Monteverdi's Tonal Language ‘ & ERIC T. CHAFE SCHIRMER BOOKS An Imprint of Macmillan Publishing Company IEW YORK Maxwell Macmillan Canada ‘Maxwell Macmillan International NEW YORK OXFORD SINGAPORE SYDNEY i MUSIK WIEN ii “T7858;Copyright © 1992 by Schirmer Hooks "AS NIM OF MACMILAN FUBSING COMPANY of this book may be roby an me So hot presen iw Maxwell Macmillan {Macmillan Publishing Company 1200 Eglinton Aven Don Mills, Ontario ‘Chate, Eric Thomas ‘Monteverdi’ tonal language / by Erie. Chae. pom, Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-02-870495-9 1, Monteverdi, Claudio, 1567-1643.—Criticiom and interpretation, 2. Tonality. 3. Musio—Theory—17th century 1. Tie MLAIOMI7C4_ 1992 91-25935 1782.0238082—de20 “The paper used in his publication mts he minimum requiementsof American ‘Nationa Standards for information ences Permanence of Paper or ented Ui Thay Matern ANSI 23548-1504 @™ To the memory of Wilda Evelyn Lossing (1943-1992): Tonality and ““Word’’ ic Issues in Seventeenth-Century Tonal Hexachord and System 24viii Contents CHAPTER six The Fifth Book of Madrigals (1605) 105 ‘The Five-Part Cycle “Ecco Silvio” ‘The Three-Part Cycle ““Ch’io t’ami” “1 Concertato Madrigals 117 CHAPTER SEVEN The Tonal Structure of Orfeo (1607) 126 A Commentary on Orfeo 135 CHAPTER EIGHT Il Ballo delle ingrate and the ‘‘Lamento d’Arianna”’ (1608) 159 U ballo delle ingrate 159 ‘The “Lamento d’Arianna” Monody and Madrigal 164 CHAPTER NINE The Sixth Book of Madrigals (1614) 186 "Zefixo Torna eI Bel Tempo Rimena’”” 188 “A Dio, Florida Bella’ 191 ‘The Sestina “Incenerite Spoglie” 195 “Ohimé, il Bel Viso”” 201 “Batto Qui Pianse Ergasto” 203, sero Alceo”” 204 Concerto: The Seventh Book of Madrigals (1619) 208 cHaPren ELEVEN The Eighth Book: Madrigali guerrieri et amorosi (1638) 234 ‘The Preface and the Combattimento di Tancrei e Clorinds 234 Individual Matrigai guerieri 246 Individual Madrigaliamorosi- 257 chapter TWELVE Tonal Allegory in Il ritorno d’Ulisse in patria (1640) 261 ‘The Prologue and the Dramatic Action 261 Penelope's Opening Monologue 276 Contents CHAPTER THIRTEEN Tonal Allegory and the Authenticity Question in L’incoronazione di Poppea (1642) CHAPTER FOURTEEN L’incoronazione di Poppea: The Tonal- Allegorical Framework The Structure ofthe Libretto 309 Tonal Allegory in L'incoronasione 317 CHAPTER FIFTEEN L’incoronazione di Poppea: Aspects of Musical Characterization Otho 331 Octavia 342 Nevo and Poppaca 348 3 APPENDIX A The quadro Sign in Seventeenth-Century Music APPENDIX 8 A Madrigal by Pietro Eredia and Giovanni Battista Doni NOTES BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX OF MONTEVERDI'S WORKS _ GENERAL INDEX ix 289 309 331 361 371 381 425 433 439List of Figures Fig. 3.1 Athanasius Kircher’s Mensa fonographia Fig. 3.2 Johann David Heinichen’s circle of keys Fig. 3.3. ‘The modal-hexachordal system. Fig. 3.4 The keys used in Monteverdi's madrigal books 3-8 Fig. 5.1 The tonal organization of the Fourth ‘Book of Madrigals (1603) Fig. 5.2. Scheme of “Sfogave con le stelle,”” ‘middle section Fig. 7.1 An overview of Orfeo Fig. 7.2 Symmetrically arranged choruses in Orfeo, act 1 Fig. 7.3. Tonal shifts in Orfeo, act 2 ig. 10.1 Opening and closing sections of mate, o cari baci,”” Book Seven Fig. 14.1 Organization of scenes in incoronazione di Poppea, act 1 Fig. 14.2 Organization of the scene between ‘Nero and Seneca (L'incoronazione, act 1, scene 9) Fig. B.1 “Passa la vita’’ 84 132 136 141 224 312 325 374 & Preface ‘The inspiration for this study was the unusually strong sense of purpose and richness of detail that Claudio Monteverdi's work exhibil its structural and -poetic intent, perhaps the sam¢ 1g impression’’ on Ferruccio Busoni tensity of expression which breathes and speak: uuty of form stand beside Bach and Mozart at the ular intensity perfectly ‘music on the voice but ‘ratio, one of the keys to its “freedom of form’ as well. We perhaps expect Monteverdi’s music to project a sense of newness and disc« ed at such a momentous turning point for musical bits lasting qualities attests to the strength of the selves. Monteverdi's is a music that retains ils intensity through many hear ings because, like the music of Mozart and Bach, it is rooted in a strong ipense ‘of musical logic that transcends its historical position. One of the \anifestations of that logic is Monteverdi's secure grasp of tonal icular the quality this study emphasizes: ty as a musical dimension of profound fig Ithough Monteverdi's work has been described and analyzed in a vari- ly of ways, study of the theor feof the music, That fact is owing in part to a ss between theory and ani the two as much as possible, an ap= is theoretical premises In advance of an-‘Monteverdi's secular work fi zelationshi detailed coverag seventeenth-century tonality and seconda prattica as defi by oratio (interpreted in the broadest sense as extramusical meaning, or mu- sical allegory). These two great generative principles of the emerging Ba- roque style come into conjunction in the concept of tonal allegory. It is axiomatic in the sciences that data have little meaning without a the- ory. And, however much we may wish to differentiate the so-called human stiences from the physical this axiom holds for music as w standpo tothe forem: theory it implies. It therefore runs the tonal music follows more or less the same principles, which therefore need not be set forth. In the case of music from later periods, we give a central role in our interpretations to tonal analysis, whose governing principles are well known in general, even though their application may vary widely among ‘musical scholars. We are so familiar with tonal theory as set forth in the myr- iad textbooks of our own era that the particularity of their various explana- tions for different phenomena can take a back seat to the richness - intuitive explanations to fall into frequent error. At the same time distant enough; because we regard it as tonal and absorb it aurally into the much larger system represented by that word, we often let down the guard of historical awareness that is needed for its precise description. In order, therefore, to preserve the richness of understanding that cannot arise from purely historical knowledge, we must expand our conception of tonality with the vision that obtained in the seventeenth century, not approach such a distant style in the spirit of self-denial. We need a framework in which all the historical sty and aes- /es a constant awareness of the aesthetic premises of a word-dominated approach involving tonal theory and herme- ter is generally viewed as being in direct oppo- neutics, even though the sition to systematic theory. I stress the importance of a systematic approach because itis not unustial in the Monteverdi literature to encounter casual references to keys (E and f, for example) whose existence in Monteverdi's music demands such a de- gree of qualification as to render the meaning of the word key doubtful.* In the absence of a widely understood tonal theory for this music the norms of the style are unclear. Many of the most striking moments—such as the well- known E/g harmonic juxtapositions in Orfeo—can be explained only in term of their shock value or as the manifestation of influences from other com posers in whose works their presence is no example, we find harmonic and tonal parallels between Jacopo Peri’s Eu: ridice ancl Monteverdi's Orfeo in addition to those of the two librett, certain {questions follow almost as a matter of course, What was the basis for Peri's choice of particular harmonic effeets in the first place? Why does Monte- -verdi emulate them, if in fact that is the best way of describing the relation= ship? And how do they relate to the style of Orfeo, as wel Monteverdi's work and to the style of the age in general? WI are certainly present, without a framework to render them m are incidental and tency that is such a prominent feature of Monteverdi's style its enormous development over a sixty-year compositional life, To that we can view such style features within a theoretical frame ‘work, however, we may better understand the place of Monteverdi's styl within the more general tendencies of the time. From that standpoint those style features contribute to an understanding of the aesthetics of his work and the magnitude of his achievement. The present endeavor is less a * tempt to describe a system according to which Monteverdi composed. to set forth the systematic features of the tonal language of his time in gen> eral and describe his particul the older theory is inadequate to describe the music. Though Mont imself stated in a letter that he found nothing in the theory of his time that aided him in his quest for musical “imitation,” he nonetheless made lear his belief that a rational theory for the seconda prattica was possil he apparently undertook to set forth such a theory himself, place to text-music relationships and the concept of mel ‘generally accepted that Monteverdi never got to the p ‘retical treatise, his m kind of “unconscious icdirectly, searching out its rational, features, using the theory of the time as a guide to how those features were understood, and also considering at every stage our own relationship and _ the relationship of later tonal theory to this music. This is the herm ences, One premise of this guage of the seventeenth century~and Monteveany other—combines its pastandlits future in changing yet balanced propor- tions, rather than proceeding in a direct line from the one to the other. That [past is the modal and hexachordal theory of the sixteenth century, Wl survived well into the seventeenth century in a form that for convenience I will call the ““modal-hexachordal” system; the future is, of course, the tonal theory that surrounds the appearance of the circle of major and minor keys +n the early eighteenth century. There is no unassailable reason to prefer the ‘past, to give it logical as well as chronological priority. We can choose in- stead to operate within a larger framework in which past and future exist simultaneously, as they do in our minds. For this reason I examine in Chap- ter Three the manner in which particular concepts of early seventeenth- century hexachord theory fed into the first systematic presentation of the circle of keys in the early eighteenth century.” It is necessary, of course, to keep the two systems as distinct as possible from each other so as to enrich our understanding of the compositional intent with which Monteverdi's ‘work fairly bristles, as well as to avoid describing his tonal procedures in anachronistic terms. It would exceed the scope of this book to undertake the presentation of a detailed tonal theory for even the first half of the seventeenth century. Not only do the many theorists reflect contrasting viewpoints on a phenomenon that was too new and, for many, too uncertain to submit to authoritative, treatment, but our own investigation of the music and theory of this age has not yet laid a sufficiently firm foundation. And the problem of doing so, even for Monteverdi alone, is compounded by the staggering changes that Monteverdi's style underwent from the beginning to the end of his long ca- reer. [have nevertheless allowed the advantages of considering theory and music together to outweigh all other considerations, and I have therefore selected those writings of contemporary theorists that have seemed tome to reflect the struggle to describe the newly emergent tonal style within the framework of inherited theoretical concepts that were not designed for that purpose. Though past concepts, were often inadequate to describe the prac- tice of tonal composition, those theorists obviously could not draw upon future concepts. The result was that the music often tended intrinsically to- ward the future, but was regulated conceptually by the past. The resultant conflict or dialectic of old and new is, in my view, intimately related to why ‘we perceive the music of the early seventeenth century as transitional, For, many musical scholars these developments represent the change from modality to tonality, or more generally from Renaissance to Baroque style. This study takes the position that the dialectic of old and new is not the equivalent ofa simple transition from modality to tonality. Monteverdi's ‘music is tonal, not modal, but its versions of tonality are substantially differ- ent from those we know from later music. One of the most important differ- ences is the separation of mode from “system” (the basic pitch content as defined by th of either cantus durus or cantus mollis). Modal theory \e harmonic content of the music, even though it can be demonstrated that some of the concerns of modal theory carried over into the emerging tonality. For this reason I have centered the second chapter of this book primarily on the rationalization of the range of chords available in the new style according to the seventeenth-century version of the old hexa chord theory, confining discussions of “mode” (Chapter Three) to system such as Athanasius Kircher’, that deal conspicuously with the reinterpret~ ing of mode within frameworks that are patently tonal ‘After discussing the implications of tonal allegory within the framework ‘of the concepts used by Monteverdi in his debate with Giovanni Marla Artusi (Chapter One), Tattempt at the outset to introduce the outlines of a tonal theory that is rooted in Monteverdi's work around the time of the “fourth and fifth madrigal books, Orfeo, and the ‘“Lamento d’Arianna (thi {s, the music written or published in the first decade of the century). This takes the form of a hypothesis that in turn is tested in the chronological ex: amination of the works that follows.” Because of the transitional nature of tonal theory in that era and the enormous development of Monteverdi's style, itis necessary first to freeze one relatively consistent phase in the toni Janguage, then, with that phase as a basis, to undertake a chronological cov erage of the major works, showing, how the style changed and developed | have therefore set forth what I call a “‘modal-hexachordal’” system (more precisely, a framework of two such systems) in which I believe Monteverdi's music to be rooted. Such a system is not described per se in any seventeenth-century writings, but is is issions of the various aspects of tonality and, of course, in s The idea of such a system comes from Carl Dahlhaus’s ser ‘attempt to analyze a selection of Monteverdi's madrigals within the context ‘of emerging tonality; I have essayed to expand his work to the outline of a item that can be adopted asa guide to the understanding of that emerging, ‘ning, a basis upon which to build our understanding of Monteverdi's itis not a finished theory. The most significant of its limitations is its to deal with text-music relationships and to cover a sufficiently large and representative amount of Monteverdi’s music, As a result some of his most meral observations on the style derive from pieces that are in some re= sspects exceptional rather than typical, such as “O Mirtillo”’ from Book Fiv Dahihaus undoubtedly chose that piece because its discussion by Artusi and its ensuing mention at the close of the famous manifesto appended by Monteverdi's brother to the endl of the Scherzi musicali of 1607 highlighted the problems surrounding modal usage in Monteverdi's work, But without ‘an interpretation of Giulio Cesare Monteverdi's remarks on the meaning of the “mixed modes’ as exemplified in “© Mirtilo’’ and without the context of both its text and the madrigal book that preceded Book Five, Dahlhaus’s discussion of “O Mi \complete,” I have devoted Chapters Three and Four to these questions, Moreover, a host of related questions regard:wor fre ing tonal occurrences, such as shift of key signature within madrigals, the initial choice of key signature and “key,’’ and the like, are not addressed in 1us's analysis. Dahthaus cannot be faulted fo ions, and his subject was not necessary now to take up where he left off, t ‘work in reference to Monteverdi's developmer viewpoint has many differences from Dahl _ The gains from this procedure are cot language of Orfeo, for example, can be explained in far greater detail than before, and many ofits most characteristic devices, including the choice and organization of keys, emerge as basic properties of the modal-hexachordal system itself (Chapter Seven). Within shorter works, such as individual ‘madrigals, this system provides a means for understanding the initial choice ‘of mode or key, the normal chordal content of the key signature and the mode, and the dynamic quality of the new tonal forms. In the case of a work such as Lincoronazione di Poppea, an understanding of the norms of the rela- tively closed two-system framework enables us to contribute to the question ‘hapter Thirteen). work has the a- vantage of distinguishing his work from that of many of his contemporaries with respect to its extraordinary logic. The system, in fact, is a means of describing how the harmonic features of Monteverdi's work relate to ‘emerging tonality rather than to “mannerist’” harmonic and tonal devices. therefore serves as a guide for understanding how the more secure ‘major/minor tonality of the early eighteenth century and its organization ac- cording to the circle of keys developed. In the area of text-music relationships the modal-hexachordal system ‘comes into its own, since many of the very terms on which the system is founded (durus, mollis, modi, muta, chiave, and the like) appear as musical puns within the texts of madrigals and dramatic works. Often Monteverdi and his contemporaries set these words and a host of related metaphorical interpretations of the texts in ways that tell us a great deal about the tonal system itself. A shift from g to G, for example, has practically the opposite fifth and sixth madrigal books from its associa- ‘even Monteverdi's later music, Understanding, le editors and performers to make better judge- ments regarding the harmonization of unfigured basses, and to correct the common error of interpreti a natural sign rather than a sharp, which leads to impossibly anachi where simple triads are intended (b, dj, {to.seventeenth-century tonal theory will appear to T have included ews hese—the Cf his versions of the Greek dorian and phrygian modes wi ‘madrigal style—as Appendixes A and B. Some readers may wish to consider these matters i which [wrote them, {ets Twoand Three. On the other hand, Ihave included a [think Monteverdi arrived at the concepts he introduce 1638), especially the 1e works themselves. Despite the in t only the works them: can never be understood primarily in . Theory, regardless of wher { illuminates) the works or ing, of past theoretical writings has both historical and | In the final analysis the relationship of theory to the art it purpor ‘or describe is the principal ion for the undertaking, | hope | 10 explain to obscure the understanding itse tant to our appreciation of ally and intellectually co career on the ideals of light I hope to describe a syerdi’s works founded in the sm and as a repository of relationships between music and extramu mncepts. My primary goals are both to illuminate the direct questions of ing and to indicate the richness of Monteverdi ‘on which future studies tempt a broad but manageable consideration of \e framework thy fers are the range of could be included, ‘wider range of that influenced my deci ‘of tone in Montevers posed to his sacred works, levels of te» ic interpret In particular, the undercurrent of soxxviii Preface range of theory and other composers’ music included I have been guided by my perception of the relevance of such discussions to the goal at hand, re- vealing the interaction of tonality and ‘word’ in Monteverdi’s musi Several persons have helped me to bring this project to compl Deak of the Brandeis University music library researched and a crofilm copies of the original printed editions and early manuscript: Monteverdi's works. Richard Farris was of invaluable assistance in prepar- ing the musical examples, Adolph Watty, Alan Curtis, Beverly Stein and Harold Powers sent me copies of music and/or articles of great importance to the project. Larry Hamberlin was a very sensitive and knowledgeable ed- itor. And the staff at Schirmer Books, especially editor in chief Maribeth Payne and managing editor Michael Sander, made the publication process a pleasure from start to finish. Monteverdi's Tonal LanguageIntroduction: Tonality and “Word” tional career spans one of the 6 Claudio Monteverdi's sixty-year c mn, the beginning of what is cial cultural junctures in Western ci ‘viewed as the modern age in science, Pstonins of knowledge and discov iefeatures of the new style (which did not, of course, appear all at once) all exhibit this fondness for patterns: sequences; ground basses; regularity of meter and phrase; speci- fied dynamics, tempi, and instrumer ications of figu affections, and instrumental idioms; and a hierarchical organization of chord progressions and cadences. Even the concept of the triad as harmo: ‘entity and the representation of vertical combinations by number formulas in the figured bass attest to the urge to comprehend experience by means of categorizable units and subdivisions. The principal features of the new style can be said to represent the analytical, measuring character of rational ‘thought to an extent that is astonishing to the hearer accustomed to the sub- tler unfolding of Renaissance sonorities, on the one hand, and the disrup- tive, harmonic effects of the sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century “‘mannerist”’ tendencies on the other." The music of Monteverdi and his ‘measured, subdivided, and regularized at. this patterning leads to the perception of a difference between what we would call surface and structural aspects of the music. This dualistic gu: not only was intuited at the time but was also indirectly related by Cesare Monteverdi to his brother’s music.” Renaissance style has no need of or desire for a highly patterned musical surface that would impede the sensuous flow of consonant sonorities that define its self-contained harmonic world. Baroque style, on the other hand, delights in a plethora of such patterns, largely as a means of expl that is, bringing under rational control—the relationship of music tramusical world. It creates therein a perfect analogy to the innerlouter chotomy of contemporary pl fundament musical “discovery” of the age is harmonic ton: is not only the point of unity for these diverse aspe Iso a symbol of the “Ariadne’s thread’’—to use a metaphor of the era—by means of which listeners orient themselves within the diversity of existence.‘ While the multiplicity of figural patterns makes ‘over the musical surface in the image of rational thought, tonality replaces hharmonia as the aspect of music that binds the detail into a whole, its di- rected, dynamic character expressing a new era in human consciousness. If the self-contained quality of Renaissance style seems to parallel the static notion of man as the measure of all things, then the Baroque style intro- duces the more dynamic portrayal of man in the process of faking the mea- sure of all things, or imposing measure on igs. A dramatic musical form such as opera is a natural mirror of the newly awakened desire to ex- tend the human hegemony into hitherto unexplored regions. simuttaneities but also harmonie successions of the kind that were banned | for centuries as nonharmonie, The relatio nonharmonica disrupted the conti- nuity of consonant sonorities; hence its name, Against the consonant har- monic background of th-century music this dissonance entered the picture: norities but dissonant (atonal) from that ofits harmonic successions, stituted the first phase in the passing of the Renaissance ideal of karmontit ‘The tension and uncertainty introduced by the increased appearance of hor zontal dissonances in the sixteenth century eventually demanded and found rational accommodation by means of strong tonal centers, The inti» ical dissonances, however, accompanied the emergence af ;, many such dissonances eventually becoming stereotyped features of the new in whieh dissonances of bot no longer irrational-sounding. Thi {in each individual work is the q types became features of a new music: snse of breakthrough to t ‘generation causes much of the musi ‘ain disorienting centuries after its compo: ‘The listener of today hears the opening chordal sonorities of Gesuald *Mforo lasso’” (to choose what is pethaps the best-known exampl mannerist style) as a provocative, unsettling, and disruptive event—ju did the listener of the seventeenth century—because Gesual gesture stands outside the framework of what the music of his time as wi 4s ours deems a causal or logical sequence. In this work as i Gesualdo provides a constant shifting back and forth between this ¢hromatic style and the more normal diatonic harmonies sal. Yet ifthe piece were written entirely ‘would remain jarring from beginning to end, as other pieces Gesualdo provides two alternating harmonic styles because the deat hem, The measure of the horizontal dissonance is independent of the tonal dialectic within the madrigal itself, although it in negative form: in the absence of a patterning oft joward a single tor jerely viewed gener ‘be carefully prepared and handled in ‘order to be acceptable, The latter, on the other hand, admits a wide array of dissonances of both types so long as theit Logie is assured by one eriterion’their meaningful relationship to the principal tonal center or its affiliates, usually expressed in terms of a hierarchical array of cadences, Disson. largely a means to the end of a strong, sense of tonal motion, arguably the primary quality in the shift of style from Renaissance to Baroque. Late Re- nnaissance music, especially the more advanced kinds, such as Nicola Vicentino’s madrigals, Lassus’s Prophetiae sityllarum, and Marenzio’s “O voiche sospirate,’’ used circe-of-fifths progressions extensively to that end. * Such a merging of the contrapuntal logic of Renaissance style with the pat- tered extension of the most fundamental harmonic relationship—the fifth—led in some cases to the far reaches of the harmonic range. But the sense of motion so produced is deceptive. Only one direction, the flat, lent itself to smooth “chain reaction” progressions,’ and the extending of chains of fifths beyond the ordinary tonal range pointed up the fact that such pro- gressions, while projecting a quality of direction to the sequential motion itself, had no inevitable stopping point unless a strong tonal center had been established. The harmonic range that was being opened up was not simul- taneously explained in terms of particular keys. In contrast, seventeenth-century tonality tended more and more toward the strengthening of tonal centers by means of hierarchical, even stereo- typed harmonic devices. The impulse not just to explore but colonize un- derlies the new mapping of the musical terrain. Among the most useful new devices the introduction and rationalization of harmonic dissonances and tensions figured prominently. Dissonances are often, therefore, at the heart | of the individual work and its motivic as well as harmonic character; one has only to think of those madrigals of Monteverdi's fourth and fifth books that | present provocative dissonances at the outset: ‘‘Ohimé, se tanto amate, “and ‘La piaga cho nel core, for example. Another work, ‘Si ch’io vorrei morite,”” from Book Four, makes extensive and confident use of dissonance-resolution sequence pat- terns for tongue-in-cheek effects depicting the dynamics of the sexual act. In |many pieces the most provocative simultaneous dissonances form patterns lof successive dissonance as well, the latter manifested in forms of sharp/flat juxtaposition (see, for example, the beginning of '‘La piaga c‘ho nel core"). In such pieces both vertical and horizontal dissonances often impel a narra- tive of resolution that lends a unifying, dynamic quality to their forms, The variegated surface mirrors the patterning of rational thought, while the breadth of the tonal dynamic unifies the detail from within, as it were. Their interaction invites analogy to the impulse behind the science and philoso- phy of the age as well as the motion and exaggerated perspective in Baroque painting, Late Baroque music is vastly more patterned still than that of Monte- verdi’s era, a quality that gives it its enormous power to create large, inte- grated, and autonomous structures but that also is directly related to its loss ‘of the spirit of discovery that animates Monteverdi's entire oeuvre. By 1700 not only had much of the earlier music’s provocativeness been brought under rational contro, but a process of selecting those dissonance-tesolution te aii patterns most useful to the Al, Corelli's dissonances fare resolved before they sound, His music is sensuous in its regularity and predictability in a way that suggests an almost classical stability, a quality ‘that hy much in common with the Renaissance id it does with Mone verdi’s music from both late Baroque ratio style isthe relative unpredictability of his dissonances and rationalization) nonetheless, they possess an undeniable logic that separates them from the harmonic effects of the mannerist style. They belong in a great many case to the individual work rather than to the style in general (although they may bbe features of both). w ‘The confidence in the power of rational thought that is projected it ‘Monteverdi's music is not secure in past discoveries and explanations; ita ‘music of promise and hope, a style whose frequent exuberance is the em tional tone that accompanies its glimpsing the potentials of its discoverlen, its belief that they have a logical basis. In this respect Monteverdi takes the boldest steps into a new era, forging a vision of music that would dominate ‘musical composition for a long time to come, His prefaces and letters reveal this aspect of his mind with great vividness, especially his arguments forthe logic of the seconda prattica, but itis only in the works themselves that We apprehend its full workings, Certain individual compositions embody then two aspects of the seventeenth-century style shift (discovery and rational ization) with particular clarity, Orfeo can even be taken as a metaphor for the ‘problem’ as has been recognized, but of musie in ‘ral, the challenge facing all composers of the era: how to reconcile the armay. ‘of new expressive devices that arose around the turn of the century with the requirements of a stable musical idiom.’ The Baroque image of the tonal lab ae ‘and the thread of key relationships expresses the nature of this chaly thin the area of tonality the major aspects of the new style the emergence of tonality is, Not surprisingly, the one that is dealt with least satisfactorily in the writings of “the time, atleast from the standpoint of our present-day needs and expecta “tions, The beginnings of tonal form are very much in evidence, however, in “devices such as the frequent use of transposition as a building block, With nh tion, Thus counterpoint ‘book in large part by the application of tonal and verb: ins and relationships, One of the most con’ style at that time is the close association of each individual line a distinct melodie unit (it melody), Monteverdi typically lext easily understood, then r= may be a bas “slates « phrase in homophonic texture, “tains the bas line (with text) into the following, phrase, transposing it and “combining it with new upper parts, new text, and new musical surface fea “(ures The musical features that correspond to the new line of text may inv “tum be retained, to be transposed and combined others in later lll al6 Introduction: Tonality and ‘Word’ phrases. Certain among the succession of phrases may recall earlier phrases ‘nd return to earlier tonal levels. The effect is of a rationalistic approach to the unfolding of meaning in stages. The transpos of this process of manipulating and combining identifiable units leads atthe same time to a new concern for what might be called the dynamics of tonal- + ity in musical form. The structures that unfold are therefore of great signifi- ‘cance for all tonal forms. In analysis the tonal and harmonic events must often take conceptual priority over their contrapuntal or figural realization." If the first great key to seventeenth-century music is the move toward new tonal forms, the second is the one that Monteverdi recognized with such remarkable insight, the relationship between music and word, or or- atio, “word” signifying vastly more than the setting of verbal texts and en- ‘compassing in fact the entire range of extramusical significance. In this re- spect Monteverdi's proclaiming the existence of a second practice oriented toward the dominance of music by oratio rather than harmontia has the char- acter of a manifesto that prefigured the main concerns of musical composi- tion and theory for a century and a half. The categorization of musical fig- ures, affections, and styles accompanied the conjoining of music with thetoric to create a musical surface whose countless patterned subdivisions ‘were often explained through the thoroughgoing sense of analogy to verbal discourse. “Word” served, therefore, both as generating and rationalizing principle, the only available means of explaining the new tonal form—by Enalogy with verbal logic. In the following century Johann Kuhnau would ‘all the process “gute mison durch die Music.”” Johann Mattheson’s term Klangrede (literally "speech or discourse in sound”) gives direct expression to that analogy, while his assigning the central place in the generation of ‘musico-rhetorical forms to melody (entitling the treatise in which he first set ‘these principles forth Kern melodischer Wissenschaft) can be interpreted as an echo of Monteverdi's intention, following Plato, to give his treatise on the seconda prattica the general title Melodia. The implications of this emphasis on “‘melody’” for Monteverdi's music are therefore worth considering.” Tt was only in the 16303, in correspondence with the theorist Giovanni Battista Doni, that Monteverdi gave forth the title of his projected treatise as Melodia; or, The Second Musical Practice, with subdivisions on the subjects of text setting, harmony, and rhythm." But the key ideas it was to contain had been formulated already in his brother Giulio Cesare Monteverdi's 1607 gloss on the famous preface to the Fifth Book of Madrigals of 1605. There the title, reflective of the controversy with Giovanni Maria Artusi, was to have been Second Practice, or, The Perfection of Modern Music,”* Throughout Giulio Cesare Monteverdi's commentary a number of ideas reappear, often in ‘lose relation to one another, above all the insistence on practice rather than theory in judging the new style and the domination of harmony both by the text and by the melody. As authority Giulio Cesare cites not contemporary theory but Plato’s idea that music “turns on the perfection of the melody.” We conclude that since the new practice is neither conceived as musically autonomous nor as yet fully rationalized it must be controlled by means of the text, whose primary agent of realization is melody. Practice (meaning composition) is no less systematic in nature than theory. Monteverdi charges Artusi repeatedly wit ing, details oF parti (marticellt of the music of 'Cruda Amari from Book Five without regard to either their text or their melodic context. He even objects to Artusi’s call: ing such excerpts passages (yassagg since they are confined to isolated ex ‘not the melody. In other words what Monteverdi ‘of the music are determined by melody alone, Mons teverdi distinguishes the effect of melody from that of harmony, quotiny Plato to the effect that “only melody, turning the mind away from all thing whatsoever that distract, reduces it to itself,” an indication that, taken oft it own, details of the harmony, such as those discussed by Artusi, dis tract from the melody, The text and the melody go hand in hand to produc the “fruit,” to which the harmony is incidental. “Twice the afterword asserts that harmony has reached its limit with re: ee ability to obey the words, In one such passage Monteverdi quite from Giosetfo Zarlino in which the intrinsic effect of harmony is junta: id to the extrinsic effect that on its own it fails to produce—namely it affect, such as joy or sadness." The latter belongs by implication Imelody, From this it appears that the aesthetic goal or “fruit” produced text and melody consists in the particul a content of music, a quality that parallels the objectifying, of in the emerging Baroque style. Zarlino’s juxtaposition of intrinsle ‘extrinsic effects was continued at the end of the sixteenth century By sie “Zacconi, who also related the former to harmony, which he cot xed to have been perfected by the preceding generation of mus the latter to the ornamented surface of music.” “Although Zacconi's version of the dualism seems to foreshadow mnteverdi’s juxtaposition of the prima and seconda prattica, Zacconl repre ts, as has been observed, the apex of Renaissance sensualism, not the {oward the new treatment of dissonance that characterizes the Baroqul le.!"This distinction is vital, for it might otherwise be maintained that t mit of dissonance to which Artusi objected in “'Cruda Amari ts Jy ornamental; indeed, Artusi’s treatise seems to make that point in ity feference to the ‘that Monteverdi's dissonances represented the prac: ‘of “aceented singing,’"” Monteverdis remarks on the distinction bes ~ jyveen particelli and passage! make clear, however, that this is not the ease) W dissonances receive their meaning from the context of the individu br ‘and their larger groupings. And even though Monteverdi mat that the new music is founded in the same principles of harmony Old (meaning, presumably, what we would call the same basic chordal aie and woe fading principles), that harmony is now subordina ody, The melody gathers into its folds the passing details that Axtush xdto, subordinating them to a larger context in which dissonances are ‘melodic motion itself 1¢ readily observed in the madrigals ofthe fourth and fifth books, and ean be easily indicated in the madrigal to which Ai greatest attention, Monteverdi wuarini’s Ml pastor fido, ““Cruda juoted by Artusi are given in their 1.1. The following discussion emphasizes a point that ciently made in commentary on the Artu: namely, ception of the form of the piece and ret EXAMPLE 1.1 Excerpts from “Cruda Amarilli,” Artusi’s examples bracketed, a) Opening section, mm. 1-25 : ee —_— awn Sas Sree ea] Seer ran ager Street tetas, = = BERS Tae a aaa aT SS Ae of i (continued) EXAMPLE 1.1 Continued 4) Opening section, mm, 1-25 (cont.) % x ——— = == iz eS rrifstuns nett ; ihe ee accel ef as = ow =e oF — : a Ee =e 5 om. 3483 = == = ; Brie, es yi eelohavs| Ki ee J Ma ‘ie | [ira pi- do sor (oontinuaEXAMPLE 1.1 Continued (b) mm, 34-43 (cont) Cruda Amarili, che col Nome Ancora Armarilll, che col nome ancora, Cruel Amarylis, who even with your Amaryllis, more pure and beautiful privet, and more fierce and form of ““Crada Amarilli”’ is ‘“free’’ in the sense that it derives ity and emphases from the poem, while employing variations of its main themes. At the same time terms of the lengths of the mail and third of which are about the same length (twent while the second is shorter and divides ipoint: (1) measures 1-25; (2) measures 26-43 and (3) measures 44-67. These divisions derive naturally from the lich unfolds in three stages, the first two concerning Amaryllis and Ba Mrs, The cpasing section introduces th idea of smess. The second section takes up the ai im. 26-34) and her deafness, cruelty, and eva es up yet athird antthes V's conception of 1 from our standpoint the dominant is minor and the tone F isanmerely as the subsemitoniuns moxt lierce de Picardie for cadences to the 's from the modern key of G are as he piece as its differences from Artusi’s of this piece Monteverdi must have in the name Amarilli and the poetic de- lightit, Guarini’s breaking the syntactical con- the insertion of the words “ahi, lasso” be- insegni”’ presents love and bitterness, lover's sigh, as two sides of the same hope, and bitterness toward despair. ls “amaramente insegni,”’ a feature ‘Ways. First he closes the third phrase “ahi, lasso,”" leaving the line incom- ind time, seemingly about to lead it ithe words “amaramente insegni dl cadence to C and close the section ides an ideal tonal analogue of du: the tones Fy and Fi, the former with a ‘would call weakening” of the final words than the GIC tonal rela- in the opening section of ing a tonal relationship » melodic fifth descent and ascent, ‘nvelodic lines, even between simulta- he second of the two introductory G to C with slight changes in her than G as tonal center." The | “ahi, Iawso"" in measures 13-14 is the climax of the section. The third phrase, whieh it culminates, begins from the C with which the second phrase had ended, moves toward G, and returns to Cina form of expansion contraetion dynamic. The soprano and bass voices ex- Pand outward from the ec" octave to the double octave g-g", the top line completing the ascent with motion through ff" to g" immediately after d scending from f* to e”. The motion from f#” to g" coincides with ‘'d’amar, and the g" is held for two full measures as if to affirm the quality of hope that underlies the ascent, Beneath the g", however, the sigh “ahi, lasso’ introduces a sudden rhythmic animation in the lower parts, one of which (the quinto, or second tenor) duplicates the ascent of the soprano through fe" to g” in the lower octave at the same time that the rapid bass figure de- scends through ff from c’ to e (before continuing to complete the C-major the bass notes g and ¢ of the cadence). Monteverdi presents d Ff successively and simultaneously as a means nship between G and C ‘Cruda Amarill! detail that favor an Although the two measures of the C-major cadence feature voice-leading, patterns of sixteenth-century cadences, they can a derstood asa succession of harmonies above the g-c fifth of the bass line: a, G’, C, They appear to settle all ambiguity regarding the priority of Cor G 4s principal tonal center in favor of the former. These two measures, quoted {n full by Artusias the first of his seven excerpts from this piece, respond to and resolve the fi"/f#” ambiguity in the soprano line by means of the very features that Artusi found objectionable: a rest on the first beat (the sigh) followed by ascent to the dissonant tone a” (the highest pitch of the sec- tion and of the piece) and the drop of a third to f", also a dissonance. The drop gives acided weight to the f" and its resolution to the third of the C chord. i Concerning this cadence Artusi’s text disputes whether or not the ear supplies a 9" for the rest at the beginning of the soprano line in measure 13, and again on the third beat, before the f”. Supplying those pitches would. bridge and soften the successive dissonances by making the a” into an upper neighbor tone and shifting the f” to the fourth beat as a passing tone. ‘The Monteverdi camp had apparently given an explanation of this kind, under the rubric “accented singing,’” to account for the dissonances, It in- trodiices the idea that dissonant passages are modified forms of a consonant framework that the ear recognizes as such by supplying or substituting the missing or correct pitches. Thus, as Giulio Cesare Monteverdi affirms, the new music retains the same principles of harmony as the old. We are re- minded of Zacconi’s intrinsic and extrinsic effects, even perhaps of Helmut Federhofer's Schenkerian interpretation of Christoph Bernhard’s version of the stile antico and. stile moderna (stilus gravis/Iuxurians).” Yet unless Monteverdi's adherents intended more than we know of by ‘‘accented sing- ing,’ Artusi’s rejection of the explanation is understandable, for the prac- tice of ornamentation that that term refers to does not cover the role that the dissonances of this piece play in projecting both its tonal structure and the conflicts of its text. Artusi might well ask why particular points are or- ‘hamented with much more dissonance than others. And the response that ints express the particular conflicts of the text would not be suffi- lent either for Artusi (who does not include the texts in his excerpts and ever considers that aspect) or for the present-day listener for whom the music works perfectly well without the text. Bxplanation of such passages extends into realms of analysis and theory \or Monteverdi could have foreseen, But Monteverdi's \s revealed in the relationship of the poetic text to the lesign of the setting, leads to conclusions of general validity regarding the role of dissonances in its tonal structure. That intent surely involved the I tonal centers, G and C, in the first twenty-five “One of these, G, was the final of the dian mode and the other, C, a strong presence as a result of the es- intial tone F in that mode, With the GiC relationship of the third phrase Monteverdi creates a tonal analogue to the intensity and hopeful an“conceptin’ isises to highligh 1g lines with the insert nd “amaramente insesy the same cl despair. “a feature iction delays the words “an emphasizes in two First he with a strong cadence to C for the sigh, “ahi, lasso,”" leaving, plete. Then he begins the phrase a second time, seemingly about to lead it toward another C cadence; at this point the words ‘‘amaramente insegni” enter, continuing the line so as to avoid cadence to C and close the section in G. The mixolydian mode thus provides an ideal tonal analogue of dual- ism in the above-mentioned roles of the tones Fé and Fi, the former with a tendency toward C that later tonal theory would call “weakening” of the tonic. It is, however, less the delay of the final words than the GiC tonal rela- tionship that most informs the allegorical detail. In the opening section of the madrigal Monteverdi seems intent on establishing a tonal relationship between G and C by means of cadences, melodic fifth descent and ascent, and the shift between Fs and F¥ in the melodic lines, even between simulta- neous parts. At the outset he transposes the second of the two introductory ““Ceuda Amarilli” phrases up a fourth from G to C with slight changes in detail that favor an interpretation of C rather than G as tonal center." The C-major cadence of the first ‘ahi, lasso” in measures 13-14 is the climax of the section. The third phrase, which it culminates, begins from the C with which the second phrase had ended, moves toward G, and returns to Cina form of expansion contraction dynamic. The soprano and bass voices ex- pand outward from the ¢’-c" octave to the double octave g-g", the top line completing the ascent with motion through ff" to g” immediately after de- scending from” to e”. The motion from fz” to g” coincides with ““d’amar,”” "is ty of hops that underlies the ascent. Beneath the ,", however, the sigh “ahi, lasso” introduces a sudden rhythmic animation in the lower parts, one of which (the quinto, or second tenor) duplicates the ascent of the soprano through fe" to gin the lower octave at the ime that the rapid bass figure de- Although the two measures of the C-major cadence feature traditional voice-leading patterns of sixteenth-century cadences, they can also be un- derstood as a succession of harmonies above the g-c fifth of the bass line: G, &, G’, C. They appear to settle all ambiguity regarding the priority of Cor G 4s principal tonal center in favor of the former. These two measures, quoted full by Artusi as the first of his seven excerpts from this piece, respond to and resolve the f" ff” ambiguity in the soprano line by means of the very features that Artusi found objectionable: a rest on the first beat (the sigh) followed by ascent to the dissonant tone a" (the highest pitch of the sec- tion and of the piece) and the drop of a third to f", also a dissonance. The drop gives added weight to the f” and its resolution to the third of the C chord.» Concerning this cadence Artusi’s text disputes whether or not the ear supplies a g" for the rest at the beginning of the soprano line in measure 13 and again on the third beat, before the f”. Supplying those pitches would bridge and soften the successive dissonances by making the a” into an ‘upper neighbor tone and shifting the f” to the fourth beat as a passing tone, ‘The Monteverdi camp had apparently given an explanation of this kind, under the rubric “accented singing,” to account for the dissonances. It in- trodtices the idea that dissonant passages are modified forms of aconsonant framework that the ear recognizes as such by supplying or substituting the missing or correct pitches. Thus, as Giulio Cesare Monteverdi affirms, the new music retains the same principles of harmony as the old. We are re- ‘minded of Zacconi's intrinsic and extrinsic effects, even perhaps of Helmut Federhofer’s Schenkerian interpretation of Christoph Bernhard’s version of the stile antico and stile moderno (stilus gravis/huxurians).” Yet unless Monteverdi's adherents intended more than we know of by “accented sing- ing,”” Artusi’s rejection of the explanation is understandable, for the prac- tice of ornamentation that that term refers to does not cover the role that the dissonances of this piece play in projecting both its tonal structure and the “conflicts of its text. Artusi might well ask why particular points are or- ented with much more dissonance than others. And the response that ise points express the particular conflicts of the text would not be suffi- either for Artusi (who does not include the texts in his excerpts and fer considers that aspect) or for the present-day listener for whom the ‘works perfectly well without the text. anation of such passages extends into realms of analysis and theory neither Artusi nor Monteverdi could have foreseen. But Monteverdi's tional intent, as revealed in the relationship of the poetic text to the design ofthe setting, leads to conclusions of general validity regarding ‘role of dissonances in its tonal structure. That intent surely involved the lationship of two potential tonal centers, Gand C, in the first twenty-five jures of “Cruda Amarilli.”” One of these, G, was the final of the ‘olydian mode and the other, C, a strong presence as a result of the es- intial tone F in that mode, With the GIC relationship of the third ph jonteverdi creates a tonal analogue to the intensity and hopet meeffect of When. tion of the + measures isolated by an extended presentation of the mixol the section with a G cadence (mm. 24-25) y motion between the ‘upper voices in measures 19-20, lead toward then away from a ca- dence to C, moves into parallel thirds in syncopated co the bass, generating via the process of double sus that presumably offended Artusi. From M longed dissonant suspensions con: “amaramente’’ and an extension o' pears before cadences, where case, however, the tonal ambiguity that leads to an avoided C cadence ‘measures 19-20 and that hints at a C cadence in measures 22 and 23 under- lies the prolonging of the syncopation. Monteverdi keeps the tendency ward C very much in our minds until the last moment: the tone f", with which the scalar descent begins, an essenti nscale, has a tendency toward C, while the f# of the sectional cadence is a sub- ‘semitoniuns modi, valid for the cadence only. - In the absence of any emphasis on the dominant of G the sectional ca- dence, although indicating the mode, is not a strong tonal center. As if to compensate for the lack of the dominant as a cadence degree in the first sec- tion Monteverdi begins the second with two further phrases set to the name ‘Amarilli, but now both ending with authentic cadences to d/D—that is, toa D-major tierce de Picardie chord in the first phrase of the pair, and to an open fifth in the second The melodic descent in these phrases is basically that from g" to d" and the harmonic motion from C through A to dD, features that confirm the dominant character of the cadential harmony. i ing two phrases of the subsection cadence on E and G respectively, both the E cadence and the constant f"s of the melody line denying a direct domi- nant-tonic continuity between the d/D and G phrases. Owing to the sub- ject matter (Amat the last two phrases are completely homo- phonic and consonant, prompting no reaction from Artusi. The next, equally brief, subsection of the madrigal (mm. 35-43) describes amaryllis's cruelty, taking up the GIC relationship again and introducing further dissonances. (All but the last of Artusi’s seven excerpts, of which initial phrase, ‘ma de V'aspido sordo,”’ is set to what might be considered a form of extended and decorated plagal cadence to G. Then a series of com- “ve pity ‘Artusi quotes the C-major ‘next, a significant point ~ Iasso"” cadence of mu ‘supplied and the formerly dissona in modern terms the subdominant of the C cadence; the fall of the third from a" to f” ‘and the dominant-seventh progression to C are retained as before. ‘The relationship just mentioned brings out a feature of the design of the individual sections of “‘Cruda Amarili” that Monteverdi derives from arin\’s poem. The second section mirrors several features of the first, as, text expands the antithesis ofthe opening lines. Beginnin fora" and the beginning of the style and ); they both feature the G/C relationship prominently, including to C that introduce the dominant seventh of that key; and final both end with an authentic cadence to G after presentation of the de- ing mixolydian G scale and a series of dissonances that result from 38-39, 40, and 43 seem unmistakably to identify the final of the , the first twoare plagal cadences that might just as readily be interpre- alf closes to ;ht of the prominence of Fs rather than sures that precede the cadences. And the tonal relationship between third G-major cadence, “‘e pitt sorda,”” and the C-major “e pitt fera’’ which itis paired melodically, presents the C cadence as the ‘of G’s ambiguity as a tonal center. Acommon formal aspect of many Monteverdi madrigals is the resolution i section of features whose relationship to one another is lity figures promi- like may of his madrigals, reveals ‘between those cadences and phrase successions, lat contribute to a central tonality and those that do n« the preceding two. Monteverdi ex- is between the lover's awareness of offending Amaryllis ‘die in silence’’ by means of the si mi morrd [tacendo}”) a simple ascendingup the relationship of C, D, and G falling-thied unit. Beginning with a one cadencing in C, the latter intro piece. This phrase links up with the “al and “e pit fera’’ phrases, both of which had introduced dominant sevenths in the context of cadences to C; both earlier places had served to weaken the role of G as tonal center. Now, however, Monteverdi follows the C-major phrase with one in d/D that relegates the C to an unmistakable pre-dominant r®le, The d/D phrase is the climax of the madrigal, clarifying the ‘ionship. The climactic yhrase has a dominant seventh to d/D and introduces the tone "within the cadential chord.” The increase of intensity in what is basically a transposition up a tone from the preceding, C-major phrase is enhanced by the only appearance of two successive cadences involving dominant sev- enths and by the shift from high g” to high a” in the soprano between the two phrases. The latter detail is supremely important, for Monteverdi not only intro- ‘duces the a” for the fourth and last time in the piece, three of them (all cited by Artusi) appearing in conjunction with cadences involving dominant sev- enths, but he also holds the a" in the soprano for two full measures ( the | it follows with hire dominant seventh of the tie diD phrase exactly duplicates the the two-measure g" of the first section through lasso” cadence. The very di thythmically parallel points aid in extending the C/D relationship ‘max to one between the high points of the first and third sections as well ‘by means of a final sounding of the C before the re the madrigal. “In terms of dissonance, the q ‘sures from this passage, the dominant cadence is the poi sion in the piece. Although the dissonant simultane ‘that resolves into V’ of d in measure 54 can be readily explained as the result of contrapuntal considerations, the parallel with the three earlier dominant- “seventh cadences (none of which features exactly the same set of voice-leading )) argues for perception of the dominant seventh as such, Now iteverdi overtly supplies the logical fifth relationship between d/D, and and C by leading slightly varied forms of the basic phrase unit to ca- in G (mm, 57258) and C (61-62). Such patterns of descending fifths cuir before the close of many Monteverdi madrigals. With the comp! the C-major cadence the “poi che col dir t’offendo” idea drops out, and final phrase of the madrigal (mm. 62-67) sounds only the “i’ mi morrd ime in the set- luces it four measures before the end simultaneously ascending and. icending as the “i” mi morro” idea is inverted (up to this point Ff had not eared in descending melodic configurations). Now, owing to the ap- , we are sure of its role as caused him to create parallels between strikingly dissonant cadences to at we call the subdominant and dominant and to focus on the relation- ip of tonic and subdominant, avoiding the dominant, until the final sec- . The three cadence degrees that are most prominent in delineating the sical structure of this piece were not, however table features of al structure. The main point is therefore not that Monteverdi has antic ‘modern tonality and the concepts of subdominant and dominas Jing those particular cadences, but that he found a means of applying reading of the poetic text—a reading that was undoubtedly colored by ‘musician's ear from the start—to the creation of an analogous dynamic I. That dynamic is certainly not confined to tonal struc- the delicate shading in the shifts from polyphonic to homophonic em- 1ases, the varying rhythms of the phrases, the melodic highs and lows— ie and other features of the phrase successions go hand in hand with al structure to project a combined musical and poetic meaning that is too id to be in the sense of later usage but that Monteverdipresenting a complete phrase; examples just before the phrase it as a musical w ‘qualities directly, Giulio Cesare M ages of unification and bread: as we do with the emerging B: not just iteral level. Melody determines the sense of conti- nuity in the work that relates seemingly disparate events to a larger frame- work. The sense of directedness, of goal, leads it to produce the extrinsic effect of a particular I sphere. Melody is very nearly equivalent to tonal form, and to the convergence of tofal form and a fluid ‘olves highly sophisticated bid fair to be considered musical figures in the sense of figures brought out. Perhaps the best-known example of this kind of mel ‘ody appears in the madrigal “Ohim®, se tanto amate”’ from Book Four, in which the single idea of the sigh generates a highly integrated musical sur- face of continual dissonance-resolution patterns (featuring, like the “ahi, lasso” of third). The continuity attained this and other such piec tended by melody. In many pieces that continuity is strikingly to gic in the ‘ordering of modulatory direction and ca concept of meladia is to some degree at tween tonality and word as the generat I do not mean to suggest by © directediness in Monteverdis m f Renaissance music; they ‘yround 1600, which Monte- J, brought about a new drama- thas those I have described ‘A comparison with Berni inds of dramatic qual of course, view Monteverdi's operas, with their often sophisticated mu characterizations, as the fulfillment of dramatic goals that are imperf realized in the madrigals, For a great many of his madrigals are perfe themselves as the embodiment of a kind of intimate dynamic relationship between poetry and music that exists in the Renaissance madrigal as much as the Romantic Lied. The operas, by comparison, extend and externalize the ‘dramatic qu: relationships in ways that are more suitable to their greater length and variety. In this light itis significant that the last subject to be taken up in Giulio ‘Cesare’s afterword is that of the “mixed modes,” with particular reference to the madrigal “O Mirtillo” from Book Five, which exhibited, according to the confusion introduced into composition by those who begin in .de, follow this with another, and end with one wholly unrelated to in that work, as we shall see in Chapter Four, 's response tion described in “ ‘Monteverdi's placi ly after “Cruda Amarilli” in Book Five and Artusi’s discussing both 15 suggests that the two might have been conceived in relation to one the principal tonality only at the end is "where it again serves the needs of ‘0 Mirt dorian). In both the mixolydian and dorian modal onal types, however, we perceive clear relationships between harmonic tonal traits and traditional modal characteristics. Such traits differ, as might expect, from mode to mode, one reason why the term key is not ly appropriate to pieces such as these, even though the music is basi- {onal. The concept of a subdominant tonal area is less clear in other itis in G, for example, while that of relative major/minor rela- hhips (to apply the modern terminology anachronisticelly) figures inently between a and C but not between e and G. The reason for such sparation of the concepts of mode and we or cantus durus and mollis). Since iteverdi’s music still operates within a framework that has more than ‘mode per system and in which the basic pitch content is determined by choice of system more than of mode, the reduction of the modes to iden- ‘major and minor tonal types is insufficient to describe their tonal and mnic character. Yet the increasing tonal interpretation of modal charac- ics causes the transfer of the characteristics of some modes or keys to ly to render anachronistic concepts such as subdominant,relative major and minor, and the like more broadly applicable and hence to reinforce the perception of two basic key types. This process, occupying the remainder of the seventeenth century, is acdumbrated to varying degrees be- fore 1700. It was in the hierarchical ordering of cadence degrees above all that it was most clearly manifested. The ordering and transposition of phrase successions with their cadences becomes a major concern of musical form. Basic Issues in enteenth-Century Tonality itis possible for our key of G mg within the piece.principal tonal center is apt to be highlighted by transposition, such as occurred between C, G, and D in “Cruca Amarill 6. Such a piece may feature character ‘melodic and harmonic configurations are bound up with one another. Other recurrent features of such pieces may seem occasional rather than re- lating to systematic features of the tonality: for instance, the very sparing use of flat accidentals and generally none beyond B’ ("“Cruda Amarilli” has a single B', before the cadence to the openifth D). In Monteverdi's oeuvre pieces in G are, in fact, among the easiest ones to relate to modern major/minor tonality, since their overlap with that tonal system is greater than that of pieces in most other modes. At the same time they share tonal features with the other modes used by Monteverdi that do not readily overlap with the corresponding modern keys. In order to high- light some of those features without the necessity of first treating each mode separately, we must address the question of the key signatures themselves and the ways in which they influence tonal style. To this end we must re- turn to the language and lerminology by means of which key signatures were described. ‘We note first of all that Monteverdi, like a great many of his contemporar- ies, used only two key signatures throughout his entire large output: the cantus durus (without BY and the cantus mollis (with B.).' Within each of these signatures (or cantus) a variety of modes could appear. Although the finals of these modes were drawn from the diatonic pitches of the hexachords on and C (in the cantus durus), in practice modal usage iderably more complex than that.? And although a mn by fifths might take place at the phrase level ‘was rare for a composer of this time to notate entire compositions in keys or key signatures that involved transposition beyond the cantus durus and mollis. Sometimes, however, a composition might be indistinguishable from our e minor or G major, or even D major, and still be notated in the cantus durus; such occurrences were, as I have said, rare for Monteverdi, esp ‘Although exact tonal and notational usages varied somewhat from com- poser to composer at any given time during the seventeenth century, and although the eventual introduction of a wider range of key signatures did ‘At the end pract our modern signatures were available (at least in theory, and signatures of up to four flats and sharps ‘were not at all uncommon); the number of modes within each signature, however, had dropped precipitously, often to no more than two, our major ‘and minor,’ What happened between theve points is essential to our under= stancling of Monteverdi's music, suceinet and provocative formulation of the i took place in the seventeenth century, In a of the terms durus and molis throughout ts genera the transposition sould become closely integrated al mnal_center—were conceptually sepa the mocle or key at all, The signatio more properly spe Inthe piece is cast: that is, the aggregate of pitches (excluding, act that may oceur. ‘of the utmost importance for our understanding © more concerned ¢ not specific with regard to any ship betweensystem and mode (or key) constitutes not merely a broad historical process bbuta self-conscious aspect of composition and therefore an essential tool for understanding this music and its figurative tonal procedures. We must therefore define the relationship between the traditional concepts of gamut, system, hexachord, and mode in advance of the discussion of individual ‘works. And since it was the expanded tonal range of early seventeenth- century music that eventually transformed the conception of mode, and not vice versa, itis in the relationship between gamut, hexachords, and systems that we must begin. Hexachord and System Traditional theory, even in the early seventeenth century, recognized the centrality of the spectrum of ordinarily available pitches (ie., those not al- tered through chromaticism) that comprised the medieval-Renaissance ‘gamut. Also, the subdivision of the gamut into three hexachords beginning On the notes G (the hard hexachord or hexachordum durum), F (the soft hexa- chord or hexachordum molle), and C (the natural héxachord or hexachordum naturale) remained firmly in place in seventeenth-century theory. Since the scale pattern of all three hexachords followed the identical sequence of inter- vals (corresponding to the first six tones of the modern major scale and solmized ut, re, mi both the conceptual and practical basis for transposition, via the process of hexachord shift or mutation. And since all intervals between adjacent tones of the three hexachords were major seconds except for the central semitone, mutation from one hexachord to another centered on a shift in the place- ment of the semitone, or mi-fa. Between any two of the hexachords that mutation was a simple matter, semitone of the new hexachor content of the old and could easily be introduced as the melody extended ‘beyond the normal range of the hexachord. A shift from the natural hexa- chord to the soft, therefore, involved introduction of the tone B" above the sixth tone, A, thus shifting the placement of the mi-fa semitone from the tones E and F to the tones A and B’, Similarly, a shift from the hard to the natu- zal hexachord involved moving the mi-fa semitone from B and C to Band F. A shift in the opposite direction involved reversing the movement of the mi-fa only two key signatures, This disparity is, of course, ne within the hexachord, unlike lable mi-fa relationships among the three seal whereas the modern severvtone ‘The legitimizing, of the sev taking over the transpositional role of the commonly believed, from the mn tonal Inthe fin seventeenth century most mponitions itten in one of the two signatures her cane lis or cantus durus, The harmonic content of any given piece, howevihy often exhibit marked contrast between passages in which B predaml: ‘and those in which Bt predominates (in certain of the cantus dure les, particularly those of C, d, and F); the same kind of contrast may ‘between E* and E4 (mostly within the modes of Bd, g, and F in cil nce of the hard and natural hexachords under the sane mance music ha al range of seventeenthcentury music. Harmonic interpretation of the hexachords emphasized, even more directly than did hexachord mutation in the Renaissance, the basic fifth organization of the hexachords and their relationship. That though the hexachords are commonly described as ircle-of-fifths order (F, C, G, D, A, Ein the case of the natural roduces the semitone, or “mi” degree, to the pitch spectrum. frequent harmonic circles of fifths in teenth-century music as systematic means of delineating the individual sys- tems or hexachords (which he equates) or, to put it differently, as evidence that the harmonically conceived hexachord was the cont tonal range as ordered by fifths. He described the exceet harmonic range of the hexachord (six chords extending from the ‘‘fa’” to the “mmi’’ degrees: ie., F and elE in the natural system’) as a shift from one ly Dahthaus did not clearly distinguish be- ther hexachordal or key-signature shift and those that do not. In his analyses, therefore, we encounter frequent descrip- tion of system shifts within a single signature, in many of which the acci- dentals function in ways that do not involve transposition of the hexachord: e.g. subsemitonium modi and tierce de Picardie effegts. Also the frequency of mn in many compositions argues, in my view, for the grouping of in a larger model that still does not exceed the normal range of the key signature. If, we designate the transposing levels within each car tus as hexachords, reserving the concept of system for the broader harmonic range of the key signature within which hexachordal shifts may occur, one ambiguity is resolved. ‘These points may be illustrated with reference to examples from a madri- gal discussed in Chapt .” (The reader may wish to consult the analysis of that piece before proceeding further in the present discussion.) Example 4.1 provides a good jon of Monte- verdi’s constructing a phrase whose harmonies are built on the six degrees of the one-flat hexachord. The order in which they appear in that phrase roughly follows the circle of fifths, with a phrygian cadence ending the phrase: D, g, F, C, B and A. The next phrase of the piece (Ex. 4.2) is set in the natural hexachord and includes the harmonies of d, G, C, E, and A. Thus five of the six chords of the natural hexachord appear. And to high- light the shift from flat to sharp, the new phrase includes its sharpest degree dropping the B of while the harmonized ‘mi mi—fa semitone from A and phrases that transpose upward by Jimilar expansion to the sharp region we wexachord framework—B", F, C, and G— the systems is t and one-flat and the natural and sharp srouping would not account for the occurrence of shifts from Hor the more substantial device of trans} sharp mode tions that exceed the range of the G hexachord. Instead, what is implied the potential transposition of the gamut itself; that i, the untransposed t it or car ‘an incidental expressive device," fiftlr above the root of the sixth degree bsand F4 in the one-sharp). Forming a triad on the sixth degree, therefore, adds an additional tone to the pitch spectrum, that seventh tone with ‘additional semitone suggesting an alliance between harmonic music and the sevenstone major scale.’ Thus in Example 4.3 the e-minor six chord on “Yanima’’ marks the point of shift from the one-flat to the natural hexa~ ‘chord (containing as its fifth the B that replaces the earlier BY. The harmoni- the fa-mi from B'-A to F-E (the latter manifested in the is the harmonic equivalent of the traditional mi-fa sl yn." It introduces, almost inci- the g and e harmonies of the Fe succession the placement of the semitone in solmi dentally, the opposition between B’ and Bi phrase. Each hexachord can be expressed in the form of a circle of fifths whose point of closure is the phrygian cadence, the traditional mi-fa semitone, Which can now be interpreted as the meeting of its flattest and sharpest de- grees. Two- and three-hexachord frameworks can also be so diagramed, their harmonic limits, or levels of fa-mi contrast, appearing respectively as the tritone (as in the gle harmonies in Example 4.3) and as the chromatic mn): semitone, the latter expressing. its of the gamut (or its transp the B moile!B guadro four hexachords enharmonicism ters the picture: the E’ of the two-flat hexachord versus the Dé of the B-major din the sharp hexachord. In these larger frameworks the mi-fa shift of solmization bectmes the mi contra fe, or nonharmbnic relation, the concep- tual basis for antithetical modulations and harmonic juxtapositions such as those that dominate the latter parts of the second and fourth acts of Orfeo. Recognition of the particular hexachord in play at any given time involves signals: 1, The outlining of all or most of the six harmonies or the five domi- nant-tonic cadences (usually in circle-of-fifths progressions or transpositions); this may occur within a discrete form of musical continuity such as a single phrase or sequence pattern. 2. The phrygian cadence as a form of shorthand indicator of the flat/shary i From this standpoint we are justified in describing the system (ie., cantus durus or mollis) of any given madrigal as normally comprising up to three hexachords (very often two, sometimes three, very rarely fewer than two or ‘more than three). The key signature, then, expresses the tonal content of “central” hexachord, F in the one-flat system and C in the natural, while the work itself may introduce up to three contiguous hexachords fhout any necessity of key signature shift. The primary criterion for ty of ‘The relation of each three hexachords provides thereby kind of image in microcosm of the gamut with achords, We ‘must remember, however, that one of the th ferred and the other two serve as secondary tonal areas," From this standpoint the ex ‘ponding tonal range of early seventeenth-century music might be described ie beginnings of a circle of transposable systems, each comprising three hexachords. this was astep jon of the early eighteontly: th six Key ite ‘nuisie by the frequent indication, by various meat “x chord jserete tonal region. Thus brief cadential “transpose in sequences of fifths that are generally fewer in number than thie “degrees of the hexachord, owing to the slightly wider range of chordal eon {ent of each individual member. The cadential sequence that appears on he 22a, bellezza mortale! O Bi in the from Book Four, for exam cadences Bes 4). The next exachordal w “neribed, “that the culminating the natural hexac chordal range from F he same system (depending ied, usually a two> or three:her3. That of the two-system framework (a four-hexachord range usuc ally requiring a shift of key signature) ‘These three levels can be taken to reflect different spheres of harmonic and tonal activity in the works, often, but by no means always, corresponding to the individual phrase or phrase group (1), the relationship of phrases to -ajor sections or subsections of the work (2), the exceptional case of madri- and the normal shifting be- tween cantus durus and cantus mollis that takes place in multimovement works (3). * This way of describing the harmonic content of individual passages is a valuable means of heightening our awareness of how the available harmo- nies are grouped and shifted throughout a great many pieces. It does not account for tonal centers and their shifting. Often, as in the examples cited from “‘Cor mio, mentre vi mir significant number of cases it is not. The cadence degrees of the phrases may not fal into such clear dominant-tonic patterns as those of Ex- amples 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3; they may not outline rising,fifth patterns such as those of Example 4.5. Yet a wide range of cadence degrees and a vari hexachordal shifts may be present. In the opening section of “O Mi so discussed in Chapter Four), for example, the,successive phrase ca- dences are toF, G, E, F, A, C, G, g, A, and A. Two hekachords are involved, since the first F cadence is approached from B’ (one-flat hexachord) and the second from Bs (natural hexachord); also, the phrase that ends with the first A cadence is a transposition down the fifth of the one that ends on E (from the natural to the one-flat hexachord), Other kinds of hexachordal shifting appear as well. The hexachordal procedure described above will account for the harmonic content of the individual phrases but not the choice of cadence degrees, nor their relationship to one another or toa centzal tonality, if there isone. Explanation of how the choice of cadence degrees is regulated is fai straightforward. While chordal content in musical units such as phrases and sequence patterns is generally regulated by the hexachords (and pitch con- tent by the seven-tone major scale), the cadence degrees ofa single madrigal are determined by the system (Key signature). Since the latter is potentially a three-hexachord framework within a single key signature, this will gener- ally mean that the six chords of the central hexachord will serve as the avail- able cadence degrees, although the same cadence degree may be presented in different hexachords. Thus, the six cadence degrees of “O Mi from Book Five are those of the cantus durus—C, dD, elE, F, G, and alA—but any does not overlap the flat and natural hexachords) sharp. As I have said, one of the two F-major cadi approached from the tonal B’ and hexachord, At the still arger level of works such as Orfeo that m changes of system, the full spectrum of keys or modes is organize ‘ogous fashion, But there the regulating framework is the two too isa relatively closed framework that can be further extended by ion of one of its systems, It generally remains the bi for music, and even for much of the music of the next general Transposition In the early seventeenth century transposition increases enor! ynal device in comparison with its role in earlier musi conjunction with the articulation of tonal structures ie in*Cruda Amarilli first in conjunction: the opening section, then wi Pers ve next generation after Monteverdi, esp sense of mi equivalent to hexachordal wsgarily feature any carryover of figurational surface det level to another, The frequent transposition of such detail as wel ig tonal and modal shifting, of clarifying tonal structure, 1 of the figured surface detail does not nec may suggest mo toni but not mutatio modi, ‘chapter. et, the interaction of fig ‘music of the early seventeenth century admits of q Is both of mn, involving, ing and other surface di wexact with regard to 1 andEXAMPLE2.1_ Excerpt (mm, 7-12) from ‘Luci serene ¢ chiate,"" Book Four 0 \ i » = Te PS vt ote << x FPS z =: ‘Several of these types can be seen through comparison of a passa “Luci serene e chiare’’ from Book Four (Ex. 2.1) to the above-m hexachordal sequence passages from “Cor mio, mehtre vi mi 4.5) and the beginning of “© Mirtillo” (see Ex. ilar surface features. The last of these is, as Dal transposition," while the excerpt from "Cor mi sition with harmonic transposition and that from “Luci serene’ have called “free” transposition. In Monteverdi's music transposition at the fourth or fifth is by far the ‘most common variety, although transposition at the second and third occur as well. The number of pitch levels that may appear in any transpositional sequence is tied to the length of the passage being transposed. Generally the wider the chordal range of the transposing unit the narrower the range of transposition levels. Transposition at the fil ividual phrases may feature up to five successive pitch levels, usually to all but one of the hexachordal degrees. They may appear simply as extensions of the degrees ofthe hexachord, as in Example 10.2 and the first five measures of Example 10.6, or they may expand to separate units as in Example 10.8. The sl wider chordal range of the transposing unit cadential degrees within the hexachord (whi ee levels of transposition appear; t two. Sometimes simply the phrygian cadence transposes three hexachords of the system, as in Example 5.6. And th Example 11.6, which is simply the degrees of the flat hexachor oFifths order with the phrygian cadence at the phrase endin; (with some variation) up to the natural hexachord; when i Jonger passages will be transposed at the second (ths fof the fourtivor fit, thus intensifying the contrast | sharp. The Jx-measure opening phrase of “Anima del ‘Monteverdi to present a range of harmo to B) in a scant twelve measures:In this passage precise hexachordal distinction is blurred by the bold and unusual harmonic successions. The first phrase seems to move toward an F-major cadence (the C harmony of m. 6) that the shift to E at the point of transposition deflects; the second phrase ultimately makes a similar ap- proach to G (m. 12). The B-major harmonies in the second and thied phrases and the G-major harmony atthe beginning of the third decisively establish the sharp hexachord. Then the elE shift for the reiterated “’misera’” of mea. sures 15 and 16 (breaking the second line of the poem into two phrases) sets up thea-minor cadence of the fourth phrase as the completion af these strik. ing harmonic events, The melody ofthis final phrase of the opening section is nearly identical to the climactic D-major phrase of “’Cruda Amarll” (dowh the fourth). Its role is to larity the melodically dissonant e*-b' of the point of transposition (and the E/B harmonies) in terms of the shift to a, The opening section as a whole exhibits a provocative harmonic surface, while the sharpward hexachordal motion provides a powerful and logical impetus for the shift to the dominant. The overall effect is, again, to dramatize the dominant as a point of great intensity. Monteverdi undoubtedly intended the placing of such climatic event inthe opening section to represen the ed feelings of the deserted lover as well a the irrevocable nature ee ee eae s wells the irrevocable nature of the In “Luci serene,’’ from the same collection, theopening secti madrigals again transposed atthe second above mm I-19 snd 20-38), ths time for entirely different purposes. Together the two sections present the harmonic content of the one-flat and natural hexachords in a complex ar- rangement of ten phrases involving five of the six cadence degrees of the cantus durus. The pattern of cadences tends toward the grouping ofthe flat. ter, major degrees ofthe natural system in the first section and the sharper, minor degrees in the second: first g/G, F, G, G (half close), C (close of the fest section), then alA, G, A, A (half cise), and. (The sixth and sharpest legree, e/E, does not appear as a cadence but is prominent as along, sus- tained harmony at the beginning of the transposed section.) Also, the fist {ovo cadences are in the flat hexachord and the remaining eight in the natu. ral. The hexachordal shift therefore comes not at the point of section divi- sion but at the “free” transposition up a tone between phrases ending on F and G (i.e., the second and third phrases of the opening section; see Ex 2.1). Its effect is to set up a strong sense of C at the close ofthe first subsec. tion, while the corresponding point in the transposed section sets up an equally strong close in the key of the madrigal, d minor (dorian). These two keys can perhaps be considered to represent the establishing of the natural hexachord andthe primary mode, reapectively. 1e next section of the madrigal then places the same cadence degrees in extended patterns ordered by Monteverci into descending ith celentel sequences ranging first from F to C (natural hexachord) then down a from A to F (one-flat hexachord). This procedure gives a more schematic arrangement to the degrees of each of the two hexachords, disclosing the underlying fifth order of the system as a whole (see Ex, 5.3), At the outset of ins of this second part of the work Monte verdi places a homophonie, tory Comajor phrase and at the end of each, following the sets of transposing cadences, a pairing of phrases that transpose down the fifth from dominant to tonic (see Exx. 5.2 and 5.9), The tonal design again brings out a relationship of C and d to a series of pres tations of the cadence degrees of the system. A division in the text, whowe basis is the shift from the particular to the general, motivated the two differ ‘ent forms in which Monteverdi presents the same cadence degre In light of the foregoing examples we may distinguish two different ‘mary functions of transposition. The first contributes to the defi ‘mode or key (including shift of key); it chiefly features the dominan {elationship, The second primarily involves the systematic or quai presentation of tonal range as defined by the systems or hexachords, (ht Imusic the six cadences of a particular system possess no strong, sense Of @rarchy, apart from the dominantitonic relationship. But flat-to-sharp Mi tion highlighted by transposition can be used to intensify arrival at the domi inant (or in rarer cases its dominant), thereby projecting, a strong sense of direction. In many pieces this procedure, in which the categories of mula hod’ and mutatio toni merge into something like our concept of modulation, Often sets up a tonal dynamic in which the final resolution is the transposl tion of a unit comprising one or more phrases down the fifth for the final cadence. Inthe fourth book, fifth relations involving tonic and dominant are type ‘ally concentrated in opening and closing sections, the former often inva {ng the transposition of individual phrases and the latter ending, with the transposition of a closing section down the fifth from dominant to tonic. IN fuich places the concern for defining the individual mode or key is usta the paramount tonal issue, Transposition involving, circles of cadences of short sequences, however, tend to be detached from the particularity Of mode, frequently passing through a spectrum of hexachordal degrees in ther ascending (sharpward) or descending fifth patterns (often associated ‘with general ideas of ascent and descent that are extractable from ‘This procedure tends to give greater equality to the individual degrees, pecially when the tierce de Picardie effect changes the minor cadence degrees Jo major. As a result the extent and direction of the overall pattern preclom {nates over the key. In the vast majority of cases such patterns are limited to the six degrees that comprise the cadences of a single system—for examp! G, diD, elf, F, G, a/A in the natural system. In neither of the two t0 Atyles is the genus-species relationship between system and mode pre= wented as absolute, Rather, we might argue to exchange mode and system in those roles (genus and species) from one section to another. Only some: ‘what later (from Book Six on) would there be a widespread recognition of ur tonal subdominant as a form of polar opposite to the dominant, This rweognition would tionships in term of finals a fifth 4 keys!" That this did not occur ea each of the two main subdi igniticant was owing in part to the traditionalview of the primary cadences of the modes as the first, third, and fifth (dom- inant) degrees, a feature that was retained even within the earliest presenta- tions of the circle of keys.” Distinguishing between tonal levels in terms of the accidentals and har- ‘monies that point to one or another hexachord is of great importance ih the analysis of early seventeenth-century music. Nevertheless, a degree of con- flict between the levels is not only possible but a constant factor in the anal- ysis of individual madrigals. Within a single Monteverdi madrigal the im- mediate pattern of descending-fifth chord progressions or sequence patterns, such as a, d, G, C, may, but need not, involve the larger scale of shift by ascending hexachords. That is, the relative sharpness and flatness of any such degrees within a single hexachord does not necessarily coincide with that between two hexachords. This situation is the result of the internal structure of the harmonically interpreted hexachord: the hexachord divides into three major degrees and three minor, the former flatter on the G, sition of what might be called a ““two-mode There the six keys of what was called the am i G, e in the case of the Cia situs) are analogous has an internal arrangement and a minor key at each level.'® In effect each of the three minor, sharper degrees of the system was with one of the major, flatter degrees, the latter recalling, the three hexa- chords, In practice these relationships had been a feature of much early seventeenth-century music, whereas their theoretical recognition came only with the circle of keys. ‘The merging of mode and system, or the linking of each seven-tone scale to one particular signature, is a primary characteristic of the modern tonal system. It can be viewed as the result of a series of stages that began before the seventeenth century and was completed in the eighteenth: 1. The classification of the modes as major and minor types, an occur- rence that tended to undermine modal variety, especially when combined with ‘The triad theory of the early seventeenth century, and Increased frequency of transposition, largely a seventeenth-century phenomenon, that ultimately led to 4, The reduction of the modes to only one representative of each type per “system,” a process that was not fully complete until the early ‘eighteenth century Now each key-signature comprised two modes, major and minor (or, as is ‘modal types).” The remaining, ins of the two types butat the same .. Transposition particularized the keys, ciceguen Panne cremate ic vodulation) replaced alaiferetiation. ‘This process was recogni by Johann David Heiniche xed the modes obsolete, advocating, as had eneration of German musicians, the use of the terms dur and moll old names of the two primary systems) for the major and minor *) ‘The process of tonal expansion through transposition by changes came about is reflected in virtually all the music of century. It accompanies the emergence of anew dynamics ‘which modulation by fifths brought the keys we designate \d subdominant into prominence. “CHAPTER THREE ly blurred to the Id designations were sometimes applied to modes that had to do with what the names had formerly signified. The key of a, for example, which was notated almost exclusively in cantus durus, was often designated phrygian even though it hardly ever exhibited characteristics of that mode. Logically, if the grouping of all the modes within a single system had existed in practice, the phrygian mode on A would have been placed in the cantus mollis, whereas the phrygian mode of the natural system (canfus durus) would have had E as its final. In practice, however, the two modes were perceived as closely related, some the authentic phrygian (a) and plagal hypophrygian (e), and both were placed in the cantus durus. The anomaly referred to in Appendix A regarding Kircher’s treatment of the hypophrygian e mode indicates the passing of the phrygian/hypophrygian modal types in favor of the modern minor as com- on in the shamp bexahurdl beoane mote widespread "In his church ‘music Monteverdi repeatedly indi j.e., hypophrygian trode) inthe basso continuo for pieces vith Eas inal, wheres he does not similarly identify any other mode; presumably the nature of this mode was ‘more uncertain than that of the others.” He does not use this mode as the final for madrigals after Book Three, and when E appears as a final in Orfeo, the later operas, and the ending of the first part of a two-part madrigal in Book Eight, the “mode” is e minor, not e phrygian, which appears only as | an internal cadence degree (often but not only in a minor). In terms of their | ‘musical treatment the keys that we call e minor and a minor were decidedly - not considered transpositions of d minor or g minor; yet with respect to their abstract modal qualities they were just that,’ The move toward panded transpositional system that would render the minor and major mode types equivalent to one another was countered by the conceptualiza- tion of keys as modes within a two-system framework, ‘Although a uniform underst ‘comparative survey of the theorists of the tim possible to use their schemes to enhance our understanding of seventeenth-centuty tonal style. Generally those theorists who attempted most their remarks to contemporary practice allied the modes to the larger range encompassed by the cantus durus a ers asymmetry regarding the number and organization of the two cantus denies the notion that the cantus mollis mode transpositions of those in the cantus durus. Adriano Banchieri’s scheme of eight “pitch key modes’” (1605) encompasses exac modes that Monteverdi used in his Third Book of Madrigals (I! Banchieri presents five modes (C, G, d, a, ande) in the cantus durus and three (F, g, and d) in cantus mollis." His finals are the four of the medi system (4, e, F, and G), augmented by the two that were admitted in the sixteenth century, C and a. The grouping appears to pair the modes four: d (durus) and g (mollis), a and e 3 (durus). In sonve ease ~ and in others the authentic and plagal modes of describes his second mode, for example, as g hypodoria ‘the time called it transposed dorian.” Such a blurring of ‘tween transposed and plagal modes reflects both the modal distinctions and the increasing, role of transposition as a compos: tional device related to tonal structure rather than as a postcompositional imately, however, the most important aspect ‘ype of .s confirmation of the larger process by which the six two systems, thereby reducing the number of ier dimension of flat/sharp (oF legorical character, Pieces in bot ‘oeuvre and those of his contemporaries (such rard’” or sharp tonal region, This ean only be by fifths from flatthe three principle modes mal cadence degrees merge with the flat and sharp chordal limits of particular hexachords, the indiferente cadence repre- senting relative flatness and the dominant or mezana relative sharpness. In the cantus mollis g mode the indifferente and mezana degrees are B’ and d, the flattest and sharpest cadence degrees of the dominant-tonic (as opposed to phrygian) cadence type in the one-flat hexachord; in the cantus durus d mode they are F and a, the flattest and sharpest such degrees in the natural hexachord; while in the cantus durus a mode the same roles obtain for C and €, which occupy the same places in the sharp, ‘major mode types, on the other han dence degrees are sharp with respei lates to Monteverdi's use of the fourth degree (our subdominant) as a prin- ‘cipal contrasting tonal area in pieces such as ““Cruda Amarill” where the indifferente degree, b, if interpreted tonally, would necessitate the introduc- tion of unusually sharp harmonies.” Although the foregoing remarks seem to suggest that the cantus durus modes on d and a and the cantus mollis mode on g are simply transposi of one another, that was not the case. The cantus durus d (dorian) m I range in a manner that did not occur in the other minor largely because the d dorian mode, in traditionally admitting tion of B” for B, adopted some of the characteristics of the cantus ‘mollis aeolian mode. Throughout Monteverdi's work from the fourth book oon, the cantus durus d mode tends first to take precedence over the cantus ‘mollis d mode, then more and more to replace and incorporate the tonal range of the latter—that is, to become a four-hexachord mode. This may be considered as the expansion of the traditional flat/natural dualism of the can- tus durus dorian mode first to the level of hexachordal juxtaposition (within Monteverdi's d dorian settings but not in his d aolian pieces), then to the level of system juxtaposition. Itis also important to view it as the emergence ofthe key of d minor, the new emphasis on what later theory would call the subdominant region coinci its absorbing the range of the cantus tering of the combined d modes on form was undoubtedly the articulation of the mode's dominant by the sharpest dence of the natural hexachord:E-A. This overlap underscores the tance of what might be termed a sharp or dominant dynamic to the new tonal style. In the flat hexachord the triad on A constituted the phrygiat sharpest degree; that is, itlacke the mezana cadence in Banchieri cadence in Mont only setting in that mode in the jogava con ‘The importance of the dominant dynamic in the cantus durus d mode took precedence over the differentiation of 1 types, making d the first minor key in Monteverdi’ work to expand in both fl ious standpoi Kircher succeeded, with obvious, trates one of the main character! a the simultaneous present le viewp \ough published after Monteverdi's de me of the major tendencle century: Aw scheme of modes represents the spectrum of modes sms and a lesser-known bi jend Hieronymus Kapsberger the re 5 i ‘Kiseheor designed his chart of the modes so as to begin whoe final ie F, G, A, B’, C, D, and E (Figure 3.1). Just as the F and C hexachords, ordered ‘modes themselves belong, fh systems. The pattern of these first—_ CN ‘groups the modes under a two-system arrangement, His following a yealar “order beginning on F rather than C may indicate a certain flat bias to the ‘or confirm an association of the hexachord to the major (lonian) Hypo- Mollis Severus lvehemens ‘sign (see Appendix A), the relationship between expat nd to the severstone ionian scale (via the legitimizing of the neventhy ) and the grouping of the modes under two systems, Certainly, character of the mode on e is highlighted by posit ficus Iastius Durus ing scheme is not the only means of ordering, the my 1m offers, however. Kircher also designates the my Greek names as well as numbering, them according Hypo- Fiducia} Motis | Magni- plenus| vanus dus Hypo- Hypo- | Myxo- | myxo- Lydius| Dorius | Dorius | pheyg. xlorian/molis nygianidurns nrygianidurus Iyalnnnolis hhypolyaian/inot mbsolydianidurus “Tristis lydius | lydius | Tonius Durus | Durus | Durus | Molls | Molis | Durus + s i a Fe lastian/durus Aypoiaatan/m the widespread acceptance of Henricus Gi “church modes to twelve. His use of the name dorian for both © (VUll and 1) indicates his indebtedness to the systems of both ing the same d mode ionian (IX) and itv thin ‘of possible orderings suggests that the modes are beginning (0 intly of their names and relationships to one another within ‘scalar ordering reflects Zarlino’s grouping of the degrees of the natural hexachord, now in the ‘work, while his 1 closer to Glareanus’s expansion of the tra this great predecessors, however, Kircher creates the unmlie of the merging of the concepts of plagal and authentic with yet and untransposed modes, a feature shared with Banchierl, om the flattest modes (the lydian B' and hypolydian F), whieh are ‘mollis, and the sharpest (the phrygian a and hypophrygh Durus | Mottis | Durus. ‘gius Laetus | Lachey- Hypo- | Hypo-| Phry- lydius | dorius sum_| cosus | vagus | mosus | Hilaris | Amenus tio _| Molt | Mottis FIGURES.1 Athanasius Kircher’s Mensa fonographia (Musurgia untiversalis 2:51) Qualitas Tono- Nomina anti= qua Signa-comprises one mode e hexachord ( century andl the cadence degrees of the two-system framework. If we group them into the two-system, four~ hexachord scheme suggested above for the cadence degrees, we find that each of the two cantus is represented by five of the six mocles that might be thought to comprise a transposing modal ‘‘society’’: F, g, BY, C, and d for the camtus mollis and C, d, e, G, and a for the cantus durus. ® Three modes are exclusive to each of the systems (Bg, and F to cantus mollis and a, G, ande to cantus durus), while two modes, d minor (called dorian and jonian) and C Re naLhocche ‘major/mixolydian, overlap the two systems. (Two of Kircher’s three C Be ectaicray and contacted ix recat veer canta modes— jan—are in cantus durus, while the third, in HFigs, 3.2 and 3.3). From this The a | cantus mollis, is called C hypomixolydian, ano! tance of the designa- tion of transposed modes as plagal.) But the modal spectrum | cantus is not a transposition of that within the other. Rather, the ‘modes within the two cantus emphasizes the mollis and durus tween the two groupings, lacks its sharpest mode, a, and that of the cantus durus its flattest, F, The two patterns might 1 at the second as well ( Cand d transposing to G, a, C, d, and e, or BY, C, d, F, and g transposing to C, d, e, G, and a), but what these two patterns reveal is the secondariness of the \d one-sharp systems. The C mode of the two-flat system would® bbe major instead of minor and the D mode of the sharp system minor in- stead of major. Also, the two-flat system would lack its flattest mode ‘the one-sharp system its sharpest, b, a feature that weakens the flat/sharp differentiation that the whole-tone transposition otherwise em phasizes. The two-system model with secondary hexachordal levels there- fore predominates as the overriding model for modal as well as cadential ocondary areas organization. 1, the process ‘Nevertheless, if we disregard Kircher’ key signatures, some modal finals concept of genus | could be grouped in the two-flat system and some in the one-sharp system, ‘wan retained for a simultaneously reducing the number of modes in a system and expanding tic ancl enharmonic genera respectively. And the the number of systems (Key signatures). Such a grouping, which is not pres- decre atest vit ‘entin Kircher’s model, would lead by extension to the circle of keys, for the in Heinichen’s describing, only symmetrical pattern that permits the grouping of Kircher’s modes into four systems is the following one, organized here as if it were a segment keys comprising two ambilus, those of Fid (the canfus ai a nding 0 signature l a for the compreheny Cantus mois [Natural System: Cantus durus exachords of each system and their chordal content rol cm Fo) Chil [extremum Fy, [extremum cenhaemonicum] bs chromaticum] . Ficutt 3.2 Johann David Heinichen's cicle of keys (Neu-erfundene und grind liche Anweisung, 1711) have added to Heinichen’s circle several elements that he describes inhis text ‘but does not include in his diagram: the designation of sharp and flat keys as _genuschromaticu and exharmonicuri and the keys of B and b’as extrem chro- inaticum and enharnonicum, the bracketing, ofthe ambitus of Cla and Fid, the ‘major and minor keys under the corresponding key signa- keys Heinichen describes as dificult and unus- ie able apa ey ethic olydian represent the major mode) extends only to [of three sharps or flats. These separate facets of tons ly integrated only in the circle of keys, grees. Two such models may be considered briefly here, for they reflect con- Ike} signatures one major and one minor mode, and which cerns that are shared by Monteverdi's music. key of the ambitusof the chosen ‘The first of these models anticipates the organizing principle of the circle of keys without, however, relating the cadences to tonal centers. Lorenzo model or a broader range of cadence organization on vs Penna’s Li primi albori musical (1672) sets forth various circles of cadences, Kuhnau, Heinich cher, Kuhnau groups the f both major and minor, on all twelve degrees of the full enharmonic circle that appear within a single ayatem under individual oe Each cadence is preceded by progression of several chords notated in key-aignature levels, His framework retains the three mal anant, and mediant) as the primary ones and simply hers, usually to a total of six for any particular mode, 1 their places in the whole.” It too, therefore, provides a model for s, now emphasizing the grouping of cadences under a single key rather than an abstract fifth ordering. Although Kuhnau is sup- posed, on the word of Heinichen, to have taught Heinichen Kircher’s circle of fourths and fifths, Kuhnau’s system makes no attempt to establish a larger framework for the total spectrum of keys and cadences together.”" Heinichen’s concept of ambitus within the circle unites the two, placing modal and hexachordal organizational patterns within a single paradigm based on key-signature levels, The regrouping of Kircher’s modes most applicable to Monteverdi’s rmusicis in a pattern of fifths: B, F, C, Gig, d, a, e. That pattern underscores the two-system framework as a form of closed tonal system in itself, ike the circle of keys and the various ambitus within it. Unlike the circle of keys, however, it is not basically an infemnally transposing system; that is, its se arate modes have quite different tonal characteristics according to their places in the larger grouping —their relative sharpness or flatness, for exam- ple (usually manifested in the hexachordal groupings that predominate within individual pieces in a given mode). The two-system framework therefore provides one instance each of several different forms of tonal rela- tionship. Itis the only framework that is both large and small enough to provide those particular relationships without the necessity of transposing the system itself. ‘The Gig dualism at the center of the pattern reflects what Monteverdi treated in a number of places as the focal point of flat/natural shifts of key signature. These are the only modes in the two-system paradigm in which the flat form is minor and the natural form major (thereby illustrating the two meanings of the terms mollis and durus). Within the pattern of fifths these two modes, the sharpest major key and the flattest minor key, mark the point of division into the major and minor mode types. These would later merge into relative major/minor pairs at four key-signature levels. On either side of Gig the modes of C and d are the two that overlap the two systems, the two alternative first mode types in the systems of Zarlino and Glareanus, interchanged as dorianlionian (d) and dorianviastian! hypomixolydian (C) by Kircher. They were sometimes used to illustrate the two basic categories of mode (major and minor) in a manner that was later taken over by the modern relative major and minor modes. They represent the only modes that remain in the same majoriminor classification within both systems, And in Kircher’s scheme d harmonic minor is the only one with identical pitch content in both systems (relating, pethaps, to the merg- ing of the two d modes in Monteverdi's music, as described above). At ei- ther end of the pattern the pairs Band F and a and e comprise the modal finals that are uneq and durus respectively, providing several types of mi-fa shift betwee ent modes (such as the flat major versus —s (_illlllllzzii‘ililiiiiizssisiaa finals, D and G, overlap the two systems and can, therefore, junction with flat/sharp shifis.” In the fifth book Monteverdi's re- it d and g/G highlights such relationships. The cen- xd madrigal cycle of the set features, for the first time in his mad- ks, the g/G contrast within a single work with notated key shifts," The final ballo of the Scherzi musicali and Orfeo, both from ‘use of the same device. One madrigal from the sixth book carries ition further, while a cycle adds the juxtaposition of the cantus us mollis d modes. In the fourth book the idea of modal juxta- ‘en individual madrigals is realized differently and with a fof modes: d, g, and F in cantus mollis, d, G, and a in cantus ,, and throughout the madrigal books from Book Three on, the limits of the two systems—that is, the modes with finals on B appear, while in Orfeo they each appear once only with the ions of hope (Speranza) and loss of hope respectively. ‘on Bi, which does not appear in Banchieri’s scheme, might have by some musicians as a transposition, and therefore as an ex System, while the mode on E, because of its phrygian semi inal, tended to be altered to e minor, and hence also to ap- ;position (to the more rarely used sharp system). see further in Chapter Seven, not only does Kircher’s presen- ‘modes correspond exactly to the spectrum of modes in Orfeo, ‘be used to explain much of the tonal character and modal ‘ofthat work. The durus character of a, the idea of g/G contrast, 11 of B’ and e as sharpyflat limits, the appearance of C in both first-mode character of d—all these and other features of the of Monteverdi's first opera are reflected in Kircher’s scheme, the strongest connection between Kircher’s scheme and ‘opera consists in their being both forward-looking and con- same time, Kircher's scheme imposes traditional orderings {least several of which are really modern keys in every keys that are representing modes but in practice could not ‘modal..” The appearance of the harmonic-minor scale type “of modes with three different finals (g, d, and a) suggests that fositions of one another as well as scales whose chromatically ddogrees are fundamental to theit tonal characters. Likewise, ‘mode that Kircher calls Hypophrygian e in cantus durus—the ‘Gt, A, Bi, C, and D-while it does not correspond to any modern le with modal theory and practice. Yet Kircher did he intended it to represent a vital feature of new attitude toward the ‘of Koy that we must consider further,several answer along with its be seen as an by way of a ‘we have seen more spe | volume of his Inaddition, Kircher’s Discussion of Mode ‘The question of how Kircher derived his unusual hypophrygian mode has ing mode, notated a5 our a harmonic minor and readily understand the presence of the tone G# as the leadit understand the tone B’, however, demands that we consider this mode could be called the phrygian mode without its using the tone B", however, treatise, Carissim life. Kircher describes Carissimis setting of the change of tone as from the eighth mode to the fourth mixed wi are discussing, Since Kircher’s discussion of this passage comes in the first lated the table of mod refers is neither the dorian nor the hypomixolydian C mode of his table but the G hypomixolydian that he, | ‘eighth mode elsewhere in the tre: tween C and G modes is also important to Jephte, When we examine Jephte we find that the corresponden tone above them (Ex. 3.1). sphtha’s daughter and her HaAMPLE SA Excerpt from Ca ee ‘companions in Carissimi’s Jephte s. Since the mode is plagal and as such related to the preced- phrygian, we can tone to A. To authentic form as a plagal/authentic complex. The B? can then, ttempt to provide the phrygian semitone above the tone A, logy to the hal step above the final E. That the key of a minor alreadly. In fact, it appears that here Kircher had something in mind, the piece that drew his great admiration earlier in the oratorio is well known for the dra- the third, the latter ling to the phrygian and hypophrygian modes that we _ ‘treatise and was undoubtedly written before he had formu- in the second volume, the eighth mode to which he ike most theorists of the time, calls the e.” Nevertheless, the connection be- between, on the one hand, what Kircher alls the fourth mode mixed with the third and, on the other hand, the third and fourth modes of his table is very close, an rena indication that Carissimi himself perhaps intended his tonal style at this part nor cist cof the work to represent the phrygian and hypophrygian modal complex. ot heal Carissimi makes considerable use of what we call the Neapolitan sixth the pred chord, B’, in cadential progressions to a, especially in the refrain of the la- " charecker eal ‘ment of Jephtha’s daughter and her followers. The chordal sequence B'- 0 ! Fid’-E-a features the dominant and tonic along with the harmonies a semi- the prominence of either Gor its. transpos ly, and cadences to ur once each (the former associated with the joyee tion that is juxtaposed to the daughter's lam andl the latter with the daughter's bewailing her virginity). Thus the range of cadence degrees in the work as a whole extends from B’ to b, the full spectrum of the two-system framework, And there is a distinct division in the caclence spectra used for each half, the first remaining within the region of the one-flat and natural hexa- chords and the second the natural and sharp. The change of tone in work is associated with a shift of mode from flat to sharp and of cadential spectrum from mollis/naturalis to durus. Within each of the two halves ‘exceptional cadences to degrees more characteristic of the other half appear in conjunction with texts that express the same contradictions. The usual view that the piece changes primarily from major to minor between the two halves is therefore a half truth at best, since that change can be considered a facet of the shift of mode (or mutato toni, as Kircher views it) and on a larger scale of the cadential spectrum.” The harmonies that accompany the cadential patterns in the second half of the work, however, involve triads that extend further in both directions than those I have outlined for the four hexachords of the two-system frame- work. In the case of the sharp hexachord the only such extension of the sys- aking it out of the pure phrygian category. Owing to the transposition of Example 3.1 to e, a, d, and g, however, the second half of the work also has the flattest harmonies in the work. These harmonies are entirely the result of the attempt to add a phrygian character to the four pri- mary cadence degrees (thus the phrygian cadence to g/G involves an A’ “Neapolitan sixth” chord, the flattest harmony in the work). The presence of harmonies outside both the system and the hexachord that determine the cadence degrees and their normal harmonic character indicates a degree of functionality (as expressed in our label ‘Neapolitan sixth chord”) that takes precedence over precise harmonic range. This feature, in conjunction with the major!minor aspect of the shift between the two halves of the oratorio, indicates a weakening of the modal-hexachordal framework I have de- scribed for Monteverdi's music in the years following his death. And the transposition of cadence patterns without regard for the extension of their harmonies beyond the overall hexachordal framework is a step in the direc- tion of the circle of keys that is carried further (and more systematically) in the circles of cadences in Lorenzo Penna’s treatise.” For the time of its publication, 1650, Kircher’s scheme, taken as a whole, ‘was conservative in terms of the relationship of its overall ordering to m cal practice. Many of the relationships that are most meaningful in our un- derstanding of the tonal system of the first half of the seventeenth century are latent but not directly expressed in Kircher’ modes. Kircher’s descri jode that relates to the Overview of the Question of Mode in Monteverdi's Madrigal Books the provocative fi llections the number of canBook3 Book4 — Book5 ~— Book6 Book? Book8 2 7 5 8 5 9 5 5 2 0 3 1 2 4 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 10 4 o 0 1 1 1 1 6 9 B 10 29 2B Ficuse 3.4 The keys usec! in Monteverdi's mactrigal books 3-8 compared with ‘Adriano Banchier’s presentation of the modes, is both an allegory of the newly discovered le of man’s relationship to the powers of fate js such it marks a point at which the qu In this table cycles are counted as individual madrigals. The category of madri- os ra gals that shift from g (cantus mollis) to G (cantus durus) does not, of course, ap- ap pear in Banchieri's scheme of the modes. modal usage as a pro- cess of changing emphases that involves the dropping of certain modes, the narrowing of focus for a time on particular finals, and the eventual favoring of others (Fig. 3.4)." We note the reduction from eight modes to six between then the limiting of the modal finals to Gand D in Books the settling upon the same five modes for Books of the durus major mode types (ionian and mixolydian on C and G, lydian F), Settings that shift from cantus mollis g to cantus durus G appear in the last four books and the Scherzi musical of 1607. (One important aspect of Monteverdi's developing tonal style that the en- suing chapters follow like a thread through the eight books (and the rest of his work) is the changing relationship between the musical qualities associ- ated with the words durus and mollis, in particular the increasing emphasis cn the former. In the earliest publications not only does the cantus durus ap- pear infrequently, but it also often bears pejorative associations bound up with ideas of hardness, sharpness, dissonance, and the like. In the fourth lly, though not exclusively, to compositions in the a-minor mode, which is treated as sharper than the other modes. In the fifth and sixth books Monteverdi makes conspicuous Of Orfeo and in later pieces such as Tirsi e Clori. Yet eventually (from BookCHAPTER FOUR & Analytical Questions: Two Madrigals Compared Many of the theoretical features of the early seventeenth-century tonal lan- ‘guage introduced in the preceding chapters may now be illustrated through the analysis of two madrigals. Both pieces, ““Cor mio, mentre vi miro” from Book Four and “O Mirtillo” from Book Five, are in the cantus durus d mode, and both set poems of Giambattista Guarini, the foremost poet represented in these two books. ‘Cor mio, mentre vi miro" is an the so-called epigrammatic style associated with Guari of the principles by which Monteverdi conveyed the essentials of that style in music.’ It is the shortest and most concise of all Monteverdi's madrigals from this period, a feature of the style that renders it particularly appropri- ssent purpose. served as the starting point for Carl Dahlhai cept of “mixed modes, with the epigrammat ward manner than “Cor mio. using the same kinds of corres produces a though in term: i basic tonal language the common features between 5 ‘the two pieces are far more significant than their differences, it was none= fieee in some rypecta tha aen-dhabda the vial rather than the and the genes eaclences, modes, and systems. In fact, certain of the aspects of al style that Dahlhaus stressed—above all the lack of a single tonal center ‘much of the work—can be shown to derive principally from a dialogue jeen those aspects of tonality that are typical of many Monteverdi mach and others that are particular to “© Mirtll “Cor Mio, Mentre Vi Miro” (Book Four) Cor Mio, Mentre Vi58 Analytical Quests: Two Madrgals Compared tually separable facets of the style they can be brought into close correspon points of emphasis. The analytical element of the poem begins with an exclamation llezza’’) expressive of sudden insight into the general subject matter, in this case the dual Lines 5-8 place the gazing, transforma- tion, and sighing. thin the perspective of the general nature of that is, it both gives life (ie., stirs the heart to passion) and kills igs about the expiration of the soul). Each half ex! ‘transformation (or rebirth) and expiration. The two halves are distinctly par- allel, each idea in the former having a counterpart in the latter: gazing and beauty, transformation and rebirth, the sigh of expiration and the poet's death. An obvious undercurrent of sexual and even religious double mean ing informs our understanding of expressions such as “transform,” “re- fe,” reminding us of fundamental dynamics shared 8 as a description of the moment of “conversion”—that love—or as a veiled reference to the moment of sexual climax, the sigh (ospir) is the expression of his breathing his last (spiro) as himself, since love has robbed him of separate identity. The words “cor mio” introduce this idea at the start. Thus the poem embodies basic dualisms not only between the lover and the beloved but between the ideas of union and separation, a theme in Guarini’s poetry. sans by which Guarini realizes these ideas are worthy of closer since Monteverdi unerringly matches many of them theses the poem features striking oppositions in of grave (mi) and acute recognizes other dim sions of antithesis between the two consonants: m is nasal and v non-nasal, ‘mis a stop and a fricative or spirant.) In the first line the m sounds domi- nate completely, by means of the surrounding of the word “~vi" by ““mio,”” "In the second the procedure is reversed: “ * surround mente, and “[trasfor]mo.”” The diphthong (set by Monteverdi as two whole notes: fi io" in the first ine to “voi” in the second line, a penetration of the idea of transformation into the sound of the poem. The ofi vowel succession and reversal then reappear in the change from “ of rel the opposition, The Analytical Questions: Two Madrigals Compared 59 lution that the end of the poem achieves. The final words, ‘‘nato more,'" embodying the central lifeldeath antithesis in the briefest possible form, unify the opposition of acute and grave sounds in two successive nasal 00! mn also binds the syntactical opposition b phe ('“trasformato pc ‘and “more” correspond both syntactically and semantically. ‘A full structural analysis of “Cor mio, met i ore of the interaction of sound and meat have described goes along with other integrating devics fate how the antithesis of union and separation permeates the various ley Jig at which we understand its meaning. Monteverdi's setting reflects (hen ures at several musical levels, one of the most important of which is (0 (the life-giving side of beauty) precedes the sigh of expi the purposes of his musical allegory, however, Monteverdi re’ es 5 and 6, so that in hand with this change, while the last seven represent the “death” that is its outcome. Otherwise the madre respects the sequence of ideas in the poem. Measures 1-24 (ines I=) al with the narrative of the poet's gazing and transformation, 1m, 25-49) develops the duali feature the note B’ prominent ‘mio"”), the harmonies move mainly in a circ ih the phrygian cadence to A: in modern terms the sequence D, jj _T*, BY, (di), A (Ex. 4.1). The melodic motion from a’ in the Jo, measures 1-2, reverses in the bass, measures 5-6. The sopranctually separable facets of the style they ean be brought into close corres} dence to narrative and analytic points of emph. The analytical element of the poem begins with an exclama bellezza’’) expressive of sudden insight into the general subject mat this case the dual effects of beauty. Lines 5-8 (brings about the expiration of the soul). Each half exhibits a dynamic of 'sformation (or rebirth) and expiration. The two halves are distinctly par- allel, each idea in the former having a counterpart in the latter: gazing and beauty, transformation and rebirth, the sigh of expiration and the poet's death. An obvious undercurrent of sexual and even religious double mean- ing informs our understanding of expressions such as “‘transform,”” “re- birth,” “death,” and reminding us of fundamental dynamics shared among the separate facets of human existence. Whether we understand the poet's sigh of expiration in line 4 and i love—or as a veiled reference to the mor (os) is the expression of his breathing hi ro) as himself, since love has robbed him of separate identity. The words “‘cor mio” introduce this idea atthe start. Thus the poem embodies basic dualisms not only between the lover and the beloved but between the ideas of union and separation, ay recurrent theme in Guarini’s poetry. The means by which Guarini realizes these ideas are worthy of closer analysis, since Monteverdi unerringly matches many of them in music. In ad its semantic antitheses the poem features striking oppositions in and syntax. 1st obvious of the former is the relationship be- in the first two lines, which presents an opposition of grave (m) and acute (v) consonants. (Linguistics recognizes other dimen: sions of antithesis between the two consonants: m is nasal and v non-nasal mis a stop and va fricative or spirant.) In the first line the m sounds domi nate completely, by means of the surrounding of the word ‘vi’ by “mio, and “miro” and the accentual subordinating of v to m in the line ‘vi miro.”’In the second the procedure is reversed: “vifsibilment trasfor]mo in voi'” gives added weight diphthong (set by Montever ‘voi’ in the second line, a penetration of the idea of transformation into the sound of the poem. The afi vowel succession and i iro” f relative closure does not, however, complete a resolutio. the opposition, ines 5 and 6, underscoring the syntactical opposition between inite verb that was featured in the last lines of the first stra: to poi” versus ‘I/anima spiro’ ‘wate’ ‘more’” correspond both syntact ly. full structural analysis of “Cor mio, mentre vi miro’’ could make alll ‘of the interaction long with other integg ly, a degree of reduction accompa poom ive musical patterning, Guarini’s poem, for example, logically ‘ellezza before “bellezza mortale,”’ since the arousal 10 pai life-giving side of beauty) precedes the sigh of expiration (eal), 14 of his musical allegory, however, Monteverdi reverses {he that the deathly side of beauty precedes “The remarkalEXAMPLE 4.2 Excerpt (mm, 6-10) from “Cor mio, mentie vi miro," Book Four aaa j Viesibilmen-te mi tasfor-mia ve = ody of these five bars moves downward from a' toe’, the b” serving as cata- lyst to the descent. D minor would appear to be the melodic and harmonic goal of the first phrase, as is confirmed at the beginning of the second. In contrast, the setting of the second line contains no B?, begins with and G-major chords, and features upward melodic motion to e" (particularly on “mi trasform’”’), ending with melodic descent from e" to a’ (Ex. 4.2). The chordal content of the phrase is that of the natural hexachord minus its flat- test harmony, F. The dominant-tonic cadence to A and melodic emphasi on the tones bi’ and a’ mark a shift away from the a'-b” and the move to- ward d in line 1. All this represents upward motion, implying a degree of aspiration or arousal as a result of the lover’s gazing at his beloved. Monte- verdi therefore effects a tonal transformation analogous to that of the text. The poet's identity is allied to the one-flat hexachord and that of his beloved to the natural: the initial b” appears on ‘mio,’ the b’ at the close of line 2 on “voi.” A form of dualism has been set up in terms both of the two pri- ‘mary hexachords (flat/natural) and the cadence degrees (dia). The opening section of the madrigal (mm. 1-24) and ultimately the madrigal as a whole provide stages of resolution The third phrase, ““e trasformato poi’ (‘and thus transformed”), re ‘mains within the natural hexachord, beginning with the “missing” F chord of the preceding phrase, and ending with the d-A half close. Its texture car- ries over the idea of contrary motion between the three uppermost voices (ascent) and the lowest voice (descent) of the setting of ’’mi trasformo,’’ continuing an association of that device to the idea of transformation. The confirming aspect of this phrase perfectly mirrors the participial construc- tion (trasformato), Each of the first three phrases ends with an A chord, the first approaching d from the flat hexachord, the second making a shift of hexachord and cadencing in the dominant, a/A, and the third moving a sec ond time toward d via the half close to its dominant, now from the natural hexachord. Logically, a cadence to d in the natural hexachord should be goal. Phrase 4 uses the initial sound of the d triad to resolve the dominant end. ing of the preceding phrase, as did phrase 2 that of phrase 1, Monteverdi carries over the bass (and text) of phrase 3 into phrase 4, transposing it . Above it the beginning of the fourth line, “in un solo sospi eer eure parallel one ening the macriga ints texture (wo ‘nd bass) and its melodie and harmonie derivation from the open ‘phrase, The a'-b" melodic motion on the word “sospis"” is particularly yrand immediatly eiiniscent of “Cor mio.” The reminiscence Have seen, an important element of the sound of the poern that it ly resolved in the ''spiro'” of the fourth line. In the fourth phrave rigal Monteverdi sets the word ‘‘sospir’’ apart by rests before andl following it by melodic descent from the a'-b" down to e 9 In comparison to the opening phrase of the setting the a longed while the a’-e' descent is more swiftly accomplishes descent merges at the end into the a chord with which p! (ix. 4.3). ‘ 14.3. Excerpt (mm, 14-19) from Cor mio, mentre vi miro,"' Book Hout eS three successive versions of the fourth phrase, In thls ionone the opening twenty-four measures becomes a analogue of the “sospir” spiro” idea, Taking the melody af 4as the bass of a trio for the lower voices, Monteverdi leads tl Tt tothe longydelayed cadence on m,18), completing the outa inphrases | and. This isa pivotal event in rice ee Fannatiphtedly introduced to set it apatt ‘Th reer among the sof the opening section, changes fom to Dk within the ie, The harmonization in the upper voices of the a-b ascent in the ba spit) introduces afauxbourdon-lke texture of parallel chords that we, ttn afer the igh and urn dvervaed od Along he way to the ence an chor effect the shift of hexachord in a curiously archale lng motiom to the cadence: F ed, efldim., el (open fifth), The paanima spi the upper voices In the sixth phrase Monteverdi harmonizes “‘sospir’” with a progression from G to F, a “lydian’’ cadence formula in which the ancient rule that a third ‘moving to a fifth is major necessitates the by’ This relatively uncommon ca- dence type is a kind of inversion of the ubiquitous phrygian cadence, in that the , aflattoa sharp harmony and creating the major third by mea tone in the lowest part—.”* while the other articulates the degree, jux- larmony with the raised tone in the top voice: ¢-" The F-B tritone between the two progress the deliberate archaisms of the fauxbourdon (phrase 5), along with the har- ‘monic progression down a tone rather than a fifth (phrase 6), provide aural signals of the hexachordal shift and its confirmation.’ Following the final ““sospir,” descents ofa filth to the dominant then the tonic refer back to several Previously heard passages: (1) the descent from a’ to ein phrase 1; (2) the de- scent from e” to a’ in phrase 2; (3) the descent form a’ to e’ in phrase 4; and finally, (A) the bass descent from a tod in phrase 5° The last phrase, the only ‘one to contain the full six-chord range of the natural hexachord (the F was omit. {ed in phrase), provides the final clarification ofthe dla relationship, resolving the antitheses of lines 1 and 2. ‘The appearance of both B’ and BS in the phrase that finally cadences to d inclusion of both flat and natural hexachords the sphere of ad “minor’” mode that is neither dorian nor aolian exclusively. The predominance of the natural hexachord at the two major section endings (mm. 24 and 49) indicates, however, that dorian is the pre- ferred form for the d mode of this piece. The hexachordal dualism can be considere: lodic terms t mode, Whereas in me- he placement of the mi- ic interpretation regulates the spectrum of chords {hat are formed with the six hexachordal pitches as the foots, the sharpest derive from the BYB} vari the fauxbourdon F lary chords of ea fies va carcely veiled fantasy ofthe sexual ac by a descent to d over the cours ig phase tht efecto shit fom to 3} cone Bralogun ot the iden of seperate denies merging he Separateness is represented by the 4] hexachords as well as the tonic and dominant, union by the tonal itself, (ough I have described t wteverdi of course conveys it ‘madrigals of this time, control of texture is prominent. The fi ‘coring, for example, is reserved for two points in the set onal shift from tonic to dominant and from flat phrase 2s the “transformation” is effected, an: i140 tonic in the final phrase of the madrigal (on spening section the return at “in un solo sospir’ achieves more than a confirmation of the tonal stand fourth phrases, As the bass drops out, le ‘and alto to complete the line, Montever the union of the tw ton of the texture t the process by ending, There the the unison d’ should be barely heard, ‘no emphasis after the foregoing events.EXAMPLE 4.5. Excerpt (mm. 25-32) from ‘Cor mio, mentre v1 miro," Book Four the same harmonic pattern: in our terms, IV-I'-V-I (Ex. 4.5). The chordal content of the entire sequence extends from the flattest to the sharpest har- monies of the one-flat hexachord: B? (subdominant of F) to A (dominant of ID). For the following section (mm. 33-41) Monteverdi then retains the bass of the sequence, transposing it up a fifth into the tenor voice. This time the sequence begins from the tone F and cadences on C, G, D, and A (the chordal content of the natural hexachord). Above the tenor, pairs of upper voices sing the line “since a heart so quickly is reborn through you” to con- tinually rising melodic sequences and in an ascending pattern of voice pair- ing (quinto and alto followed by alto and soprano twice in succession) The intent of all these devices (the high bass, ascending patterns of voice pairing, ascending melodic sequences, and above all, ascending tonal terns both within each of the two hexachords and from the one-flat to the natural) is unmistakable. Monteverdi cone sharp as an asct to vitale (renewing the motion from the opening lines). The double ascent again represents the flat and natural hexachords in succession, now in a chordally omophonic texture for eight measures and the sound of major triads exclusively for sixteen measures. ‘The endings of the two eight-measure subd tonicand dominant, respectively, remind us est nonphrygian degrees of th of- fifths patterns ‘na yecondary ‘ines 5 and 6 to lines 1 and 2 di reveals in this double sequene between hexachords and mode, ‘meaning of the events of the opening section. The gaz! ‘ere become a viewpoint on the dual effects of second, appear frequently in the time, owing to thelr easy harmonization of scala this case the ascending, melo Here the harmonic sequence extends exactly to the the natural hexachord, whieh’ the chords A and d, ther chy nor a mode. ‘imply breaks off when the chords of the hexachord have all beet ‘phrase Monteverdi arranges that a the minor seventh from their first to la ‘and, born through you, dies,’ to a bri part slowly moves upward by step ( jo the caclence. Most n the piece, In the second section iecompl Beek ing, sharpward motion away from the B chor nn of the chords of the natural hexachored 's prominent! ahi othe sharp hexachord, but serve to rendermore decisive the cancellation of the BY as w ‘major harmony. This piece is not cast in the key of d as itis commonly understood today. ‘The dorian key signature is more meaningful here than it generally isin the ‘music of Bach, for example. We are dealing, however, with a d mode in which flat and natural areas coexist, but in which owing to the articulation of hexachordal groupings they can be separated conceptually. The tonal structure of “Cor mio, mentre vi miro’ can be said to reinterpret the main events ofits opening, narrative section in its second, analytical one, making in the latter a systematic ordering by fifths of the two hexachords and their cadence degrees and seemingly subordinating the cadences to d/D and al to this more general idea of ascent. At the same time, the arrival at the sharp limit of the natural hexachord in measures 40-41 confirms the vital relation- ship between tonic and dominant that was played out in the six phrases of the opening section. The relationship between the particular, which belongs to the tonic-dominant narrative of part 1, and the general, as represented by the transpositional hexachord-oriented process, is one of perfect balance, in which any positive conclusions regarding the priority of one or the other would invite a lessening of interpretive subtlety. ‘The situation just described contrasts with both the idea of Teiltonarten as a society of equal cadence degrees within a single system (since the degrees of the hexachord are clearly not treated as equal to one another) and that of the alliance of different key signature areas (transposition levels) with par- ticular modes and their transpositions. This key of d does not comprise three hexachords: since the two-flat region does not appear, we cannot de- scribe g as either the subdominant or the transposed dorian mode. Nor do Monteverdi usually introduce the sharp hexachord, although in certai other madrigals of Book Four it does happen. The five cadence degrees in the double sequence of “Cor mio” (measures 32-41)—F, C, G, diD, and a/A—tepresent the content of a two-hexachord framework in which the sixth cadence—to e/E—if it were present, would probably be of the phrygian rather than dominant-tonic type. In the rare case of madrigals where the dominant-tonic cadence to elE sig- nals the full three-hexachord range of the system, Monteverdi is careful to imbue the e/E cadence and the sharp hexachord generally with great alle- Botical importance. In the fourth book as a whole the introduction of the sharp hexachord belongs to the key of a, not d. In a it expresses a durus quality associated with that key as well as indicating a general tendency to- ward fifth organization of the modes according to the relative flatness or sharpness of their hexachordal content. Nevertheless, in Book Four the cat us durus d mode madrigal “Anima del cor mio’ has a three-hexachord tonal range in conjunction with a stronger than usual degree of emphasis on the dominant, a (see Ex. 2.2, above), Soon after the fourth book, however, Monteverdi w he cantus mollis d mode nto its cantus: wening the use of the former as n key signature," This process leads to prepare the final D- ible with -hexachord cantus durus d mode is possi eeing atti : ass polar subdominant to a. The possibility of frortulation oe within the sharp hexachord is reserved for special places in the fourth and filth madrigal books, os well as Orfeo I appear ional situation within cans ae perme na idulation to e involviny Saar: Hhexachord, without of course the sharp key gnatue) coma ghth book." Even in the late works, however, the fo aint wetted in'“Cor mio, mentre vi miro” remains viable, and mii to constitute the normal view of that mode in Monteverdi's o@uvnt “0 Mirtillo, Mirtill’anima Mia” (Book Five) nating, analyses of Monteverdi madi OPE wail” from Book Five, the fist problem that ‘the great variety of cadence degrees. Their relative fre Jacement in the work did not seem to confirm any particular temade ofthe piece." The absence of any sort of hierarchical orden the cadences seemed to go hand in hand with the appearance ofl degrees of the natural system: C (tice), €/D (ive times), el Free times), G (our times) a (four times), Other ence ly apparent: the piece began with a B’ chord, avo, which was then transposed up fone, ant acadence ree on which the piece eventually ended, d/D, did not come unt most tworthirds ofthe way through the piece Dakuhaus ara the principal tonality, since it appeared as the cadenc ond penultimate Dhrases ofthe piece, the second ee makings mnultimate phrase transposing from G Baraca seca Arts’ remark regarding piece hat "beg iN e is unrelated to ‘ith another, and end ina mode that is unre Y io verdi’s invoking, the con And Giulio Cesare Montevere ep tivalent to the mixed modes. might be related to the sx degrees ofthe natura Be kexschorc), ‘some explanation was required for the intodat ion wony in the first cadence to F Neiba fourth cade Wo F, was approached via Ba (a “"Iydian’ cadence li iiDaniheus suggested that the BY haey oe sierra pe { Iydian Fscaleof the PE oar cate natural aya. This explanation press resent the six finals hough Dahlhaus does not spel » the fairly frequent fame situation would then have n became ihe soe aTwo Madvigals Compared natural system, Some of the tonal characteristies of the modes remained along with their cadential representatives as a “society” within the natural system." ‘There is, pethaps, no great problem with this description, taken on its ‘own. But as soon as itis extended much further, serious difficulties arise. In “O Mirtillo,”’ for example, the tone B’ recurs in several instances that are not related to cadences to the lydian or dorian degrees. Some of these are clearly text-related. In measure 32 it expresses the word pietd and in measure 51 the ‘word crudo, While these might be explained via the old justification of the causa pulchritudinis for occasional or truly accidental tones that do not define the system, other B”s serve the function of transposition. Phrase 5 trans- poses phrase 3 at the fifth below, shifting the phrygian f-e motion of the lowest voice to b’-a. The final section of the madrigal (mm. 36-69) divides into two halves, of which the second is a transposition of the first at the fifth above, the first half introducing a’ chord, the second not. Already we have three different forms of justification for the reappearances of the one pitch that lies outside the natural system: a scalar/modal model for the first B, an “occasional” explanation of certain other B’s, and a transpositional func- tion for still others. The multiplicity of these explanations tends to obscure the connections that analysis requires between the various appearances of the tone. Dahlhaus’s allying several of the B”s to shifts of system occasion- ally leads to counterintuitive explanations that end up having to be re- jected." For, owing to his giving too much weight to the alteration of harmo- nies from minor to major, Dahlhaus assigns each of his systems (my hexachords) a too-narrow chordal range. Thus his three-hexachord di Of the final section of ““O Mittillo’ places the last phrase of the madrigal within the sharp hexachord, whereas the triads in this phrase are simply D, G, E, af, C, and F—precisely the content of the natural hexachord. The three D chords that appear in the last four measures all come about as the result of tierce de Picardie-ike alteration.” Thave proposed that in analyzing these pieces we make a distinction be- tween the concepts of system and hexachord. Such a distinction enables us to recognize tonal shift and transposition that do not render the key signa- ture meaningless and do not cause conflict between the “explanation” of accidentals and the role that analysis assigns them. As we have seen, hexachordal distinctions may or may not coincide with the transposition of discrete musical units, Shift of system and modal transposition, however are far more difficult to reconcile conceptually with changes of a midphrase. When transposed units do coincide with hexachordal shift such as in the “O bellezza’” sequences of “Cor mio, mentre vi miro must consider that Monteverdi intends to draw clear tonal distinction: the basis of transposition level. His making such distinctions brings in only the question of (shift Although, introduce another vari of interpretative subject ‘Analytical Questions Two ManrigEa Compares a. provides a relatively easy solution to the question of the composer's elusive thought processes Mer aetinction between hexachords and systems has the enormou sntage of not involving the idea of modal transposition within the ph That ie, the pair of cadences to Fin phrases 1 and 4 of © Mintilo” and i ir to alA in phrases and 11 all involve B* in one instance andl Bt in the fer, If a shift of a system of caclences or Teiltonarten were involved, We dd have to view one cadence in each of the three pairs as a transpositlony therefore as representing a different mode and modal society from iis art, The six cadence degrees of “O M are, in fact, inde a of the question of modal transposition, even though Artusl dewaad ‘opening phrases ofthe piece in such terms." They can be said toon Hi society” within the cantus durus, but not a modal society, merely of endence degrees. When Giulio Cesare Monteverdi used the ai ‘mixed modes in connection with “O Mirtillo’’ and a series of other justify what Artusi had seen as a defect, he used the term mae different senses, one of which we recognize as referring 10 6 sprees, That is, he described Striggio’s “Nasce la pena mia’” (calli vine’ from the standpoint of the prima pra ‘all t, eighth, eleventh, and fourth’ (essendo. un Tuono che consta di primo, di ottavo, di undecimo, & di is almost casual allusion to piece in one mode Jothers at the same time affirms that the idea of a sing! dy true for some pieces that exhibit modal (or cadential) variety If rine l¢ happens to be d dorian then the dualism of BYB§ is 10 be ON separate wat And you, why Mian, povido Amore? —Meestiny parts us, ign of tanding, of Monteverdi's intent regarding the tonal des Phenolits greatly both from knowledge of the procedui ninth book and from consideration of Hs text, twodo not play a part in Dahlhaus’s ipterpretation, contained than “Cor mio,"” owing, to its origins in I! pastor fido, where functions asa response to the kind of between the lovers Amarylli and Myrtillus that is expressed in the poem ““Cruda Amarilli” (which Mon- teverdi placed immediately before “© Mirtillo’ in the fifth book, although the two pieces are unrelated musically). Although Amaryllis and Myrtillus love one another and Myrtillus declares his love, Amaryillis is forced by her betrothal to Sylvius to hide her feelings. Hence the closing lines of the poem. Because some ofits meaning demands acontext not given within the Poem itself, the epigrammatic element of “O Mirtillo” is less clearly defined than itis in “Cor mio,’” atleast in terms of the separation of its narrative and analytical elements. The conclusion expresses a typical situation—lovers separated by destiny—but one that is not so general or abstract as that of “Cor mio.’’It, too, reveals a basic antithesis between union and separation, but the birth/death element that led to the various levels of ascent/descent patterning in ““Cor mio” is not present. The second half of the poem is in- troduced, like that of ‘Cor mio,"” by an exclamatory phrase (Oh, hearts too unhappy in love!"’), but it does not duplicate the dynamic of the first. Instead, it explains the general idea that lies hidden behind the first six lines. Myrtillus has pronounced Amaryllis cruel because he does not understand that her lack of response is determined by the dictates of destiny rather than ove. In her questions Amaryllis describes the relationship between destiny, and love that applies to their situation. Monteverdi's means of representing the interaction of the particular and the general in “O Mirtillo” is straightforward. It involves the relationship between the final, d, to the other five cadences of the system as well as to the various forms of flat/natural shift that appear throughout the piece. In order to highlight the first of these relationships, Monteverdi divides the madrigal into two halves of exactly thirty-four and one-half measures each, avoiding all cadences to d/D until the exclamatory phrase that opens the second half. The extended “0” of “O anime in amor troppo infelici”’ is the only word of the poem in melismatic rather than syllabic style. As in “Cor mio, mentre vi miro,”” this point of sudden understanding leads to a general conclusion in which abstract qualities are invoked (now love and destiny rather than beauty). Whereas the predominance of the dominantitonic relationship in the first half of ‘Cor mio’ had accompanied expressions of the union of the lovers, the tonal variety created in the first section of “© Mintillo” reps sents Myrtillus’s failure to understand that they are united by love: “ ‘Myrtillus . .. if only you could see into the heart of the one whom you call cruelest Amaryllis, then . . . you would have for her that compassion that you demand from her.”’ The musical analogue of Myrtillus's failure to see beyond appearances is the very quality that seemed to support the idea of Teiltonarten: the mode is unclear in terms of direct relationships between the cadence degrees, since no two degrees express a to ant relation- ship and the succes: the system than the mode, lowing the end ind half of the mad jately to d/D, And, ax Amaryllis’s words make clear, al: girine wo tovers are both unhappy n thelr ove, the love it eal: "Oh, hearts oo unhappy in love! What joy is for you, my hear, to be loved? What joy for me to have so dear a lover?” Monteverdi represents the cor {ainty of their love by means of a three-phrase grouping (mm. faddeneing in toni, dominant, and toni in turn.” An important feature» thisdsminor grouping isthe absence ofthe tone BY asf the turn to the tone ‘wore somehow expressing a resolution of the flat/natural juxtapositions of Ae opening section, Yet the second hal of the work contains thre further faeces to 0 ral hexachord after introduction of the one-flat an considerable dominant emphasis. In “Luci serene” over the course of two parallel sections, the second a transposi first up a second. Confirmation of the mode appears in the form of rrp. g = sition of a closing section down the fifth from dominant to tonic in all three ‘cases. And the relationship between hexachordal and modal aspects of the tonality emerges clearly, though in different forms, in the sections that pre- cede the final transposition. In “Cor mio, non mori?,”” for example, Monteverdi uses transposition of RN tere (os the fecond I juin to the tonic after a strong motion a sixcmeasure phrase upward by fifths (C-G, than G-d and dA) to leat ‘what is simultaneously the climax of the setting and a reprise of the opening, Fesolution of the division within the po phrase in varied, concentrated form. This occurs three-quarters of the way attached to the through the setting with the phrase, ‘Su, mio cor, morit,”’a direct response to the first line of the poem. Cor Mio, Non Mori? Cor mio, non mori? e mori My heart, you do not die? Die! idole tuo, ch ‘Your idol, who has been taken ® ‘ate, fia tosto in altri braccia accolto. ‘From you, will soon be embraced by other arms. Dek, spezzat, mio core! ‘Ah, break, my heart! lascia, ascia con 'aura ancol'ardore; Leave with the air your ardor as well; cdi’esser non pud che tizeserbiin vita For it is not possible for you to remain alive senza speme e ata ‘Without hope and aid. ose complementary rel Su, incor, mor!Tomoro,iovadora Come, my heart det dle, L depart: rophe summarizes the loveldeath an dolcissimo ben mio My sweetest love | Luci Serene e Chiare | ‘The tonal dynamic of the climactic d-A phrase and the resolution to the duplicate that of the opening phrase, from } which it is derived (Ex. 5.1). The procedure is conceptually similar to the EXAMPLES.1 Excerpt (mm. 42-49) from “Cor mio, non mori?" Book Four Se mio cor io Se mio cor a serbia 9 sil Ti sco agtanions mee“ EXAMPLES.2_ Excerpt (mm, 39-42) from “Luci serene ¢ chiare,"" Book Four mo? t-te boy Lg ra me ‘work, but it also relates to descending-fifth phrases in the preceding sec- tions, a feature that parallels the poem’s extracting a general conclusion from the earlier narrative. In a procedure analogous to the outlining of the ‘two main hexachords in “‘Cor mio, mentre vi miro’” by means of ascending- fifth sequences through their cadence degrees, Monteverdi follows the “O ‘miracol” phrase by sections that develop the idea of continu cadences and melodic lines simultaneously. The effect is to define the mira- cle as one whose character is primarily downward, or relaxing in effect, de- scribing the quality of sexual “death.” ‘Monteverdi gives this strophe a setting that is substantially longer thai the first two together (fifty-one measures); it, too, contains inner parallelism and repetition: mi. 39-41 = 61-63 (C: “O miracol d’amore’’) mum. 42-52 = 64-74 (mostly descending-fifth cadential patterns) = 74-82 (basically same as mm. 64-74, now a fifth lower) mm, 52-60 = 82-89 (closing section with internal transposition from a tod) This setting of the third strophe as a whole is dominated by the familiar pro- cess of fifth motion, in two-measure cadential sequences that move in the main through the hexachordal degrees E, alA, d/D, g/G, Cla (mm. 44-52, 6-74), then a fifth lower, alA, diD, giG, C, F (mm. 74-82) (Ex. 5.3). The ExaMPLES.3 Excerpt (mm. 42-52) from “Luci serene e chiare,’” Book Four AL = mach wet 1 a AAS sey foxce_s ttn apd D fa” degrees ol cadence degrees and more patterned form with short sections employing, fifth from dominantincluding, occasionally harmonies outside the framework of ural system before closing in the dominant in m. 87, The connection ‘wcent to the sharpest point of the natural hexachord—dominant of the devices to the durus symbolism of the poem is a meaningful conned donning mace by means of downward tonal motion to the tonic, ity the cantus durus a mode.* ilerpart in ’Sfogava’’—the flattest harmony of the two-flat hexachord— we tonic for the ending, ‘Monteverdi's work, Whereas in the “Cor mi Three Madrigals in Cantus Mollis da toi relates In the cantus durus d mode settings we observe a tendency to dynamic in which “modulation” to the dominant is centr both flatnatural hexachordal shift the fi tion of the sharp natural hexachordal regions (the fourth through sevent In the the beginning of fOWRGE Je cantus mollis d mode piece of Book Four, ‘“Sfogava con le phrases of the opening section. The ‘of phrases (mim te Monteverdi reveals an entirely different dynamic. an unforgettable impression of melodic descent through the di” the midpoint for the second Sfogava Con le Stelle phrase ending with a play Just as you show me While you thas shine, Her raze beauty, If you would show her i My vivid ardor, la fareste col vostr‘aureo sembiante With your golden countenance you ‘would make her just as you make me pietosa si come me fate amant )-major endings}, herrare beau | if you would show her my vivid ardor [F-major ei ““Sfogava con le Phrases sound more modern and tonal than those to Dand A, since style of choral recitation that begins the madrigal and reappears six more prise three variations of the times in the two outer sections, and the ninth chords that set the ina number of madrigals, often when “pietosa’” in the final section. Monteverdi combines the two mt a series of the end, as the poet beseeches the stars to inspire compassion in his be- loved. At this point its apparent that the choice of atntus mollis plays a de- Cisive role in the overall conception. The two cantus durus pieces that pr cede it can be said to exhibit a sharp dynar the sharpest points of the settings—in both cases an sages that ascend through ths. In "“Sfogavaorganization coi mostrate”” and ial phrases of the first and third groups in D and F), sound in four-voice settings, while the second and third phrases of these groups and both phrases of the two-phrase central group follow the identical pattern of successive vocal trios for soprano, qui tenor, then alto, tenor, bass. Monteverdi increases the permutational ment by having each of the five voices sing in two phrases third groups, ‘Thus, despite its impression of inform: cone stelle,” like that of a great many of the the construction of “Sfogava tion of mode and system. on delineating the mode's plagal and authentic cadences, primary hexa- chord, and cadence degrees. To this point he does not expand the tonality to either of the adjacent hexachords.’ The third and final section—“La fareste col vostr’aureo sembiante pietosa si come me fate amante’’—completes the tonal spectrum of the cantus mollis d mode along with the meaning of the sentence, The return of the “tonic’’ key, d, along with the five-voice homo- phonic texture and falsobordone style coincides with the point at which the conditional clauses give way to the poet’s prayer for piefosa from the be- loved. The word pietosa be; completes the meaning of the precedin, make her compassionate.”” Whereas in the opening section each reci comprised either four or five syllables, now the penultimate line appears in its entirety (thirteen syllables) in falsobordone style, leading to a change of harmony (a plagal cadence) only on the word pictosa.* The immediate trans- position of this phrase down a fifth and the raising of the third in the G- major harmony of the recitation set up the introduction of c for the second pietosa and the first of the ninth chords (also c), whi This point introduces the only real exte EXAMPLES.A Excerpt (nm. 45-5) from “Sfogava con le stll,”” Book Four 1a free ool vost? aes seman Pie = st motive, returning to the one-flat hexachord A {falsoborilone passage initiates the combination of ideas with which the {gal ends. This time the recitation begins in F, but instead of movin pagal cadence itleads into the ninth chord (on the subdominant "pietosa si” motive, thus forming the F-major harmonic pattern [-1V" ‘The bass is that of the harmonic sequence in F that closed the middle s ‘if you would show her my vivid ardor”), which now combines ith your golden countenance you would mak with the ninth chord and the tonic to dominant within this phrase impels the final ascen which represents the poet's love, in contras passion, From the B’-F-C ascent of the ““pietosa polyphonic combination with a new ascent idea for “just as you make loving,’” continues up through C, G, and D harmonies, before arrivingthe final phrygian cadence to A that completes the range of the one: hexachord once again and sets up the close on In the conjunction of descent and ascent p sion and love we may speak of a broader framework of allegorical meaning that recurs throughout Monteverdi's work and i of particular importance to these madrigals. The poet's love, aspiration, and hopes from his lady tend to generate ascending or sharpward motion, while her response, whether: piela or morte, is more closely bound up with descent or flat motion. ‘frequently interpreted as the yielding quality of femininity, the opposite of what in other madrigals, Orfeo, and the Ballo delle ingrate, will be linked to | hard-heartedness and described by forms of musical durezan,’ The exchange between male and female lovers often therefore involves the dynamics of il ascent and descent within the harmonic range of the hexachord or system. In the fourth and fifth books the cantus mollis g mode is established un- equivocally as the characteristic representative of the flat system. Before | considering works in that mode, howéver, we may consider briefly the only i other carttus mollis madrigal from Book Four that is i ! minor, the F-major setting of of compas- igal oeuvre. chose what he probably considered the lydian mode, presumably for its ‘mollis associations. The major mode type also allowed him to play with the idea of guerra in a form of triadic guerriero style that is much milder in tone than that of the eighth book. The setting hardly modulates in the sharp di- rection at all, even to the dominant. Instead, the word pietate in the openin; line introduces one of the basic tonal ideas, modulation by thirds inthe fat direction. At times such tonal motion covers the range of the one- ortwo-flat hexachord: F, d, Bb, g, Eb, (Bb), C, Fin measures 10-16 and C;a, F, d’, Bb, in mm. 25-28, for example. Here the playfulness of the lovers’ exchange ‘underlies the choice of the cantus mollis; hence Monteverdi's placing piece immediately following the two g-minor canzonetta-style settings, mison giovenetta”” and “Quel augellin che canta.” Volgea "Anima Mia Soavemente ‘Volgea I’anima mia soavemente {quel suo caro, elucente sguardo, tutto belta tutto desire, My soul sweetly turned. Her dear and luminous Glance, all beauty, all desire, verso me scintillando, e parea dire: ‘Toward me sparklingly, as if to say: “dam‘iltuo.cor, chénonaltrondeio "Give me your heart, vivo.” cannot live.”” E mentre cor sen vola ave V'invita ‘And while my heart flew to where it quella beltainfinita, sospirando gridai: Misero, e privo del cor, chi mi da Mirispos Once again the po the idea around which the poem fe a separate person, OWE ny schny ‘ao ne give his heart and his giving heart and his plea for life; anil (H) a response. The first of these stages corresponds to an Unis i lationshi at ln cadence on one oF ing uni ed to tonic and dominant hi f Monteverdi presents the chordal range of the t invil initiates a large-scale desc to cadences on D and g, through phrases ending, is nadir to B’ and the lover’s sigh. A turning po llows the sigh, as the lover cries out his depri in phrases cadencing to F and C. “who will give me life1 acne XAMPLES.7 Excenpt (mm. 58-66) from “"Volyea Vanima mia soavemente,"” Book Four b ‘The ascent spans the fa’ (B') and ’’mi’” (A) cadence degrees of the flat sys- tem; since the cadence to A is the dominant-tonic type, the sequence ex- tends into the natural hexachord. In three of the madrigals thus far discussed the ascent to an A-major ca~ dence is connected to a reference to the th’esser non pud ch Su, mio cor, moril,”” and "chi mi dé vi cent—even in “Cor mio, non mori sf hope, whereas the ensuing de- scent represents death, whether sexual or literal. In “Volgea’” the shift from the poet's anticipation of life to the beloved’s response marks a leisurely, ‘erotic return to g. This is accomplished in one of the largest-scale transposi- tions of a closing section downward by fifths in the collection: twelve mea- sures closing in d, followed by a slight expansion of the section—to thirteen measures—closing in g, both with the text “Mi rispos’ella in un sospir d'amore: ‘Io, che son il tuo core’ ” (she answered me in a sigh of love: “ ‘who am your heart The first of these sections begins from the A-reajor harmony of the climax of the ascent and cadences first in F ("Mi rispos’ella in un sospir: senza speme e aita. ‘The primary allegory of the as- inently, appearing in the bass before the first of the final cadences to §; is reference to the two-flat hexachord is an allegory of the restoring of the “poet's heart by his beloved. The soprano descent from d” to g! rounds out itches in the ope’ “ing measures of the piece. Satisfaction for the lover is close at hand ing deprived of life belong exclusively to the attno- sphere of sexual play. Ohime, Se Tanto Amate Nhime, se tanto amate you are so fond lisentir dir Ohimé, deh, perché fate Of hearing the word ala you cause fo the repe: then repeated in t variation; The soprano a of “Jo” sounds for three full measures, while be- neath it the tenor and quinto, beginning in parallel thirds, make a protracted scalar descent that expands in the tenor to the range of a tenth. As the so- prano falls the fifth from “Io” to the d’ of ‘che son il tuo core” for the final cadence, the tenor, functioning as the bass line, rising and falling fifth d’-a'-d’, underscoring the identity of the beloved and the heart (Ex. 5.7). chi dice Ohime morire? ‘moro, un sol potrete Janguido e doloroso Ohime sentire; poet complains sigh of hopeless‘madrigal, indicating the prominent role of what were known historically as the indifferente (mediant) and mezzana (dominant) degrees in both the domi- nant and tonic keys (i.e., Fwithin the key of d and B’ within g)."' Salzer also demonstrates how the setting of a poem comprising three conditional sen- tences allies its sense of tonal completion to that provided in the poem by (primarily tonal) and surface understanding of works of this kind. Since 's the structural dimension of the work, the follow- ing analysis attempts to address the question of that interaction more fully by highlighting certain historical features of the tonality. (One such feature is the antithesis of B* and Bk. While a structural analysis unlikely to give much weight to the majoriminor fluctuations that appear in most music of this time (and rightly so when their use is confined primar- ily to tierce de Picard such fluctuations are by no means all alike. “Ohime, se tanto amate,”’ in fact, plays with the roles of B® as the + as something more than the artifi jcadences to G that are not inflected with the Bs. The dualism of ‘sential to the presentation of the two kinds of ohimé around which the |poem revolves—the one “languid and sorrowful” and the other “sweet.” ‘The word languid was, in fact, used repeatedly by seventeenth-century the orists to refer to the mollis quality of the fl and “hard,”’ not sweet latter association came to exist more -ased. In ““Ohim®, se tanto amate”” i jes to underscore the indicated more clearly than something that is proposed by the lover as not a real presence. When, in the second ixtaposing g to G), the BP degree. | motivic level. The falling third of the word | work, appearing constantly in the sequen sures. The opening four measures and the cadence are equally striking, EXAMMLES.® Ending of “Ohime, ally ab ‘of “hardnes of the durus affective 5 isan equally vital det unto amate,” Book Four a unique form of ce de Picardie (See imate chord was devised so as to per to the final G-major cadence, dominant-thirteenth effect. It must be noted, neverthele: chord, a harmony that often appears at places where the asso. the potential of serving as a sign phere, by virtue of its not belonging to the chord in what late ipplies."*Ithas, therefore, theory might describe stures, the former appearing in the g mode of the madrigal and the latter 8). Taken on its ow: that yectrum of the flat or natural hexachords. Here its integration in ‘Picardie cadence in the one-flat system represents a means of legitimizings the raised third degree at the surface level. chime" idea itself suggests a dualism in the sigh th in patterns of descent versus ascent. third motion i its best-known feature, the risi one that moreover displays nothing of asigh, suggesting rather the quality of aspiration. Harmonic Base sft from static to dynamic harmonic motion in combination comprises a sl ‘with a movement from dissonance to resolution as the bass mo tonic to dominant (Ex. 5.9). Its immediate repel though the n, starting a third higher FAAMPLES.O Beginning of “Ohime, se tanto amate,”” Book Four Oni- m we pen ce om ed)Pen ') by virtue of the od ic kets sae aie eae ite fp ne roma pint the ham aterm nove te oe ie circle. is, fre if sures WoL TARTS rom the B’ of meast 2-4 through F, ¢, g, d, In the interaction of the main melodic ideas Montes gests continuing arousal. The ascent delineates mode and system simulta: neously, integrating homophonic and polyphonic procedures wi ence ae omar (mm. 1-2), the immediate transpassition of the “hime” idea up the t peers motion to the indiffe rente degree of the mode as well as ttest degree of the central one-flat hexachord—B’—with which the ascent by fifths to the sharpest degree—M\—begins. The inflection of the C to mi adds a hint of the two-flat hexachord or subdominant. The culminati the ascent begins as the series comtinues with the return of the “hime” &; leading this time not to the B'--F indifferente but to the final rising fi the series, from d to A (mm. 9-10), repres \e principal ee amen oboe te 1e hexachord, a kind of summ ing-up of the rang through dosure of the harmonic circle of the hexachord, The remaind resolves this upward mo inthe ind, beginning from the d-A culmination o! the upper-voice descent from {" to d" introduces some “rather comy “voice leading’” involving the tones C and Cj.” The F-major harmony of sures 12 and 15 involves a thied relation with the A of measure 11 and in with the A of measure 16; hence the chromatic tenor and quinto parts. The F is enclosed by third-related harmonic pro» sisions between the A-major climax of the ascent and the A-major domi: lof the deminor cadence. We can virtually hear the indifferente dey of, move out of the role of mere cadence degree to become an integral ‘of the modulation, its tonal role highlighted by the surface juxtapos: 1e A chord of measure 11 COM to that point, where it ‘deh, perché fate che dice’” in measures 12-16, pit ime’ ws way to the words the word ly corresponding to the F enclosure. And exact ers in measure 16 to complete the line Monteverdi reverses the F-A progressiot ‘upward motion to fall a seventh from g to A on the first return terval used for the sigh in the piece. tegrated In both places it separates iter \ce that role is expanded in preparation for the al ith death, The homophonic F of measures scent to A over the first eleven measures wn of which takes on something of the relaxed WI have described ‘The prominent b’-e' de ‘before the cadence signal the comp! die, you will be the inadequacy of this prematureig in d/D transposes down a fifth to the introductory harmonies to each of these oupings define the hexachords in tu: ely. But the brief appearances of the jhime” figure before the two main cadences only remind us that something further is needed to the intensity of the oper is section does not satis- factorily resolve the dominant with which the first section ended indicates a profound awareness on Monteverdi's part of the role of tonal structure in mirroring a poetic te One element that is lacking is an emphasis on the indifferente degree of the tonic key (and hence on the two-flat hexachord) comparable vhich appeared in the dominant. Just before the G cadence to the second section Monteverdi sounds the minor third e”"-c" for the final hime. As the begin- ning of the third conditional sentence enters, introducing the final section, Monteverdi returns to the e™ in the same voice, as if to demonstrate exact what is needed to provide a satisfying g-minor resolution to mirror the lover's fantasy of endless sweet sighs. Even before sounding the e”” he sig- nals a change with the juxtaposition of the initial BY harmony of the next section (on “Ma” [but]) to the major third of the G chord ending the preced- ing section: “Butif, my beloved, you wish that I have life from you, and you from me . . .” The indifferente degree, so necessary to the tonal structure, ithetical on the surface, The phrase closes with a st der jOhimi lases)." From this point the final section can be described as the apotheosis of the “ohime'” idea, setting forth its contradictions and essaying the final cadence “as the lover's vision of a satisfactory resolution (Ex. 5.10). Monteverdi pre- sents his “argument’” in four sets of “ohimé”’ sequences, each to a different harmonic pattern, The first (mm. 47-52) begins from the above-mentioned EXAMPLES.I0 Cl “Ohim®, se tanto amate,”” Book Four : Aol oh = me ohi- mei - eee f f ok hice hi ~ Ine obi- fe bhi- "© mille doh” ohi- me okt BXAMPLES.10 Continued me ohm ot =e rib his mB chi = mobs wees te Mil- Te mile es eee E RC oclae 4 Y harmony, reiterated seven times before changing, and follows a pattern oftaling. Vrising-second harmonic motion, derived obviously from the ‘opening “Ohime’’: e’, F*, D', E*, C’, d’, B®, ca, b’, g, The end of sequence introduces for the end of the madrigal. The chorinding as the sole foreign element sm the sharper chords serve fionship to the flatter—e-F, closing a four- igrthird/rising- a faux- btourdon texture in which the two upper parts, singing the parallel fourths, are distanced by more than an octave from the bass, an effect undoubtedly intended to intensify the common association of fauxbourdon with harsh- ness; the lover has not yet warmed to his subject. In addition, the shifting between majoriminor and sharpiflat between successive harmonies gener- ates many cross relations, B'/bi’,f/F} and e’*/Es the most obvious.” The b* chord of the final cadence is introduced in ext clearly of conflict, ‘a phrase of such pronounced inner tension, the second set of iply a protracted reworking of the opening ‘symbol -peating them seven times (for the before), before moving to the four sonorities of the “hime” pattern over G, then exchanging the voices and repeating them while the bass moves to d. Even the five-part setting of the word ““avrete” that enters next, dividing the four “ohime’” sequences into two halves, continues the BYF harmonies of measures 2-4; as it continues with a cadence on B' it makes the connection between the rising sequence of the opening measures and the necessary in- differente degree of the principal mode. the upper pair of which move again in paral might imagine that the fauxbourdon sequence expresses distance between ice sequences an incomplete form of ime” sequence pattern, asin the first sequence, moving not in parallel but in contrary motion to the upper parts. The result is a circle-of-fifths pattern of alternating root position and six- three chords, beginning and ending on the dominant: d, a, d°, g, C°, F, B, Bh, af, D. The fourth and final phrase, in five parts, relates to each of the preceding three and serves as n, It carries over the final bass d from the cadence of the third phra until the last chord, resolving the tonic-dominant moti idea from the beginning of the piece and, more immediat presentation over the G pedal - quence, The d-minor harmony at the beginning of the final phrase is carried over from phrase 3, while the return of the soprano voices enables a return of the exact pitches of the melodic descent of the first set of “ohime’” se- quences (mm. 47-52). The only change in the melody thythm at the end to match that of measures 1~ as a five-measure pedal that does not move to G of the “ohime”” \d the final cadence pattern, derived from the ending of the first set srorghins saqucics, now follow a patter similar o the opening med- sures. design of the four final phrases can be viewed as a symme- Pret perhaps, of the satisfaction anticipated by the lover. The line and the same first and fourth phrases feature the same high melody i tinusual cadence to G, while the second and thied, framing the B cadence, both sound at low pitch and move the relationship wet rs yurth phrases is otherwise profoundly different. The between the first and fourth pI P aby tkreants i ing its provocative, bittersweet character; ut the technical sense its function ta ng cleat dence over its spelling,'® Owing to the strength and logic of his tonal Fracture Monteveral successfully integrates a “Toreign’” sonorty a the al cadence, where it represents the anticipation of sweetness. “hard” aspect Jonger ab chord in anything bu Madrigals in the Cantus Durus A Minor Mode Voi pur da Me Partte, Anima Dura Even though you are parting, Voi pur da me partite, anima dura, You do not grieve over ‘Alas! this isa cruel deat ‘né vi duol il parte, “Ohimé! quest’ un morine trudele, ¢ voi gioite? Quest’é vicino aver Vora suprema, 4 by Monteverdi expressions of hardness such ax ‘trate i if ce that can be appliedaia HHP PUNFEN COOR Ep RATIO TEE Book Five, where it stands in direct opposition to piel In Orfeo the figure Hope (Speranza) is set unequivocally in the cantus mollis (B’) in opposition the harsh laws of the underworld; and when Orpheus characterizes Eu- tydice in terms of what set her apart from other women, his references to her softness as opposed to the hardness of others prompts much shifting between cantus mollis and durus. In the Combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda a woman is literally disguised as a man and revealed as a woman (with a shilt to cantus mollis) only at the point of death. These and other important ex- Pressions of feminine softness and hardness, the very subject matter of the Ballo delle ingrate (literally "Ballet of the hard-hearted women’), typically juxtapose the modes of g and G. Yet, even though the madrigals of Books Five and Six that feature flat/natural shifts of key signature begin in g and end in G, their primary tonal qualities are determined by flat/sharp, not minor/major, contrast. Orfeo uses both types of shift with equal intensity, In the Book Four madrigals Montevercii does not explore the g/G dualism. In- stead, the mollis/durus dualism tencis to find expression in the modes on g and a. Among the latter works “Voi pur da me partite, anima dura” pro: vides the clearest expression of the «lurus affective sphere Guarini’s “Voi pur da me partite’ again divides into two parts, the first describing a situation with the responses of the poet and his beloved (lines 1-6), and the second (lines 7-8) drawing a general conclusion primary quality being illustrated, in this case the beloved’s “hardness.” And, as occurs in three other madrigals we have described, “Cor mio, ‘mentre vi miro,” “O Mintillo,”” and. “‘Luci serene,” the concluding section begins with an exclamation that is expressive of sudden illumination: “O bellezza,"" “O miracol d’amore,’” ’*O anime in amor troppo infelice,”” and now “O meraviglia di durezza estrema.”’ Monteverdi places the major seg. tional division ofthe work t the point where the exclamation enters (31) ‘Measures 1-30 make up a section centered on the principal mode, a, and that hints at a tonal “hardness” that will be fully realized in terms of the cantus durus only in the second part. ‘The primary tonal emphasis in the first section is on the mode of a and its relationship to its dominant, E. Secondary is its relationship t differente, C, and its dominant, G. The two areas C and e/E are associated With relative flatness and sharpness, respectively (as were F/B* and di/A in “‘Ohime”), reflecting their roles as the flattest and sharpest degrees of the sharp hexachord to serve as the final of a dominant-tonic cadence: C, G, dD, aA, e/E (whereas B serves only as dominant of e or the final of a phryg, ian cadence, and the flattest degree of the natural hexachord, F, is very spar- ingly used). In various ways C and E/e are juxtaposed and related to one another, some immediately expressive, others prolonged and “structural,”” but all related to a durus emphasis im the text After the initial a-minor chord, the setting of the first line moves, via the circle of fifths, from E through aand D to G (‘‘anima’’), at which point a rest breaks the line, The next phrase picks up on the next degree of the a The Fourth Book of Madrigataqaeva? wT fore, “anima,’” at which point Monteverdi introduces etspoation for the adjective 'cura’” that completes the line (Ex. 5.11). bass moves quickly through a passing a-minor chord, then leaps up a jor seventh to gf, crossing the tenor and setting up an augmented the word “dura; all five parts converge on this word for the E’=A ea that follows immediately. 115.11 Beginning of “Voi pur da me partite, anima dura,’’ Book Four por dame pars th J, Ren 4 oh the section comes with the seventh phrase, “and you re tiesires the hardest blow of alto the poet. Monteverd lear, The fifth and sixth phrases both move progressively arp direction from C to, in the chord succession C-G.D-E (the ‘onies associated with the word crudele). The prolonged Ea whphras interprets both the literal and the true meaningy of th ‘ts final A chord again juxtaposed to C at the beginning of the ces only a true move to the sharp hexachord would suffice nsnanetof exer hardnes,”thegoa” of which a dominant ¥ to B a little more than two-thirds of the way through the Two successive settings of a new phrase make the exch from eto D andthe second frm b to A In oc ad Mi toa {chord over the bass note o , ie wi Fay tiepanis to vii before the final chord, ‘The first of begins the move in the sharp direction, but is the crucial one, Not only does the b chord ion,EXAMPLES.12 Excerpt (mm, 31-37) from Book Four biting dissonance on ‘“durezza’ at the third above, a maneuver a, b, bi, and d” of the chord (Ex. 5.12). Th and sharp limits of the sharp hexachord, ‘most dissonant mi contra fa rl ind c’, are thus placed in the is phrase cl separate from new hexachord wi two ideas and one other, After a series of cadences, mi tonic cadences on d, a, and E, the I work. At the measure’ “*separarsi ting in C, separated by another rest from its inv the same texture but with harmonies that suggest hexachord: C, G, C the fir bass settles on a six-measure F ped: to A. The three degrees of the climax, C, and a/A~delineate the primary « makes the final flat The remaining forty-eight measures of the adrigal feature only these “e non sentir dolore” (and not to feel sory). C and G, the combination of “e lates an ascent through dominant- of these marking the climax af the follows the B-E cadence with a half ““e separarsi’’ in a slow, homophonic mediate repet a pivot back to the natural st time; C, F, a, G, C the second (Ex. 5. lences of the a mode, while the climax fe juxtaposition between the sharp (dominant)and iferente) chordal ‘extremes’ of the work, BXAMPU:5,13 Climax (mm, 68-76) of "Vol pur dame partite, anima dura,” Book Four * ome ee sae ad ‘aria di ‘el mar s‘acqueta e i ven ciel d’un al e adoro; Only Thave weeping and sorrowful Certainly when you were born My death was born. ler pieces as the ““Zefiro torna’” settings from Book Eight, is based ng into two sec- jual len; 1-36 and 37-73). After an initial seven measures hat begintonaanelouin the chord ofthe natural exachord (he i ' surroundings the effect of the poet’s beloved on her su nel in entre menses of alternating and utaned C ad G harmonies, enaing witha half close to the ater chord The effet fs external and de 1g vocal roulades for the key words “giro, “ which puns on the e tone enters with the word “sol” (only), which pur ont tenate meaning (oun the "alo lume” ofthe preceding ne). rmps at this point to an E chord, the phrygian degree of the system (mm. 37-44). From make a slow descent down i nant, B; this ge ne “nacque la morte mia’” turns to E via its dominant, » ich initia to the sharp hexachord, represents the paredoxial “birth of death’ inthe last Hine ofthe poem, Beneath thecaG, A, D (mmm, 1-2), then D, E, A Q-3)" A | dence to F the text “Certo quanto nasceste cost erudel e ria’ repeats as be- th the chords A, ] fore, now moving from the new dominant, B, down the fifth to F in a double } pairing of The first two E cadences (mm, 58 and 63) are partially avoided by virtue of the suspensions between the pairs of voices, but Mon- teverdi completes the cadence at the end of the transposition (mm. 67-68). His intent is that the cadence to E and the unusual transposition of a closing section up fifth make a secure tonal effect that could serve as a resolution. Now, however, he uses the ‘nacque la morte’ idea to modulate downward to the a-minor final via crcle-of-fifths motion to d, retaining, the provocative character of the idea in the final motion from the “subdominant tonic, a This piece, one just discussed, creates a relationship between the areas of G/C and B/Ela. The first section is in the key of the indifferente (nat- tural hexachord) and the second in the mezzana (sharp hexachord) and final Apart from a lone appearance in the opening phrase as part of the chordal spectrum of the natural hexachord, the F harmony is entirely absent from the setting. The cadential degrees, therefore, belong entirely to the sharp hexachord, even though that hexachord is framed by the natural hexachord beginning and ending, The final piece to be covered in this chapter, exhibits many of the same relationships. in this case the major chords, cadential appendage comple! ‘A, E, A)and the chordal spectrum of 'b) (Ex. 5.14), The melodic descent repres the tonal ascent quence used in “Ah dolente pat ‘un vivace morire. EXAMPLES.14 Beginning (and ending) of "Si ‘a chia vrei Si ch'io Vorvei Morire Si ch‘io vorrei morize ‘The beautiful mouth of my beloved, ‘Ah, dear and sweet tongue, Give me such a feeli Ahi, cara e dolce lingua, datemi tant’ ‘ nies that are polarized at the outset, C and tween the two as the sequences rise an ning al wl up and resolving dissonances (including, Peers PEP me). One sequence, setting the word day venga meno,” appears in descending and ascend and last appearance Monteverdi adds the line he bass Beneath the sopranctalto di jerrupted by rests, the line as a WI fond sequence 10 the pitches \d minor harmonies—C-G, a questo bianco seno, Ah, my life, on fin ch'io venga meno! Oh, press me until [swoon! Ahi bocca, ahi baci, ahilingua, torn’a Ah, mouth, ah, kisses, ah, tongue, 1 lire: Si ch‘io vorrei mori. In this madrigal, more perhaps than any other in Monteverdi's entire oeu- vre, there is not the slightest doubt of the primary sexual connotation of “‘death.’” Monteverdi makes this obvious throughout the setting as a whole; in terms of ascent/descent sequences this is the most patterned of all the madrigals from this, levels, sca- ar sequences, and the rising fourt wersion, Monte- however, with the tenor supplying er es Le etl hess 4 ing motion from the leading, tone to the fith is coupled with tonal ascent (sharpward motion):“4orn’a dire’ form a five-part C-major cadence that usher the opening measures, with their progression from C to A. In this piece the sharpest music appears in the seven framing measures, which are in the sharp hexachord, while the remainder of the piece is in the natural. Although the text is not in the epigrammatic style, its opening and closing lines do draw the inevitable conclusion from the narrative as the goal and the resolution. The sharp lof this musically provocative phrase is, of course, a representation of the llover’s reaching the peak of arousal. The only harmony in this phrase that outside the natural hexachord is b, a harmony thal the repeat of ly its appear- fh what is expected or antici- pated rather than actually present. Tonal motion through ever sharper chords to an E-A cadence is a procedure that has aligned with the climax of several madrigals we have considered. In those pieces it necessitated reso- lution downward by fifths for the final cadence, but here it appears as the final cadence where anticipation of sexual death is strongest. Possibly Monteverdi’s purpose in exceeding the range of the natural hexachord was ing ‘Since there were no sharp key signatures ‘of real sharp major keys other than G, th ly hasa sharp character by virtue of the necessit being approached from the flat direction. This chapter completes the process, described in the preface, of “freez- ing’” one phase in Monteverdi's tonal language for the purpose of establish- ing a measure for subsequent development of the language. In their struc- tural compactness and clarity, as well as their association of both modal and hexachordal qualities to text expression, the madrigals of Book Four are ideal for such a purpose. At the same time they indicate ways in which Monteverdi’s tonal language expanded in scope throughout the later works. Although it has been necessary to describe the two-system ““"mofl framework that reigns in Book Four as if it were a closed sys- een, capable of incorporating harmonic and tonal ‘elements that normally ie beyond the conceptual boundaries that any theo- retical description rooted in seventeenth-century theory must draw. In the chapters that follow analyses of individual works will be directed toward revealing how the “modal-hexachordal’” system gradually expands further, yet retains the principles described above as its core. From the difference between Books Four and Five is the reduct ‘Three on) G and D are in fact the onl CHAPTER SIX ae The Fifth Book of Madrigals (1605) ndpoint of medal-hexachordal organization the ea m # mn of the modal and D, in both systems, a procedure th: that is, in both mollis and durus forms. form major. In somewhat dID modes as well, a situat that emerges to a degree in the fit eS signatures, a true key ‘Although, owing in part to the absence of sharp signal ence Monteverdi Begins to recognize its existence in Book Five, eve wtapose several different forms of d/D modes within the same Pi rappo ben pud questo tiranno amore”). In Book Five Monteverdi re jon between the two d modes, even high> character pie ‘As in Book Four, the organization 1Monteag®® and the system-mode relationship, For the first time canta dara ork & composition shifts its signature from cantus mollis ‘Tare, the peeing in g and ending in G. As mentioned in Chapter madeig ae piece: the three-part cycle “Ch’io tami,” the first and third s of which make the above-mentioned shift, is “centered” in the receded and followed by ight madrigals, six ofthe first eight bein ols and seven of the final eight in cantus durus, The tonal pecs in each half might have been so placed inonderto gene forms fs modeat he end Book vest modal types atthe outset: "Cnda A Mirtillo” in d (cantus durus ima ni five parteyce "Bevo Silvio’ tion can therefore be considered to mak om ca to make a mollis/durus pivot arout

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5794)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (400)
• April - Mihail Jora

  

  Document4 pages

  April - Mihail Jora

  athka1

  No ratings yet
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Mansi Barberis/Itinerar Dacic/opt Lieduri

  

  Document39 pages

  Mansi Barberis/Itinerar Dacic/opt Lieduri

  athka1

  100% (1)
• Let Me Be Your Wings PDF

  

  Document10 pages

  Let Me Be Your Wings PDF

  athka1

  No ratings yet
• Pans Labyrinth Lullaby Tab

  

  Document1 page

  Pans Labyrinth Lullaby Tab

  aerocomp

  No ratings yet
• RLL ,,WT ?."R,,: Y B!:ftul

  

  Document2 pages

  RLL ,,WT ?."R,,: Y B!:ftul

  athka1

  No ratings yet
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (537)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (895)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (838)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (588)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1891)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (599)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (440)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1090)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (344)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1015)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (806)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1712)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1839)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (121)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1937)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2322)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4609)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2103)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4200)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1103)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (821)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)