No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 September 2020
How and when did Josquin’s Ave Maria … virgo serena become one of the most famous Renaissance motets? It is widely held that the motet’s modern standing is directly rooted in its Renaissance reception. And yet beyond its relatively robust circulation and placement at the beginning of Petrucci’s first printed book of motets, little evidence remains as to how Josquin’s now-famous motet was perceived during and shortly after the composer’s life. In responding to this paucity of information, Part I of this article traces a reception history for Ave Maria that considers how the motet was reworked in parody masses and motets, analysing the specific ways in which later composers both engaged with and departed from Josquin’s techniques. Part II turns to the work’s modern reception, mining the scholarly literature, survey texts and recordings for clues as to how the motet’s significance has shifted throughout the twentieth century. The article concludes by proposing that this site-specific approach may be useful in comprehending the extensive stylistic changes that occurred between c. 1480 and the mid-sixteenth century.
For the first part of my title I am indebted to John Milsom, ‘Making a Motet: Josquin’s Ave Maria … virgo serena’, in A. M. Busse Berger and J. Rodin (eds.), The Cambridge History of Fifteenth-Century Music (Cambridge, 2015), pp. 183–99. I am grateful to the anonymous readers of this journal for their very constructive comments, and to Jesse Rodin, Bonnie Blackburn, David Fallows and Benjamin Ory for feedback on earlier drafts.
The following abbreviations are used:Barcelona 5
Barcelona, Centre de Documentació de l’Orfeó Català, MS 5
Berlin 40013Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, MS 40013
Berlin 40021Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, MS 40021
Dresden 1/D/506Dresden, Sächische Landesbibliothe – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, MS 1/D/506
Gotha Chart. A.98Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek Gotha der Universität Erfurt, MS Chart. A.98
Jena 31Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, MS 31
Jena 32Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, MS 32
Munich 10Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. Ms. 10
Munich 12Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. Ms. 12
Munich 41Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. Ms. 41
Munich 322–5Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Universitätsbibliothek, MSS 322–5
Munich 3154Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mus. Ms. 3154
Nuremberg 83795Nuremberg, Bibliothek des Germanisches National-Museum, Bibliothek, MS 83795
Stuttgart I.22Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Mus.fol.I.22
Turin I.27Turin, Biblioteca nazionale universitaria, MS I.27
Verona 218Verona, Società Accademia Filarmonica, MS CCXVIII
Warsaw 5892Warsaw, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Oddział Zbiorów Muzycznych, MS Rm 5892 (olim 2016)
1 J. Noble, in P. Macey, J. Noble, etal., ‘Josquin des Prez’, Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. It is interesting to note the differences between Noble’s description of the motet in New Grove (1980) versus the updated The New Grove High Renaissance Masters (London, 1984), for while the bulk of the prose remains unchanged, there are subtle differences in rhetoric; see Noble etal., The New Grove High Renaissance Masters, pp. 27–8.
2 S. Schlagel, Masses by Ludwig Daser and Matthaeus Le Maistre: Parody Masses on Josquin’s Motets from the Court of Duke Albrecht V of Bavaria (Middleton, WI, 2016), p. xi. It should be noted, however, that her dissertation presents a more balanced view of the motet’s reception. See Schlagel, ‘Josquin des Prez and his Motets: A Case Study in Sixteenth-Century Reception History’ (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1996).
3 Milsom, ‘Making a Motet’, p. 184.
4 J. Rifkin, ‘Munich, Milan, and a Marian Motet: Dating Josquin’s Ave Maria … virgo serena’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 56 (2003), pp. 239–350, at pp. 239–40, n. 1.
5 See most recently J. Alden, Songs, Scribes, and Society (New York and Oxford, 2010), p. 72, n. 18 for a list of sources that begin with Marian motets and for relevant secondary literature.
6 The impact of these changes is presented in J. Rodin, ‘“When in Rome… ”: What Josquin Learned in the Sistine Chapel’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 61 (2008), pp. 307–72, at pp. 307–9 and Rodin, ‘Josquin and Epistemology’, in Busse Berger and Rodin (eds.), The Cambridge History of Fifteenth-Century Music, 119–36 and the literature cited there.
7 See R. C. Wegman, ‘Who Was Josquin?’, in R. Sherr (ed.), The Josquin Companion (Oxford, 2000), pp. 21–50 and the literature cited there.
8 See C. Bokulich, ‘Contextualizing Josquin’s Ave Maria . . . virgo serena’, Journal of Musicology, 34 (2017), pp. 182–240 and the literature cited there.
9 Milsom, ‘Making a Motet’, p. 184.
10 If indeed Josquin’s motet references Regis’s Ave Maria … virgo serena, the reworkings examined here potentially contain nested compositional responses (e.g. Févin responding to Josquin responding to Regis). Whereas Josquin’s references to Regis are relatively circumscribed, the responses to Josquin’s Ave Maria are far more thoroughgoing in their approach. On the Josquin–Regis connection see most recently J. Rifkin, ‘Milan, Motet Cycles, Josquin: Further Thoughts on a Familiar Topic’, in D. V. Filippi and A. Pavanello (eds.), Motet Cycles between Devotion and Liturgy (Basel, 2019), pp. 221–335 and the literature cited there.
11 J. A. Owens, ‘How Josquin Became Josquin: Reflections on Historiography and Reception’, in J. A. Owens and A. M. Cummings (eds.), Music in Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis Lockwood (Warren, MI, 2004), pp. 271–80, at p. 279.
12 Specifically, he critiques the designation of Gian de Artiganova, Heinrich Glarean, Adrianus Coclico and Martin Luther as Josquin’s ‘contemporaries’. J. Rodin, ‘When Josquin Became Josquin’, Acta Musicologica, 81 (2009), pp. 23–38, at p. 38.
13 P. Higgins, ‘The Apotheosis of Josquin des Prez and Other Mythologies of Musical Genius’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 57 (2004), pp. 443–510, at p. 477, n. 120.
14 Since the publication of Albert Smijers’s Josquin edition beginning in 1922, the number of known sources for the motet has doubled. Consequently, historical assertions concerning the fame of Ave Maria are based on a much smaller figure – a fact presumably shared with other works attributed to the composer as well. Werken van Josquin des Prez, Motetten, no. 1 (Amsterdam, 1922), ed. A. Smijers.
15 Josquin des Prez: New Edition of the Collected Works (New Josquin Edition; hereafter NJE), ed. W. Elders and M. Antonowycz (Amsterdam and Utrecht, 1987–2016), vol. 23.
16 By source type these are Benedicta es celorum regina: 27 manuscripts, 9 prints, 24 tablatures and 5 treatises. For Preter rerum seriem there are 33 manuscripts, 7 prints, 9 tablatures and 2 treatises. See NJE 23 and 24.
17 Figures taken from Rodin, ‘Josquin and Epistemology’, p. 124.
18 S. Schlagel, ‘The Liber selectarum cantionum and the “German Josquin Renaissance”’, Journal of Musicology, 19 (2002), pp. 564–615, and Schlagel, ‘Josquin des Prez and his Motets’.
19 Ave Maria is also not present in Petrucci’s Corona prints, an otherwise crucial series in shaping Josquin’s reception. The French anthologies, which contain many of Josquin’s most widely circulating motets, also lack Ave Maria.
20 Schlagel, Masses by Ludwig Daser and Matthaeus Le Maistre, p. xii.
21 Schlagel, ‘The Liber selectarum cantionum’, 567.
22 W. Elders, Critical Commentary to NJE 23, pp. 91–4.
23 Bonnie Blackburn has suggested that Petrucci’s editor may have altered the first full stanza in order to make it acceptable for Dominican worship. See Blackburn, ‘Petrucci’s Venetian Editor: Petrus Castellanus and his Musical Garden’, Musica Disciplina, 49 (1995), pp. 15–45, at p. 17. Petrucci’s editor further changed ‘redemptio’ to ‘salvatio’; see Critical Commentary to NJE 23, p. 93.
24 These sources are Berlin 40013, Gotha Chart. A.98 and Nuremberg 83795, all of which are associated with the Lutheran centre of Torgau. The full contrafact texts are printed in the Critical Commentary to NJE 23, pp. 93–4.
25 In Josquin’s original, for instance, paired duos highlight the parallelism present in the rhyming couplets, both within and between stanzas, but no such connection exists in the contrafact version. Moreover, text painting, as identified by several scholars, would similarly be lost in the contrafact version. Richard Taruskin, for instance, points to the melodic ascent at ‘assumptio’ and the perfect consonance at ‘O mater Dei’. See R. Taruskin, Oxford History of Western Music, vol. 1 (New York and Oxford, 2005), pp. 570–2.
26 Schlagel, ‘Josquin des Prez and his Motets’, p. 209; see also Josquin des Prez: Werken, ed. Smijers, Ser. 2, Motetten, Deel 1 (1936). The Glarean example is derived from Heinrich Glarean, Dodecachordon, trans. C. A. Miller, Musicological Studies and Documents, 6 (n.p., 1965), vol. 2, pp. 436–42.
27 Bokulich, ‘Meter and the Motetti Missales’, in A. Pavanello and D. V. Filippi (eds.), Motet Cycles between Devotion and Liturgy (Basel, 2019), pp. 397–428; and Bokulich, ‘Contextualizing Josquin’s Ave Maria’, pp. 231–2.
28 Besides Ave Maria, brief passages of stretto fuga in sesquialtera also occur in Gaude virgo (4v) and O bone et dulcissime Jesu (4v), the latter of which is excluded from Josquin’s secure works in the NJE but accepted and discussed in P. Macey, ‘Josquin, Good King René and O bone et dulcissime Jesu’, in D. Pesce (ed.), Hearing the Motet: Essays on the Motet in the Middle Ages and Renaissance (New York and Oxford, 1998), pp. 213–42, at p. 230. Brief stretto fuga passages in sesquialtera also occur in other questionably attributed works, including Cantate Domino (5v); Benedicte, omnia (4v); In domino (4v); and Deus pacis (4v). Besides their insecure attribution, another difference between these motets and Ave Maria is that the stretto fuga lasts only a few breves in each, whereas in Ave Maria it persists until duple metre returns.
29 Glarean’s affection for Josquin’s music has been well documented. See most recently Rodin, ‘Josquin and Epistemology’ and the sources cited there.
30 Glarean, Dodecachordon, trans. Miller, ii, p. 263.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid., 266. Glarean is referring to the setting for low voices (NJE 15.11), which also appears as an example in the Dodecachordon. See P. Macey, ‘Josquin and Champion: Conflicting Attributions for the Psalm Motet De profundis clamavi’, in M. Jennifer Bloxam, G. Filocamo and L. Holford-Strevens (eds.), Uno gentile et subtile ingenio: Studies in Renaissance Music in Honour of Bonnie J. Blackburn (Turnhout, 2009), pp. 453–68.
34 Ibid., p. 267.
35 Ibid., p. 265.
36 The enthusiasm with which Glarean approaches Ave Maria has been overstated in the scholarly literature. Richard Taruskin writes that Glarean ‘verbally proclaimed [Ave Maria] an emblem of perfected style’, but the theorist does not use such terms to describe the motet. Nor does Glarean characterise the motet as ‘an example … of “genius” at work’, another description Taruskin ascribes to the theorist. See Taruskin, The Oxford History of Western Music, i, p. 572.
37 The only motets that do not fit this pattern are Mente tota, which is used as a model for two masses as well (Févin and Willaert), and Intemerata virgo, with two masses (Forestier and Lupus Hellinck).
38 A collection of motets by Jean du Moulin that was printed by Attaingnant in 1545 includes a three-voice Ave Maria that appears to be a condensed version of Josquin’s original or is otherwise modelled on it. Three additional motets in the print would also appear to be based on Josquin models (Mente tota, Huc me sidereo and Stabat mater) as well as those of Gombert and Févin. Only the bassus partbook survives, however, and I have not been able to consult it for the present study. See H. Vanhulst and A. Scarcez, ‘Les éditions de musique polyphonique de Pierre Attaingnant retrouvées depuis 1969’, in M.-A. Colin (ed.), French Renaissance Music and Beyond: Studies in Memory of Frank Dobbins (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 631–70, at p. 655.
39 On the role of the French court, see L. Lockwood, ‘A View of the Early Sixteenth-Century Parody Mass’, in The Department of Music Queens College of the City University of New York: Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Festschrift (New York, 1964), pp. 53–77.
40 On the French court style, see J. Rifkin, ‘A Black Hole? Problems in the Motet around 1500’, in T. Schmidt-Beste (ed.), The Motet around 1500: On the Relationship between Imitation and Text Treatment? (Turnhout, 2012), pp. 21–82 and the literature cited there.
41 It is also possible that the three anonymous reworkings reflect musical centres beyond the French royal court and the Bavarian ducal court.
42 See Bokulich, ‘Contextualizing Josquin’s Ave Maria’, for the most recent analysis of the motet, as well as citations of the secondary literature, and Rifkin, ‘Milan, Motet Cycles, Josquin: Further Thoughts on a Familiar Topic’.
43 In some cases, such as Huc me sydereo,which survives in both a five- and six-voice version, it is unclear which is the original. Bonnie J. Blackburn published the six-voice version in the New Josquin Edition, 21 (2007), and in the Critical Commentary (pp. 49–52) discusses the differing opinions, principally J. Rifkin, ‘Motivik – Konstruktion – Humanismus: Zur Motette Huc me sydereo von Josquin des Prez’, in H. Schneider (ed.), Die Motette: Beiträge zur ihrer Gattungsgeschichte (Mainz, 1992), pp. 105–34, at p. 105.
44 The Si placet Repertory 1480–1530, ed. S. Self, Recent Researches in the Music of the Renaissance, 106 (Madison, WI, 1996).
45 Ibid.
46 Schlagel hypothesises that ‘Given the Bavarian ducal court’s predilection for Josquin’s music, and without external evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to speculate that these unica were composed “in-house”, possibly by Senfl or Daser.’ See Si placet Parts, ed. Schlagel, p. xiii.
47 Gascogne’s Bone Jhesu dulcissime, and three motets by Mouton: Spiritus Domini replevit; Illuminare, illuminare Jherusalem; and In illo tempore Maria Magdalene. See Si placet Parts, ed. Schlagel, p. xiii.
48 Schlagel, ‘Josquin des Prez and his Motets’, ch. 5; and Si placet Parts, ed. Schlagel, p. xiii.
49 The discantus secundus’s range is no lower than the discantus, though it spends more time on lower notes within that range. See http://josquin.stanford.edu/work/?id=Ano2073 for a graphic depiction of the ranges.
50 I discuss periodic entries in ‘Contextualizing Josquin’s Ave Maria’, pp. 189–92; see also the literature cited in n. 28.
51 Figure 2 is adapted from the Josquin Research Project (http://Josquin.stanford.edu). In Josquin’s Ave Maria, all voices move into sesquialtera at b. 94; the T and B via a ‘3’ sign and the S and A via triplets.
52 I also discuss reduced textures in ‘Contextualizing Josquin’s Ave Maria’, pp. 195–201.
53 Unless noted otherwise, the Josquin examples correspond to the score given in the Josquin Research Project: http://josquin.stanford.edu.
54 Though this passage does still amount to a reduced texture of sorts (from six to four voices), the repetition of duo material is buried in the four-voice texture and much less perceptible in the si placet version. All si placet examples are derived from the version provided by the Josquin Research Project: http://josquin.stanford.edu.
55 See Bokulich, ‘Contextualizing Josquin’s Ave Maria’, pp. 203–6, 239.
56 The case is similar with the ‘celestia, terrestria nova replet leticia’ phrase (bb. 44–9), which Josquin sets to a melodic sequence in the discantus and tenor. In the si placet version, the tenor secundus joins in with a melodic sequence of its own (bb. 44–5).
57 Philippe Verdelot’s seven-voice Beata es virgo Maria features two sections, the second of which has also been described as a reworking of Josquin’s Ave Maria. But to my eyes, the connection between the two could easily be coincidental, as it does not extend beyond the superius secundus of the motet’s second section, which bears a loose resemblance to the opening of Josquin’s Ave Maria. See E. Lowinsky, ‘A Newly Discovered Sixteenth-Century Motet Manuscript at the Biblioteca Vallicelliana in Rome’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 3 (1950), pp. 173–232, at pp. 450 and 481; Philippe Verdelot, Opera Omnia, 2, ed. Anne-Marie Bragard, Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 28 (n.p., 1973), pp. 118–23.
58 M. P. Brauner, ‘The Manuscript Verona, Accademia Filarmonica B 218 and its Political Motets’, Studi Musicali, 16 (1987), pp. 3–12.
59 P. Macey, ‘Josquin as Classic: “Qui habitat”, “Memor esto” and Two Imitations Unmasked’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 118 (1993), pp. 1–43.
60 I thank Willem Elders and Eric Jas for supplying me with a transcription of this piece.
61 See also the discussion in the Critical Commentary to NJE 23, pp. 105–11, and Schlagel, ‘Josquin des Prez and his Motets’, p. 256.
62 Schlagel (‘Josquin des Prez and his Motets’, ch. 5) does note an interesting parallel with Vinders’s Missa Stabat mater, which paraphrases the top voice of Josquin’s Stabat mater. The eight-voice Ave Maria, however, quotes Josquin’s superius exactly as it appears in the original motet. Moreover, Stephen Rice points to two eight-voice settings of Inviolata, integra et casta es that adopt Josquin’s canonic framework (one of which also survives in Verona 218). Though these are not cantus-firmus motets in the traditional sense – in that the cited material is a canonic framework rather than a single melodic line – they do provide a certain amount of context for the eight-voice Ave Maria in Verona 218. See S. Rice, ‘Resonances of Josquin in Later Inviolata Settings’, in K. Schiltz and B. J. Blackburn (eds.), Canons and Canonic Techniques, 14th–16th Centuries: Theory, Practice, and Reception Histories (Leuven, 2007), pp. 197–220.
63 Specifically, the superius of the anonymous motet follows the same melodic contour as Josquin’s motet at bb. 31–2, and the tenor secundus follows the contour of the tenor in bb. 35–40, thereby tightening the connection to Josquin’s motet. The eight-voice Ave Maria examples are based on a handwritten transcription generously provided to me by Willem Elders and Eric Jas.
64 This excerpt is also printed and discussed by Willem Elders in the Critical Commentary to NJE 23, pp. 110–11.
65 On the book, see Schlagel, ‘The Liber selectarum cantionem’.
66 On the influence of singing and hearing on compositional strategies, see J. Rodin, ‘“A Most Laudable Competition”? Hearing and Composing the Beata virgine Masses of Josquin and Brumel’, Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 59 (2009), pp. 3–24.
67 See http://www.senflonline.com/ for the updated Senfl Catalogue and biographical information. The three motets include Ave Maria, Miserere mei Deus and Ave rosa sine spinis, which ‘alludes’ to Josquin’s Stabat mater by sourcing the same cantus firmus: Comme femme (see S. Gasch and S. Tröster, ‘Senfl, Ludwig’, Grove Music Online).
68 For ‘imitation’ motets see Macey, ‘Josquin as Classic’. On the Miserere tradition, see K. Schiltz, ‘Gioseffo Zarlino and the “Miserere” Tradition: A Ferrarese Connection’, Early Music History, 27 (2008), pp. 181–215, and the literature cited there.
69 Rice, ‘Resonances of Josquin in Later Inviolata Settings’.
70 A significantly later parody motet is Sethus Calvisius’s (1556–1615) Preter rerum seriem, published in Leipzig in 1604. See C. J. Westendorf, ‘Josquin in the Early German Baroque: Seth Calvisius’ Parody of Praeter rerum serium’, in B. Haggh (ed.), Essays on Music and Culture in Honor of Herb Kellman (Paris, 2001), pp. 298–310.
71 Milsom addresses the opening of Senfl’s motet in ‘The T-Mass: Quis scrutatur?’, Early Music, 46 (2018), pp. 319–31, at p. 324; see also his Example 5. The motet is also discussed in M. Stanyon, ‘Pervasive Imitation in Senfl’s Ave Maria ….virgo serena: Borrowing from Josquin in Sixteenth-Century Augsburg’, in J. Stoessel (ed.), Identity and Locality in European Music: 1028–1740 (London, 2009), pp. 151–71.
72 The tenor ostinato first enters at the moment when the other voices become less hinged to the original (bb. 19 ff.).
73 All Senfl examples are adapted from Ludwig Senfl, Sämtliche Werke, vol. 4, ed. W. Gerstenberg (Wolfenbüttel and Zurich, 1974).
74 The discantus secundus begins the next phrase, ‘Immaculata castitas’, while the lower voices are still completing the restatement of the first phrase, ‘Ave vera virginitas’ (bb. 218 ff.). (In fact, this voice runs as a continuous stream throughout.)
75 By quartering the rhythmic values, the Senfl edition misrepresents the tempo of the sesquialtera passage. The source upon which the edition is based, Munich 12, clearly communicates semibreve sesquialtera, but the Senfl edition suggests minim sesquialtera. See Ludwig Senfl, Sämtliche Werke, vol. 4, ed. W. Gerstenberg (Wolfenbüttel and Zurich, 1974), pp. 12–27, at pp. 22–4.
76 It remains to be seen whether this: (a) is a complete coincidence; (b) stems from the motet’s robust early circulation; or (c) has something to do with its innate musical qualities such as its highly contrastive – and often sparse – texture.
77 The anonymous mass is found in Dresden 1/D/506, pp. 90–103. The Daser mass is an unicum in Stuttgart I.22; see Schlagel, Masses by Ludwig Daser, p. 233.
78 The sources for Févin’s mass are listed in E. Clinkscale, Collected Works of Antoine de Févin, vol. 2, Gesamtausgabe der Werke von Antoine de Fevin: Messen, 11 (Ottawa, 1993), p. x. The New Grove entry on Févin, however, notes that the source list provided in the Collected Works is incomplete.
79 In contrast, Josquin’s songs seem to have been quoted earlier, at least according to the available source evidence. Josquin’s Adieu mes amours is quoted in the Et resurrexit of Obrecht’s Missa Plurimorum carminum I (c. 1487–8). Moreover, Obrecht’s Missa Adieu mes amours and an anonymous Missa Bergerette savoysienne appear in Jena 31 and 32, which have recently been redated to c. 1500. See Rodin, ‘When Josquin Became Josquin’, p. 26.
80 See n. 76 above.
81 In his foundational study of later parody masses, Quentin Quereau shows how indebted Palestrina’s masses are to their models. A prime example is the Sanctus of the Missa Salvum me fac, based on Jacquet of Mantua’s Salvum me fac, which is so thoroughly dependent on the antecedent material that Quereau describes the motet as ‘controlling’ the mass. See Quereau, ‘Sixteenth-Century Parody: An Approach to Analysis’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 31 (1978), pp. 407–41, at p. 421.
82 In the Et in terra, bb. 1 ff. correspond to bb. 1 ff. in the motet (‘Ave Maria’); bb. 31 ff. to bb. 31 ff. (‘Ave cujus’); bb. 48 ff. to bb. 40 ff. (‘Solemni plena … nova replet’). In the Qui tollis, bb. 86 ff. corresponds to bb. 78 ff. in the motet (‘Ave pia humilitas …. fecunditas’); bb. 114 ff. to bb. 111 ff. (‘Ave preclara … virtutibus’); and bb. 141 ff. to bb. 94 ff. (‘Ave vera virginitas … purgatio’).
83 In the Credo, bb. 1 ff. correspond to the motet in bb. 1 ff. (‘Ave Maria’); bb. 20 ff. to bb. 16 ff. (‘Dominus tecum’); bb. 35 ff. (‘Ave Maria’); bb. 58 ff. to bb. 31 ff. (‘Ave cujus conceptio’); bb. 75 ff. to bb. 40 ff. (‘Solemni plena gaudio’). The Et incarnatus est introduces material from the second stanza: bb. 95 ff. correspond to bb. 54 ff. of the motet (‘Ave cujus nativitas’); bb. 108 ff. vaguely resemble bb. 64 ff. (‘Ut lucifer’). In the Cruxifixus, bb. 118 ff. fleetingly refer to bb. 71 ff.; bb. 134 ff. return to bb. 40 ff. in the motet (‘Solemni plena gaudio’). The Et resurrexit (cast almost entirely as a duo) appears to be freely conceived, as does the three-voice Et iterum, with the exception of the opening gambit, which possibly recalls the motet at bb. 64 ff. (‘Ut lucifer’).
84 (Milsom, ‘The T-Mass’.) The Agnus I is also the only section to replicate the periodic entries of Josquin’s original: all other sections cast this material into duos. Finally, the Agnus is also alone in dovetailing this with material from the motet’s second line (‘gratia plena’) – folding it into the first point of imitation (bb. 5–9).
85 I would like to thank an anonymous reader for drawing my attention to the analogy between these two passages.
86 The Kyrie is discussed in Taruskin, Oxford History of Western Music, i, pp. 574–6. Milsom also describes the new interlocks Févin creates in ‘The T-Mass’, p. 324 and examples 2–4.
87 All Févin examples are adapted from the Josquin Research Project: http://josquin.stanford.edu.
88 There are some small melodic differences between the two, and the altus and tenor exchange place.
89 Daser wrote three additional masses based on motets attributed to Josquin: Inviolata, Preter rerum and Qui habitat.
90 Schlagel writes that ‘At times the lines between the models and Daser’s contributions are blurred, as motivic development and imitative phrases are abundant in each composer’s compositional style. Nevertheless, it is possible to discern moments where Daser relies exclusively on Senfl’s version; and where he conflates aspects of each individual model.’ See Schlagel, Masses by Ludwig Daser, p. xi. Milsom also suggests that ‘some or all’ of Févin’s and Senfl’s additional interlocks must have been known to Daser, who makes ‘further transformations’ to the opening material (‘The T-Mass’, p. 324 and examples 6–8).
91 All Daser examples are based on Schlagel, Masses by Ludwig Daser.
92 For the mass, see Annaberger Chorbuch II: Sächsische Landesbibliothek Mus. 1-D-506 (Ms. 1126), Erster Teil: Nr. 1–69, ed. J. Kindermann, Das Erbe Deutscher Musik, 113 (Wiesbaden, 2010). A description of the manuscript and its contents also appears in T. Noblitt, ‘Manuscript Mus. 1/D/506 of the Sächsische Landesbibliothek, Dresden (Olim Annaberg, Bibliothek der St. Annenkirche, MS. 1126)’, Musica Disciplina, 28 (1974), pp. 81–127.
93 That is, the Kyrie I, Kyrie II, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus and Agnus Dei.
94 Examples 15a–b are adapted from Annaberger Chorbuch, ed. Kindermann.
95 The Sanctus similarly opens with the same melody but this time in an imitative duo between altus and tenor (again at the time interval of two breves), later joined by the superius and bassus, this time in very long note values.
96 See Credo, bb. 25–6, 29–30, 44–9; Benedictus, bb. 77–9.
97 Milsom, ‘Making a Motet’, p. 184.
98 Trésor musical: Collection authentique de musique sacrée et profane des anciens maîtres belges, ed. R. J. Maldeghem (Brussels, 1865–93).
99 C. Burney, A General History of Music, 4 vols. (London, 1776–89); J. Hawkins, A General History of the Science and Practice of Music, 5 vols. (London, 1776); and R. G. Kiesewetter, Geschichte der europaeisch-abendlaendischen oder unsrer heutigen Musik (Leipzig, 1846).
100 ‘ganz ausserordentlich schön, von der süssesten Milde und der tiefsten Innigkeit’. A. W. Ambros, Geschichte der Musik, vol. 3, ed. O. Kade (repr. Munich, 1968), p. 258. De Orto’s motet is edited in R. L. Miller, ‘The Musical Works of Marbrianus de Orto: Transcription and Commentary’ (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1974), ii, pp. 420–3.
101 Whether or not Smijers’s placement of Ave Maria was inadvertent (in that he was simply mirroring Petrucci), its impact remains the same; see Rifkin, ‘Munich, Milan, and a Marian Motet’, pp. 239–40.
102 E. Lowinsky, ‘On the Use of Scores by 16th-Century Musicians’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 1 (1948), pp. 17–23; reprinted in Lowinsky, Music in the Culture of the Renaissance and Other Essays, ed. B. J. Blackburn (Chicago, 1989), pp. 797–800.
103 To take just one significant example: in his monograph Josquin Desprez (Tutzing, 1962–5), Helmuth Osthoff posited a date for the motet between 1495 and 1500 (ii, p. 88).
104 Taruskin discusses this passage of Lowinsky’s article from a socio-political standpoint in The Oxford History of Western Music, i, pp. 577–9.
105 Lowinsky, ‘On the Use of Scores’, p. 800. Interestingly, Lowinsky’s discussion is more about Verdelot than Josquin. Indeed, the description of Ave Maria is almost indirect, as he continues: ‘The same thing might also be said of the example from Verdelot quoted by Lampadius. Like Josquin’s, Verdelot’s motet is without cantus firmus, and its underlying technique is that of free imitation.’ Moreover, Lowinsky goes on to cite specific passages within Verdelot’s motet.
106 On Ave Maria and ficta, see M. Bent, ‘Diatonic Ficta’, Early Music History, 4 (1984), pp. 1–48; for pre-Baroque analysis, see C. C. Judd, ‘Some Problems of Pre-Baroque Analysis: An Examination of Josquin’s Ave Maria … virgo serena’, Music Analysis, 4 (1985), pp. 201–39.
107 As reported by Nanie Bridgman, ‘On the Discography of Josquin and the Interpretation of his Music in Recordings’, in E. E. Lowinsky and B. J. Blackburn (eds.), Josquin des Prez: Proceedings of the International Josquin Festival-Conference (London, 1976), pp. 633–41, at p. 633. Though Ave Christe immolate seems to pre-date the appearance of Ave Maria on disc, the latter has been recorded more times than any other motet attributed to Josquin.
108 Particularly if the motet dates from the 1470s, but even if it was composed c. 1485, the ¢ mensuration and relatively sparse note values suggest a reasonably fast tempo – at the very least, a tempo much faster than we find in the recording by the Hilliard Ensemble. At a lively tempo, the piece can comfortably be performed in under four minutes; the Hilliard ensemble takes nearly seven.
109 Taruskin, Oxford History of Western Music, i, p. 564.
110 J. Rodin, ‘The Pervading Myth of Pervasive Imitation’, paper presented at Stanford University, 5 March 2007.
111 A. Atlas, Renaissance Music: Music in Western Europe 1400–1600 (New York, 1998), pp. 250–2.
112 Taruskin, Oxford History of Western Music, i, 576.
113 P. Macy etal., ‘Josquin des Prez’. Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online.
114 A. Hughes and G. Abraham (eds.), New Oxford History of Western Music (London, 1960), p. 267.
115 In his 1556 treatise, Practica Musica, Hermann Finck writes that Josquin ‘truly can be called the father of composers … for he exceeds many in subtlety and sweetness, though in compositions he is rather bare; that is, although he is very acute in devising fugae, he uses many rests [pausis]’ (Practica Musica, sig. Aii). Finck goes on to contrast Josquin with the mid-sixteenth-century composer Nicolas Gombert (c. 1495–1560): ‘Yet in our own time there are innovators, among whom Nicolas Gombert, pupil of Josquin of fond memory, shows all musicians the path, nay more, the exact way to refinement and the requisite imitative style. He composes music altogether different from what went before. For he avoids pauses [pausas], and his work is rich with full harmonies and imitative counterpoint’ (ibid.). If we assume, as most modern readers have, that by ‘rests’ Finck is referring to the reduced-texture passages that dominate works like Ave Maria, the theorist’s impression is antithetical to modern writers, who have established Ave Maria as the poster child for pervasive imitation. For Finck, however, it was not Josquin’s but Gombert’s works that epitomised this contrapuntal quality. For translations of the above quotations, see B. J. Blackburn, ‘Two Treasure Chests of Canonic Antiquities: The Collections of Hermann Finck and Lodovico Zacconi’, in Schiltz and Blackburn (eds.), Canons and Canonic Techniques, pp. 303–38, at p. 306, and G. Nugent and E. Jas, ‘Gombert, Nicolas’. Grove Music Online.
116 G. Reese, Music in the Renaissance (London, 1954), p. 253. The motets Reese identifies as particularly ‘felicitous’ examples of this technique are Dominus regnavit, two De profundis motets, Rubum quem viderat Moyses and Qui habitat in adjutorio – most of which, it should be noted, are now considered of dubious authenticity.
117 These are: Memor esto verbi tui; Miserere mei, Deus; Domine, Dominus noster; the two De profundis settings; Dominus regnavit; Rubum quem viderat Moyses; Qui habitat in adjutorio; Veni sancte spiritus; Inviolata; Benedicta es; Christum ducem; and Preter rerum seriem. Reese writes: ‘In Josquin’s motets, the replacing of the old cantus-firmus technique by the device of pervading imitation, i.e., by a series of fugue-like expositions, gets well under way’ (Music in the Renaissance, p. 253).
118 For example, Josquin is described as the greatest chanson composer of his time, and the best composer in Milan (ibid., p. 230).
119 H. M. Brown, Music in the Renaissance (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1976), pp. 122–7.
120 R. Freedman, Music in the Renaissance (New York, 2013), p. 132.
121 D. J. Grout, A History of Western Music (New York, 1960), p. 178. In his recent monograph, David Fallows disputes the widely held view that Josquin’s music is distinctive for its sensitive treatment of the text; Josquin (Turnhout, 2009), p. 102.
122 Brown, Music in the Renaissance, p. 123.
123 Ibid., pp. 123–4.
124 Grout, A History of Western Music, p. 178.
125 F. Sternfeld, Music from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance (London, 1973), p. 227.
126 Hughes and Abraham, The New Oxford History of Western Music, p. 267.
127 Atlas, Renaissance Music, p. 252.