremis .w - - ---- -- - - -- -- -- - - --- -- -- - - ---- -- - - --- -- & V ? w ? INCE ? . ? sio ? . ? sio w ? sio ! . ... ? w LUM . ? ? I ? I nem[peccato . ? ?? nem ? w ! . w? GAU w ? rum.] . ? ? pec w ? nem w? pecca ? w ?? Etexpec .? ? I ? cato ! . ... ? w to w? DENTAN ? ? tore ? ? rum.Etex ? ? Etexpec ? ? rum.Etex ? w .??? surrexi ? w pecto ? w tore ? w pecto - ---- ---- -- -- -- ---- -- ----- -- - --- -- ----- -- - 567 * Cut C3 in all voices188 195 201 & V ? w? GE w? onem .??? resurre . ??? surrexi .??? resurre ?w LI ?w mortu . ? ?? xio ? w o ? w xio ! . .? ? o . w nem .? j ? nem . w nem .w LAU ? .? ? w? mortu w? mortu w? mortu ? w DAN .? ?? rum. w o w o w o w ? TES ? ? Etvitam ? ? rum.Etvi ? ? rum.Etvi ? ? rum.Etvi -- - ------- - ---------- - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ------ - - -- & V ? ? w BE ? ? venturi ? ? tamventu ? ? tamventu ? ? tamventu w ? NEDI . w se . ? ? rise w? rise w ? rise w CUNT ?w cu .? ?? cu . ? ? cu w cu w ? DO . ? ? li. . ? ? . ? ? . w li. w MI ? . ? A ? w ? w w ? A . w NUM. w ? I ? li.A ? w li.A w . w . w men. . men. . w men. . w men. --- ----- -- ---- ---- -- --------- - -- - - ----- -- --------- - 568 207 213 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus ! . w ? San ! . . w San .w San . w San ? ! . ? w .w . w ? ? ?? ctus,San ! . ? ??? ctus,Sanctus, .w . w ? ? . ? ? ctus,San ! . . ? J ? ? San w ? ctus, ? ??? ctus,Sanctus, ? ? ? I ! . ? . j ? ? ? w ---------- - --------- ----- - ------ ------ - -------- & V V ? 6 . ? ? ? San ? ? . ? j ? ctus,San ! . ? ? ? ? ctus,San .? J ? ? San ? ? ? ? ? ? ! . ? ?? ? ? ? ? .? J ? ? ? ctus,San ? . J ? ! . ? ? .? .w ctus, ? ? ? . J ? ? ! . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? San --------- ----- -------- - --------------- --------------- & V V ? 10 ?? ? ? ? . J ? ! . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .? ? .w ctus, w? ASSUM ? . ? j ? ctus,San .w ctus, ? ? ? ? ctus,Sanc w? San ?w PTA ? .? ? .w ? ? ? ? . J ? ? w ? ESTMA . ? j ? ? ? ? .? j San ----- - ----------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ------ ----- ------------ 569 Sanctus & V V ? 14 ? ? . ? ? ? ? ctus, ? w RI ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? j ? ? ? I ? .? J ? ? San w? A ? ? ? ? .? J ? ? .w ? ? ? ? w ? INCE ?. ? ? ctusDomi ? . ? ? ? .? ? ctus ? w ? w LUM ? ? . j ? ? w ? ? ? ? Do w ? ctus . w w? nusDe . ----- --- ------------ - ----------------- --- ---------- ------- ------ - & V V ? 19 ? .? ? ? ? ? ? Do . w ? . ? j ? us, .w ?? .? J minusDe ? . J ? ? mi w ? GAU ? ? ? Do w ? ctusDo ? . ? ? I ? w .w ? .? ? ? w mi . w us, . ? J ? .? . w [DENT . ? ? . j ? mi . w nus -------- ------- ------ ----- ------ ---------------- -- ----------- & V V ? 23 ! . ? . J ? . J ? . w ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Do ! . .? j ? ? .w AN ? ? ? ? nusDe . ? ? ? .??? Dominus .? ? ? .w GE ? . j ? ? w ? mi ?. ? ? De ? ? . j ? ? w LI] ? ? . ? ? us,Do ? ? ? nus ---------- -- ----- -------------- ----------------- ----- ------ --- 570 & V V ? 27 .? .? ? ? .? nusDe w? LAUDAN ? ?? mi .? .? De .? .? ? .? ? ? ?w TES ? ?? . j ? nus . ? . ? . j ? ?? ? ? . J us,Do . w BE ?? ?? Deus, w? us,De . ? J ? ? . J ? ? mi . w ? ? . ? j De ?? ? ! us, ? .? ? nus w ? NE ? ? ? ? ? ? ? usDo - - ---------- -------------- ------- ----- - ----- ------- ----- - ------- & V V ? 32 ? ? . ? Domi .? .? De ? w CI ?w us ? ? minus ? ? ? I nusDe . ? ? ? us .w CUNT ! ? sa ? ? ? ? De . w us ? . ? ? . J ? sa w ? DO . ? j ? ?? ba ? .? ? ! . ? ? I .w .? J ? oth, ? ? ? ? ? . ? J ? sa . ? ? . w MI ? . ? ? Deus ? .?? ussaba ---- ---------- ---- - --- --- ---------- -- ------ ---------- -- ----- - & V V ? C C C C C 37 ?? . ? .? .? ba ! . w ? saba .w oth, ? ? ? I ba . ? ? ! . ? . J ? ? ? ? ? ? saba . w oth. . oth. . w NUM. . w oth. . w oth. . w . . w . w . w ! w Ple ! ! ! ! ? nisunt, ! ! ! ! ? ? ple ! ! w Ple ------- ------- --- - ------- - - ------ 571 & V V ? 44 ! ? ? ni ! ! ?? nisunt ! .? J ? ! ! ? ! ? ? ! ! ? ? ! ? ? ? suntce ! ! . ? J ? ce ! ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ! . ? J ? b ! ? i ? ! ! ? ? ? I --------- -- -------- & V V ? 51 w Ple . ? j ? li, ! ! .? J ? ? nisunt ?? Ple ! ! ? li, ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? plenisunt ? ? ? ? ni ! ! ? ? celi, ? ? ? ce ? ? sunt ! ! ?? ? ple ? ? li ? . ? j ce ! ! ? ? nisunt ? . ? j et ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ce --- ---- --- - - - - -- ----- ---- & V V ? 58 ? I ? ? ? liet ! ! ? ? li ? . j ? ter ? ? ? ter ! ! ? ? ? etter ?. ? j ? ! ! ? ? ? .? ? ? ! ! .? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ?? ra, ? ? ra, .? j ? ra, ! ! ? ? ? etter ! ? ? etter ! ! ? ? ---------- -- ------- --- -- ---------- - 572 & V V ? 65 ! ? ? ra, ! ! ?? ! ? ? ? et ! ! ? ra, ! ?. ? j ter ! ! ?? ? etter ! ? ? ! ! ? . J ? ! ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ce ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? .? J ? ! ! ? ? ? --- ---- ----------- -- ----------- & V V ? 72 .? ? ? . J ? ! ! ? ? ra ? ? ? ? ! ! ? glo ? ? ? liet ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ri ? ? ter ? ? ? raglo ! ! ?? ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ?? .? ? ri ! ! .? J ? ? ? ? I ? ? ! ! ? ? a, ----- --------- ------------- -------- -------- & V V ? 79 ? ? ra ? ? ? a,glo ! ! ? ? glori ! ? ? ! ! ? . ? ! ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ! .? j ? ri ! ! . J ? ? ? ? glo ? ? ? I ! ! ? ? ? ? ri . j ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? a ?? a ! ! ? ? a ----- ---------------- --------------- 573 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 86 .? j ? tu . J ? tu ! ! ? . ? ? tu ? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? I ? ? ! ! ? ? w a. w a. ! ! w a. w w ! ! w ! . w? Osan ! . w? Osan ! . ! . w na, ! . .? ? ! . -------- -------- -------- -- ----- & V V ? 93 ! . w ? O ! . w? na, Osan ! . .? ? ? san ! . . ? ? ? O .? ? ? ! . .? ? ? w? ASSUM ? . ? .w ! . ? w ? w PTAEST ?. ? ? w w? ASSUM .? ? .w MA w ? san .? ? ? ? w PTAEST ? ? w RI ? ? ? w -- ----- -- ---------------- ----------------- -- --------------- & V V ? 99 .w MA ? .w A . ? ? w ? na, ? w RI ? na, ? ! .? ?? ? w .w A ? O ! . .? ? .w O ? ! ? . ? ! . w ? ? w ! . ?. ? san .w IN w ? .w ! . .? ?? ? w CE ?. ? ? w - ----- ----------- ---- ---------- ----------------- 574 & V V ? 105 .w IN .? ? ? .w LUM ? . ? ? ? san ? w CE ? ? w ? w na, ? .w LUM . ! . ? .? O ? . ? ? w ? ! . ? . ? ? ? w na, ! . w ? . w GAU ?? ?? O ! . . ?? na, ? w ? w ----- - -- ------- ------ ---------------- ---- ------------ & V V ? 111 . w GAU .? ? ? O w ? DENT . ? ? ? san w? san ? w ? ! . ? w ? w ? DENT ? ? ? ? san ! . ? ? ? .? ? ? ! . .w w ? ANGE . w ? ! . ? w . ?? ? w w w ? ANGE ? nain w ? LI ? .? nain w ? ----- ----- -- ------------------ -------------- -------------- & V V ? 117 .? ?? ? w ex ! . ? ? ex ? w na w ? LI ?? .w LAU ? . ? ? . ? in ! . ? . ? cel ? w DAN w ? I cel ? ex .w LAU ? . ? .w TES w ? sis, w ? ? w DAN w ? ? w BE w? inex ? w .w TES w ? .w .? ? cel .w cel ---- - ---- ---- --- - -- ----------- ----------------- ------- ---- 575 * A S d follows ligature in MontsM 766, f. 131r, CT, but it seems to be an error, since counterpoint and rhythm work better without it * & V V ? 123 ? w BE ? ? w NE ? . ? ? w .w ? . ? w ? DI ? ? w ? ? w NE ? ? w ? . ? ? w w ? DI ? . ? ? . ? CUNT ? ! sis, ? . ? ? w ? I ? w ! . ? w ? . ? CUNT w ? sis,in w ? DOMI . w in ? w sis, - - -- ------ ------ --------------- --------------- --------- & V V ? C C C C C 129 ? w ? ex ? w ? ? ? w inex ? . ? DO . w cel . w NUM. ? w ex ? cel w ? I MI ? ? w .? ? ? I cel ? w . w NUM. . sis. . w . . w sis. . w sis. . w . . w . . w . w ! ! w Be ! w Be ! ! ? ! ? ne ---- ---- ------ ------- -- --------- ---- & V V ? 136 ! ! w ne ! ? ? ! ! w ! ? ! ! ?? di ! ? . ? di ! ! ? ? ! . ? J ? ! ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ! ? . ? ! ? ? ? ! ! .? j ? ! ?.? ----------------- ------------------ 576 & V V ? 143 ! ! ? ? i ! ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? I ! ? ? w Be Be w ctus ! w ctus ? ? ne ! ! ! w ne ? ? ! ! ! w ? ? ! ! ! ?? di ? ? ! ! ! ----- ------------ ------ ----------- & V V ? 150 ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? di ! ! ! ? . ? ? ? ! ! ! . j ? ?.? ! ! ! ? ? i ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? I ? ? ! ! ?? qui ? ? ctus ? ? ctus ? ? qui ! ? ? ? I ve --------------- - ---------------- & V V ? 157 ! ! ? ? ? I ve ! ? ! ! ? ! ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ! . ? ? ! ! ? ? ! ? ? ! ! ? ? ! ? ! ! . j ? ? ! ? . J ? ! ?? ? qui ? ? ! ? ? ----------------- ----------------- 577 & V V ? 164 ?? ? qui ? ? ? I ve ? ? ! ? ? ? ? I ve ? ? ? nit ! ? ? nit, ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? . ? ? ! ! ! .? ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ! ! ! . j ? ? ? . J ? ? . ? j ? in ! ! --- -------------- --- ----------------- & V V ? 171 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ! . J ? . j ? ? ? ? nit, .? j ? no ! ! ? ? ? . ? . J ? mi ! ? . ? J qui ? ? I ? . ? J qui ? ? ne, ! ? ? venit, ? ? nit ? ? ? ve ? . ? j ? qui ! ? . ? j ? qui ! ? ? ? ? ! ? ? venit, ! . J ? ? ? ! ? ? ? qui ------- ---------- - - ----- ----- & V V ? 178 ! ? ? ! ! ? ? ve ! ? ? ?? ? ve ! ? ?# I . ? j ? in ? ? ? . j ? ! ? ? nit ? ? no ? ? ? nitin ? ? ! ?? ? in ? ? mine, ? no ? ? ? nit ! ? ? nomi ? ? ? qui . ? J ? mi ? ? ? in ! ?? ne, ? ? i ve ? ? ne, ? ? no ! ? ? in -------- - ---- - ----- -- -------- ---- 578 & V V ? 185 ? ? ? I ??? qui ? ? mi ! ? ? no ? ? nit .? j ve ? ? ne, ! ? ? ? ! ? ? i ?? ? no ! ? ? ? in ? ? nitin ? ? mi ! ? ? mi .? J ? no ? . J ? no ? ? ne ! ? ? ne ? ? ! ! ! ? ? mi ? . J ? ! ! ! ? ? ne ? mine ?? . J ? Do ! ?? ? Do - - -- - --- ------ --------- - ----- ------- & V V ? 193 ! ! ? ? ! . ? J ? ! ??? Do ? ? mi ! ? ? ? ??? Do ? ? ? ? ? ni,Do ! . J ? ? . J ? .? J ? mi ? ? ! ? . J ? mi ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ? ? I mi ?? ? ? mi ! ? ? w ni. ni. w ni. ! w ni. w w ! w ----- -------- ------- --------------- ----------- 579 Osanna ut supra & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Tenor 3 Bassus ! . ! . ! . ! . w? Agnus . ? j .? ? A w? Agnus . ? j .? ? A ! . ! . . ? J ? ? De ?? ? ? gnusDe . ? J ? ? ? De ? ? ? I gnus ! . ! . ? ? ? ? ? i,A . J ? ? w ? De ! . ! . ? . j ? ? w ? gnus ? . ? ? .w i, ! . ! . . ? J ? ? ?? ? Dei,De - ---------- ----- --- - ------------- ---- - ----- - - & V V ? 6 ? . J ? ? ? ? ??? AgnusDe ! . ! . ?? ? 6 ? . ? ? . ? ? ? .w w? ASSUM ! . .? ? ? w? i, ? ?? i,Agnus w? i, w PTA ! . .w i, ? ? ? quitol .??? Dei, .? J ? ? ? qui ! . w? ASSUM ? .? ? qui ? ? ?? lisquitol . ? j ? ?? quitol ? .? J tol ! . ?w PTA ?? ? ? lis,quitol ------- - --- - - ------ - - - - --- ------- ------ - - - 580 Agnus Dei & V V ? 11 ? ?? ? lis, .? J ? ? lis, .w EST ! . ? .? ? tol 11 w ? ? . ? ? ? ? quitol ? w MA ! . ? ? ?? lis,quitol ? ? ? ? ?? ? quitol . J ? ?? .w RI . w EST . ? ? ? w ? ? .? J ? . J ? ? ? w A ? w MA ? . ? lis,qui . ? J ? . ? ? ? lis ? ? ?? lispecca . w IN . w RI .? ? ? tol . w lis -- ----- --- --------- -- -------- ------ ---- ---- - --------------- & V V ? 16 .? J w pec ? ? ? ? tamun ? w CE ? w A ?. ? j ? 16 ? w pec w ? . J ? ? di,pec w ? LUM .w IN ? ? w ? ca ? w ca ?? cata ? ! ? w CE ? ? lis ? ? tamun w ? ? . ? ? mun ! . w ? LUM ! . ? ? di,pec ? . ? j ? ta, ?? . J ? ! . ?! ! . ?? . J ? ca ---------------- --- -- ------- --- -- ------- -------- ------ --- ---- 581 & V V ? 21 ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? di, w ? GAU ! . ? ? pecca 21 ? ? ? tamun ? ? ? ? pec ? ? ? ? pec ? w DENT ! . ? ? .? ? w di, . ? ? . J ? cata ? ? ? I ! . w ? GAU ? ? .? j ! . ? ? ? mundi,pec ? I . ? ca ! . ? w DENT ? ? ? ? tamun ? . ? pec ?? cata ??? tamundi, w ? AN ! . ?? di,pec ?? ? cata ---- - -- --- ---------- - ---- --- ---- ---------- ---- - - - - & V V ? 26 ? ? ? . J ? mun ? . J ? ? ? pecca ?? GELI ! . ? . j ? ? ? 26 ??? ? mundi, .w di, ? ? ? ? tamun ! . w ? AN . j ? ? ? ? ? pecca ? ? ? ? pec ? ? ! . ?? GELI ? ?? cata ? ?? tamundi: ? ? ? ? ? ? . J ? di,pec w ? LAUDAN ! . w ? mun ? ? mi ?? ? cata . J ? ? ca ? w TES ! . ? ? ?? ? w ---- ------- -- ----- ----- --- - -- ----- ------- - ------- - ----- ------- 582 & V V ? 31 ? ? ? 3 mun ? ? ? ? tamun ! . w ? LAUDAN ? ? ? ? di:mi 31 ? ? se .? J .? ? 3 ? ? ? di:mise ! . ? w TES ? ? ? se ? w w ? ? di:mi ? . J ? ? rere, . w BE ! . .w ? re ? . j ? ? ? w ? w NE ! . ? w ? .w se ? ?? ? mise .w DI .w BE w ? re w ? re ------ ------- - --- -- ----- ---- - -- --- ---------------- -------------- & V V ? 36 ? w ? ? ? ? I re ? w CUNT ? w NE ? ? ? re 36 ? w . ? . ? ? re ? ? ? reno ! . . w DI ? .? ? . w ? ? reno ? ? bis,mise ! . ? w CUNT ? ? ? ? no ? ? ?? nobis, .? J ? ? ? w ? re ? ? . ? DO ! . w ? w? mi ? ? ? . ? .? J reno .? J I ? ? MI ! . ? ? ? bis,mi . ? j ? ? se --------- -------- -- - - ------ - - ------- -- - ---- --- ------- - - ---- 583 & V V ? 41 ? ! bis, .? J ?? ? ? ! NUM. ? ? .? DO . ? j ?? ? sere 41 ? ? ? rere . w no ? ? ? ? I . w NUM. . ? J ? ? MI ? ? ? reno ? ? ? no . ? ? ? bis. .w bis. . w . w NUM. . ? ?? bis. . w bis. . w . . w . w . w . w ----- ----------- --------- ------ ---- - ----- 584 585 APPENDIX II.8: Missa Cueur langoureulx, MontsM 766 & V ? 2 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus ! w Ky ! ? .? j Ky ? ? Ky ! ?? ri ! ? ? ? ? i ? ? ri ! w e Ky ? . ? w e, ! ? ? e ?? ri ? ? ri ?? Kyri ! ? ? ley w e w e . ? i ? e ! ? i ? ? ? ? e ? ?? Kyrie ?? eley ----- ------- ----- - ---------- -- ----- -- -- & V ? 7 w Ky ? . j ? son,Kyri ? ? ley .? j ? 7 w son, ?? ri ? ? ? ? ? ? .? j ? ? ??? e w e ? ? ? ee w son, ? ? . J ? ? ? ? e ? ? ley w ? ? e ? ? ? ? ley ? ? son, ! ? ? ? ley ? ? ? ? ? ?? Kyri ! ? ? ?? ley ----- -------- ----- ---- -- ------ ------- ------------ & V ? 13 w son, ? .? .? J Ky .? ? son, 13 w son, w ? ? e ? ? ?? Kyrie w ! ? ?? eley ? ri . j ? ? ? ? e ! ? ? son, ? ? ? ? ? ? ley .? J ? Ky ? ? ? Ky ? ? e ? ? ley ?? son, ? ? ?? ! ? . ? son,Ky ? ?? Kyri ------ ----- --- ----- ------------ -- ----------- - ----- -- 586 Kyrie & V ? 19 ? ? ri ? ? ? ? ? Kyri ? ? ri 19 ? ? e ? ? ? ? ? ri ? ? e, ? ? ? eKy ! ? ? e, .? ? ? e, ? Kyrie ? ? ri ? . ? j e ! ! . ? ? e ? ?? . ? ? ? ? ? ? Kyri ! ?? ley ? ? e, ? ? ? I ley ? ? e ? ? Ky ? ? son, ? ?? Kyri ? ? ----- ---- ------- --- ---- -- ------ --- ------- -- -- ------------ & V ? 25 ? ?? eley ? .? j ! . ? ? e 25 ? ? . ? ? ? ? ! . ?? ? ? son, ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ky ? ? e ! ? ? son, ? ? ri .? J ? ri ? .? ley .?? Kyri ! ? ? ? .? ? ? .? ? son,Ky ? ? ! ? ? e .? j ? ? ? rie ? . ? -------- --------------- ---------- ---- --- --- -------- & V ? 31 ? ? ? Ky ?? ? e ?? e ?? leyson, 31 ? ? e .? J ? ri ? j ? ? ? ? eley ? ? ? ? e .? ? ? ? ? ley w ?? ? Ky ? ? leyson, .? j ? ? ? ? ? . j ? . ? J ? ri ! ?? e ? ? ? son,e ? ? ? son,e ? ? ee ? ? ? e ? ? ? eley . j ? ley . j ? ley ? ? ley . ? J ? ----------- -- ---------- ---- -- --------- ---- -- ---- - - -- ---- ----- 587 & V ? 37 w ? ? ? I .? ?? ? .? 37 ? ? ley w son. w son. w son. son. w son. w w w w -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- & V ? 40 ? . ? j Cri ! w Cri .? J ? Cri 40 ! ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ! ?? ? ? Cri w w ste ! w ste w ? ? ? ? ? eley . ? J ? Cri ? ? e ? ? ? ? ste ?? ? ? ? I ? ? ? ? ? ? stee ? ? . J ? eley w son ste ? ? ? ley . j ? ley ? ! ? ? ? eley ------ ------- ------ ---- ----------- ----- ----- ----- ----- -- & V ? 47 ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ! 47 ? ? ? . ? j ? ? ? w son, ? ? Cri w son ? ? ? ? ? ? Cri ?? ste ! ? ? ? ? ? Cri . ? ? w ! ? ? ? son,Cri . j ? ? ? w ? ? Cri .? j ? stee ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ?? stee ------------ - - ----------- ------- --- ---------- --- --- - - 588 & V ? 53 ? ? ley w ste . ? ? stee ? ? e 53 w ley w son, ? ? e ? ? ?? ley w son ? ? Cri ? ? ? ? w ! ? . ? . ? j ? ? ley ? ? leyson, .? J ? ? ? ? Cri ? ? ?? ! ? ? w ste ? ? stee ? ? ? sonCri w Cri w son --- -------- - ------------ - -------- - ------------- --- - & V ? 59 ? ?? ley ? .? j ? .? j ? ! 59 . ? J ? e ? ? ?? 3 ? ? ? ? ? e ? ? ? ley ? ? ? . ? j ? ? stee ? ? ley w son ? ? ? . ? stee ? ? leyson, w son ! ? ? son, ? ? leyson ? eley ? ? e ? ? e ? ? e ? ?? eley ? ? ? ? ? ley ? ? ley -------------- --- ---------- ---- -- ------- -- ----- ---- --- ------ --- & V ? 65 ? ? ? ley ? ? . ? j ? w son. w son 65 w son ? ? ? . ? ? w w w w son. w son w w w w w w ---------- ----------- 589 & V ? 69 w Ky ! . ?? Kyri w Ky 69 w Ky ? ri ! ? .? J e .?? ri ? ri w e w Ky .? ? ? . ? ? ? . ? ! ?? ri ! ? ? ? ?? e ? ? e w e ? . ? j ? e ? ? eeley .? J ? e ?? ley ! .? J ? ? ? ? . ? J ? ? ---- ---- ------ -- ----- ----------- ----- --------- ------ & V ? 75 ? .? J ? ? e ? .? j ley ?? son, 75 ? ? ? ? ?? ley .? ? ? son, ! . ?? ley ? ? son, ? .? j ? ? . J ? Ky ? ? ? Ky ? ? son, ? ? Ky ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ri ? ? son, .? J ri ? ? ? ri ? Ky w e ? ? Ky ? ? . ? ? .? j ? ri ------ ---- ---------- - ----- ---------- -- ---------- ----- ------ & V ? 81 ? ? e ? ri ? ? ? ee ? ? ? ee 81 w e ? ? ley w e . ? ? . j ? ? ?? Ky ? ? ? ? e ? .? ? ? rie ? ? ? ? ? ley ? ley ? ? ? ? ley w son, ? ? ? ? son, ? .? ? ? son,e ? ? ? Ky ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ley --------- - --- --------- ------------ --------------- ------- ---- 590 & V ? 87 ? ? ? w son, ? ?. j ? Kyri ? ? leyson, 87 w son, ? ? ? ? ? Ky ? . J ? ?? ? Ky ??? Kyri ? ? ? ri ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? e ? ? ? ? ? ? ? e ? ? ? ! ? ? e ? ? ? ri ?? ? e ?b ? rie ? ? e ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ley ? ? ? e ?? ?? ? e ? ? e ? ? son, ? ? I ley ? ? ley ------------ - -------------- --------- ---- - ------- ---- --- ------- & V ? 94 ? ? ? ? ? ?? e ??? son, 94 ? ? ? son,e ? ? ? ley ?? ? e ? ? i ?? ? e ? ? w son. ? ? ?? ? 3 ? ? ley ? ?? e w ? ? ? I ley . j ? ? ley ? ? ? ? le w w son. w son. w son. son. w w w w -------- --------- -------------- --- --------- ------------- 591 & V ? 2 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus ! ! . ?? Etin ? ? Et ? Etin ! ! ? terra ? ? interra ? terra w [...]Ho ! .?? paxho .? ? paxho ? . ? J pax ? mini ! .? ? mi ? ? . ? J ? homini w bus ! ? nibus ? ? mini ? ? busbone ? ? bo ! ? ?? bonevo ? i ? i ?? volunta ? ? nevolun ?? [...]Bonevo ? . J lun ? ? ? busbo w tis. - --------- - - ---- --- -- ---- - -- - - - - -- & V ? ? ? ? ta ?? lunta . ? ? i ? tatis. ? ? nevolun ??? Laudamus w tis[...] w tis. ? ?? Laudamus ? ? tatis. ? ? ? te.Be w ? ? Lau ? ? ? te.Be ? ? ? Laudamus ? ? nedicimus ! ? ? da nedicimus . j ? te. ? ? ? te.A ! ? i ? ? i mus ?? te.Adora ? ? Benedi ?? doramus ?? Glorifi w te. . J ? ? muste. .? j ? cimuste.A . J ? ? --- -- ---- - -- --- --- -- ------ -- - --- - - --- --- & V ? ?? camus w ? ? Glori ?? doramus ?? w te. ! ? ? ficamuste. ? ? ? te.Glo ? ? te.Glorifi ? ? Gra ! ? ? ? ? rifica ? ? camus ? ? ciasagi ?? Glorifi ? ? Gra .? ? mus ??? te.Gra ? ? ? musti ?? camus ?? ciasa ? ? ? te.Gra ?? ciasagi w bi w te. ?? gimusti ? ? ciasagi .? ? musti --- ---- ---- ---- ---- - ---- - ---- - ---- ------ 592 Gloria 8 14 & V ? w ? ? Gra ? ? ? bi, ? ? ? musti w bi ! ?? ciasagi ? . ? ? ti ? bi ??? prop ! ? ? musti ? ? ?? ? prop ? ? ter .? J ? propter w bi ? ? bi... .? ? ter ? .? j magnamglo ? ? ? mag w ?? ? Do ? ? magnam ? ? riamtu ? ? namgloriam ! . ? . J ? mine ? .? J gloriam ?? am. - - - - -- --- - --- ---- - - - -- -- ----- -- & V ? ? ? ? I tu ! ?? De ? ? tuam. ! w am. .? j ? Domine ? ? ? us,Rex ? ?. j ? Domi ??? Do ? ? Domine ? ? ? De ? ? celes ? ? neDeus[...] ? ? mineDe . ? ? De ? ? us,Rexceles ? ? tis, ! ? . ? us,Rexce ? ? ? ? ? I ? ? De ! ? ? les ? ? us,Rexceles w tis, . ?? usPa ?? ? om w tis[...] . ? ? tis[...] ? ?? DeusPa . J ? terom . j ? nipo ! - --- --- --- - - -- - ---- -- - - ----- -- - ---- - - - & V ? ? ? . ? ? terom ? ? nipo ? ? tens. ! w ? ? nipo ? ? ? Domi ? ? Do ! ? ? tens.Deuspa ?? tens.Do . ?? neFi .?? mine ! . ? ? terom ? ? mi . j ? liuni . J ? Fili, ! ? ? nipo ? ? ? neFi ? ? ? ge ? ? Fi ? ? Do w tens. li .?? ni w li ? mine ! ? uni ? .? J teJhe ? uni -- - ------- - -- - --- -- ----- --- -- ----- ---- - -- 593 20 26 33 & V ? w Fi ! .? ? ge ? ? suChriste .? J ? geni .? ? li ! ? ? nite .?? Jhe ? ? ? teJhesu ? ? uni ? ? [...]u ! ? ? suChris . ?? Chris .? j ? geni ? nige ?? ? Jhe ? ? te.Do w te. w te... w ni ? ? su . ? mineDe ? ? Do ! .? ? te ? ? Christe. ? ? . ? ? mi ! ? Jhesu ? ? Do ? ? ? ? neDe ----- - -- ----- -- - - ---- - ------ - --- ---- ---- --- - - & V ? ? ? Do .? j ? Chri . ?? mine ? ? ? us,Ag w us, ? mine w ste. ? Deus, ? . j ? nus ?? AgnusDe ? ? Deus,Agnus ! .? J ? Ag . ? ? .? j ? ? ? ? De ! ?? nusDe ? ? De ?? ?? i,Fili ? ? [...]Ag ? ? i,Fi ? ? ? i,Fi w i, ? ? I usPa ? nusDe li ? lius ! w tris. ? ? i,Filius .? J usPa ?. j ? Pa ?? Filius - - -- -- ------- - -- - -- -- ------- - - - ---- - --- - & V ? w ? ? ? Pa ? ? tris,Fi ? ? tris, ? ? Patris, w ?? tris,Fili ? ? lius ? ? Filius ?? ? Filius w ? ? I usPa ? ? Pa ? ? Pa ? ? Pa w w tris. w tris. w tris. tris. w w w w ! w Qui Qui w Qui w Qui ! ? tollis ? tollis ? tollis ? tollis ! ? . j ? pecca ? pecca ? . j ? pecca ? . J ? pecca -- -- - - -- - - --- - -- ----- - - -- -- - - -- 594 40 47 54 & V ? w Qui .? j ? tamun ? ? tamun ? ? tamun . ? ? tamun ?? tollis ? ? ? ? ? ? di.misere ?? di,mise ? pecca ? ? ? di,mi w di, ?? reno ? ? reno ? ? tamun .? ? ! w bis. w bis. ? ? ? ? sere ? .? J Qui ? ? ? Quitollis ?? Qui w di, ? ? reno ? ? tollispecca . ? ? peccata .? j ? tollispec ! ? ? ? I tamun ? ? mun ? ? catamun ---- - -- - ----- - --- - --- ----- ---- - -- ---- ---- --- - & V ? ? .? J pec ? ? bis. w di, ? di,sus w di, ? ? cata ? ? . ? sus ! ? ? ci ! ? ? ? I mun ? ? ci ! ? ? pe ! w di, ? ? ? pede .? j ? suscipede .? j ? depreca ? . ? J susci ! ? ? preca ? ? preca ? ? tionemnos ? ? ? pedepre ! ? . j ? tio ? ? tio ? ? tram. ? cati .? j ? suscipede ? ? nem ? ? nem . ?? Quise ? .? onem ----- ----- - ------- --- ------- -- - --- -------- & V ? ? ? pre ? ? no ? ? ? I nos ? ? desaddex ? ? nos ? ? catio ? ? ? stram.Qui w tram. ? ? teramPa w tram. ? ? nem ? . j ? sedesaddex ?? ? Qui ? ? tris, ? ? ? Quise ? ? ? I no ? ? terramPa ? sedesad ! ? desaddex w stram. ? ? ? tris,mi . ? J ? dexter . ? j ? Pa ? . ? teram ?? ? Qui ? ? sere ? ? ram ? ? tris, ? ? Patris, ? sedesaddex I ? ? I reno ? ? Pa ?? ? mi ! - --- ---- - - - -- - - - - - --- - - ---- - -- - - ---- - 595 62 69 76 & V ? . ? J ? terramPa ? ? ? bis,mi w tris, . ? ? se .? ? miseere ? ? tris,mise ? ? sere ! ? ? rere ? ? re ?? reno I ? ? I no ? ? misere ? ? no ?? no w bis. ? ? ? bis.Quo . ? re ? ? bis. ? . J ? ! ?? niamtu ?? no ? ? ? Quoni ? ? ?? Quoniam ? ? solussanc w bis. . ? j ? amtusolus ? ? bis, . ? ? tuso ? ? ? tus.Tu ? ? Quoniam ? sanctus. ? ? mise -- -- --- -- -- --- -------- -- --- -- - -- - ----- - - -- -- - & V ? ? ? lussanc ? . ? solus ? ? tuso ? .? J Tu ? ? reno w tus. ?? Do .? ? lussanc ? ? ? solus w bis. ? ? Tusolus ? ? ? mi ? ? ? ? Domi ?? Quo ? Do w nus. w tus. ? ? nus. ? ? ? niamtu .? ? mi w ? ? Tu ? ? ? ? solus ? ? ?? ? Tu ? sollus ? ? Tu ? ? sanc w nus. . ? j ? solus .? J ? Do ?. j ? solus .? j ? tus.Tu -- ---- - -- -- - -- - ------ - - - ------ - --- - --- & V ? ? ? Tu ? ? Altissimus, ? ? mi ? ? Altis ? ? so ?? solus ? ?? tusolus ? ? ? ? simus, ? ? lus .? J ? Al ? ? Al ? ? ? nus.Tu ? .? J ? Jhe .? j ? Do ? ? tissi ? tis w so ? suChris ? mi ? ? ? ? simus, ? ? lus ? ? ? ? .? ? mus,Jhe ? ? JhesuChris ? ? Altissi w te. ? ? nus. w su . j ? . J ? ! ? . ? ? Tu --- - ---- ---- ------- - -- ------ - --- -- ------- - ----- --- ----- 596 83 90 97 & V ? ? ? Christe. ? ? ? ? ! ? ? so ? ?? CumSancto ? ? te.CumSancto w mus[...] ? ? ? Tusolus w lus . J ? Spi ? ? Spi ! . j ? Altis ??? Altis ? ? ri ? ? ri ! ? ? simus, ? ? simus, w tu, ? ? ? tu,in ? ? CumSancto ?.? j Jhesu ? . ? J Jhesu ! ? ? glori ? ? Spiri ? ? ? Chris ? ? Chris ! w a, ? ? ? te.Cum w te. - --- - - --- --- - - --- ------- -- - ------ --- - ---- & V ? ? ?? inglori ? ? ? in w tu, ? ? SanctoSpi ? ? ? Cum ? ? aDei ? glo ! ? ? ri ? SanctoSpiri w Pa . ? ? ria ? ? [...]Dei ? ? ? tu,in ? ? ? tu,in w tris, ? ? De ? ? ? Pa ? . j ? glori ? ? gloria ! ? ? ? i w tris. .? j aDe ? . J ? De ? ? DeiPa ? Pa w ? ? iPa ?? iPa ? ? ? tris.A ? ? tris. ? ? ? A ? ? tris, . ? j ? tris. - -- -- - --- -- - -- - --- --- -- --- -- - - - - & V ? w men. ? ? ? I A ? ? ? ??? Dei Pa ? ? ? A w w men. w men. ? ? ? tris.A w men. w w w men. w - --- --- ------- ------- ------- 597 104 111 118 & V V ? 2 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus ! ?? Patremom ?? Patremom ? ? Patremom ?? Patremom ! ?? nipoten ?? ? nipoten ? ? nipoten ? ? nipoten ! w tem, ? ? ? tem,fac w tem, .?? tem,fac ! ? ?? factorem ?. j ? toremce ? ?? factorem ? ? toremce ! ? ? celiet . ? ? li . ? ? celiet ? ? ? lice ! ? ? ? ter ? ? etter ? ? ter ? ? lietter ----- ---- - ----- - ----- ----- - - ---- ----- --- - - & V V ? 7 .?? [...]Visi w re, ? ? ? re,vi ? ? ? re,vi ? re,vi ?? bili ?? ? vi ?? sibili ? ? sibili ? ? sibili w um . J ? sibili ?? umomni ? ? umom w um, ? ?? omni ? . ? umom ?? um,etin ? ? nium, ? ?? visi ? ? ? ? ni ?? visibili ! . ?? bili ? ? ? w um, . j ? um,etin ! ?? umomni ---- ------- ---- -- ---- - ---- ---- ---- -- ---- ---- -- & V V ? 13 w um, ! ?.? ? visi .? j ? visibili ??? um,etin ?? ? et ! ? ? bili ? ?? umomni ?? visibili . j ? invisi ? ? ? etinvi ?? um. ?? um,etin w um. ?. ? bi ?? sibi ! . ? j ? visibi ! ? ? li ?? li ! ? ? lium, ! w um. ? ? ? um.Et ? ? Et ? ? Et . ?? Etin -------- ---- ------- --- -- ----- ---- 598 Credo & V V ? 19 ! . ?? in . ? ? inunum ?? inunum ?? unum ! . ? ? unumDo ? ? Do ? ? Dominum ? ? ? Do ? ? ? Etin ? minum ? ? mi ?? ? Jhe ? minum ?? unum ! ? ? ? numJhe ? sum ? ?? Jhesum ?? Domi ! ? ? ? sumChris ? ? Chris ? ? Chris ? ? ? numJhe Jhe ? ? tum, ? ? ? ? - -- - - ----- - - - -- --- -- - ---- - ---- - ----- & V V ? 25 .?? sum ? . ? sum ? ? . ? Fili ? ? tum, ? ? tum, ? . ? Chris .? J Chris ? ? um ! ! ? ? tum[...] ? I tum, ? ? Dei[...] ? ? Fi ? ? Fi ! ? ?? Filium ! ?? liumDe ?? liumDe ! ? ? ? Deiu ! ? ? i ? ? iuni ? ? Etex ? ? nigeni ! ? ? uni ? ? I geni -- ---- ----- - - --- - ---- -- ----- -- -- -- - ---- & V V ? 31 ? .? Pa ? ? tum. ?? ? Et ? ? geni w tum. ? . j ? trena ? ? EtexPa ? ? exPatrena w tum. ! ? # I ? tum ? ? trenatum ? ? tuman ? ? Et ! ? ?? ante ! ? ?? teomni ? ? exPatrena ! ?? omni ? anteom w a[...] ? ? tumanteom ??? [...]anteom ? ? asecu ? ? niase ! ? ? niasecu ? ? niasecu --- ---- - ---- -- - -- -- ---- -- ------- ----- 599 & V V ? 37 ? ? la. ? . J ? cu ? ? . j ? Deum w la. w la. ? ? ? Deumde ? ? la. ? ? deDeo,[lu ! ?? ? Deumde ? ? Deo, ? ?? Deumde ? ?# I mende ! ? ? De ! ? ? Deo, ? ? lumi ? ? ? Deumde .? J ? ? ?? lumende ? ?? lumende ? ? ne,] ? ? Deo,lu ? ? ? o,lu ? ? lumine, ? ? lumi ! ? ? mendelu mendelumi - - - -- - -- -- ---- - - - -- - -- - - ----- - -- & V V ? 43 ? . J ? Deumve w ne, ! .? j ? ? . J ? ne,Deum ? ? rum ? De ! ? ? mi ?? ve ? ?? deDeo ? ? umve ? ?? Deum w ne[...] w rum ? vero, ? rumdeDe ? ve ! ! ? ?? deDeo ?? o ?? rumdeDeo ! ? ? ? deDe ? ? ve ? ? ve ? ? vero. ?? ? Ge ? ? ove - - -- ---- - --- - - - - --- --- ------ - - --- - - & V V ? 49 w ro. ro. ? ? ? Genitum, ? ? ? nitum,non ? ? ? ro.Ge ? ? Ge ! ? ? nonfac ? ? factum, ? ? ni ? ?? nitum,non ? ? [...]con w tum[...] .? J ? consubstanti . ?? tum,non ? ? factum,[con ? ? substanti ! ? ? alemPatri: ? ? factum, ?? substantia ? ? alemPa ! ! ? ? consubstanti ? ? ? I lem]Pa ? ? ? ? per ?? ? per ? ? alemPa -- - ---- - -- - --------- ----- ------ - - - ----- 600 & V V ? 55 w tri... ? ? ? tri:per ?? quemomnia ? ? quemomnia w tri... ! ? ? I quemomnia ? ? facta ? ? fac ! ? ? Qui facta ? ? ? sunt.Qui ? ta ! ? ? prop w sunt. ? ? prop w sunt. ? ? Quipropter ? ? ternosho ?? ? Qui ? ? ternosho ! ? ? ? noshomi ? ? mi ? propter ? ? mi ! ?? nes, - ---- --- - ---- - - - ----- - -- & V V ? 61 ? ? ? nes,et ? ? nosho ? ? nes, ?? Quipropter ??? etpropter ? ? I propternos ? ? mi ! ?? noshomi ? ? nostramsa ? ? tramsalu w nes, ! ? ? ? nes,et ? ? lutem w tem ? ?? etpropter .? j ? etpropter ?? propterno ??? descendit ?? ? de ? ? nostram ? ? nostram ? ? stramsa ? ? dece ? scendit ? salu ? sa ? lutem ?? lis, ---- -- -- - ----- -- -- - -- - - -- - --- -- - & V V ? 67 ? ? ? dece ? ? ? temde w lu ? ? ? de w de ? ? ? ? scenditdece ? ?? temde ? ? ? scendit ? ? scendit w lis. ? ? I ?? scendit ? ? dece ? ? dece w lis. . ? ? dece w lis. lis. w w lis. w w w w ------ --- -- - -- ---- ----- - - - 601 & V V ? 73 ! ! w Et ! ! ! w Et ? ? incar ! ! ! ? ? incar . ?? natus ! ? ? Et ! ? ? natus ? ? estde ! ? ? incar w Et ? ? ? estde ?? Spiritu ! ?? natusestde ? ? incar ? Spiritu ? ? Sancto, ! ? ? Spiri -- --- -- - --- -- --- -- & V V ? 79 ?? natusestde . ? ? San ? ?? deSpiri ! ? ? ? tu,de ? ? SpirituSan ?? cto .? J ? tu ! ? ? Spiritu ? ? ? ? ? ? San ! ?? San w cto[...] ? ex w cto[...] ! ? ? ? ctoex ! ? ? MariaVir ! ! ? ? MariaVir ? ? Et ? ? gi ! ! ? ? gi - - ---- ---- --- ----- - -- - --- - -- & V V ? 85 ? ? homo ? ne: ? ? Et ! ? ne: ? factus ? Et ? ho ! ? ? Et ? ? est,ethomo ? ? ho ? ? mofac ! ? ? ho ? ? fac ? ? mofac ? ? ? ! ? ? mo ?? U tusest. ? ? ? tus ? ? tus ! ? ? factus w est. w U est. ! w U est. w w ! w -- - - - ------ - -- ---- - 602 & V V ? 92 w Cru ? ? Cru w Cru ! w Cru ? cifix cifix ? cifix ! ? cifix ? ? useti ? useti ? ? useti ! ? ? useti ? .? ? ampro amprono ? ?? amprono ! ? ? amprono w no ?? ? ? ? ! w bis: ? ?? bis:sub ? bis: w bis: ! ? ?? subPonti --- -- --- --- -- ---- --- -- ---- --- -- - -- & V V ? 98 .? J ? Pon ? ?? subPon ? ? ? subPon ! ? ? ? oPi ? ? ti ? ? tioPi . j ? tio ! . J ? lato ? ? o ? ? la ? ? ? Pila ! ? ? pas ?? Pila ? ? to ?? topas ! ?? sus, ?? to ! ? ? sus, ! ? ? pas ? ? pas ? pas ? ? etsepul ! ? ? sus, ------- ----- - -- -- --- -- -- - - -- -- --- -- & V V ? 104 ? ? sus, ? ? sus,et ? ? ? tus,pas ! ? ? pas ? ? ? etse ? se ? ? sus,et ! ? ? sus,etse ? ? pul pul ? ? sepul ! ? ? pul ? ? ? tus ? tus ? ? tus ! ? ? tus w est. est. w est. ! w est. w w ! w -- ----- - ---- -------- --- ------ 603 & V V ? 110 ! ?? Etresur ! ? ? Et ! ?? Etresur ? rexit ! ? ? resurre ! ? rexit ? ? tercia ! ? ? ? xitter ! ? ? terci ? ? ? di ! ? ? ciadi ! .? ? adi ? e,se ! ? ? ? e,se ! ?? e,secundum ? . J ? cundumScrip ! ? . J ? cun ! ? ? Scrip ? ? tu ! ? ? dumScrip ! --- -- - -- - --- - ------ -- -- --- - - - & V V ? 117 ? ? ? tu ? ? ? ! ? ? turas. ! w ras. ? ? ras.Etascen ! ? ?? Etascen ! ? ?? Etascen ? ? ditince ! ? ? ditin ! .?? ditin w lum, ! ? . ? ce ! ? ? ce ?? ? et ! ? lum: ! ?? ? ? ? ascenditin ! ? ? ! --- -- ----- --- -- - -- - -- ---- & V V ? 123 ? ? ? lum:se ? celum: ! ? ?? sedetad ! ? ? detaddexte ? ? ? sedetad ! . J ? dex ! ? ? ramPa . J ? dexteram ! ? ? teram ! ? ? ? Pa ! ? ? Pa ! w tris. tris. ! w tris. ! w ! w ! - -- ----- - - -- --- - ---- --- 604 & V V ? 129 ! ! ! ! ?? Etite ! ! ?? Etite ! .?? rumven ! ! .? ? rumven ?? Etite ? ? turus ! ! ? ? turusest, .?? rumven w est -- -- -- - -- -- & V V ? 133 ! ! ? ? . j ? etite ? ? turus ?? ? cum ! ! ? ? terumventu ? ? ? est,et . J ? gloria,ju ! ! ? ? rusest . J ? ? iterumven ? ? dicare ! ! ? ? ? cumglori ? ? turusest ??? cum ! ! ? ? a,judica ? ? cumglori ? ? gloria,ju ! ! .? j ? ? ? a,judica ? i ? dica ----- -------- - ---- ----- ---- - --- & V V ? 139 ! ! .? ? ? re ? ? re,cum ? ? ? I ! ! ? ?? vi . ? J ? gloria,ju ??? revi ! ! .? ? voset ? ? dicare ?? voset ! ! ? ? mor ? ?? vivoset . ? ? mor ! ! ? ? ? I tu ? ? mortu ?? tu ! ! ? ? ? os:cu ? ?? os:cuius w os: -- - ----- - ----- - -- - ---- - ----- 605 & V V ? 145 ! ! ? ? ? i ius ? i ? regni ??? cu ! ! ? ? regni ? ? ? non ? ? i iusreg ! ! ? ? ? nonerit ? ? i eritfi ?? ? ninon ! ! ? ? finis, ? ? ? nis,non ? ? i eritfi ! ! ? ? ? nonerit ? ? i eritfi ?? ? nis,non ! ! ? i ? fi ? ? ? nis,non ? ? eritfi -- - - - ---- - -- -- - - -- -- & V V ? 151 ! ! w nis. ? ? eritfi w nis. ! ! w nis. w ! ! w w .?? Etin . ?? Etin .?? Etin .?? Etin ! ? ? Spiri ? ? SpiritumSan ?? Spiri ? ? Spiri ! ? . j ? tumSanctum, ? ? ctum,Do w tum ? . j ? tumSanctum, ! ---- - -- - --- - -- -- - & V V ? 157 ? ? Domi ? ? mi ? ? San ? ? Do ! ? ? ? num,et w num, ? ? ctum,Do ? ? ? minum, . ?? [...]Sanctam, ? ? vi ? ? et ? ? mi ?? etvivi ?? Domi ? ? vifi .? vivi w num[...] .? J ? ficantem, w num, ? ? can ? ! ? ?? etvi ? ? et ? ? ? tem:qui . ? J fican ! ? ? fican ? ? vivifi -- ------ - ---- - - ------- - - ---- ---- - -- --- 606 & V V ? 163 ? ? exPa ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? ? can ? ? ? tem:qui w qui ? ? ? tem:qui w tem[...] ? ? ? ? exPa ?? exPa ? ? exPa ! ? ? ? treFi ?? treFilio w tre ? ? ? treFi ! ? ? lioque ? ? queproce ? ? Fi ? ? lioque ! ? . ? proce ? ? dit. ? ? lioquepro ?.? j proce w Qui ------ -- -- - -- - ---- ------ ---- - -- -- --- & V V ? 169 ? ? dit.QuicumPa ? ? QuiexPa ? ? ce ? ? ? dit.Qui ?? cumPa ?. J ? treetFi ? ? treet w dit... ?? cumPa w tre ? ? ? li . Fili ! ? ? treet ? ? et ? ? o ? ? o ! .? j ? Fili ? ? Fi ! ? ? si ! ? ? ? ? ? li ? ?? simul ? .? J mula .? J ? simuladora ? ? o[...] w o[...] - -- - --- --- - -- - - - - ----- - ----- & V V ? 175 ? ? adora ? ? doratur, ? ? ? tur,et ! ! ? ? tur... ? ? ? etcon ? ? conglorifi ? .? j etconflo ! ! ? ? glorifi ? ? I ca ? ? rifica ! ! ? ? catur:qui w tur[...] ? ? ? tur:qui . ? J quilocu ! ? ? locu ! ? ? locu tus ! ?? tusestper ! ? .? j tusestper estperPro --- - ----- - ----- -- ---- -- ---- - 607 & V V ? 181 ? ? Et ? ? Prophe ! ? ? Prophetas. ? I phe ? . ? unam ? ? tas. ? ? Et ? ?? etu w tas. ? ? sanctamca ? ? ? Etu ?? unam ? ? namsanctam ! . ? J ? tho ?? namsanctamca . ? ? sanctam ! ! ? ? ? I li ? ? tholi ? ? catholi ! ! w cam... ? ? cam... w cam... ? ?? etapo ? ? [...]et - ------- - - --- -- - - --- -- -- -- - - & V V ? 187 w ! ! . ? ? stoli ? apos ! ! ! ? ? camEccle .? ? toli ! ? ? Con ! ? ? ? si ? ? camEcclesi ? ? Confi . fite ? ? Con w am. w am. ? ? ? te ? oru ? fite ! ! ? ? orunum ? . ? ? numbap ?? oru ! ! ------ --- - --- - - -------- -- ----- & V V ? 193 .? J ? bap .? j ? tis .? ? num ! ! ? ? ? tis w ma ? ? baptis ! ? ? [...]in ? ? ma ? ? in .? j ? ? ? [...]in ?? remis ? ?? inremis remissio w ma... ?? remissio ?? sioo ? ? sionem ? ? ? nempec ! ? ? ? nempec . ? nem . ? ? peccato ? ? ca ! . j ?? cato ? ? pecca ----- ---- --- ----- --- --- --- --- --- ---- -- 608 & V V ? 199 ? ?? rum.Etex . J ? torum. ? ? Et ? ? . ? j ? to ? specto ? .? ? Etex ? exspec ? ? ? rum.Et w rum. ? ? ? resurre ? ? spectoresur ? ? toresurre ?. j ? exspec ! ? ? xio ? rexio ? ? ? xio ? ? to ! w nem ? ? nem, ?? nemmortu ? ? ? resur ? ? Et ? ? ? resurre ?? resurre ? ? o ? ? rexio ? ? exspec -- ----- -- ------- ----- - ------- -- ---- ---- ----- --- -- & V V ? 205 ? ? ? xionem ? ? xionemmor w rum. ? ? nemmortu ? ?? toresur ? ? mortuo tuo ! ? ? o ? ? rexio ? ? ? rum.Et ? ? rum. ? ?? Etvitam w rum. ?? nemmortu ? ? vitam ? ? Etvitam ? ? venturi ?? ? Et ? ? o .? j ? ven ? ?? venturi ? ?? secu ? ? vitamven w rum. ? ? turise secu .? ? li.A ? . ? tu ! -- -- - ----- -- -- - -- --- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ----- & V V ? 211 ? ? ? w li. w men. ? ? ? riseculi. ??? Etvitam ? ? I cu ? ? Amen,A w ? ? A ? ? venturi ? ? ? li.A . ? w w men. ??? secu ? ? w men. w w . ? ? li.A w men. w w men. w w w ------- ---- ----- -- - - -- -- - 609 & V V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus .w San ! . ? ? San ? ? San . ? ? San w ? ctus,San ! . ? . j ? ? ? . ? j ?? .? J ? ? ? . ? ? . w ?? ? ctus, .? ? ? ctus, w? ctus,San w ? ctus, ? ctus,San ? ? ? Sanctus, ? ? ? San .? j ? ? ctus, --- ------ - --------- - -------- ---- -------- ---- & V V ? 5 ! . ? . ? ? ? ? ? .? J San ?. j ?? ? ?? ? San w.? J Sanctus ? ctus, ? . j ? ? . ? ? ? ctus,San .? j ? ? ? ? ? I ! . ? ? ? ? ctusDo ? . J ? ? ? ? ctus ? ? ?? Domi w . ? J Sanctus ? ? ? mi ? ! ctus ? ?? Domi --- -- ----- --- ------ ------ ----- ----- --------- -- & V V ? 9 . ? J ? ? ? nusDe ? ? I ? ? ? ! . ? . J ? ? nus, ? ! us, ? ?? Domi w? nus ? ?? . J ? Dominus ? ?? Dominus ! . . J ? ? ? nusDe ?? ? ? De ? ? ? De ? ? ? De w ? Domi ? ?? us, ? . ? us,Domi w ? us,Do w ? us,Do --- -- -- - ----- --- -- -- --- - --- -- --- - 610 Sanctus & V V ? 13 ? .? ? nusDe ! . w ? nusDe .? J ?? mi .? J ? ? mi ? ? ? ? w Do ? ? ? us, ? ? ? nusDeus, ? ? ? nus ? ! us . ? ? minus ? . ? ? Do .w ? . ? ? Deus ! ? ? ? ? ? De ? ? ? minusDe ! ? Do ? ? Dominus ------- ------ ---- ----- ---- - --- - - - ------ - -- & V V ? C C C 17 ? ? ? ba ? ! us ?? ? usSaba ? ? ? minusDe ?? Deus ? ? oth,Dominus ! ? .w oth, ? ? ? usSabaoth, . ?? Sabaoth, ? ? ? I DeusSaba ? ? ? ba ! . ! . ?? ? Dominus, .w oth. ? ? oth,Dominus ? ? ? Saba ? .? j Saba ? ? ? DominusDe .w ? ? ? I DeusSaba .? ? ? ?. j ? ? ?? ? usSaba .w . oth. .w oth. .w oth. . oth. .w . .w .w . ----- - ---- -- ----- --- ----- - -- -- - - -- & V V ? C C C 24 ? ? Ple ?? Plenisunt ! ! ! ?? nisuntce ? ? celi, ! ! ! ? ? ? li,ce ? ?? plenisunt ! ! ! ? ? . ? ? ce ! ! ?? Plenisunt ? ?. j ? .? J ? ! ! ? ? celi, - - -------- - - - ------- - - 611 & V V ? 29 ?? ? li, ? ? ? li, ! ! ? ?? plenisunt ? ?? ? . J ? pleni ! ! . ? J ?? ce ? ? ? pleni ? ? suntce ! ! ? ? ? ? ? suntce ? ? ? li ! ! ? ? ? ? li, ? ?. J ? etter ! ! ? ? ? li,ple - - ---- -- - ----- - - ---------- - & V V ? 34 ? ? . j ? ple ? .? J ! ! ? . ? J nisuntce ? ? nisunt ?? ra, ! ! ? ? ??? ce ? etter ! ! ??? li, ? ? ? ra, ! ! ? ? ? pleni ? . j ? ? ? . j ? etter ! ! ? . ? suntce ---- --------- ----- ---- - -------- - --- & V V ? 39 ? . ? j ? ? ? ! ! ?? ? liet ? ? li ?? ! ! ? . ? J ? ter ? ? ? . ? ! ! ? ? ? ? ? etter ? ! ! ? ? ? . j ? ? ra ? ra, ! ! ??? ra,et ------ ---- ---------------- ---------- 612 & V V ? 44 ? ? glo ?? etter ! ! ? .? J ? ter ?? ? ! ! ? . ? ? ? ? ri ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ra,et ? ?? a,glo ? ? ? ra ! ! ? ? terra . J ? ? ria ? ? glo ! ! . ? J ? ? glo ----------- -- ----------- -- ------- - --- & V V ? 49 ? ? tua, ? ? ri ! ! ? . ? ? ria ? ? ? etter ? a ! ! ? ? tua, ? ? ? ? tua, ! ! ?? ? etterra ? ? ra, ? ? ? etterra ! ! . J ? ? gloria ? ? ? etterra . J ? ? gloriatu ! ! ? ? tua, - ----- - ------- - - --- - - - -- - & V V ? 54 .? J ? ? gloriatu ? ? a, ! ! ? ? ? etterra ? ? a, ? ? ? etterra ! ! . J ? ? gloriatu ? ? ? etterra . J gloriatu ! ! ? ?? a,et . j ? ? glori ? ? ? a,et ! ! ? ? terra .? ? a ? . J terraglori ! ! . J ? ? gloria --- - ---- - --- - -- - --- - -- 613 & V V ? 59 ? ? tu atu ! ! ?? tu w a. a. ! ! w a. w ! ! w w O ! w O w O O ? ? sanna, ! ? ? san ? ? san ? ? san ? ? ? O ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? na, --- ---- --- --- ---------- ---------- - -------- & V V ? 65 ? . ? w O ?? ? na,O ? ? ??? O ? ? sanna, sanna, ? ? ? san ? ? ? na,O ? ? . J san ? ? O ? ? ? O ? ? na, ? ? ? na, ? ? ? . ? ! ? . j ? ?? O ? ? san ? ? sanna, ! ? ? ? ---- - -------- ----- ------- ------- ---- ----------- -------- ----- & V V ? 70 ? ? na, ? ? O ??? O ? ? san ? ? ? ? ? O ?? ? ? san ? ? na, ? ? ? ? ? ? san ? ? na, ! ? ? san ? ? ? ? na, ? .? ? O . ? ? O ? ? na, ? ? ? san ? ? O . ? J ? ? .? j ?? . ? J ?? Osan ------------- -------- --- ------ ------ -- - ------- --------- - - - 614 & V V ? 75 w na, ? ? ? ? . j ? ?? ? ? na, ! ? ? san ? ? san ? ? sanna, ? .? j ? O ? .? J ? O ?? ? ? ? ! ? ? san .? ? w na, w na, ? ? . J ? Osan ??? na,O ? ? ? san ! ! ?? . ? j ? ? san --------- ----------- ----- ----- ---- - ------ -- ----- ---- & V V ? 80 ? ? ? . ? J ? O ! ? ? na, ? ? w na, . ? ? ? ? . J ? Osan ! w na, ? ? ? O ? ? san ? ? ! ? ? ? O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? na, ! ? ? sanna, ? ? sanna, w na, ?? ? O ! ? ? ? O ---- ------- ------------- -------- - -- ---- ---- --- & V V ? 85 ! ? ? ? O ? ? ? ! ? ? ? i ! ? ? ? ? ? san ? ? ? O ?b ? ? ? O ? sanna, ?? na, ? ? ? ? san ? ? sanna ! ? ? O ? ? san w na, . ? j ?? inex ! ? ? san . ? j ? ? ! -- - ------- --------- ----- ------------- ------- --- 615 & V V ? 90 ? ? ? ? ? O ?? ? ? ! ? ? cel san ? ? na, ? ? na, ? O w sis, .? J ?? nain ? ? ? . ? j ? O .? j ? ! ? ? ex ? ? O ? ? san ? ? san ? ? ? Osan ? ? cel ? ? sanna ? ? na, ? ? na, ?? nainex w sis, ? ? ? inex ? ? ? Osan ?? ? O ------- -- - ---- ------ ----- -- --- ---- ----- -- -------- - & V V ? 96 ? ? ? cel ! ? ? ? cel ? ? ? ? sanna w sis. ? ? ? Osan ? ? ? sis,in ?? nain ? ? in w ?? nainex ? ? excel ? ? ? excel . ? ? ex w ? ? ? I cel ? . j ? ? ? ? ? ? cel w sis. ? ? w sis. sis. w w sis. w ---- -- ----- ---- ----------- ---- -------- - ------- 616 & V V ? 2 2 2 2 2 Superius Contratenor Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus w Ag .? J ? Ag ! ! ? ? Ag ? nusDe ? I ? nus ! ! ? nus w i, ? ? De . ? j ? Ag ! .? J ? De ? ? Ag ? ?? ! ? i, ? ? nusDe w i, ?. j ? nus w A ? . ? J Ag ? ? ? .? J Ag ? ? Dei, ? gnusDe ? .? w i, ? . ? nus ?? ? Ag w i, ? nus --- ----- - ----- - - --- ---- ----- -- - - ---- --- - & V V ? 8 ! ? ? Dei, ? ? nus ? ? A w De ! ! ? ? De ? gnusDe ??? i,qui ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .? ? qui .? ? qui ? ? i, w i, ? ? ? tol ? ? tol ? ? tollis, ! ! ? ? ? ? lispecca ? ?? quitol .? ? qui ! w lis ? ? ? I tamun ? ? lis ? ? tol ! ! w di, ? ? ? pec ? ? lispec . ? ? qui ! - - - - -- ---- - - -- ---- - --- - ---- & V V ? 16 ! ?? ? ? ca ?? tol ! ! ? . ? ca . ? ta ? lispecca ? ? pec ?? ? pec ? ? tamun ? ? mun ? ? ? I tamun ? ? catamun ? ca ??? di,pec w di, di, w di, . ? J ? tamun . J ? ca ? ? ? qui ! ? ? pec ? ? ? ? ? tamun ? tol ! ? ? ? ca w di: ? ? ? ? ? lispec ?? ? pec ? ? tamun ? ? mi w di: . ? ? ca ? ca ? ? di: ----- - -- --- -- - - - --- - - - -- --- - - -- - -- 617 Agnus Dei * * This canonic voice is not written out in MontsM 766. It is indicated by a signum congruentiae in the superius. See Chapter 5, pp. 261-62, for discussion of this canonic voice. & V V ? 24 .? ? sere ? ? ? mise ? ? ta,pec .? J tamun ?? mise ? ? reno ? ? re ? ? ca ? ? ? w bis, .? j reno ? ta w di: . ? J re ! ? ? .? J ? mun ? ? mi ? ? ? .? mi . J ? ? bis, . ? ? di: . ? ? sere . ? J ? re ? ? ? se ? ? mi ! ? ? reno ? ? no ?? rere ?. ? sere . ?? mise w bis, ? ? ? bis,mi ? ? no ? ? re ? ? re ! ? ? --- ----- ----- ---- --- --------- - --- -- - ------- --- --- - & V V ? 32 w bis. .? j ? no ? ? ? reno ? . ? mi ? ?? se w ? ? bis, ? ? ? bis,mi ? ? ? se ? ? w ? ?? mise ? ? sere ?? rere ??? reno w ? ? reno ? ? re ? ? I no ? ? w w bis. .? ? no w bis. w bis. w w w bis. w w w w w ----- --- - - -- - - -------- ---- ------ --- 618 619 APPENDIX II.9: Missa Memor esto, MontsM 766 & V ? 2 2 2 2 2 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Barricanor .? ? Kyri ? ? Ky ! ! ! ? e ? ? rie ! ? ? Ky ! .? ? e ? e ! ? ? ! ? ? ? ! w ri ! .? ? le ? le ! w ! ? ? ? ! w e ! .? J ? ? . ? ! ? e ? ? Ky ? ? ? I y ? ? y ? ? Ky ? ? ? ? rie ------- ---- -- ------------ -- ------------ - -- & V ? 9 ? ? son, ? ? son, ? ? rie ? le ? ? ! ! ? e ? ? ? e ? ? e ! .? J ? le ? . ? ?? e ?? ? ? Ky ? ? ? I y ? ? y ? ? leyson, ? ? ? le .? ? ri w son, ? ? son, ?? ? Ky . j ? . j ? ee ? . ? J ? e . j ? e . J ? ri ? ? yson, ? ? ? ley ? ? ley ? ? ? ee ----------- ----- ---------- ---- --- -- ------ --- ---- ---- - & V ? 16 ? ? . J ? Ky w son, ? ? ? son,Ky ? .? ? ley ? ? ? le ? ? ri ? ? . J ? e .? J ? ? ? ? son,Ky ? ? yson, ? ? e ? . ? le ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ? . j ? ele ? ? yson, ? ? ? ri ? .? j ri ?? e ? i ? ? ? ? Ky . ? J ? ele ? ? ?? le ?? ? y ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? yson, -- ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----- ---------------- ---- ----- 620 Kyrie & V ? 22 ? ? ? son,Ky ? ? ? ? .? j ? 3 e ? ?? Kyri ? ? ? ? ri ? ? y ?? ? ? ri ? ? e ? ? ? son,Ky ? ? ? ley ? ? e ? . ? ? ? e ? ? ? son, ? ? ? e ? ? e ? ? ? ? ? ri ? ? Ky ? ? ley ? ? ? ele .? ? le . J ? .? j ? ri ?? son, ? ? yson, ? ? yson, ? ? ? ee ? ? e ?? ? e -- ------ ---- -------- --- ---- - --------- ------ -------- - ------ ----- - & V ? 29 ? ? ? e ! . ? J ? le .? J ? e . ? J ? ? . j ? le ? ? ? e .? J ? . j ? le . ? ? le ? ? I y .? J ? le . j ? ? y ? ? y ? ? y w son. ? . j ? y w son. w son. son. w son. w w ! ! ! ! ? Chri ! ! ? ? Chri ! ? ? ? ! ! ? ! ? ? ------- ---- - ------- ------- --- -------- ------ & V ? 37 ? ? Cri ! ? ? ? ? ? Cri ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Cri ? . ? ? ?b w ste ? ? ? ? .? j ste ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ste ? ? ? e ? ? e ? ? ste ? ? ? ? e ? ? ley ? ? ley ?? ele ?b ? . ? J ? le ? ? ? son,Cri ? ? son, -------- --- - ------------ -- ----------- ---------- ---- ----- ---- 621 & V ? 44 ? ? ? ? ?. ? . ? j ? stee ? ? ? Chri ? ? yson, ? ? ste ? ? yson, ?. ? le ? ? ! ?? ? e ? ? ? Chri ? ? yson, ? ? ? ? ? Criste ? . j ? le .? ? ! w ste . ? j ? e . ? j ? ? ? ? ?? ? Cri ! ? . ? le ? ? y ? ? ste ? ? ! ---- ---- ----- - ------- ---- --------- ----- --------- -------- & V ? 50 ? ? ? . J ? son,Cri . J ? ele . ? j ? ! ? ? y ? ? ? ?? ! w son, ? ? .? ? ? ? ste, ?? e ? ? ? Cri ? ? . j ? ? yson, ? .? j Cri . ? le ? . j ? ? stee ? Chri .? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? y w ste, ? ? ? ley .? ? . ? ? stee w son, ------ ------- - ----- ------- --------- ------ --------- ------ -------- & V ? 57 ?? ? Cri ? ? ? son,Cri ? ? . ? j ? ?? ? Chri ? ? ? ? ? ? ste ? ? ? ? ? ? ? stee ? ? ? stee ? ? e ? y ? ? ? stee ? ? ley ? ? ley ?? ley ?? ? ? ley w son. w son. son. w son. w son. w w w w ? Kyri ! ! ! ! ? ? ? Kyri ! ! ! ----------- --- --- ---- --- --- -- ---- --- --- --- 622 & V ? 65 ? . j ? e ? e ? Ky ! ! ?? le ? e ? rie ? ? Ky ? Ky ? yson, ? ? ? le .?? ele ? ? rie ! ?. j ? .? J ? ? .? J ri . ? J ? e ! ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ? ? . J ? ? ? ? ? le .? J ? Ky ? ? .? ? y w e ? yson, ----------- ----- --- ------------- ---- ------------- -- ---------- & V ? 72 ? ? ? I ri ? ? y ? ? son,Ky ! ! ? ? e ? ? son, ? . ? ri ? ? e ! ! ! ?? ? ? ? I ley ? ? ? Ky ? ?. J ? ele .? j ? Ky ? ?? ele w son, . ? ? ri ? ? y ?? re ? ? y ? ? ? Kyri ? ? e w son, ? ? ? e w son, .? j ? . ? J ? ele ! ? ? le ! ? ? e ? ? - -- ------- - - ----- --- ----- - - --------- ----- ---- & V ? 79 ? ? Ky ? ? ? y ? ? Ky ? ley ? yson, ? ? ? ri ? ? son, .? J ? ri ? ? son, ! ? ! ? ! ! ? ? ? ? Ky ? ? ! ! ?? e, ? ? e ! ? Ky ?? ? Ky .? j ? rie ! ? ? Ky ? ? ri ? ? ? ? ? ley ! ? ? ? ri ? ? -- ------ --------- --- -- -------- ---------- - ------- 623 & V ? 86 .? j ? ri ? ? son,Kyrie ? ?? eley ? ? ee ?? eley ? ? ? ? ? ? ? son, . ? j ? le ? ? son, ? eley ? ? leyson,Ky ? ? ele ? ? ?? eley ? ? son, ? ? rie ? ? y . j ? ? y ? ? son,e ? .? j ele ?.? j ele w son. w son. . ? J ? ley ? ? yson. ? ? yson. w w son. w w w -------- ------- --- ------ -- --- --- ----- --- -- --- 624 & V ? 2 2 2 2 2 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Bassus .? ? Etin ! ! ! ? ? Et ? terra ? ? Et ! .? ? Etin ? inter .? ? paxho ? ? inter ! ? terra ? rapax ? ? minibus ? rapax ! .? ? paxho ? homini .? ? bone ? ? homini ! ? ? minibus ?? bus ? ? volun ? .? J busbo ! .? ? bone ! [...] .? j ? ta ?? nevolun ! ? ? voluntatis. ! - -- - ----- - -- - -- - -- - --- - --- & V ? 8 ? ? I tis.Laudamus ? ? ta ! ? ? Laudamus ! w te. w tis. ? [...]Lauda ? ? te. ?? Lau ! [...] ! [...] ?? muste.Be ? Bene . ?? damus ! ! ? nede ? ? dicimus ? te.Bene ! ! . ? J ? cimus ? . J ? te.Ado ? .? J ? deci ! ? ? Adora ? te. ? ? ramus ? ? muste. ?? ? A .? j ? mus . ? J ? Ado ? ? te. ? ? ? Ado - - --- - - - --- --- -- ---- -- -- ---- -- & V ? 15 ? .? J doramus ? ? ? te.Glo ? . J ? ra ! ? ? ramuste. ? ? te.Glorifi ?? ririca ? ? mus ! ! ? ? camus ? ? mus ? ? te. ? ? Glo ! ? ? te. ? ? te. ? ? ? Glorifi .? j ? rifica ? ? Glorifi ! ! ? ? I camus ? ? muste. ? ? camus ? Grati ! w te. ? ? ? Grati ?? ? te.Gra ? . ? J asagi ! w ? ? asagi ? ? tiasa - --- -- -- ---- ---- -- -- - ---- - - ----- --- 625 Gloria & V ? 22 ? ? mustibi: ? ? Grati ? ? ? Grati ? ? mustibi: ?b i ? gimusti ? ?? proptermag ? ? asa ? . ? J asagi ? ? ? prop ? ? bi:prop ? i ? ?? gimusti ? ? mustibi: ? ? termag ?? termag ? ? ? namglo ? ?? bi:propter .? J ? b proptermag ? ? ? ? namgloriam ?? riamtu ? ? magnam ? ? ? namglo ? ? nam ? i ? ? tu .? J ? ? .? J ? glori .? ? ri ? ? glori w am. - ----- -- ---- -- -- - - - -- - - ------ -- -- - - -- - -- --- - - -- & V ? 28 ? ? ? ? ? ? amtu ? ? ? amtu ? ? w ? ? am. ? ? ? am.Do w am. .? ? . j ? amtu ! ? ? Do ? mineDe ! [...] ? ? ? am.Do ?? Domine ? ? mineDe ? .? ! ? ? mineDe ? .? J Deus, ? ? us, ? . ? us, ! . ? j ? us,Rex ? ? ? Rexce ! [...] ?? ? Rexcele ! ? ? ? cele ? ? le ----- ----- - - ------ -- ---- - --- -- - - ---- - & V ? 34 ?? DeusPa ? ? stis, ? DeusPa w stis, w stis, ?? terom ! [...] ? ? teromni ! [...] ! ? ? ? I nipo ! ? ? po ! ! ? ? ? tens.Do ? ? Do ? tens.Do ? ? Do ?? Do ?? mineFi ?? mineFi ?? mineFi ? ? mineFi ?? mineFi ? . ? J liuni ? . j ? liunige ? .? j liuni ? .? j liuni ? liu ? ? genite ?? niteJhe ? ? geniteJhe ? ? geniteJhe ? nigeni -- --- --- --- -------- --- ---- --- --- ----- --- ---- 626 & V ? 41 ? ? ? Jhesu ? ? su ? ? su ? . ? J su ? ? teJhe ? ? Chri ? ? Chri ? ? Chri ? ? Chri ? ? suChri w U ste. w ste. U ste. w ste. w U ste. . ? j ? DomineDe . ? j ? DomineDe .? J ? DomineDe . ? j ? DomineDe .? j ? DomineDe ? ? I us,AgnusDe ? ? us,AgnusDe ? us,AgnusDe ?? us,A ? ? us,AgnusDe w i, ? ? i, w i, ? ? gnusDei, ? ? i,Fili w .? j ? Filius .? j ? Fi ? ?? Fili ? . ? J usPa - --- ----- -- - ---- - -- -- - --- - - -- - - ------- - -- - ----- --- & V ? 48 ! ? ? Patris, ? ? liusPa ? us ? ? ? ?? Fi ?? ? Fi ? ? tris, ? .? J Pa ? ? tris, . J ? li ? . J ? liusPa ! ? ? ? ! ? ? . ? ? tris, ?? ? Fi ? ? ? tris,Fi ??? Filius w us ? .? j ? Fi ? . J ? liusPa .? J ? lius . J ? Pa ?? Pa ? liusPa ? . j ? Pa ?? w tris. w tris. tris. w tris. w tris. ------- --- - ----- -- - ----- -- --- --- -- ----- ---- ------ & V ? 55 w w w w ! ? ? Quitollis ! ? ? Qui ?? Quitollis ! ?? peccatamun ! ?? tollispecca ?? peccata ! ? ? di, ! ? ? tamun . ? ? mun ! w ? ? [...]Mi ? ? di, w di, . ?? [...]Mise w ?? sere ! [...] ? ? mi ? .? j rere ! [...] . ? j ? re ! ? ? sere --- -- - ------ --- --- --- --- 627 & V ? 62 ? . j ? ! ? ? no ! . ? j ? reno ? ? no ! ? ? ? I ! ? ? bis. w bis. Qui w bis. ! ?? Qui ! [...] .?? tollis ! [...] ? Quitol . ?? tollis ! ? peccatamun ! ? ? lispec ? pecca ? ? Pecca w di, ! ?? catamun ? .? J ta ? ? ta ! ! ?? ? I ? ? mun - ---- - - - - -- --- - - -- - ---- & V ? 69 ? mundi, ? ? su ! ? di,su ? di,su ?? susci ?? scipe . ?? Susci ? ? scipe ?? scipe . ? j ? pedepreca ! w pe . ? ? depre ? ? de ?? tionem .? ? depre ! ? ? catio ? ? precati ? ? nostram, ? ? catio ? ? de ?? nemno . ?? nem ? .? J depreca ?? nemno ? ? precati ? ? ? stram,de ? ? nostram, ?? ? tio ? . ? j ? ? onem ? . j ? preca ? .? J no - ------ - ---- -- --- - ---- -- ---- - --- -- ----- - - -- ---- & V ? 76 ? ? ? nemno ?? stram. ?? no ?? tionem ?? stram. w stram. ? ?? Quisedes ? ? ? stram.Qui ? ? nostram. ? ?? Quisedes ! ? ? addexteram ?? sedesad ! ? ? addexter ?? ? Qui ?? Patris, . J ? ? dexterram ? ?? Quise . j ? ramPa ? ? sedes ?? misere ?? ? Pa ? ? desaddexter ? ? . ? j ? addex ? ? reno ? ? ? ? ? ramPa .? J ? - - -- -- - - - ----- - - - -- - -- - -- ------- - - -- ---- 628 & V ? 82 ?? teramPa ? ? ? I ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .? J tris,mise ? . ? j bis,mise ? .? J tris,mise ? . ? j tris,mise ? .? j tris,mise ? ? re ? ? reno ? ? reno ? . j ? reno ? ? reno ? . J ? no ? ? ? ? .? J ? ? bis. .? j ? ?? bis. ? ? I ? ? Quo ?? ?? ? Quo w bis. ? ? ? bis.Quo ?? niamtu w bis. ? niamtu ?? ? Quo ? ? niamtu ? . ? solussan ! ------ ---- -- --- -- ------ - --- -- - -- -- --- -- ------ --- -- ------ --- & V ? 89 ? . ? solus ?? niamtu ? solus, ? ctus, ?? ? Quo ? sanctus. ? . ? solussan ?? ? Quo ! ? ? niamtu ! ? ctus. ? niamtuso ?? ? Quo ? ? solussan ! ! ? ? ? lussan ? ? niamtuso ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? lussanctus. ? ? ? I ? Tuso ? ? Tu . ? ! w ctus. ? ? .? ? solus ? ? ctus. ! ! - - ---- -- ---- - ---- -- ------- - ---- ----- & V ? 96 ? ? ? I lusDomi .? ? Domi ! ? ? Tu ! ? ? nus. ? ? nus. ? ? Tu ? ? so ? Tuso ! ! .? ? solus ? ? lusDo ? lus ! ! . j ? Do ? ? mi . ? J ? Do ? ? ? Tuso ! ? ? ? I mi ? ? ? ? mi ? ? lusAl ? ? Tuso ? ? nus. ? ? ? nus.Tu ? ? nus. ? ? tissi ? ? ? lusAltis ? ? Tuso ? ? solus ? ? Tu -- - ---- -- - -- ---------- - --- ----- - ----- - 629 & V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 103 ? ? mus, .? J ? si ?? lusAl .? J ? Al .? ? solus ! ? ? ? mus, ?? tissi .? ? ? tissi ? ? Altis w Jhe ? Jhesu ? ? mus, ? mus,Jhe ? simus, ? suChri ? ? Chri w Jhe ? su ? ? Jhesu w ste. w ste. su ? Chri . ? ? Chri w w Chri w ste. w ste. w w ste. w w w U w U w w U - - --- - - ----- - - - --- - - - --- -- - & V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 111 w? CumSan ! . w? CumSan w? CumSan ! . ? ctoSpiri ! . ? ctoSpiri ? ctoSpiri ! . . w tu, w? CumSan . ? ? ? . ?b ? ? w ? CumSan ? w in ? ctoSpiri ? w ? ? . ??? gloria . w tu, ? tu,in w? tu,in w? ctoSpi ? De ? w in ? glori . ? ? glori ? ritu, - -- ------ - -- - -------- -- ---- -- - -------- -- & V ? 2 2 2 2 2 117 .? ? ? w? glori ? aDe ? ? ? aDe ? ? ? inglo ? w i ? w aDe ? . ? iPa ? ?? iPa ? w ria ? . ? Pa ? ? iPa ? ? ? ? ? ? DeiPa ? w w ? . ? w ? w ? ? tris,inglori ?? tris,inglori ? ? tris,inglori ? ? tris,inglori ? ? tris,inglori ? ? ? a,in ? ? ? a,in ? ? ? a,in ? ? ? a,in ? ? ? a,in ----- ------ -- -- --- ----- -- --- -------- -- ---- - ---- -- --- -------- -- 630 3 in MontsM 766 & V ? 123 ? ? gloriaDe ? ? gloriaDe ? ? gloriaDe ? ? gloria ? ? gloiraDe ? i ? i ? i ? Dei ? i ? . J ? Pa ? ? ? Pa ? ? ? Pa .?? Pa . ? ? Pa ?? tris.A ? ? tris. I tris.A ? ? tris.A ? ? tris.A w men. ? . ? A w men. ? ? w men. w ? men. w w men. w w w w w w w w w -- --- - -- ---- ---- --- --- ---- -- --- - -- --- - 631 & V ? 2 2 2 2 2 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Bassus ? ? Pa ! ! ?? Patremom ! ?.? j tremomnipo ? ? Pa ! .? j ? nipoten ?? Patremom ? ? tentem,fa ?.? j tremomnipo ! ? ? tem,factorem . ? J ? nipoten ?.? j ctoremceli ? ? tentem,fa ! .? j ? celietter ? ? tem,factorem ? ? etterre, ?.? j ctoremceli ! ? ? re,vi . ? J ? celietter ?.? j visibi ? ? etterre, ! .? j ? sibilium ? ? re,vi- ------- - - ----- -- - - --- - ---- --- - --- - ------- - & V ? 7 ? ? liumomni ?.? j visibi ! ? ? omnium, . ? J ? sibilium ? .? J um,et ? ? liumomni ! ? ? ? et ? ? omnium... ? . ? invisi ? . J ? um,etin ! .? ? invi ? ? ? ? ? I bili ? ? visibili ! ? ? sibili ! w um. ? ? um. ? ? [...]Etin w um. . ?? Etin w ! [...] ? unum ? ?? Etin ? unum ! [...] ! .? ? Domi .?? unum .?? Domi-- - - -- -- ----- - --- ----- ------ ---- - -- & V ? 14 ! ! ? ? numJhesum ? ? DominumJhe .? ? numJhe ! ! ? ? ? Chri ? ? sumChri ? ? sumChristum, .?? Fili ? ? Fi ? stum,Fi ? stum,Fi ?? Fi ? umDe ?? lium ?? lium ?? lium ?? lium .? j ? i u .? j ? De ? ? ? Dei .? j ? Deiu ?? ? Dei ?? nigeni ? ? i ? . unige ? nigeni ? unigeni ? tum.Et .? j ? unige . ? ? ni ? ? tum. w tum.-- -- ---- -- - - -- ---- -- - ---- -- --- --- - - -- ----- 632 Credo & V ? 21 ? i exPa ? ? ? I ni w tum. ? Etex ?? Et . ?? trena ? ? ? tum.Et ! ? . ? Pa ? exPa ? ? ? tum,na ? exPa ! ? trena ? ? trenatum ? i ? ?? trena ?? EtexPa w tum ?? an w tum .? j ? ? ? ? trena ! [...] ? teom ?? ? an ? ? tum ? ? tuman ! ? ? nia ? teomni ? ? anteom ?? teomni ! .?? secu-- - ------ --- - - - ---- -- -- - ----- -- - - -- & V ? 28 ? ? b asecu ? ? niase ? ? ase ! ?? la. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cu ! ! w la. ? I ? cu ? ? ? la.De ?? Deumde ?? Deumde ? ? [...]Lu ? ? ? la.[...]Lu ? ? umdeDe ? ? Deo, ? i Deo, .?? mende .?? mende ? ? o,lumende ? ? lumende ?? lumende ? ? lumine, ? ? lumine, ? ? lumine, ? ? lumine, ? ? lumine, ? ?? Deum .? Deum ? ?? Deum .? Deum . ? Deum ? verum ? verumdeDe ? ve ? verum ? ve- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - -- ------- - - --- --- - ---- - - & V ? 36 ? ? ? deDe ? ? ? o ? ? ? ?? deDeo ?? rum ? ? o ? ? ve ? ? ? rumde .? j ? ve . ? j ? deDeo ? ? I ve ? ? ? ? Deove ? ? ? ? vero. ? ? ro. ? ? ro. ? . ? J ro.Geni w ro. ? . ? J Geni ? .? j Geni .? j ? Genitum,non ? ? tum,nonfa ! ? ? tum,nonfa ? ? tum,nonfa ? . ? fa ? ? ctum,con .? j ? Genitum,non ? ? ctum,-- -- --- - ----- -- ---- --- -- - - ----- -- --- --- -- -- --- - 633 & V ? 42 ? ? ctum, ? ? ? ctum,con ? .? j substantia ? . ? fa ??? consubstan ! [...] ? ? substantia ? ? ? lemPa ? ? ctum, ?? tialemPa ! ? ? lemPa ? ? ?? ? con ? ? ! ? ? tri: ? j ? ? tri:perquem ? ? substantia ? ? ? tri:per ! ! [...] ? ? omniafa ? ? lemPatri:[per ? ? quemomnia ! ! ?? cta . ? ? quemomni ?? facta---- --- - - --- ------ -- -- ---- - --------- ----- & V ? 48 ? ? i Quipropter ! w sunt. ? ? afacta ?? sunt. ?? noshomi ? ? i Quipropter ? ? ? ? sunt.] ! [...] ? nes,etpropter ?? noshomi ! [...] ! [...] ! ? i nostram ? nes,etpropter ! ! ! .? j ? salu ? i ? nostram ? ? ? Etpropter ! ! ?? tem, ! ? i nostram, ? ? ? Etpropter ??? Et ? ? ? sa ! ! ? nostram ? ? propterno-- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- -- -- & V ? 55 ? ? ? lu ! ? ? etpropter ? salu ? stramsa ? ? tem ? ? salu ? ? nostramsa ? ? ? temde ? ? lutem ? ? de ? ? tem ? lutem ? scendit ?? ? descen w scen ! .? ? descen ? ? . ? ? dit w dit ? ? ? descen ? ? ditde ? ? de ? ? dece .? J ? dece .? ? ditde .? ? ce w ce w lis. ? . J ? ? ? ce w lis. w w w lis. w lis. w lis. w -- -- - -- -- ---- ---- - - ---- -- -- - ---- -- - 634 & V ? 63 w w w w ! ?? Etincar ! ! ! ! ? natus ?? Etincar ! ! ?? Etincar ? ? ? estde ? natus ! ! ? natus ? ? Spiri w est ?? Etincar ! ? ? ? estde ? .? tuSan ? deSpiri ? natus ?? Etincar ? Spiritu w cto, ? tuSan ? ? ? estde ? natus . ? ? Sancto ? ? de ? ? ? ctoex ? ? Spiritu ??? estde--- --- -- --- -- - --- -- - --- -- - & V ? 71 ? ? ? exMa . ? j ? SpirituSan ?? Maria . ? j ? San .? J ? Spiritu ? riaVir ? ? ? ? Vir ? ? ? ? San ? ? gi w cto ? ? ? gi ? ? ctoex w cto ? ? ne[...] ? ? exMa ? ? ne, ?? Maria ?? exMa ! .? j ? ria ?? exMari ? ? Virgi . ? J ? ria ! ? ? ? Virgi ? ? aVirgi ? ? ? ? Virgine: ?? Ethomo ? ne:Ethomo ? ? ne:Ethomo ? ? ne:Ethomo ?? Ethomo-- - -- -- - ----- - ----- - -- -- - - --- -- --- -- ---- --- - & V ? 78 ? factus ? factus ? factus ? factus ? factus w est. w est. est. w est. w est. w w w w ?? Cru . ?? Cruci ! [...] ! [...] ! [...] ?? cifixus ? fixuseti ! ! ! ? ? etiam ? ampro ? ? Eti ! ! ?. ? j prono . ? j ? no ? ? amprono ! ! ? ? ? I ? ? ? ? bis: ? ? ? SubPonti ! - - - - -- - ---- - ---- ----- - -- - 635 & V ? 86 w bis: w bis: ! ? ? oPi ??? SubPonti ! [...] ! [...] ? ?? subPonti ? i ? lato, ? ? oPi ?? ? pas ! ?? oPila ? ? ? Pila ? ? la ? ? ! ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? passus, ? topas ? ? to ? topas ? ? ? sus,et ? ? pas w sus, ? passus, w sus, i .? ? sepul ??? sus,etse w ? ? i ? etse ??? etse-- ------ - - -- ----- - - ----- -- - - - ------- - & V ? 93 ? ? ? ? ? ? pultus ? ?? etse ? . ? pul . ? ? pultus ? tusest. w est. . ? ? pultus ? ? ? tus w est. w w est. w est. w w w w w ! ? ? Etresur ! ! ! ! ? rexit ! ? ? Etresur ?? Et ! ?? ? ter ! ? rexit ? ? resurre ! ?? cia ! .? J ? tercia ??? xitter- --- - --- --- -- --- -- --- -- -- & V ? 101 ! ? ? ? di ! ?? ? die,se ? ? ciadi ! ? ? ? e,se ! ? ? cundum w e, ! ? ? cun ! ?b ? Scriptu ? ? ? secun ! ? ? dumScri ! .? j ? ? .? J dumScri ! ? ? ? ptu ! ? ? ? ? pturas. ! w ras. ! ? ? ras. ?? Et ! ? ? Et ! ? Eta .? ascen-- -- -- -- - -- -------- - --- ---- ---- 636 & V ? 108 ! .? ? ascen ! ? ? scenditin ? ? ditince ! ? ? ditince ! ? celum: ? lum:se ! ? lum:se ! ? sedet ? ? detad ! ?? detaddexte ! ?? addexte ?? dexte ! ? ? ! . J ? ramPa ? ? ramPa ! ? ? ramPa ! ? ? ? ? tris, ! ? tris,sedetad ! ? ? tris,sedetad ?? sedetad- - -- --- - -- - - -- ---- -- - - ----- - - & V ? 115 ! . ? j ? dexteramPa ! . ? j ? dexteramPa .? j ? dexteramPa ! w tris. ! w tris. w tris. ! w ! w w ? .? J Etite ! ? ? Et ! ! ? ? rumventurus ! .? J ? iterumven ! ! ? .? j estcumglori ! ? ? turusest, ?? ? Et ! ? ? a,judica ! ! . j ? ? iterumven ! - - - - --- ---- ----- - - ---- & V ? 122 ? ? ? re,cum ! ? ? . J ? etite .? j ? turusestcum ! .? ? glo ! ? ? rumventuras .? j ? gloria,ju ! ? ? ri ! ? ? ? estcum ? ? dicare, ! ? a,ju ! .? ? glori ? ? cum ! ? . J ? di ! ? a,judi ? ? gloriaju ! ? ? I ca ! ? ? care ? ? dicare ! ? ? ? revi ! ? . ? vivos ? ? ? vivoset ! - ---- ---- - ------ ------ - --- -------- 637 & V ? 129 ? ? vosetmortu ! ? ? etmor ? ? mor ! ? ? ! ? ? ? tu ? ? ! ? ? os:cuiusre ! ? os:cuiusre ? ?? tu ! ? ? ? gni,cu ! ? ? ? gni,cu ? ? ? os:cu ! ? iusreginon ! ? iusregninon ? iusregninon ! ? ? eritfi ! ? ? eritfi ? ? eritfi ! w nis. ! w nis. w nis. ! w ! w w ! ------- --- - ------ -- -- ---- -- -- & V ? 137 . ? ? Etin ! ? ? Et ! ! ? ? Spiritum ? ? Et ? ? inSpiri ! . ? ? Etin . ?? Sanctum, ? ? inSpiri ? tumSan .? ? Etin ? ? Spiritum ? ? Dominum, ?? tumSan ?? ctum,Domi ? ? Spiritum . ?? Sanctum, ? ? et ?? ctum,Domi ? ? ? num,et .?? Sanctum, ? ? Dominum, ?? ? vifi ? ? num, . J ? vivi ? ? Dominum, ? ? ? etvi ? cantem: ? ? etvi ? ? fican ? ? . j ? etvivi ? fican- - - ---- - - - -- - - - ---- -- - -- -- - - -- ---- & V ? 144 ? ? ? ? ? fican ? .? J tem: ? ? fican ? ? tem: w wui w tem: ? ? ? qui ? ? ? tem:qui w qui ? exPa ! ? exPa ? exPa ? exPa ? ?? treFili w ...Fi ? treFi ? ? ? treFi ? ? ? treFi . ? ? o ? ? lio ? lio ? lio ? lio w que[...] ? ? ? quepro ? ? que[...] ? . j ? quepro .? J ? que ! ? ? ce ! ? ? ? ce ? ? proce- --- -- -- - --- ---- ---- --- - -- -- -- - --- 638 & V ? 151 ? ? ? QuicumPa w dit. ? ?? QuicumPa w dit. w dit. ? ? treetFi ! [...] ? treetFili ! [...] ! [...] ?.? j iosi ? .? j Simul ? . ? J osimul ? .? j Simul ? . ? J Simul ? ? mulado ? ? adora ? ? adora ? ? adora ? ? adora ? ? ratur,etcon ? ? tur,etconglo ? ? ? tur, et ?? tur,etcon ??? tur, et ? ? florifi ? ? ri ?? conflori ? . j ? flori ? ? conglori ? ? catur: ? ? ? fi ? ? fica ? ? fica ? ? fica---- ----- ---- - ---- - ------ ---- ---- ------ - ------ ----- & V ? 158 ? ? quilocu ? ? ca ? ? tur: ? ? tur: ?? ? tur:qui . ? ? tusest w tur: ?? ? qui ? .? j quilo . j ? ? locutus ? ? perProphe ! [...] ? ? locutus ? ? cutusestper ? . ? j estper ? ? tas. ! ? ? estperPro ? ? ? Prophe ? ? Prophe ? ? Etunam ! ? ? phe ? ? tas. ?? tas. ? ? Sanctamca ? ? ? Etunam ? ? tas. ! [...] ! [...] ? ? tholicam ? ? Sanctamca ! [...] ! ! -- --- -- -- -- -- ---- --- --- -- -- & V ? 165 ? ? etapos ? ? tholicam ! ? ? Etapo ! .? J ? tolicamEc ? ? ? etapo ! .? j ? stolicam ! .? J ? cle . j ?? stolicamEc ! ? ? Eccle ! ? i ? si ? ? clesi ! ?? siam. ! ? ? am. w am. ! ? ?. ? Confi ??? Confi ! [...] ?? ? [...]U ? ?? Confi ? ? teor ? teoru ! ? ? I numbaptis ? ? teoru ! ? ? numbaptis------ ---- --- --- --------- - ------- --- ---- 639 & V ? 172 ?? Unumbap w ma ? ? numbaptis ? ? unumbap ? ? ? main ? ? tismain ! [...] ? ? ? main ? ? tismain ? remissi ? ? remissio ?? ? pec ? remissi ? ? remissi ? onem ? ? nem... ? ? cato ? onem ? ? ? onem ??? pec ! ? ? ? ? .? J pecca ? ? ? . j ? cato ! ? ? ?. J ? torum. ? ? peccato ? ? ? ? Et w rum. .? ? Et ? ? ? rum.Et ? rum.Et---- ------ --- ---- -- --- --- --------- -- ---- --- & V ? 179 ?? exspe ! [...] ? ? ? exspe ? ? ? exspe ?? exspe .? j ctoresur ? .? j Resur ? . ? J ctoresur ?.? j ctoresur . ? J ctoresur ? ? rexio ? ? rexio ? ? rexio ?? rexio ? ? rexio ? .? nemmor ? . ? j nemmor ? .? nemmor ? . j ? nemmor ? .? J nemmor ? ? ? I tuo ?? tuo ?? tuo ? ? tuo ?? tuo w rum. w rum. ? ? ? rum.Et ? ? ? rum.Et w rum. ! ! ? vitam ? vitam ?? ? Et ?? ? Et ! ? ? ? ventu ? ventu ? vitam------ --- - -- ---- --- - -- ------ --- ---- --- ------ --- - -- & V ? 187 ? ? vitam ?? ? Et ? ? ri, ? ? ri . ? j ? ventu ? ? venturise ? vitam ?? ? et ? ? se ?? ri ? ? ? ? ven ? ? vitamventu ? ? cu ??? se .? J ? . ? j ? tu ? ? ? rise . ? j ? ? ? cu ? ? cu ? ? ? I ? ? cu ? ? li,se ? ? li, ? ?? li. ? ? ? rise ? ? ? li.A ? ?? cu ??? secu ? A ? . j ? culi.A ? ? men,A ? li.A ? li.A-- ---- -- - ------- ---- - - - ---------- -- ---------- --- --- -- - - 640 & V ? 194 ? ? ?? ? .? ? ? w men. w men. men. w men. ?? men. w w w w w w -------- ----------- 641 & V ? 2 2 2 2 2 Superius 1 Superius 2 Tenor 1 Tenor 2 Bassus .? ? San ? ? San ! ! ! ? ? ? ! .? ? Sn ? ? San .? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ctus, ? ? ! .? ? ? ! .? j .? j ctus, ? ? San ? ? ctus, ? ? ? San .? ? San ? ? ! ? ? ctus, ? ? ? ? ? ? .? ? San ! -------- ----- ------ -------- - -------- ---- --------- & V ? 8 ? .? ? ? ? ? ctus, ! ? ? ? .? j .? j ? ?? San ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ? ? I ?? ? ? ? b ? ctus, ! ? ? ? ctus,San w ctus, ? ? ? ctus,San ? ? Do . ?? Sanctus, ? ? ?? San ? ?? minus ? San ?? ? ? ?? ? . ? j De .? J ? ---------- ---- ---------- ------ - ------ -- --- ---------- ------- - ----- & V ? 15 . ? J ? ? ? ? ? ? ctus,San ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . J ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? .? ? ? ? ? ctus w ctus ? ? ? ctusDo ? ? ctus .? j ? ? ? Do ! . ?? ! ? ? ?? mi ! ? . j ? ? ? Do ? ? us . ? J ? --------- ------ -------- - --------------- --------- -------- ------- 642 Sanctus & V ? 21 ? ? Do ? ? ? mi ?? minus ! ? ? ? minus ? ? nus .? J ? De ! ? ? nus .? j ? De ! ? ? ! ! ? . j ? ! ? ! ? ? . J ? De ? ? ! ? ? us ?? ? Sa ? ? ? ? us .? j ? De ! . j ? . ? J ? ! ? ? ? I ? ? Sa ? ? ? us - - ----- - -------- - ------ -- ------- --- -------- & V ? 28 .? ? Sa ? ? us .? j ? .? j ? ba . J ? Sa ? ? ?? ? Sa ? ? ? ? ? ? .? ? ba . j ? ? ba .? J ? ba ? . j ? w ? . J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ba w oth. w oth. oth. w oth. w oth. w w w w ? Pleni ! ? ? Ple w Ple ! . ? j ? ! . ? w w Ple ----- ----------- --- ---------- ---- ---------- ----- ---------- - & V ? 36 ? ? ? sunt,ple ! ? . J ? w ni ? ? ! ? . j ? w w ni ? . ? ni ! ? .? J ni ? ? ? suntce w ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? suntce ?? ? suntce ! ? ? .? j ? ? ? . j ? ! w sunt, ? ? .? J ? ------- ---------- ---- ----- --- ------- 643 Contratenor & V ? 42 ? ? ? ! ?? ? ple ? ? li, ? ? li, w li, ! ?? nisunt, ? ? ? ple ? ? plenisunt ? . ? j ce ! ? .? ? ? nisuntce ? . ? j ce ? ? li, ! w .? j ? ? .? ? ? ! ! ? ? ?? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ? - -- - ----------- --- --- - ------------ & V ? 49 ?? ? ple ! ? ? ? ple ? li ? li ? . j ? ! . ? ? ni ! ! ? ? nisunt ! . J ? ? sunt ! ! ? ? ce ! ? ? ce ! ! ? ? ! . ? J ? ! ! ? . j ? ! ? ? ! ! ? ? I ! ? ? ? ? et ! - --------- ---- ---------- & V ? 56 w li ! w li .? j ? terraglo ? ? et ? ? ? etter ! ! .? j ? ri . ? j ? terraglo . ? ? ! ? ? et ? . ? j ? ? ? ? raglo ! .? J ? terraglo ? ? a,etterra .? J ? . j ? ria ! ?? ri .? j ? glori ? ? ? ri .?? tu ! . ? J ? a .? j ? . ? ? a ? ? ? I ! ?? tu ? ? atu ? ? tua, ------- - ------- ------- - ---- -- ----- ------------ - 644 & V ? 63 w a, ! w a, ? ? ? a,et ?? etter ! ! ! .?? terra ? ? raglori ? ? et ! ? etter ? ? gloria, w a, .?? terra ! ? ? raglori ? ? ? glo ? ? ? glori ? ? gloria, ! ? a,glo ? ? ri ? ? a,etter ? ? ? glo ! .? J ? ri ? ? ? a,et .? j ? raglo ?? ria ! ? . ? a ?? terraglori ?. ? ri - -- ---- - - -- --- - - -- - -- -- -- & V ? 70 . ? ? tu ! ? ? tu ? ? atu ? ? atu w a. ! w a. w a. w a. w ! w w w ? ? O ! ! ! . ? ? O ? ? .? ? O ? ? O w O ? ? ? .? j ? ? ? ? .? ? ? ? ? .? J ? w .? j ? . ? J ? . ? j ? ? ? ? san w ? .? ---------- --- -------- - ---------- --- ----------- - ----------- & V ? 78 ? ? ? ? . j ? san ? . ? w san ?? sanna, ? ? san ? ? ? ? I ? ? ? ? ? ? ? na, ? ? na, w ?? ? O ? ?? ? O ? ? ? O w na, . b j ? ? san ? . ? . j ? w w O ? ? ? na,O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . J ? ? san ? ? na, . j ? ? . ? w .? J ? ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- ------- --------------- --- -- ------ 645 & V ? 85 w O ? ? ? ?? san w ? ? .? J ? san ? ? ? san w na, w ? ? ? na,O ? ? ? I ? ? ! ? ? ? ? w na, . ? ? ? ? O w w w ? ? ? ? san ? san w ? ? na, ? .? J ? ? .? ? ! ? ? ? i O ? ? ? ? -------------- - --- --------- ----------- ------ -------- --- ------------- & V ? 92 ? ? O ? san ? ? w w na, ? ? . j ? w w na, ? ? i O ? ? ? ? i w ? ? ? ? i na, ? . ? ? ? O ? ? ? ? I ? ? O ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? san ? . ?b ? w .? ? ?? ? ? w ? ? ? san .? ? san . ? J ? san ? . ? ? san ------- ------- ------------ ----- --- ---------- ---------------- ------------- & V ? 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? na, ? ? ?? ? ? ? na ? ? ? ? w ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? O ? ? ?. ? j ? ? ? ? ? ? san . ? ? ? na . w na ? .w na . w na --------------- ------- --------------- --------------- ---- ---- 646 * 3 in MontM 766 & V ? 106 ? w inex ! . ? ? in ? .? ? in . ? ? ? in ? . ? w? inex ? ? excel ? ? ex ? . ? ex ? ? .? ? cel ? ? sis, ? ? ? ? cel ? ? ? w sis,in ? ? in .? ? ? ? ? sis, .? ? ? .? ? ? ex w? ex .? ? ? .? ? in ? ? ? ? ? ? cel ?? cel ? ? ex ---- ------ ---- ---- ------------- ---------------- ------- --- & V ? 2 2 2 2 2 112 w? sis ? . ? cel ? w ? ? ? ? w ? w .? ?? ? w ? w ? w cel .w sis. .w sis. . sis. .w sis. . sis. .w .w . .w . .? ? Be ! w Be w Be Be ? ! ? ne ? ? ne .? ? ne ! ? w ? di -------- ------- ----- ------- ------ -------- ----- ------- ----- & V ? 119 ? ? ! ? w ? ? ? ? ! ? ? w ne ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? ? di ! ? w di ? ? ? ? ! ? . J ? ? ctus,be ? . j ? ? ctus, ! ? ? di ? ? ? ctus, ?? ? be ! ? ctus, w ? .? j be ? nedictus ! ?? ? be ? ? ne ------------ - - -------- -------- ------------ -- ------------ ---- 647 Contratenor Canon: Quere tenorem in discantu & V ? 127 ? quive ! ?? ne w ?? di w nit, ! ? ? di w w ctus ! ! ? ? ctus, ? ne ?? ? qui ? ? . J ? qui ! ? .? J be ? ? . ? ve ? ve ! ? ? ne ? ? ? ? ? ! ? ? di w di ? ? ? ? ? nitin ! ? ? ? ctusqui w ctus nit ------ ---- - ---------------- - ----- --- ------ & V ? 134 ?? nomi ! .? J ? ! ? ?? innomi .? j ? ! ? ? ? ? qui . J ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ve ?? ? ? ? ne,in ! ?? venit, ? nitin ? ?? nomi ! . ? ? qui w no ? ? ? neDo .? J ? ! ?? venit w mi . J ? mi .? j ? ! ? ? in w ne, . ? J ? - - - ------ ------- ------- --------- ------ & V ? 141 ?.? ! ? ? ? no w ? . ? ? ? ? neDo ! .?? mine ! ? . J ? ? . j ? ! ? . ? Do ! ? . ? ? ? mi ! ? ? mi ? ? qui ? ? ni, ? ? ? ni,in ! ? ? ni, .? ? ve ? ? in . j ? ? no ! ? .? J ? qui ? ? nit .? ? no ? ! ? ? ? inno ?. ? mi ---- - - ---- - --- ----- ----- --------- ----- 648 & V ? 148 ? ? ! ? ? ve ? ? ? ? ne, w ! ? ? nit w mi ? ?? innomi ? ?? mi ! ? ? w ne, ?? neDomi ? ! ? ? ? in ? ? in . ? J ? ? ? ne, ! ? ? no w no ? ni, ? ? ! . ?? mi ?? mine ?? ? in ? ? innomi ! ? ne, .? ? Do ? ? nomine --- ----- ------ ---- - ------------ -- -- -- ---- -- & V ? 155 ? . ? j neDo ! ? ? innomi ? ? ? Domi ? ? mi ! ? ? ? ? ? ? ni, ? ? ! ? . J ? w mi ?? in w ni, ! .? ? w ni, ? . ? nomi ? ?? inno ! ? ne ? ? in ? . J ? ? . J ? mineDomi ! ?? ? Do w no ?? ?? ni,innomi ! .? j ? mi ? mine ??? neDo ---------- ---- -------- ---- ------ ------ -- -------- - & V ? 162 .? ?? neDo ! ? ? ? .? ? Do ? . j ? ?? ? I mi ! ? ? ni,innomi ? ? ? ? w ni. ! . ? ? ? neDo .? ? ? . j ? w ! ? ? I mi ? ? mi ? ? mi w ! w ni. w ni. ni. w ! w w ---- -- ---- ------------- --- -------------- 649 & V ? 2 2 2 2 2 Superius 1 Superius 2 Contratenor Tenor Bassus ? ? A ! ! ! . ? ? A ? ? ! ! ! ? ? gnusDe ! .? ? A .? ? A ? ? ? .? ? A ? gnus ? ? ? ? .? J ? gnus ? De ?? gnusDe w gnus ?? ? ? De ? ? i, ? ? .? j ? De ? ? ? I ? ? i, ? ? ? A ? ? ? ? --- ----------- ---- ---- --- --- - ------ ------ --------- ----- & V ? 8 ? ? i, ? ? qui ? ? gnus w i, i, ? quitol ?? tollispec ? Dei, ? ? qui ! ? ? lispec ? ? ca ! ? ? tol ! ?? ca ? ? ta ! ? . ? ! ? ? ? tamun ? ? ? mun ! ?? ? ? qui w di, ? ? di, ?.? J quitol ? ? lis ? tollis ! ! ? ? ? lispec ! ? ? pecca - ------ - -------- - - - - - ------- - -- & V ? 15 .? j ? quitollispec ! . ? J ? ca ? ?? peccata ? . ? J tamun ? ? catamun ! ? ? ? ? mun ? ? ? ? ? di,pec .? j ? quitollispec ? ? tamun ? ? ? di,pec ? ? ? di,qui ? catamun ? ? ? ca ? ? ? ? catamun ? ? tol ? ? di: w ta ? ? di, ? ? di: ? ? lispec ! .? ? mun .?? pecca ! ? ? cata ! ? ? ? tamun ! ? ? mu ---- -- - --- ----- ----- ---- -- - -- -- --- ---- - -- - 650 Agnus Dei & V ? 22 .? ? mise w di: ? ? di: ? ? mi w di: ? ? reno w .? ? mise ? .? j sere ! ? ? I ? .? j mise .? J ? ? ? ? ? mi ? ? bis, ? ? re .? J ? re ? .? j reno ? ? ? serere .?? mise ? reno ? reno ? ? ? nobis, ? ? ? ? w bis, ? ? bis, ?? mi ? .? j re ? bis, ? ?? mise .?? mise ?? sere ------- ------- ----- ----- -------- - -- ------ ---- -- --- - --- & V ? 29 ?? ? reno ? ? ? mise ??? rereno ?? ? rereno ?? reno ? ? ? ??? rereno w bis. .? ? w bis. w bis. w bis. w bis. w w w -- -------- - -- --- - --- - -------- --- 651 652 APPENDIX III: Tables to Chapter 6 653 Table 1: Alamire Manuscripts Grouped by Paleographic and Codicological Elements Manuscript 1 DateScribesFoliosSize (mm)Staff (mm)Duplication of Staves MaterialGatherings 2 Continuation signsTriangles 3 Extra indicationsCorrections 4 Recipient VienNB Mus. 15495 1508-11Music: C Text: C, C5, C6 105550 x 38023 exactparchment14; withinD1, A1, A2, A5, B1, B3, D2, E1 X Mvt names bottom center Relatively few: passages, durations, text, staves, continuations, initials Maximilian & Bianca Maria Sforza MontsM 773c. 1512?Music: C2, X Text: C4, X 131565 x 39023 exactparchment20; withinA3, A3 1 , C1, E1, D5, F3, E3, C12 X x under continuation signs None visibleMargaret of Austria? VienNB Mus. 15497 1512-16Music: C, C2, E, X Text: C5, X 98 520 x 370ff. 1-9: 22m, ff. 10- 98: 20 exactparchment15 B8, A4, C1, A3 1 , B6, B3 1 X #s next to initialsFew Ulrich Pfintzing VienNB Mus. 15496 1515-16Music: C, (X) Text: C3, (C) 118515 x 36523 exactparchment17 C1 + upside down to indicate cont above X Mvt names bottom center; some mass titles bottom left; #s next to initials Few: staves, pitches, durations Charles V, commissioned by Maximilian I JenaU 71515-16?Music: C Text: C3, C4, C5, X (initials) 108615-642 x 415-426 24 exactparchment15 C1, B8X Mvt names; Mass titles; ascriptions; ?o?; # to indicate continuation sign None visibleMaximilian I or Frederick the Wise? MechAS s.s.1515-16Music: C2, X Text: C5, X 110643-655 x 432-437 24 exactparchment16; within; blank openings A3, B5, C1, B6, E1, D3 X 1 st letters under initialsFew: text, note durations, rests, passages, staves extended Margaret of Austria, Maximilian I, or Charles V? JenaU 91516-18? 5 Music: C2, X Text: X (fragment)610 x 42524 exactparchmentfragmentC1, A3, A3 1 , C4 1 fragmentfragmentfragmentHenry VIII? Frederick the Wise JenaU 21516-18? 6 Music: D, X Text: D, X, C5 108600 x 41523 exactparchment15; within; blank openings A3 1 , B1, C6, B6 1 , C4, C4 1 , C7, C8 ?V? in left margin next to T2; ?4? above repeat sign in T Few: signum congruentiae Frederick the Wise VatS 1601515-18?Music: C2, X Text: X, C5? 109596 x 40425 exactparchment18; within; blank openings A3, C1, C4, B6Mass title: ?virgo parens? Few Pope Leo X VatS 341515-18?Music: E, X Text: C5, D, X 77 594 x 40525 almost exactparchment11; within; blank openings A3 1 , C3 , B2, C2X Few: text, initials, staves, layout Pope Leo X VatS 361515-18?Music: D, X Text: C5, D, X 95 594 x 40525 exactparchment16; within; blank openings C1, A3 1 , C4, C5, D4, C3 1 , B2, A1 X Guides for continuation signs, initials Few: text, continuation signs, custodes, staves, layout, passages Pope Leo X BrusBR 215- 216 1512-16Music: C2, E Text: X49 430 x 32019 exactparchment7; acrossA familyX None visibleFew; titleCharles Le Clerc JenaU 81516-18Music: D, Alamire? Text: D, X 130485 x 34019.5exactparchment20; within; blank openings A3 1 , C7 1 , B6, C1X ?o? bottom rightnot availableFrederick the Wise BrusBR IV.922ff 117v-125: before March 1516; ff. 4- 116, 126-148: c. 1521; 1517-25? 7 Music: C2, D, I, Alamire? Text: D, I, X 151470 x 34019, 20exactparchment21; within except gathering q Mvt namesnot availablePompeius Occo 1 Like patterns in this column show codicological groupings of manuscripts. 2 Indications refer to compositions copied within or across a group of gatherings. 3 A series of lines that form a right-facing triangle after the final barline in some masses. 4 Detailed corrections to the musical text have not been included here, since they are too numerous to fit in this table and are listed in the scholarly editions of most of the compositions in these manuscripts. This column is intended to show the degree to which a manuscript was corrected, and to indicate which types of corrections were made. 5 Based on scribes in common with the other three manuscripts in the group. 6 Based on the presumed careers of Scribes D and X. 7 See Theodor Dumitrescu et. al., eds., The Occo Codex, in Computerized Mensural Music Editing, http://www.cmme.org/?page=database&view=projects&num=4 [accessed February 22, 2009], for a critique of this dating. Dumitrescu argues that all of BrusBR IV.922 was copied around 1515-17. 654 JenaU 41516-18Music: D, X Text: D, X 117785 x 55027 exactparchment18; beginning or end; blank openings C1, B5, C4, A3 1 , B6, F1 X Indications for continuation signs; initials; mvt names Few: text, continuation sign, ascription Maximilian I or Henry VIII?Frederick the Wise MunBS 71516-18? 8 Music: C2?, D, E, Alamire? Text: D, X 106560 x 39022 inconsistentpaper18; all 6 ff except last-4 C1, A3 1 + var, B2, C2, C13 X Mvt names; indications for initials; # of staves Many: pitches, durations, clefs, rests, passages, ligatures, text, voice names Wilhelm IV of Bavaria? JenaU 121518-20Music: C Text: C, C5 122560 x 38024 exactparchment17; within; blank openings C9, F2, B2 + var.X Mvt names; text indications; ?o#? not availableFrederick the Wise JenaU 31518-20Music: C Text: C, C5, C6 115557 x 38023 exactparchment16; within; blank openings B3, B9 + var, B8, B10 X Indications for initials; letters top right; # bottom right Few: textFrederick the Wise JenaU 51512-21Music: D, E Text: C5, D 86 565 x 39522 exactparchment13; within; blank openings E2, A3 1 , B7, C4, C10 X Mvt names; ?x? under continuation signs; #s bottom right; text indications Few: text, rubricsFrederick the Wise JenaU 21(1521-25)Music: D, Alamire? Text: D 114402 x 28017 exactpaper16; within; blank openings C4, A3, B6, C1Mvt/text indicationsnot availableUnknown?Frederick the Wise BrusBR 64281520-30?Music: H, I Text: Y, Z 122735 x 50028 exactparchment22-mostly withinB1, C13, B3, A3 1 , C3, C7 X Mass titles on blank side of end of gathering; mvt names; indications of txt not availableMargaret of Austria or Maximilian I? MontsM 766ff. 6-18: pre- 1520; ff. 1-5, 19-173: c. 1524? Music: D, F, K Text: F, K, Z 5 + 13 + 155 550-55 x 385 20 inconsistentpaper+ parchment 21; gatherings b&c within; others inconsistent C1/B8/B8, C1None Many: pitches, durations, rhythms, rests, passages, ligatures, mensuration signs, staves extended CharlesV commissioned by Margaret of Austria? BrusBR 15075c. 1524?Music: F Text: Z 131569 x 38720, last 2 gaths: 21- 22 (changes w/in gath) exactparchment19; within; some blank openings not availablenot availableMvt names; # of staves; ?o2?, ?o3?, ?o4? not availableJohn III of Portugal and Catherine of Austria MunBS F1520-25 9 Music: F, H Text: F, Y 116375 x 27515 exactparchment17; within; blank openings or folios C3, C11, A3, B2X Initial guidesFew: passages, layoutUnknown?Wilhelm IV of Bavaria? SubA 2481521-25Music: F, I Text: F, Z 130396 x 28218 no paper20; most within; most cut or pasted C11 Mass titles; text; # of staves; mvt names; ?finis? after 1 st Mass not availableUnknown, probably Italian VienNB 48091521-25Music: F, H Text: F 141392 x 28017 inconsistent; sometimes at outside margin paper23; within; many blank openings or folios C1 Relatively few: Underlay in 2 nd hand 71r, passages, pitches, durations, clefs, text, custodes, mensuration signs, continuation signs, rubrics Raimund Fugger the Elder VienNB 48101521-25Music: H, I Text: I, Z 118392 x 28017 usually; sometimes starts together at outside margin paper19; within; many blank openings or folios A3 1 , B1, C4Mvt names; # of staves; ?x? in margins where corrections were made Many: passages, staves, text, clefs, custodes Unknown?Fuggers VienNB 117781521-25Music: F, H, I, Alamire Text: F, Y, Z, Alamire 135395 x 28017 no paper23; within; many blank openings or folios C1, B3, A3Mvt names; # of staves; ?xi? in margins where corrections were made; slashes indicating tactus Many: passages, pitches, durations, rests, staves, custodes Raimund Fugger the Elder MunBS 6c. 1530? 10 Music: H, I, F? Text: Z 144560 x 38521 at left end onlypaper24; all 6 folios; across A1, B1, A3, B3Initials; mvt names + # of staves; Mass titles Many: underlay in 2 nd hand, text, durations, rests, staves extended, voice names, accidentals Wilhelm IV of Bavaria 8 Based on presumed career of Scribe D. 9 Based on presumed careers of Scribes F, H, and Y. 655 ?s-HerAB 72A1530-1Music/Text: F151560 x 38420 no papernot availableB family, C familynot availablenot availablenot availableConfraternity of Our Lady ?s-HerAB 72B1530-1Music/Text: K168555 x 38020 no papernot availableC1 not availableMvt names; # of stavesnot availableConfraternity of Our Lady ?s-HerAB 72C1530-1Music: K Text: F?, K 167560 x 38520 no papernot availableA family, B family, C family not availableMvt names; # of stavesnot availableConfraternity of Our Lady 10 Based on codicological similarities with ?s-HerAB A, B, and C. 656 Table 2: Early Alamire Manuscripts: Dates and Scribes DateScribe C=C3? Scribe C2 (=Alamire?) Scribe C4 Scribe C5Scribe C6 Scribe XScribe DScribe EAlamireRecipient 1508-11VienNB 15495 VienNB 15495 VienNB 15495 Maximilian & Bianca Maria Sforza c. 1511? or 1515- 18? MontsM 773MontsM 773 MontsM 773 Margaret of Austria? c. 1513? LonBL 8G.vii LonBL 8gvii? Henry VIII & Catherine of Aragon 1512-16BrusBR 215- 216 BrusBR 215-216 BrusBR 215-216 Charles LeClerc before March 1516 BrusBR IV.922 BrusBR IV.922 BrusBR IV.922 BrusBR IV.922? Pompeius Occo 1515-16MechASMechAS s.s. MechAS s.s. Maximilian, Charles V, Margaret of Austria? 1515-18? VatS 34VatS 34VatS 34VatS 34Pope Leo X 1515-18? VatS 36VatS 36VatS 36 Pope Leo X 1515-18?VatS 160VatS 160VatS 160 Pope Leo X 1515-16VienNB 15496 Charles V? Maximilian I? 1515-16?VienNB 15497 VienNB 15497VienNB 15497 VienNB 15497 VienNB 15497 Ulrich Pfintzing of Nuremburg 1512-21 JenaU 5 JenaU 5JenaU 5Frederick the Wise 1508-18?MunBS 7 MunBS 7MunBS 7MunBS 7MunBS 7? Wilhelm IV of Bavaria 1512-18? JenaU 2JenaU 2JenaU 2 Frederick the Wise 1516-18 JenaU 4JenaU 4 Frederick the Wise 657 1518-20JenaU 3 JenaU 3JenaU 3 Frederick the Wise 1508-19JenaU 7JenaU 7 (C3)JenaU 7JenaU 7JenaU 7? Maximilian I/Frederick the Wise 1519-23 BrusBR 228 BrusBR 228 BrusBR 228? Margaret of Austria before 1521 JenaU 8JenaU 8JenaU 8?Frederick the Wise 1509-25JenaU 9 JenaU 9 Frederick the Wise 1518-20JenaU 12 JenaU 12 Frederick the Wise 1512-25 JenaU 20 Frederick the Wise before 1520 (ff 6- 18) MontsM 766 Charles V? 1512-18?OxfBL La.8 Unknown (1521-25?) JenaU 21JenaU 21? Frederick the Wise 658 Table 3: Late Alamire Manuscripts: Dates and Scribes DateScribe FScribe HScribe IScribe KScribe YScribe ZAlamireRecipient c. 1520?MunBS 6MunBS 6MunBS 6 MunBS 6Wilhelm of Bavaria c. 1521-30MunBS 34MunBS 34 MunBS 34MunBS 34?Wilhelm of Bavaria 1520s? BrusBR 6428BrusBR 6428BrusBR 6428Margaret? Maximilian? c. 1524?BrusBR 15075 BrusBR 15075 BrusBR 15075 John III of Portugal and Catherine of Austria c. 1524? (ff 1- 5, 19-173) MontsM 766MontsM 766MontsM 766Charles V? 1520?-25MunBS FMunBS F MunBS F Wilhelm of Bavaria 1521-25?SubA 248SubA 248 SubA 248Unknown 1521-25?VienNB 4809VienNB 4809 Fugger 1521-25?VienNB 4810VienNB 4810VienNB 4810Fugger 1521-25?VienNB 11778VienNB 11778VienNB 11778VienNB 11778VienNB 11778VienNB 11778Fugger 1519-25?VienNB 9814VienNB 9814VienNB 9814VienNB 9814Unknown?Fugger 1519-25 VienNB 18825VienNB 18825Fugger 1521-25? VienNB 18832VienNB 18832Fugger 1521-31 VienNB 15491 VienNB 15491VienNB 15491Fugger 1523 VienNB 18746Fugger c. 1531-32VatP 1976-79 VatP 1976-79VatP 1976-79Anne & Ferdinand of Bohemia & Hungary 1530-31?s-HerAB 72A Confraternity of Our Lady 1530-31 ?s-HerAB 72B Confraternity of Our Lady 1530-31?s-HerAB 72C?s-HerAB 72C Confraternity of Our Lady 659 Tables 4-34: Titles and Ascriptions in Selected Alamire Manuscripts Each of the following thirty-one tables (Tables 4-34) represents one Alamire manuscript that transmits masses, arranged in approximate chronological order. The tables show when, where, and how titles and ascriptions of masses were written in each manuscript, and which text scribes contributed to that manuscript (in parentheses following manuscript sigla). When titles in the column ?Title as in MS? are enclosed in brackets, no official title appears at the top of one of the folios of the first opening, where one would expect titles. The ?Comments? column includes the following categories of information: composer, when not ascribed or misascribed in the manuscript [by name of composer]; possible composer, when ascribed to another composer in a different manuscript but authorship is uncertain [asc. name of composer] or [also asc. name of composer]; cantus firmus incipits [c.f.] or texts underlaid in the tenor or all voices of the first opening, which fulfill the function of titles; missing or vandalized folios [f.], which could explain missing titles and ascriptions; other miscellaneous comments. Table 4: VienNB 15495 (C, C5, C6) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 1v-18rSalva diva parens prolis amene. O mater dei memento mei By Obrecht iii-v: 19v-33rMente totaAnthonius de fevin X v-vii: 33v-47r[M. Faisant regretz]Josquin des pretz X ?Faisant Regretz? vii-ix: 47v-63r[M. Alles regretz]Loyset Compere X ?Alles regres?; also asc. Josquin ix-xi: 63v-78r[M. Mediatrix nostra]BruhierX ?Mediatrix nostra? xi-xii: 78v-89r[M. O vos omnes]Pierken TherasX ?o vos omnes qui transitis viam istam? xii-xiv: 89v- 104r [M. Ung musque du biscay]Josquin des prez X ?Ung musque du Biscay?; [no Agnus Dei] 660 Table 5: MontsM 773 (C4, X) Gathering/ff #s* Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments 1r-13r[M. de Sancta Anna] [ff. missing]By La Rue; missing Kyrie I, S and T of Christe 14v-29rInviolatade [la] RueX f cut 30v-44r[M. Ave Maria][f cut]f 30v cut 45v-60r[M. O gloriosa Margareta] Petrus de [la] Rue X 61v-79r[M. de Sancta Cruce] p. de [la] rueX f cut; c.f. txt 79V-84r[M. O salutaris hostia] Petrus de [la] Rue X f cut; c.f. txt 85v-98r[M. de Sancto Job][ff cut]By La Rue; ff 85-86 cut 99v-115rMissa quinque vocum p. de [la] rueX ?Alleluya? in c.f. 115v-130Missa de feriap. de [la] rueX *Gathering structure not available Table 6: BrusBR 215-216 (X) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-iii: 1v-20rMissa quinq[ue] vocum de septem doloribus beatissi[m]e marie virginus Petrus de [la] Rue X iii-v: 20v-33rMissa de septem doloribus dulcissime marie virginis [Petrus de [la] Rue] scraped v: 33v-38r[Memorare mater / Nunquam fuit pena] Pipe[lare] Pie memorie ? X vi: 39v-43r[Stabat mater dolorosa]By Josquin vi-vii: 44r-49vDe b[ea]te marie v[ir]ginis dolorib[us] in primus vesperis anthi. Music by Petrus Duwez? Table 7: JenaU 8 (Text: D, X) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i: 1v-4rPatrem Lamour du moyPetrus de [la] Rue X ii-iv: 6v-25rMissa quinq[ue] vocum [Incessament] petrus de [la] Rue X v-vii: 26v-44r[M. En douleur en tristesse]Noel bouldewijn X viii-x: 45v-65rMissa quinq[ue] vocum supra Inviolata Noel baudevvim X xi-xiii: 66v- 84r Missa quinq[ue] vocum supra maria magdalena Nicolaus campion X xiv-xvi: 85v- 104r Mijns liefkins bruyn ooghenBy Bauldeweyn xvii-xix: 105v-124r Tua est potenciaJohannes mouton X xxvi: 125v- 130r [Credo] 661 Table 8: BrusBR IV.922 (D, I, X) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments iii-iv: 12v- 27v Missa de venerabili sacramentoHottinet barra X v-vi: 28v-41rMissa pange linguaJosquinX vii-ix: 42v- 66r Benedictus dominus deusJohannes mouton X x-xi: 67v- 82v [M. Mijn herte altijt heeft]GascoingX ?Myn herte altyt? xii-xiv: 83v- 102r [M. L?oserai-je dire]Johannes mouton X ?Loseraige dire? xv-xvi: 103v-116v [M. L?homme arm?]Mathurin forestier X ?Lom arme?; also asc. Mouton xvii: 117v- 121r Missa paschale sex vocumheinricus ysac &c [etcetera] X Kyrie only xvii: 121v- 123r [Kyrie] Paschalelaurentius de vourda ? X Kyrie only xvii-xviii: 123v-131r Paschale By Isaac; Kyrie Paschalis ad organum (a4); G-S-A from Missa Paschalis (a6); no C xix-xx: 133v-148r Missa pro fidelibus defunctisAntonius divitis pie memorie ? X By A. F?vin Table 9: VienNB 15497 (C5, X) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments I: 1v-5r[Kyrie] Jacques barbireau X i: 5v-9rIn festo paschepetrus de [la] Rue X ii-iv: 10r-26r[M. Ista est speciosa]By La rue; f missing v-vi: 27v- 40v Missa de sancta trinitateJohannes mouton X Maybe by A. F?vin vii-viii: 41v- 55r Missa supra O q[ua]m glorifica luceAnthonius de fevin pie memorie ? X ix-x: 56v-68rMissa supra Tous les RegretzPetrus de [la] Rue X xi-xii: 69v- 82r Missa pro fidelibus defunctisAnthonius de fevin pie memorie ? X xiii-xv: 83v- 98r Missa de angelisJohannes Prioris X 662 Table 10: VienNB 15496 (C3, (C)) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-iii: 1v-17rMissa sup[ra] All[elui]aPetrus de la Rue X ?Alleluya. Alleluya? iv-vi: 18v-35rMissa de sancta AnnaPetrus de [la] Rue X vii-viii: 36v-50rMissa sup[ra] Ave mariaPetrus de la Rue X ix-x: 51v-66rMissa supra InviolataPetrus de [la] Rue X xi-xii: 67v-81rMissa de sancto JobPetrus de [la] Rue X xiii-xiv: 82v- 99r Sub tuum presidiumPetrus de [la] rue X Also asc. Josquin xv-xvi: 100v- 118r Missa de sancta crucePetrus de [la] Rue X Table 11: JenaU 7 (C3, 4, 5, X) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 1r-16r[M. de Sancta Anna]By La Rue; f missing iii-iv: 17r-29r[M. Ave Maria]By A. F?vin; f missing v-vii: 30v-46rMissa sup[ra] InviolataPetrus de la Rue X vii-viii: 47r-60rMissa de venerablil sac[ra]me[n]to PriorisX f missing ix-xi: 61v-77rDe nostra dominaJosquin des pres X [=M. de beata Virgine] xi-xiii: 78v-91rMissa de s[an]c[t]o iobPetrus de la Rue X xiv-xv: 92v- 107r Missa sup[ra]. Si dederoAnthonius divitis X Table 12: MechAS s.s. (C5, X) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 1v-15r[M. fors seulement]By Pipelare; ?fors seullement latente qu?ie de meure? iii-iv: 16v-33r[M. Pascale] By La Rue; ?Resurrexiet et adhuc tecum sum alleluya? v-vi: 34v-48r[M. Conceptio tua]By La Rue; ?Conceptio tua? vii-viii: 49v-62r[M. Ave Maria]By La Rue; ?Ave maria? ix-xi: 63v-80vMissa de sancta cruce quinque vocum By La Rue xii-xiii: 81v-94r[M. de feria] By La Rue xiv-xvi: 95v- 110r Missa quinque vocum supra alleluya Petrus de [la] Rue X 663 Table 13: JenaU 2 (D, X, C5) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 1v-12rlhomme arme By La Rue? iii-v: 13v-32rMissa de sanctissima virgi[n]e ma[ria] Petrus de la Rue X [=M. Ista est speciosa] vi-vii: 33v-48rMissa de feriaAnthonius de fevin ? X viii-x: 49v-65rMissa quinq[ue] vocumNoel Bauldevvijn X ?Inviolata integra et casta?? x-xi: 66v-79r[M. Fors seulement]Matheus pipelare ? X ?Fors seullemee[n]t late[n]te que Je meure? xii-xiv: 80v-96r[M. L?oserai-je dire]Johannes mouton X ?Loseraige dire? xiv-xv: 97v- 108r [M. Mijn hert heeft altijt]Johannes gasscoeing X ?Myn hert heeft altyt verlanglx? Table 14: VatS 160 (X, C5?) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 2v-13r[M. Virgo parens Christi]By Barbireau; ?Virgo parens xpi? iii-v: 14r-32r[M. Ave regina celorum]f missing; by Obrecht vi-vii: 33r-48r[M. de beata virgine]f missing; by Josquin viii-ix: 49r-63r[M. de Sancto Johanne Baptista] f missing; by Obrecht x: 64r-67r[M. Sicut spina rosam]f missing; by Obrecht x-xi: 67v-70rCredo Petrus de [la] rue X [de villagiis] xi: 70v-76r[Missa Sancta trinitas]f missing; by Mouton or A. F?vin xii-xiii: 77r-89vMissa paschale sex vocumheinricus ysaac X xiv: 90v-96r[Kyrie] PaschaleLaurentius de vorda X xv-xviii: 97v- 110r [Missa L?homme arm?]Mathurin forestyn X ?lomme harme? Table 15: VatS 34 (C5, D, X) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i: 2v-8r[Credo] De sancto iohanne evangelista By Pipelare; f. 3r cropped close ii-iii: 9v-19r[M. L?homme arm? II]f missing; by La Rue? iv-vi: 20r-35r[M. Pascale] By La Rue; ff missing vi-vii: 36r-50r[M. Conceptio tua]By La Rue; f missing viii-ix: 51r-65r[M. Ista est speciosa]By La Rue; f missing x-xii: 66v-78rMissa de feria qui[n]q[ue] vocu[m] Pe. de [la] rue X 664 Table 16: VatS 36 (C5, D, X) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i: 2v-5r[Credo] L?amour du moyPetrus de [la] rue X Credo only ii-iv: 6r-14r[M. Ave sanctissima Maria]By La Rue; ff missing iv: 14v-15rLoco deo graciasBy La Rue? [Te decet laus] v-viii: 16r-33r[M. de septem doloribus]By La Rue; ff missing ix-xi: 34v-50r[M. Alleluia] By La Rue; ?Alleluya?; decorated opening, so decoration more important than ascription/title xi-xii: 50v-65r[M. O gloriosa Margaretha].PETRUS DE LA RUE. X ?O gloriosa Margaretha? xiii-xiv: 66v- 79r Missa de virginibusPetrus de [la] rue X xv-xvi: 80v-90rMissa pro fidelibus defunctisBy La Rue xvi: 90v-96rPatrem sex vocumpetrus de la rue X Table 17: MunBS 7 (D, X) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 2v-13rMissa. quattuor vocumJohannes Gascong X [M. Mijn herte heeft alltijt] iii-v: 14v-30rMissa de beata virgine Salve sancta parens Anthonius de fevin pie memorie ? X v-viii: 31v-46rMissa de almaniaJohannes mouton X [=M. Regina mearum] viii-x: 47v-59rMissa quattor vocum supra O q[uam] glorifica luce Anthonius de fevin pie memorie ? X x-xiii: 60v-76rMissa quattuor vocu[m]. myn liefkens bruyn oghen Noel bauldewyn X xiii-xv: 77v-89rMissa quattuor vocum supra.la sol.mi fa.re. Robertus de fevin. pie memorie ? X xv-xviii: 90v- 107r Missa. quattuor vocu[m]Noel bauldewyn X [M. Da pacem domine]; by Mouton? 665 Table 18: JenaU 12 (C, C5) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 1v-17r[Missa Alleluia]Petrus de la Rue X ?Alleluya alleluya? iii-iv: 18r-32rAve maria By La Rue; f missing v-vii: 33v-50r[M. Sub tuum presidium]Petrus de la Rue X Also asc. Josquin; ?Sub tuu[m] presidiu[m]? vii-viii: 50v-66r[Missa Sine nomine II]no txt on first opening; Virgo lactans; by La Rue? ix-xi: 67r-83v[M. de sancta cruce]by La Rue; f missing xii-xiii: 84v-97r[M. Tous les regretz]Petrus de la Rue X ?Tous les Regretz? xiv-xv: 98v- 110r [M. Sine nomine I]Petrus de la Rue X xvi-xvii: 111v- 122r Missa pro fidelibus defu[n]ctisPe.d e.la RueX ?Requiem?Te decet y[m]nus deus in syon? Table 19: JenaU 3 (C, C6, C6) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 1v-14rTant qu[e] Je puis. H.F.V.S.Josquin des pres X [Missa Faisant regretz]; ?Elizabeth?; ?faisant regretz? iii-iv: 15v-28rFridericus dux saxsonieJosquin des pres X [=Missa Hercules dux Ferrariae] v-vii: 29v-43rAve maris stellaJosquin des pres X vii-viii: 43v-58rMente tota tibi supplicamusAnthonius de fevin X ix-xi: 59v-73rMalheur me batJosquin des pres X xi-xii: 73v-90rAlles RegretzLoyset Compere Pie memorie X [M. Alles regretz II, by Josquin?] xiii-xiv: 91v- 104r lhomme arm?Johannes Mouton X by Forestier xv-xvi: 105v- 115r [M. Sine nomine]Josquin des pres X 666 Table 20: JenaU 4 (D, X) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 1v-5rPatrem sex vocum ad placitumAnthonius Divitis X By Mouton ii: 5v-7r[Kyrie] Pascale quinque vocum. ad longum. By La Rue; [Kyrie] ii-iii: 8v-14rMISSA DE BEATA VIRGINE. SEX VOCUM. By La Rue; ?Ave sanctissima virgo maria? iii-iv: 15v-28r[M. Pascale] By La Rue; ?Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum alleluya? v-vi: 29v-41r[M. Conceptio tua]By La Rue; ?Conceptio tua.? vi-viii: 42v-53rMissa de septem doloribus beate maria virginis Petrus de la Rue X viii-ix: 54v-65rMissa quinq[ue] vocumPetrus de la Rue X [M. Ista est speciosa] ix-xi: 66v-76rMissa de feria quinq[ue] vocum Anthonius de fevi[n] ? X xi-xiii: 77v-89rMissa loseraige direJohannes Mouton X xiii-xv: 90v- 101r Missa quinq[ue] vocum supra I[n]cessame[n]t Pe. RueX xv-xvii: 102v- 112r Missa quinq[ue] vocum supra baise moy Mathurin forestier X xvii-xviii: 113v-117r De Sancto iohanne evvangelista Matheus pipe[lare] X [Credo only] Table 21: JenaU 5 (C5, D) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i: 1v-10vAve sanctissima virgo maria. Regina celi By La Rue ii-iii: 11r-25r[M. Conceptio tua]By La Rue; 2 ff missing iv-vi: 26r-43rMissa quinq[ue] vocumPetrus de la Rue X [M. Pascale] vii-viii: 44v-59rMissa quatuor vocumPetrus de la Rue X ?O gloriosa Domina? ix-x: 60v-72rMissa qui[n]q[ue] vocu[m] [de Feria] Petr de la rueX xi-xiii: 73v-86rMissa pro fidelibus defunctisAnthoinus de fevin pie memore ? X Asc. Divitis in BrusBR IV.922 in error 667 Table 22: JenaU 21 (D) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 1v-18rMissa de venerabili sacramentoby Josquin; [=M. Pange lingua] iii-iv: 19v-30rMi mi miPipelareX v-vi: 31v-42r[M. Tandernaken]Petrus de la Rue X ?Tandernaken? vii-viii: 43v-58rSancta dei genitrixPetrus la vieX ?Petrus alamyre? scraped ix-x: 59v-69rDe ferra pipelareX No Agnus Dei xi-xii: 71v-85r[M. Alles regretz I]io. De pratis ? X Attr. Josquin, but could be Stokem or another; ?Allez regrectz? xiii-xiv: 87v- 100r Missa brevisIasparX By Weerbeke xv-xvi: 101v- 114r [Missa Sine nomine] Table 23: MontsM 766 (F, K, Z) Gathering/ff #sTitleAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i:1v-5rPascale Quinque VocumBy La Rue ii:6r [Agnus Dei de feria]By La Rue; fragment; vandalized ii-iii:6v-18r NB: parchment Missa quinque vocum supra base moy [Ma]thurin Forestier X iv-vi:19v-35vMissa lhomme armeMatthurin forestier X vi-x:36v-56rMissa de sancta crucePetrus de la Rue X x-xiii:57v-77rMissa quinque vocum hodie scietis By Bruhier xiii-xvi:78v-94rMissa De venerabili sacramento Jacobus barbireau X xvi-xix:95v-111rMissa fors seulement.PipelareX xix-xxiii:112v-134rMissa De assumptione beate marie xxiii-xxvi:135v-154rMissa Cuier languereulx xxvi-xxix:155v-173rMissa memor esto quinque vocum 668 Table 24: BrusBR 6428 (Y, Z) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-iii: 1v-17r[M. Conceptio tua] [f. cut]By La Rue; f. 1v vandalized iv-vi: 18r- 31r [M. Ista est speciosa] [f. cut]By La Rue; f. 18r vandalized vi-viii: 32v- 42r [M. Ave sanctissima Maria] [f. cut]By La Rue; f. 32v vandalized viii-xi: 43r- 61v [M. de septem doloribus] [ff. missing] By La Rue; Incomplete-opening missing xii-xv: 62v- 85r Missa De assumptione beata marie virginis hynric ysacX xvi-xvix: 86v-105r Missa de Sancta Cruce Petrus de la Rue X ixx-xxii: 106v-122r [Missa Paschale][f. cut]By La Rue; f. 106v vandalized Table 25: BrusBR 15075 (Z) Gathering/ff #s TitleAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-iii: 1v-21rConceptio tua de genitrix virgo Petrus de la Rue X iv-vii: 22v- 42r M. Quinque vocumde la rueX ?Ista est speciosa? in c.f. vii-ix: 42v- 63r Missa quinque vocum de doloribus Rue X x-xii: 64v- 83r Missa pascale quinque vocum de la RueX xiii-xv: 84v- 94r M. sex vocumPetrus de la Rue X ?Ave sanctissima? in c.f. xv-xviii: 94v-114r M. de sancta cruce quinque vocum Rue X xviii-xvix: 114v-130r M. de feriaPetrus de la rueX 669 Table 26: MunBS F (F, Y) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-iii: 3r-17r[M. Missus est Gabriel angelus] By Moulu; f missing; ?Missa est? iii-v: 17v-36r[M. Es hat ein sim]By Gascongne; ?Es hat ein sim? vi-viii: 37v-57v[M. O genitrix] By Richafort; ?O genitrix? ix-x: 58v-71v[M. O werde mont]?O werd mont? xi-xii: 72v-85r[M. Adiutorium nostrum]?Adiutorium nostrum? xiii-xv: 86v- 103r Missa Myn hert altyt heeft verlanghen Mathias gascogne X xvi-xvii: 104v- 118r [M. Paranimphus]By Moulu; ?Paranimphus? Table 27: SubA 248 (F, Z) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-iii: 1-18[M. Cum jocunditate]By La Rue; ff. missing iv-vii: 19v-37rMissa de dominaRue X [=M. de Beata virgine] vii-ix: 37v-56Missa de nativitate xpiRue X [=M. Puer natus est] x-xii: 56v-75Missa De annu[n]tiatione Maria Rue X [=M. Ave maria] xiii-xv + xix: 76v-94r + 115r Missa O gloriosa d[omi]na sup[ra] excelsa sidera Rue X xvi-xviii: 94v- 114 Missa de Assumptione b[ea]te Marie Rue X [=M. Assumpta est Maria] xix-xx: 115v- 130 Missa tous les regretzPetrus de la rue X Table 28: VienNB 4809 (F) Gathering/ff #s* Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments 1v-22rMissa De venerabili sacramento JosquinX [=M. Pange lingua]; ?Pange lingua? 23v-46rMissa De dominaJosquinX [=M. de beata Virgine] 47v-65rMissa hercules ducis ferrarieBy Josquin 66v-89vMissa Malheuer me batJosquinX 90v-108rMissa faysant RegretzBy Josquin; ?faysant Regretz? 109v-122r[M. Sine nomine]Josquin ?X 123v-141rMissa ave maris stellaJosquinX *Gathering structure not available 670 Table 29: VienNB 4810 (I, Z) Gathering/ff #s* Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments 5v-26rMissa de almaniaJo. moutonX [=M. Regina mearum] 27v-45rSanctoru[m] meritisAnto. Fevin.X ?Sanctorum meritis? 47v-63rMissa ad placitumAnotoni fevyn X 65v-84r[M. Intemerata virgo]Mathurin forestier X ?Intemerata virgo? 85-101Missa ad placitumBy Appenzeller; all voices on one f, not full opening 102v-122rMissa supra Salve regina?Salve? *Gathering structure not available Table 30: VienNB 11778 (F, Y, Z, Alamire) Gathering/ff #s* Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments 1v-22Missa sup[ra] lho[m]me armeJos. despresX [super voces musicales]; ?lhomme arme? 23v-41rMissa lhomme armeJosquinX [sexti toni] 41v-62rMissa GaudeamusOckeghemX By Josquin; ?Gaudeamus? 63v-83rMissa fortuna desperataJosquinX ?fortuna desperate? 83v-107rMissa La sol fa re myJosquinX 108v-125rMissa Lamy baudechon.By Josquin 125v-130r[Credo Vilayge II, Brumel]Josquin des pres X By Brumel; different scribe than rest of manuscript 130v-135r[Credo Chiascun me crie, Brumel] Josquin des pres X By Brumel; different scribe than rest of ms *Gathering structure not available 671 Table 31: MunBS 6 (Z) Gathering/ff #s Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments i-ii: 3v-11r[Credo] Anthonius Divitis X By Mouton ii-vi: 12v-36rMissa sex vocum supra qua[m] pulcra es By Bauldeweyn; scraped text on f. 12v; ?O quam pulcra es? in banderoles vii-x: 37v-57rMissa octo vocum supra miserere michi d[omi]ne ?Miserere michi domine? x-xiv: 58v-82rMissa quinque vo. du bon du cuer xiv-xviii: 83v- 105r Missa quinque vocum supra stabat m[ate]r By Vinders xviii-xxi: 106v- 122r Missa veni sancte spiritus quinque vocu[m] By Josquin xxi-xxiv: 123v- 143r [M. Sing ich nit wol]Nicolaus champion X Table 32: ?s-HerAB 72A (F) Gathering/ff #s* Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments 1v-18v[Benedicta es][Willaert]X By Hesdin? 19v-38r[Sine nomine][Willaert]X 39v-61r[de feria][F?vin]X 62v-82r[ducis saxsonie][champion]X 83v-101r[de sta maria magdalena][champion]X 102v-126r[urbs beata][courtois]X 127v-150r[super emendemus][courtois]X 151vTextless *Gathering structure not available Table 33: ?s-HerAB 72B (K) Gathering/ff #s* Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments 1v-19r[cum jocunditate][La Rue]X 20v-39r[incessament][la rue]X 40v-62r[de sancto stephano][moulu]X 63v-87r[quam pulcra es]By Bauldeweyn 87v-88r[o salutaris hostia] 88v-110r[n?avez point veu] 111v-133r[o genitrix][richafort]X 134v-153r[intemerata virgo]By Forestier 154v-169r[alma redemptoris][moulu]X *Gathering structure not available 672 Table 34: ?s-HerAB 72C (F?, K) ? masses only Gathering/ff #s* Title as in MSAscription as in MS Ascribed in MS Comments 2-22[tua est potentia]By Mouton 23v-46r[verbum bonum][mouton]X By Josquin? 47v-67r[de sancta trinitate][mouton]X By Fevin? 71-91[l?oserai-je dire]By Mouton 92v-112r[dictes moy][mouton]X 113v-132r[ecce quam bonum][mouton]X 133v-153r[alma redemptoris][mouton]X 154v-170r[d?allemangne][mouton]X *Gathering structure not available 673 Table 35: Indications of Composer Deaths in the Alamire Manuscripts ManuscriptComposers ?Other Composers in MS ScribesDate BrusBR 215-216PipelareLa Rue Anonymous Josquin Duwez? C2, E, X1512-16 VienNB 15497F?vinBarbireau La Rue Mouton Prioris C, C2, C5, E, X1512-16 JenaU 2F?vin Pipelare La Rue Bauldeweyn Mouton Gascongne C5, D, X1515-16 MunBS 7F?vinGascongne Mouton Bauldeweyn C2, D, E, X1516-18? JenaU 3Comp?reJosquin F?vin Mouton/Forestier C, C5, C61518-20 BrusBR IV.922De Vorda Divitis [by F?vin] Barra Josquin Mouton Gascongne Forestier Isaac C2, D, I, Alamire?, X ff 117v-125!: before March 1516!; ff. 4- 116, 126-148: 1517-25; c. 1521? JenaU 4F?vinDivitis [Mouton] La Rue Mouton Forestier Pipelare D, X 1516-18 JenaU 5F?vinLa RueC5, D, E1512/16 JenaU 20Pipelare F?vin La Rue Mouton Divitis Prioris Remiger Comp?re/Finck Gascongne D 1512-25 JenaU 21De Pratis [Stokem? Josquin?] Pipelare La Rue Weerbeke Anon Alamire?, D?1521-1525? MunBS 34JosquinLa Rue Lebrun Divitis Reingot Richafort Vorda Rener Craen Pipelare Ghiselin Molumet Obrecht Vinders x2 Anon x7 Bauldeweyn C2, H2, I, Zc1521-30 OxfBLL.a.8F?vinBlank/F?vin/MoutonC2, X1512-25 VienNB 4809JosquinJosquinF, H31521-25 Italics= manuscripts not containing masses 674 BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY SOURCES Manuscripts AntPAntwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus Bibliotheek, MSS B 948 IV, M 18.13/1-2 BrusSGBrussels, Archives g?n?rales du Royaume, Archives de Ste-Gudule, nos. 9423, 9424. BrusBRBrussels, Biblioth?que Royale de Belgique, MSS 215-16, 6428, 9126, 15075. ?s-HerAB?s-Hertogenbosch, Archief van de Illustre Lieve Vrouwe Broederschap, MSS 72A, 72B, 72C. JenaUJena, Universt?tbibliothek, MSS 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 21, 22. MechASMechelen, Archief en Stadsbibliotheek, MS s.s. MontsMMontserrat, Biblioteca del Monestir de Montserrat, MSS 765, 766, 769, 771, 773. MunBSMunich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Musiksammlung, MSS 6, F. VatS/VatCRome (Vatican City), Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MSS Cappella Sistina 34, 36, 160; MS Chigi C VIII 234. VerBCVerona, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS 756. VienNBVienna, ?sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Handschriftensammlung, MSS 1783, 4809, 4810, 11778, 11883; Musiksammlung, MSS. 15495, 15496, 15497, 18832. Prints RISM 1501 RISM 1504 1 RISM 1541 1 RISM 1545 14 675 RISM 1545 15 RISM 1549 29 RISM 1570 1 SECONDARY SOURCES Angl?s, Higini, and Luis Venegas de Henestrosa. La m?sica en la corte de Carlos V. Monumentos de la M?sica Espa?ola, 2. Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient?ficas. Instituto de Musicolog?a, 1944. Aron, Pietro. Toscanello in Musica, libro secondo, cap. 16. Venice: Marchio Sessa, 1529 [facsimile edition]. Barthes, Roland. ?The Death of the Author.? In Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern. Edited by Se?n Burke, 125-30. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1995. Bent, Margaret. ?Accidentals, Counterpoint and Notation in Aron's Aggiunta to the Toscanello in musica.? The Journal of Musicology 12 (1994): 306-344. _____. Counterpoint, Composition, and Musica Ficta. New York: Routledge, 2002. _____. ?On the Interpretation of ! in the Fifteenth Century: A Response to Rob Wegman.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 53 (2000): 597-612. _____. ?Res facta and Cantare super librum.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 36 (1983): 371-91. _____. ?The Early Use of the Sign !.? Early Music 24 (1996): 199-225. Blackburn, Bonnie. ?Josquin?s Chansons: Ignored and Lost Sources.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 29 (1976): 30-76. _____. ?On Compositional Process in the Fifteenth Century.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 40 (1987): 210-84. _____. ?Petrucci's Venetian Editor: Petrus Castellanus and his Musical Garden.? Musica disciplina: A Yearbook of the History of Music 49 (1995): 15-45. _____.?The Eloquence of Silence: Tacet Inscriptions in the Alamire Manuscripts.? In Citation and Authority in Medieval and Renaissance Musical Culture: Learning from the Learned. Edited by Suzannah Clark and Elizabeth Eva Leach, 206-23. Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music, 4. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 2005. 676 _____. ?The Sign of 3: Obrecht and Others.? Jacob Obrecht: The Quincentenary Conference, Antwerp, Belgium 26-28 August, Programme & Abstracts. Edited by Bruno Bouckaert, 23-24. Leuven: Alamire Foundation, 2005. Bloxam, Mary Jennifer. ?A Cultural Context for the Chanson Mass.? In Early Musical Borrowing. Edited by Honey Meconi, 7-35. New York: Routledge, 2004. _____. ?A Survey of Late Medieval Service Books from the Low Countries: Implications for Sacred Polyphony, 1460-1520.? Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1987. Bonivard, Fran?ois. Advis et devis de l?ancienne et nouvelle police de Gen?ve, suivis des advis et devis de noblesse et de ses offices ou degrez et des trois estats monarchiques, aristocratiques, et d?mocratiques [?] Geneva: Fick, 1865. http://www.books.google.com (accessed April 4, 2009). Boorman, Stanley. ?Two Aspects of Performance Practice in the Sistine Chapel of the Early Sixteenth Century.? In Collectanea II: Studien zur Geschichte der p?pstlichen Kapelle: Tagungsbericht Heidelberg 1989. Edited by Bernhard Janz, 575-609. Capellae Apostolicae Sixtinaeque Collectanea Acta Monumenta, 4. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1994. Borghetti, Vincenzo. ?Il manoscritto, la messa, il giovane imperatore: La messa Fors seulement di Pipelare e la politica imperiale della Casa d'Austria.? Imago musicae: International Yearbook of Musical Iconography 20 (2003): 65-107. Bouckaert, Bruno, and Eugeen Schreurs, eds. The Burgundian-Habsburg Court Complex of Music Manuscripts (1500-1535) and the Workshop of Petrus Alamire: Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Leuven, 25-28 November 1999. Yearbook of the Alamire Foundation, vol. 5. Leuven: Alamire Music Publishers, 2003. Brenet, Michel. ?Jean de Ockeghem.? In Musique et musiciens de la vieille France, 23- 82. Paris: Alcan, 1911. Brown, Howard Mayer. ?Emulation, Competition, and Homage: Imitation and Theories of Imitation in the Renaissance.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 35 (1982): 1-48. _____. ?In Alamire?s Workshop. Notes on Scribal Practice in the Early Sixteenth Century.? In Quellenstudien zur Musik der Renaissance: Datierung und Filiation von Musikhandschriften der Josquin-Zeit, ed. Ludwig Finscher, 15-63. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983. _____, Music in the French Secular Theater, 1400-1550. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963. 677 Buettner, Brigitte. ?Past Presents: New Year's Gifts at the Valois Courts, ca. 1400.? Art Bulletin 83 (2001): 598-625. Burkholder, Peter. ?Johannes Martini and the Imitation Mass of the Late Fifteenth Century.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 38 (1985): 470-523. Burn, David. ?Nam erit haec quoque laus eorum: Imitation, Competition, and the L'homme arm? Tradition.? Revue de musicologie 87 (2001): 249-87. Busse Berger, Anna Maria. Mensuration and Proportion Signs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Caldwell, John. Editing Early Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Castiglione, Baldesar. Il libro del cortegiano. Translated by George Bull. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967. Catholic Church. Antiphonale monasticum pro diurnis horis. Tournai: Society of Saint John the Evangelist, Descl?e, 1934. _____. Antiphonale Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae pro diurnis horis. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1919. _____. Liber usualis. Tournai: Society of Saint John the Evangelist, Descl?e, 1954. Center for the History of Music Theory and Literature, ?Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum,? http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/search.html (accessed April 18, 2009). Champion, Nicolas. Collected Works. Edited by Nors S. Josephson. Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 60. Neuhausen: American Institute of Musicology, 1973. Chartier, Roger. The Order of Books. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994. Cholij, Irena. ?Borrowed Music: Allez regrets and the Use of Pre-Existent Material.? In Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Music. Edited by Tess Knighton and David Fallows, 165?76. New York: Schirmer Books, 1992. Clemens non Papa, Jacobus. Opera omnia. Edited by K.P. Bernet Kempers, vol. 10, 67- 70. Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 4/10. Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1951. Cohen, Ralph, ed. New Literary History 33 (2002): 193-402. 678 Colette, Marie-No?l. ?Le Salve Regina en Aquitaine au XII ?me Si?cle: L?auteur du Salve.? Papers Read at the Fourth Meeting of the International Study Group ?Cantus Planus,? P?cs, Hungary, 3-8 September 1990. Edited by L?szl? Dobszay, 521-47. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Musicology, 1992. Comp?re, Loyset. Opera omnia. Edited by Ludwig Finscher, vol. 1: Masses. Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 15/1. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology, 1958. Cottret, Bernard. Calvin: A Biography, Translated by Wallace McDonald. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Curtis, Liane. ?Simon Mellet, scribe of Cambrai Cathedral.? Plainsong and Medieval Music 8 (1999): 133-66. Cuyler, Louise. The Emperor Maximilian and Music. London: Oxford University Press, 1973. Dahlhaus, Carl. Foundations of Music History. Translated by J. B. Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Danner, Peter Kolb. ?The Miserere mihi and the English Reformation; A Study of the Evolution of a Cantus Firmus Genre in Tudor Music.? PhD diss., Stanford University, 1967. Davison, Nigel. ?Absalom fili mi Reconsidered.? Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Musiekgeschiedenis 46 (1996): 42-56. De Boom, Ghislaine. Marguerite d?Autriche-Savoie et la Pr?-Renaissance. Paris: Droz, 1935. De Burbure, L?on. ??tude sur un manuscript du XVI e si?cle, contenant des chants ? quatre et ? trois voix.? M?moires couronn?s et autres m?moires publi?s par L?Acad?mie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres, et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 33 (1882): 1-44. Dehaisnes, Chr?tien. Inventaire sommaire des archives d?partementales anterieures ? 1790. Nord. Archives civiles, S?rie B. Chambre des comptes de Lille. Nos. 1842- 2338, vol. 4. Lille: L. Danel, 1881. des Pres, Josquin. New Josquin Edition. Edited by William Elders et al. Utrecht: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1989-. des Prez, Josquin. Werken van Josquin des Pr?s. Edited by Albert Smijers et al. Amsterdam: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1921-69. 679 Dixon, H. ?The Manuscript Vienna, National Library, 1783.? Musica disciplina 23 (1969): 105-16. Droz, Eugenie, and Arthur Piaget, eds. Jardin de plaisance et fleur de r?thorique, reproduction en facsimil? de l??dition publi?e par Antoine V?rard vers 1501 [facsimile edition]. Paris: Edouard Campion, 1925. Duffy, Kathryn. ?The Jena Choirbooks: Music and Liturgy at the Castle Church in Wittenberg under Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony.? PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995. Dumitrescu, Theodor, et al. ?The Computerized Mensural Music Editing Project.? http://www.cmme.org/ [accessed September 27, 2007-March 30, 2009]. Ebeling, P. ?Peter Van Den Hove alias Alamire. Een Bossche ?sangscriver??? Brabantia 1 (1953): 49-55. Elders, Willem. Composers of the Low Countries. Translated by Graham Dixon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. English, Kathryn. ?A Musical Response to the Reformation: Choirbooks 31, 32, 33, and 40 from the Hofkapelle of Ulrich VI or W?rttemberg.? PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, 2001. Everist, Mark. Models of Musical Analysis: Music Before 1600. Oxford, Blackwell, 1992. Fallows, David. A Catalogue of Polyphonic Songs, 1415-1480. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. _____. Josquin. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009. _____. ?Specific Information on the Ensembles for Composed Polyphony, 1400-1474.? In Studies in the Performance of Late Mediaeval Music, ed. Stanley Boorman, 109-59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. _____. ?What Happened to El grillo?? Early Music 31 (2003): 390-99. Feldman, Martha. ?Authors and Anonyms: Recovering the Anonymous Subject in Cinquecento Vernacular Objects.? In Music and the Cultures of Print. Edited by Kate van Orden, 163-99. New York: Garland, 2000. F?vin, Antoine de. Collected Works of Antoine de F?vin 1: Missa pro fidelibus defunctis, Missa de beata virgine salve sancta parens, Missa sanctorum meritis, Missa super O quam glorifica luce. Edited by Edward Clinkscale. Institute of Mediaeval Music, 11. Henryville, PA: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1980. 680 Finot, Jules. Inventaire sommaire des archives d?partementales anterieures ? 1790. Nord. Archives civiles, S?rie B. Chambre des comptes de Lille, vol. 5. Lille: L. Danel, 1885. _____. Inventaire sommaire des archives d?partementales anterieures ? 1790. Nord. Archives civiles, S?rie B. Chambre des comptes de Lille, vol. 7. Lille: L. Danel, 1892. Finscher, Ludwig ed. Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Allgemeine Enzyklop?die der Musik. Kassel: B?renreiter, 1995-. Fitch, Fabrice. ?Agricola and the Rhizome: An Aesthetic of the Late Cantus Firmus Mass.? Revue belge de musicologie 59 (2005): 66-92. _____, ed. Choirbook for Philip the Fair and Juana of Castile. Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek / Biblioth?que royale, Ms. 9126 [facsimile edition]. Leuven: Peer, 1999. _____. Johannes Ockeghem: Masses and Models. Collection Ricercar, 2. Paris: Champion, 1997. _____. ?Le Codex Chigi et les messes d?Ockeghem.? Johannes Ockeghem: Actes du XL e Colloque international d??tudes humanistes: Tours, 3-8 fevrier 1997. Edited by Philippe Vendrix, 239-52. Collection ?Epitome Musicale,? 1. Paris: Klincksieck, 1998. Forestier, Mathurin. Opera omnia. Edited by Nors S. Josephson and Thomas G. MacCracken. Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 104. Neuhausen: H?nssler- Verlag/American Institute of Musicology, 1996. Forney, Kristine K. ?Music, Ritual, and Patronage at the Church of Our Lady, Antwerp.? Early Music History 7 (1987): 1-57. _____. ?The Role of Secular Guilds in Antwerp.? In Musicology and Archival Research: Colloquium Proceedings Brussels April 22-23, 1993. Edited by Barbara Haggh, Frank Daelemans, and Andr? Vanrie, 441-61. Archives et Biblioth?ques de Belgique, 46. Brussels: Archives g?n?rales du Royaume, 1994. Foucault, Michel. ?What Is an Author?? In Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Translated by Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon, 117-38. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. Fran?on, Marcel, ed. Albums po?tiques de Marguerite d?Autriche. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. 681 Freedman, Richard. ?The Partbooks Vienna, Codex 18746 and the Identification of Hands in the Complex of Music Manuscripts of the Netherlandish Court.? MA thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1982. Gallagher, Sean. ?Syntax and Style: Rhythmic Patterns in the Music of Ockeghem and his Contemporaries.? In Johannes Ockeghem: actes du XLe Colloque international d'?tudes humanistes: Tours, 3-8 f?vrier 1997. Edited by Philippe Vendrix, 681-705. Collection ?Epitome musical,? 1. Paris: Klincksieck, 1998. ______. ?After Burgundy: Rethinking Binchois?s Years in Soignies.? In Binchois Studies, Andrew Kirkman and Dennis Slavin, 28-48. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ghizeghem, Hayne van. Opera omnia. Edited by Barton Hudson. Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 74. Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1977. Glarean, Heinrich. Dodecachordon. Translated by Clement A. Miller. Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1965. Goehr, Lydia. The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. http://www.oxfordartonline.com. Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com. Haggh, Barbara. ?Binchois and Sacred Music at the Burgundian Court.? In Binchois Studies. Edited by Andrew Kirkman and Dennis Slavin, 11-25. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. _____, ed. Essays on Music and Culture in Honor of Herbert Kellman. Collection ??pitome Musicale,? 8. Paris: Minerve, 2001. _____. ?Motets and Marian Worship in the Fourteenth Century: Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief, Archief Sint-Goedele, 5170.? In Music Fragments and Manuscripts in the Low Countries; Alta Capella; Music Printing in Antwerp and Europe in the 16 th Century. Edited by Eugeen Schreurs and Henri Vanhulst, 53-66. Yearbook of the Alamire Foundation, 2. Leuven, Peer: 1997. _____. ?Music, Liturgy, and Ceremony in Brussels, 1350-1500.? PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1988. ______. ?The Archives of the Order of the Golden Fleece and Music.? Journal of the Royal Musical Association 120 (1995), 1-43. 682 Hamm, Charles, and Herbert Kellman, eds. Census-Catalogue of Manuscript Sources of Polyphonic Music, 1400-1550, 5 vols., vol. 1 ed. Charles Hamm and Herbert Kellman, vols. 2-5 ed Herbert Kellman. Renaissance Manuscript Studies, 1. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology/H?nssler-Verlag, 1979- 88. Hamm, Charles. ?Manuscript Structure in the Dufay Era.? Acta musicologica 34 (1962): 166-84. Hesbert, Ren?-Jean. Corpus antiphonalium officii, 6 vols. Rome: Herder, 1963-79. Heugh, Hugh. Notices of the State of Religion in Geneva and Belgium. Glasgow: Bell and Bain, 1844. Hewitt, Helen and Isabel Pope, eds. Harmonice Musices Odhecaton A. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942. Higgins, Paula. ?The Apotheosis of Josquin des Prez and Other Mythologies of Musical Genius.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 57 (2004): 443-510. Hiley, David. Western Plainchant: A Handbook. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Hirschbiegel, Jan. Etrennes: Untersuchungen zum h?fischen Geschenkverkehr im sp?tmittelalterlichen Frankreich der Zeit K?nig Karls VI (1380-1422). Pariser historische Studien, 60. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2003. Houghton, Edward. ?A Close Reading of Comp?re's Motet Sile fragor.? In Essays on Music and Culture in Honor of Herbert Kellman, ed. Barbara Haggh, 89-103. Paris: Minerve, 2001. _____. ?A ?New? Motet by Johannes Regis.? Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 33 (1983): 49-74. _____. ?Ockeghem's Scribes?Then and Now.? In Johannes Ockeghem: Actes du XL e Colloque international d'?tudes humanistes: Tours, 3-8 fevrier 1997, ed. Philippe Vendrix, 223-38. Collection ?Epitome Musicale, 1. Paris: Klincksieck, 1998. _____. ?Rhythm and Meter in 15 th -century Polyphony.? Journal of Music Theory 18 (1974): 190-212. _____. ?Rhythmic Structure in the Masses and Motets of Johannes Ockeghem.? Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1971. 683 _____. ?The Anonymous Motets of the Chigi Codex.? In Uno gentile et subtile ingenio: Studies in Renaissance Music in Honour of Bonnie J. Blackburn, ed. Mary Jennifer Bloxam, Gioia Filocamo, and Leofranc Holford-Strevens, 431-40. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009. Hudson, Barton. ?A Glimpse into a Scribal Workshop, Vienna, ?sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 11883.? In From Ciconia to Sweelinck, donum natalicium Willem Elders. Edited by Albert Clement and Eric Jas, 179-99. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994. Hughes, Andrew. Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to their Organization and Terminology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982. Huybens, Gilbert. ?Le manuscrit B: Anonyme?Partie de basse contenant 24 pi?ces anonymes avec textes latins (identifi?es).? In Music Fragments and Manuscripts in the Low Countries (Yearbook of the Alamire Foundation, vol. 2): Proceedings of the Colloquium in Alden Biezen, 23 June 1995, ed. Eugeen Schreurs and Henri Vanhulst, 75-9. Leuven, Alamire Music Publishers, 1997. Huys, Bernard. ?An Unknown Alamire-Choirbook (?Occo-codex?) Recently Acquired by the Royal Library of Belgium.? Tijdschrift van der Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiendenis 24 (1974): 1-19. _____ et. al., eds. Occo Codex. (Brussels, Royal Library Albert I, MS.IV.922). Facsimilia Musica Neerlandica ,1. Buren, Netherlands: Vereniging Voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 1979. Ingram, Sonja Stafford. ?The Polyphonic Salve Regina, 1425?1550.? PhD diss., University of North Carolina, 1973. Jacobs, Charles, ed. Le Roy & Ballard?s 1572 Mellange de Chansons. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1982. Judd, Cristle Collins. Reading Renaissance Music Theory: Hearing with the Eyes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Kellman, Herbert, ?Book Production and Book Distribution at the Netherlands Court, 1495-1534.? In Internazionales Kolloquium: Formen und Probleme der ?berlieferung mehrstimmiger Musik im Zeitalter Josquins Desprez. Vortr?ge Gehalten Anl??lich E. Musikwissenschaftlichen Kolloquiums Vom 14. bis 17. Sept. 1976 in Der Herzog-August-Bibliothek. Edited by Ludwig Finscher, 14-17. Munich: Kraus, 1981. _____. ?Illuminated Choirbooks and the Manuscript Tradition in Flanders in the Early Sixteenth Century.? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Columbus, OH, 1962. 684 _____. ?Josquin and the Courts of the Netherlands and France: The Evidence of the Sources.? In Josquin des Prez: Proceedings of the International Josquin Festival- Conference: New York, 21-25 June 1971. Edited by Edward E. Lowinsky and Bonnie Blackburn, 181-216. London: Oxford University Press, 1976. _____, ed. London, British Library, MS. Royal 8 G.vii. Renaissance Music in Facsimile, 9. New York: Garland, 1987. _____. ?Musical Links between France and the Empire, 1500-1530.? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Toronto, 1970. _____.?Ockeghem and the Court of Burgundy: The Memoires of Philippe Bouton.? Paper presented at the XI e Colloque International d?Etudes Humanistes: Johannes Ockeghem. Centre d??tudes Sup?rieures de la Renaissance, Tours, France, February 3-8, 1997. ______. ?The Origins of the Chigi Codex: The Date, Provenance, and Original Ownership of Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana, Chigiana C VIII 234.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 11 (1958): 6-19. _____. ?The Role of the Empire in the Radiation of the Northern Repertory, 1500-1530.? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Ann Arbor, MI, 1965. ______. ed. The Treasury of Petrus Alamire: Music and Art in Flemish Court Manuscripts, 1500-1535. Ghent: Ludion, 1999. _____, ed. Vatican City, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, MS Chigi C VIII 234. Renaissance Music in Facsimile, 22. New York: Garland, 1987. Kemp, Walter. ?The Burgundian Chanson in the Fifteenth Century, with Special Reference to the Anonymous Chansons in the Ms Escorial V. III. 24 and Related Sources.? PhD diss., University of Exeter, Oxford University, 1972. Kiel, Jacobijn. ?De productie en verspreiding van muziekhandschriften uit het atelier van Petrus Alamire.? In Een muziekgeschiedenis der Nederlanden, ed. Louis Peter Grijp, 108-15. Kapellen, Belgium: Pelckmans, 2001. Knighton, Tess. ?Transmisi?n, difusi?n y recepci?n de la polifon?a franco-neerlandesa en el reino de Arag?n a principios del siglo XVI.? Artigrama: Revista del Departamento de Historia del Arte 12 (1996): 19-38. Koldeweij, Adrianus Maria et al., eds. Maria van Hongarije, 1505-1558: koningin tussen keizers en kunstenaars. Zwolle: Waanders, 1993. 685 Kreider, J. Evan. ?The Masses for Five and Six Voices by Pierre de la Rue.? Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1974. Kreitner, Kenneth. ?Ave festiva ferculis and Josquin's Spanish Reputation.? Journal of the Royal Musical Association 128 (2003): 1-29. La Rue, Pierre de. Opera omnia. Edited by Nigel Davison, J. Evan Kreider, and T. Herman Keahey. Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 97/1-. Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1989-. Lenaerts, Rene B. ?Niederl?ndische polyphone Musik in der Bibliothek von Montserrat.? In Festschrift Joseph Schmidt-G?rg. Edited by Dagmar Weise, 196-201. Bonn: Beethovenhaus, 1957. Lesure, Fran?ois, ed. R?pertoire international des sources musicales, Recueils imprimes, XVI e -XVII e siecles, 1: Liste chronologique. Munich: G. Henle Verlag, 1960 Lindsay, Thomas Martin. A History of the Reformation. New York: Scribner, 1913. Lockwood, Lewis. ?Jean Mouton and Jean Michel: New Evidence on French Music and Musicians in Italy, 1505-1520.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 32 (1979): 191-246. _____. ?Josquin at Ferrara: New Documents and Letters.? In Josquin des Prez. Proceedings of the International Josquin Festival-Conference held at The Juilliard School at Lincoln Center in New York City, 21-25 June 1971. Edited by Edward E. Lowinsky and Bonnie J. Blackburn, 103-37. London: Oxford University Press, 1976. Long, Michael. ?Symbol and Ritual in Josquin?s Missa Di Dadi.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 42 (1989): 1-22. Lowinsky, Edward. Medici Codex of 1518. Monuments of Renaissance Music, 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. _____. ?Musica Ficta in the Josquin Edition.? In Music in the Culture of the Renaissance and Other Essays. Edited by Bonnie J. Blackburn, 2: 779-96. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989. _____. ?Musical Genius: Evolution and Origins of a Concept.? In Music in the Culture of the Renaissance and Other Essays. Edited by Bonnie J. Blackburn, 1: 40-66. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989. _____. ?The Concept of Physical and Musical Space in the Renaissance: A Preliminary Sketch.? In Music in the Culture of the Renaissance. Edited by Bonnie J. Blackburn, 1: 6-18. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989. 686 Macey, Patrick. ?Josquin as Classic: Qui habitat, Memor esto, and Two Imitations Unmasked.? Journal of the Royal Musical Association 118 (1993): 1-43. Maes, Francis. The Empire Resounds: Music in the Days of Charles V. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Marix, Jeanne. Histoire de la musique et des musiciens de la cour de Bourgogne sous le r?gne de Philippe le Bon (1420-1467). Strasbourg: Heitz, 1939. ______. Les musiciens de la cour de Bourgogne au XVe si?cle. Paris: L?Oiseau-Lyre, 1937. Mason, Pamela A. ?The Communion of Citizens: Calvinist Themes in Rousseau's Theory of the State.? Polity 26 (1993): 29. McMurtry, William M., ed. Selected Chansons from British Library, MS Additional 35087. Recent Researches in Music of the Renaissance, 68, 20-21. Madison: A-R Editions, 1985. Meconi, Honey. ?Another Look at Absalon.? Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 48 (1998): 3-29. _____, ed. Basevi Codex. Florence, Biblioteca des Conservatorio, MS 2439. Leuven: Peer, 1990. _____. ?Does Imitatio Exist?? The Journal of Musicology 12 (1994): 152-78. _____. ?Free from the Crime of Venus: The Biography of Pierre de La Rue.? Revista de musicolog?a 16 (1993): 2673-83. _____. ?Habsburg-Burgundian Manuscripts, Borrowed Material, and the Practice of Naming.? In Early Musical Borrowing. Edited by Honey Meconi, 111-24. New York and London: Routledge, 2004. _____. Pierre de la Rue and Musical Life at the Habsburg-Burgundian Court. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. _____. ?Style and Authenticity in the Secular Music of Pierre de la Rue. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1986. Meier, Bernhard. The Modes of Classical Polyphony Described According to the Sources. Translated by Ellen S. Beebe. New York: Broude Brothers, 1988. 687 Michelant, Henri. Inventaire des vaisselles, joyaux, tapisseries, peintures, manuscrits, etc., de Margu?rite d'Autriche, r?gente et gouvernante des Pays-Bas, dress? en son palais de Malines, le 9 juillet 1523. Brussels: Hayez, 1871. Milsom, John. ??Imitatio,? ?Intertextuality,? and Early Music.? In Citation and Authority in Medieval and Renaissance Musical Culture: Learning from the Learned. Edited by Suzannah Clark and Elizabeth Eva Leach, 141-51. Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music, 4 Woodbridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 2005. Nelson, Bernadette. ?A 'Parody' on Josquin's Inviolata in Barcelona 1967: An Unknown Mass by Philippe Verdelot?? Journal of the Royal Musical Association 127 (2002): 153-90. _____. ?The Missa Du bon du cuer. An Unknown Mass by Noel Bauldeweyn?? Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse muziekgeschiedenis 51 (2001): 103-30. Newton, Paul. ?Florence, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica Luigi Cherubini, Manuscript Basevi 2439: Critical Edition and Commentary.? Ph.D. diss., North Texas State University, 1968. Niwa, Seishiro. ??Madama? Margaret of Parma?s Patronage of Music.? Early Music 33 (2005): 25-37. Noble, Jeremy. ?The Function of Josquin?s Motets.? Tijdscrift voor Nederlandse musikgeschiedenis 35 (1985): 9-22. North, Marcy. The Anonymous Renaissance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003. Nowak, Leopold. ?Die Musikhandschriften aus Fuggerschem Besitz in der ?sterreichische Nationalbibliothek.? In Festschrift herausgegeben zum 25 J?hrigen Dienstjubil?um des Generaldirektors Univ.-Prof. Dr. Josef Bick. Vienna: H. Bauer, 1948. Ockeghem, Johannes. S?mtliche Werke, ed. Dragan Plamenac, vol. 1. Leipzig: Breitkopf und H?rtel, 1927. _____. The Works of Johannes Ockeghem, ed. Jaap van Benthem, vols. 1- .Utrecht, Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1995-. Olson, Jeannine E. Calvin and Social Welfare: Deacons and the Bourse Fran?aise. Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1989. Osthoff, Helmuth. Josquin Desprez. Tutzing: H. Schneider, 1962-1965. 688 Palisca, Claude, ed. Hucbald, Guido, and John on Music: Three Medieval Treatises. Translated by Warren Babb. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978. Perkins, Leeman. ?Concerning the Ontological Status of the Notated Musical Work in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.? Current Musicology 75 (2003): 15-49. Phillips, Peter. ?Beyond Authenticity.? In Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Music. Edited by Tess Knighton and David Fallows. New York: Schirmer, 1992. Picker, Martin, ?The Chanson Albums of Marguerite of Austria,? Annales musicologiques 6 (1958-63): 145-285. _____. The Chanson Albums of Marguerite of Austria, A Critical Edition and Commentary. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965. Pinchart, Alexandre, ed. Archives des arts, sciences et lettres: documents in?dits. Ghent: Hebbelynck, 1860-81. Planchart, Alejandro Enrique. ?Guillaume Dufay?s Masses: A View of the Manuscript Traditions.? In Papers read at the Dufay Quincentenary Conference [Brooklyn College, December 6-7, 1974]. Edited by Allan Atlas, 24-60. Brooklyn: Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, 1976. _____. ?Guillaume Dufay's Masses: Notes and Revisions.? The Musical Quarterly 58 (1972): 1-23. _____. ?Parts With Words and Without Words: The Evidence for Multiple Texts in Fifteenth-Century Masses.? In Studies in the Performance of Late Mediaeval Music. Edited by Stanley Boorman, 227-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. _____. ?Tempo and Proportions.? In Performance Practice: Music Before 1600. Edited by Howard Mayer Brown and Stanley Sadie, 126-44. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 1989. Prioris, Johannes. Opera omnia. Edited by Thomas Herman Keahey and Conrad Douglas, vol. 1. Corpus mensurabilis musicae, 90/1. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology, 1982. Prizer, William F. ?Music and Ceremonial in the Low Countries: Philip the Fair and the Order of the Golden Fleece.? Early Music History 5 (1985): 113-53. Pujol, David. ?Manuscritos de m?sica Neerlandesa conservados en la Biblioteca del Monasterio de Montserrat.? In Atti del Congresso internazionale di musica sacra organizzato dal Pontificio Istituto di musica sacra e dalla Commissione di musica sacra per l'Anno Santo, ed. Higini Angl?s, 319-26. Tournai: Descl?e, 1952. 689 Rifkin, Joshua. ?Munich, Milan, and a Marian motet: Dating Josquin's Ave Maria...virgo serena.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 56 (2003): 239-350. _____. ?Problems of Authorship in Josquin; Some Impolitic Observations: With a Postscript on Absalon, fili mi.? In Proceedings of the International Josquin Symposium, Utrecht 1986. Edited by William Elders, 45-52. Utrecht: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1991. Robertson, Anne Walters. Guillaume de Machaut and Reims: Context and Meaning in His Musical Works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. _____. "The Man with the Pale Face, the Relic, and Du Fay's Missa Se la face ay pale." Society for Music Theory, American Musicological Society, Nashville 2008 6-9 November, Program & Abstracts, 120-21. Brunswick, ME: American Musicological Society, 2008. Robijns, Jozef. ?Eine Musikhandschrift des fr?hen 16. Jahrhunderts im Zeichen der Verehrung unserer Lieben Frau der Sieben Schmerzen (Br?ssel, Kgl. Bibliothek, Hs. 215-216).? Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 44 (1960): 28-43. _____. Pierre de la Rue, (circa 1460-1518): een bio-bibliographische studie. M?moires, 8, 2. Brussels: Paleis der Academi?n, 1954. Roediger, Karl Erich. Die geistlichen Musikhandschriften der Universit?tsbibliothek Jena. Jena: Fromann, 1935. Roelvink, Veronique. Gegeven den Sangeren: Meerstemmige muziek bij de Illustre Lieve Vrouwe Broederschap te ?s-Hertogenbosch in de zestiende eeuw. ?s-Hertogenbosch: Heinen, 2002. Roney, John B., Martin I. Klauber, and Robert M. Kingdon. The Identity of Geneva. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998. Rubsamen, Walter. Music Research in Italian Libraries: An Anecdotal Account of Obstacles and Discoveries. Los Angeles: Music Library Association, 1951. Sadie, Stanley and John Tyrrell, eds. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2 nd ed., 29 vols. London: Macmillan, 2001. Saunders, Zoe. ?Manuscripts in the Age of Print: Production, Function, and Destinations of the Alamire Manuscripts.? In Books in Transition. Manuscripts and Printed Books at the Time of Philip the Fair (1478-1506). Edited by Hanno Wijsman. Burgundica, 15. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009. 690 Schiltz, Katelijne, and Bonnie J. Blackburn, eds. Canons and Canonic Techniques, 14th- 16th Centuries: Theory, Practice, and Reception History ; Proceedings of the International Conference, Leuven, 4-6 October 2005. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Schlager, Karlheinz. Antiphonale Pataviense: (Wien 1519), Faksimile. Kassel : B?renreiter, 1985. Schmidt, Hans M. et al., ?Masters, Anonymous, and Monogrammists.? In Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/ grove/art/T055065pg1 [accessed April 19, 2009]. Schmidt-Beste, Thomas. ??ber Quantit?t und Qualit?t von Musikhandschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts.? In Die M?nchner Hofkapelle des 16. Jahrhunderts im europ?ischen Kontext. Bericht ?ber das internationale Symposion der Musikhistorischen Kommission der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften [Munich, 2- 4 August 2004]. Edited by Theodor G?llner and Bernhold Schmid, 191-211. Munich: Tutzing, 2006. Schreurs, Eugeen and Bruno Bouckaert, eds. Bedreigde klanken?: Muziekfragmenten uit de Lage Landen: (Middeleeuwen ? Renaissance). Leuven: Peer, 1995. _____. ?De schatkamer van Alamire: enkele nieuwe vondsten van muziekfragmenten.? Musica Antiqua 16 (1999): 36-9. Seay, Albert, ed. Johannes Tinctoris Opera Theoretica. Corpus Scriptorum de Musica, 22. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology, 1975-78. Sherr, Richard. ?Notes on the Biography and Music of Bertrandus Vaqueras (ca. 1450- 1507).? In Studien zur Musikgeschichte: eine Festschrift f?r Ludwig Finscher Finscher. Edited by Annegrit Laubenthal, 111-22. Kassel: B?renreiter, 1995. _____, ed. The Josquin Companion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. _____. ?The Papal Chapel ca. 1492?1513 and its Polyphonic Sources.? PhD diss., Princeton University,1975. Smijers, Albert. ?De illustre Lieve Vrouwe Broederschap te ?s-Hertogenbosch.? Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 11 (1925): 187-210; 12 (1926-28): 40-62, 115-67; 13 (1929-31): 46-100, 187-237; 14 (1932- 35): 48-105; 16 (1940-46): 63-106, 216; 17 (1948-55): 195-230. Snow, Robert. ?Toledo Cathedral MS Reservado 23.? The Journal of Musicology 2 (1983): 246-77. Sparks, Edgar. Cantus Firmus in Mass and Motet, 1420-1500. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963. 691 Spitzer, John. ?Authorship and Attribution in Western Art Music.? PhD diss., Cornell University, 1983. Staehelin, Martin. ?Quellenkundige Beitr?ge zum Werk von Johannes Ghiselin- Verbonnet.? Archiv f?r Musikwissenschaft 24 (1967): 120-32. Starr, Pamela. ?Josquin, Rome, and a Case of Mistaken Identity.? Journal of Musicology 15 (1997): 43-65. Steele, Timothy H. ?Tonal Coherence and the Cycle of Thirds in Josquin?s Memor esto verbi tui.? In Tonal Structures in Early Music. Edited by Cristle Collins Judd, 155-81. New York and London: Garland, 1998. Steib, Murray. ?A Composer Looks at his Model: Polyphonic Borrowing in Masses from the Late Fifteenth Century.? Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 46 (1996): 5-41. _____. ?A Study in Style, or Josquin or Not Josquin: The Missa Allez regretz Question.? Journal of Musicology 16 (Autumn 1998): 519-44. _____. ?Imitation and Elaboration: The Use of Borrowed Material in Masses from the Late Fifteenth Century.? PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1992. Stevenson, Robert. ?Josquin in the Music of Spain and Portugal.? In Josquin des Prez. Proceedings of the International Josquin Festival-Conference held at The Juilliard School at Lincoln Center in New York City, 21-25 June 1971. Edited by Edward E. Lowinsky and Bonnie J. Blackburn, 17-246. London: Oxford University Press, 1976. Strauss, Gerald. ?The Religious Policies of Dukes Wilhelm and Ludwig of Bavaria in the First Decade of the Protestant Era.? Church History 28 (1959): 350-73. Strohm, Reinhard. Music in Late Medieval Bruges. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Talbot, Michael. The Musical Work: Reality or Invention? Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000. ?The Catholic Encyclopedia.? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ [accessed September 27, 2007-March 30, 2009]. Thomas, Jennifer. ?Motet Database Online.? The University of Florida. http://www.arts.ufl.edu/motet/default.asp [accessed September 27, 2007-March 30, 2009]. 692 Thompson, Glenda Goss. ?Music in the Court Records of Mary of Hungary.? Tijdschrift van der Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiendenis 34 (1984): 132-73. _____. ?Spanish-Netherlandish Musical Relationships in the 16 th Century: Mary of Hungary?s Music Manuscripts at Montserrat.? In Musique des Pays-Bas ancienne, musique espagnole ancienne: actes du Colloque musicologique international ? Bruxelles, 28-29 October 1985, ed. Paul Becquart and Henri Vanhulst, 69-113. Leuven: Peeters, 1988. The University of Western Ontario. ?CANTUS: A Database for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant.? http://publish.uwo.ca/~cantus/ [accessed September 27, 2007-March 30, 2009]. Tinctoris, Johannes. The Art of Counterpoint. Translated by Albert Seay. Musicological Studies and Documents, 5. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology, 1961. Valois J. de. ?En marge d?une antienne: le Salve Regina.? Tribune de Saint-Gervais 17 (1911): 25-28, 53-58, 76-82, 110-19. _____. ?Les auteurs pr?sum?s du Salve Regina.? Tribune de Saint-Gervais 17 (1911): 226-43, 261-68, 293-307, and 18 (1912): 9-22, 65-88. Van Benthem, Jaap. ?Einige wiedererkannte Josquin-Chansons im Codex 18746 der ?sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek.? Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 22 (1971): 18-42. _____. ?Lazarus versus Absalon: About Fiction and Fact in the Netherlands Motet.? Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 39 (1989): 54-82. _____. ?The Alamire Fragments of the Plantin-Moretus Museum in Antwerp.? In Musicology and Archival Research: Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Brussels, 22-23 April 1993. Edited by Barbara Haggh et al., 542-57. Brussels: Biblioth?que Royale de Belgique, 1994. Van den Borren, Charles. ?Inventaire des manuscrits de musique polyphonique qui se trouvent en Belgique.? Acta musicologica 5 (1933): 66-71, 120-27; 6 (1934): 116- 21. Van Dooren, Wim. ?General Problems of Authenticity in the Context of Renaissance Philosophy.? In Proceedings of the International Josquin Symposium, Utrecht 1986. Edited by William Elders, 15-23. Utrecht: Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1986. 693 Van Doorslaer, Georges. ?La Chapelle musicale de Philippe le Beau.? Revue belge d?arch?ologie et d?histoire de l?art 4 (1934): 21-58, 139-65. _____. Calligraphes de musique: ? Malines, au XVIe si?cle. Malines: M. Dierickx-Bek, 1929. Vander Straeten, Edmond. La musique aux Pays-Bas avant le XIXe si?cle: documents in?dits et annot?s, compositeurs, virtuoses, th?oriciens, luthiers, op?ras, motets, airs nationaux, acad?mies, ma?trises, livres, portraits, etc., avec planches de musiques et table alphab?tique. Brussels: Van Trigt [...], 1875. van Waesberghe, Joseph Smits, ed. Guidonis Aretini Micrologus. Corpus Scriptorum de Musica, 4. Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1955. Wagstaff, Grayson. ?Mary?s Own: Josquin?s Five-Part Salve Regina and Marian Devotions in Spain.? Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 52 (2002): 3-34. Warmington, Flynn. ?A Master Calligrapher in Alamire?s Workshop: Toward a Chronology of His Work.? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Ann Arbor, MI, November 4-7, 1982. _____. ?A Picture Worth a Thousand Words: New Light on the Malines Manuscript, Jena 4, and Related Sources.? Paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the New England Chapter, American Musicological Society, Boston, MA, 1981 _____. ?Fayrfax Crosses the Channel: English Music from Alamire?s Workshop.? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Austin, TX, October 26-29, 1989 _____. Review of Occo Codex, by Bernard Huys and Sebastien A. C. Dudok van Heel [Brussels, Royal Library Albert I, MS. IV. 922]. Notes 38 (1981): 406-9. _____. ?The Ceremony of the Armed Man: The Sword, the Altar, and the L'homme arm? Mass.? In Antoine Busnoys: Method, Meaning, and Context in Late Medieval Music. Edited by Paula Higgins, 89-130. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. _____. ?The Manuscripts C.S. 34, 36, and 160.? Paper presented at the Symposium Die Capella Sistina als musikgeschichtliche Quelle [Ruprecht-Karl-Universit?t Heidelberg), 1993 Wegman, Rob C. ??And Josquin Laughed...? Josquin and the Composer's Anecdote in the Sixteenth Century.? The Journal of Musicology 17 (1999): 319-57. 694 _____. ?Another ?Imitation? of Busnoy?s Missa L?homme arm??and Some Observations on Imitatio in Renaissance Music.? Journal of the Royal Musical Association 114 (1989): 189-202. _____. Born for the Muses: The Life and Masses of Jacob Obrecht. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. _____. ?Different Strokes for Different Folks? On Tempo and Diminution in Fifteenth- Century Music.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 53 (2000): 461- 505. _____. ?From Maker to Composer: Improvisation and Musical Authorship in the Low Countries, 1450-1500.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 49 (1996): 409-79. _____. ?Musical Offerings in the Renaissance.? Early Music 33 (2005): 425-37. _____. ??Musical Understanding? in the Fifteenth Century.? Early Music 30 (2002): 46?66. _____. ?Renaissance Masses.? Princeton University. http://www.princeton.edu/ ~rwegman/mass.htm [accessed April 3, 2008]. Wexler, Richard. ?Bruhier, Isaac, and Josquin: A Lost Mass Recovered.? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, Los Angeles, CA, November 4, 2006. _____. ?Newly Identified Works by Bartolomeo degli Organi in the MS Bologna Q 17.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 23 (1970): 107-18. _____. ?Simultaneous Conception and Compositional Process in the Late Fifteenth Century.? In Antoine Busnoys: Method, Meaning, and Context in Late Medieval Music. Edited by Paula Higgins, 389-98. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. _____. ?The Complete Works of Johannes Prioris.? PhD diss., New York University, 1974. Winkler, Friedrich. Die Fl?mische Buchmalerei des XV. und XVI Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Seeman, 1925. Wright, Craig. Music at the Court of Burgundy, 1364-1419: A Documentary History. Henryville, Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1979. _____. The Maze and the Warrior: Symbols in Architecture, Theology, and Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.