THE CHROMATIC TECHNIQUE OF CARLO GESUALDO

By Carl Dahlhaus

(“Zur chromatischen Technik Carlo Gesualdos”, Analecta musicologica, 4 (1967),

77–96; “Il cromatismo di Gesualdo”, Il madrigale tra cinque a seicento, ed. Paolo
Fabbri, Bologna: Mulino, 1988, 207–228)

Even after more than three centuries, Carlo Gesualdo’s chromaticism remains
confusing. Edward Lowinsky’s term, “triadic atonality”,1 represents a confession of
incomprehension, rather than an explanation: it would be forced to regard
Gesualdo’s “atonality” as a negation of the rudimentary tonal harmony which can be
found in many sixteenth-century dance movements and songs, for the tradition from
which Gesualdo’s chromatic technique diverges is that of modal counterpoint. But it
is also wide of the mark to speak of “experiments”. The concept of an experiment,
contrasted with a complete self-contained work, derives from a classicist aesthetic,
and one is not justified in attaching this to Gesualdo’s mannerism. The madrigals
and sacred works of the Prince of Venosa are undeniably works, and not
experiments; they stand at the end, not the beginning, of a process of development.

Gesualdo’s chromaticism is “expressive”, but not in the manner of a personal

confession in musical lyric. The music is presented “rhetorically”, in the same
manner as the texts, to which the categories “sincere” and “insincere” (which are in
any case questionable from an aesthetic point of view) do not apply. Gesualdo aims
at the lyrical effect – at “confusion” as this is praised in Baroque poetics.

According to classicist norms, the chord progression E–c,2 as set to the words
“senza oscurar”,3 would be an error of judgment, a “madrigalism” in the
aesthetically pejorative sense:

1 E. E. Lowinsky, Tonality and Atonality in Sixteenth-Century Music (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1961).
2 The abbreviations “E” and “c” here stand for E-G#-B and C-Eb-G respectively, without implying
any significance of these simultaneities as major and minor triads in the sense they have in tonal
harmony; they are intended as neutral symbols without theoretical content.
3 Gesualdo, Collected Works [ = CW], Ugrino-Verlag, Hamburg, 1958ff, vol. VI, p. 95, system 1, bar 3.
The word “oscurar”, rather than its negation, is expressed. The major is clouded, or
darkened, to minor; sharps become flats. And the practice of breaking a text into
fragments and expressing the meaning of individual words, instead of that of a
complete section, had since Vincenzo Galilei become the subject of sneering
criticism”.

However, the premise underlying the polemics – the assumption that the
“whole” of the text represents its poetic “meaning” – is questionable. The plea to the
beloved, “Deh volgi omai ver me”, is merely a pretext for a display of sparkling
antitheses: “Poi che vil fango ancor rimirar suole, senza oscurar i suoi bei raggi, il
Sole”. And Gesualdo proceeds in exactly the same way as the anonymous poet. He
seeks contrast between colours – lyrical illumination. The logic is dissolved in
images, and the negative expression in an antithesis, a play of light and shade.

The chromaticism of the chord progression E–c is, like the text which it
expresses, fragmentary. An analogous 4progression, B–g6, can be found in
Gesualdo’s responsory “Tristis est anima mea”, between a first-inversion a-minor
chord and an A-major chord, to the text “vadam immolari pro vobis”.5

And the origin of the progression is discernible in the version in the responsory. It is
of less importance that b and G6 provide a subordinate transition between B and g6,
than that the chords are “justified” through Phrygian cadences: B is the goal of the
first, and g6 the initiation of the second, of two such cadences. The chords which are

4 Gesualdo, CW, vol. VII, p. 15, system 1, bar 4.

5 There is an analogous passage in the progression e6–F#–d6–E–c6– D, in bar 9 of the a-minor prelude
from volume 2 of Bach’s “Well-Tempered Clavier”.

2
“forcibly” juxtaposed in the madrigal are in the responsory distributed over two
phrases whose basic structure is made up by the 6-8 progressions a/c–b/B and g/b-
flat–a/A.

In the responsory, the chromatic semitone is a secondary phenomenon, but in

the madrigal it is the only melodic interval; and compositional and rhythmic
differences correspond to the melodic distinction. First, the 6/3 chord of the Phrygian
cadence is replaced in the madrigal by the “root” chord. Secondly, the chromatic
progression B–g, or E–c, which is part of a coherent section in the responsory, of
which it is the vehicle, is self-contained in the madrigal, and separated from its
context by rests. And, thirdly, the rhythmic structure is reversed. In the section of the
responsory quoted above in ex. 2, the series of Phrygian cadences, B is distinguished,
as the stressed final chord, from g6 as the unstressed initial chord; this “inner
caesura” does not need to be spelt out externally to become perceptible. In the
madrigal, however, the analogous triads of E and c are linked by the rhythm: an
unstressed E triad forms an anacrusis to the stressed c triad.

All the aspects that have been mentioned function in the same way – the form
of the triads, their isolation by means of rests, and the rhythmic divisions: the
twofold step of a chromatic semitone functions simply as a bridge over the caesura
between two Phrygian cadences in the responsory, despite its striking nature; in the
madrigal, on the contrary, it is emphasized and made autonomous. From the point
of view of compositional technique, however, this twofold step is paradoxical: the
normal categories of “chord” and “counterpoint” do not apply.

It is not clear whether Gesualdo’s homophony is to be understood as “chordal”

or as “simple counterpoint” (contrapunctus simplex). “Chord” and “fundamental
progression” [Fundamentschritt] are correlative concepts: a simultaneity is a chord if
its relationships to other simultaneities depend on the fundamental progression
[Fundamentgang] of the roots of the triads, or in other words the relationships
between the centres harmoniques. And it would be forced to interpret the Phrygian
cadences a6–B and g6–A as chord progressions. The structure consists of 6-8
progressions, a/c–b/B–g/B-flat–a/A, which are significant per se in terms of the
contrapuntal theory of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, and not as
fundamental progressions, a–B–g–A, which would need interpreting as elliptical if
they were to become intelligible as a coherent progression:

a–B–g–A = a–B–e / g–A–d = [e minor:] IV–V–I / [d minor:] IV–V–I

3
Thus an interpretation of the passage as a fundamental progression moves into the
realm of remote hypothesis.

However, if the progression a6–B–g6–A is understood as a combination of

intervallic progressions, then the isolation in the madrigal of the progression E–c, its
separation from the Phrygian cadences, seems to have the effect of fixing the
simultaneities as chords. However, in order to make the relationship between E and
c comprehensible in terms of chordal coherence, one would have to speak of a “third
relationship” [Terzverwandtschaft]. And the Terzverwandtschaft, unlike the
relationship by fifths, is a derived rather than a primary phenomenon, and
presupposes a lengthy period of development in tonal harmony. It depends on the
conversion of an indirect relationship between chords into a direct relationship: a
relationship between C and A-flat is mediated by f, and one between C and E by a.
The concept cannot be applied to the music of the sixteenth and early seventeenth
centuries.

Accordingly, the connection between E and c is not grounded in a fundamental

progression. The opposing thesis, that it is accomplished “contrapuntally”, through
a progression of chromatic semitones in parallel sixths, is, however, barely more
secure, for contrapuntal theory did not count chromatic semitones as intervals: they
were regarded as species of the unison, not as intervals of a second. Chromatic
alteration counted simply as an alteration of the colour of a degree of the scale, and
changed nothing in the contrapuntal relationships between simultaneities; an
augmented sixth was treated as if it were a consonance. According to strict theory,
the sixths e/g#–e-flat/g did not represent a progression at all.

II

In 1555, Nicola Vicentino remarked, concerning his madrigal “Dolce mio ben”, that it
could be performed diatonically, chromatically, or enharmonically: “Si può cantare a
cinque modi, cioè Diatonico et poi Cromatico; et poi Cromatico et Enarmonico; et poi
Diatonico, et Cromatico; et poi Diatonico, et Cromatico, et Enarmonico”.6 Thus
Vicentino understood a composition as abstract counterpoint: as a structure of
intervals which are treated as species – as thirds or sixths, for example, without more

6 N. Vicentino, L’antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica, Rome, 1555, facsimile reprint, Kassel, 1959,
fol. 67.

4
precise definition. Any distinction between major and minor thirds or sixths is
immaterial from a contrapuntal point of view.

From a compositional point of view, the chromatic and enharmonic alterations, with
which Vicentino hoped to resuscitate the meravigliosi effetti of the genera of antiquity,
appear merely to be ornamental additions. Though chromaticism is essential from an
aesthetic point of view, it is quite inessential from a contrapuntal point of view.

The distinction between texture and coloration, between abstract counterpoint

and alterations which merely add colour, is the presupposition for Gesualdo’s
chromatic technique. The regular treatment of dissonances is limited in the presence
of extreme chromaticism.

The quotation in ex. 4 above from “Moro, lasso”,7 though it may seem
extraordinary, does not infringe the rules of counterpoint. The suspended
dissonances A and F in voices II and IV are prepared and resolved according to the
rules. The alteration during the resolution of the note which defines the dissonances
(their Bezugston), the upper-voice B flat, to a B natural, is to be understood as a
“change of colour”, not as a melodic progression. For the Bezugston to move was
regarded as irregular, as a licence from the rules of strict counterpoint; B flat and B
natural were, however, contrapuntally identical.

The hypothesis that fundamental progressions underlie the connections

between Gesualdo’s chromatic chords forced John Clough to assume the existence of

7 Gesualdo, CW, vol. VI, p. 76, system 2, bar 2.

5
tritone steps in the fundamental bass.8 However, the example he quotes (ex. 5
below) is not a happy choice.9

The note B in the middle voice ought not to be understood as the root of a triad,
but as a suspended dissonance whose Bezugston (the F# of the lower voice) is altered
to F natural during the resolution of the dissonance. This chromatic flattening is the
counterpart to the sharpening in the extract from “Moro, lasso”. The apparent leap
of a tritone between the centres harmoniques is the deceptive exterior of a technique
which depends on a reciprocal relationship between counterpoint following the
normal rules and ornamental chromaticism.

Many of the progressions characterized by Clough as “third progressions in the

fundamental bass” should be understood in an analogous way.

In the first example in ex. 6, from “Languisce al fin”,10 as also in the second, from “Io
parto”,11 the “fundamental bass” C is a dissonant fourth. The irregular aspects of the
dissonance treatment (in the first, the dissonance is unprepared, and in the second,
the Bezugston leaps downwards) are licences from the rules of counterpoint, but do

8 J. Clough, “The Leading Tone in Direct Chromaticism: From Renaissance to Baroque”, Journal of
Music Theory, 1 (1957), p. 17. In the example of a “tritone progression from major to minor”, b 1 should
be read instead of b-flat1 (CW, vol. VI, p. 76, system 3, bar 2). The diminished fourth is not regarded as
a “fundamental progression” by Clough, although it occurs in Gesualdo’s works (CW, vol. V, p. 51,
system 2, bars 2-3; vol. VII, pp. 88-9; vol. VII, p. 90, system 1, bars 6-7).
9 CW, vol. IV, p. 60, system 3, bar 2.
10 CW, vol. V, p. 46, system 1, bar 1.
11 CW, vol. VI, p. 30, system 1, bar 1.

6
not contradict their validity: the divergences from the rules are related to the rules as
rhetorical “figures”. It would be a misunderstanding to speak of an emancipation of
the 6/4 as a chord representing a scale-step.

In this dissonance technique, a strict distinction or differentiation can be

observed between counterpoint and ornamental chromaticism. That Gesualdo
handles consonant simultaneities according to the same principles is a permissible
analogous conclusion to draw, although the opposing hypothesis, explaining them
through the addition to them of “fundamental progressions”, cannot be discounted
in every instance. It is possible to distinguish two groups of instances where,
according to Clough’s terminology, “minor chords” are linked together by a falling
major third in the “fundamental bass”. In florid counterpoint (contrapunctus floridus)
the ornamental nature of the chromaticism is obvious.

In “Gioite voi” (ex. 7a),12 the structure of the texture comprises oblique motion
from a fifth to a sixth, preparing a suspended dissonance. The first extract in ex. 7 is
doubtless analogous to the second; in ex. 7b,13 however, the upper note of the sixth
appears as a consonant fourth (quarta consonans) over the bass; and it would be
preposterous to propose that a consonant fourth, which was classified in the
sixteenth century as a sincopa tutta cattiva, should be the root of a triad.

In simple counterpoint (contrapunctus simplex) the simultaneities seem to be

established as chords. However, in ex. 8, an extract from “Recessit pastor”,14 which
could be misconstrued as a chord progression, the connection between the

12 CW, vol. V, p. 16, system 3, bar 1. Analogous progressions can be found in CW, vol. V, p. 24,
system 1, bar 1, and vol. V, p. 50, system 2, bar 2. Progressions dependent on a related contrapuntal
formula, e–c6–g6/4–D, are in CW, vol. III, p. 38, system 2, bar 2; vol. III, p. 44, system 3.bar 4; and vol.
IV, p. 59, system 1, bar 2.
13 CW, vol. V, p. 61, system 1, bar 3.
14 CW, vol. VII, p. 80, system 1, bar 5. A similar example is in vol. VI, p. 56, system 3, bar 3.

7
simultaneities rests more on the real bass, a “coloured” or chromatically modified
pedal point, than on some hypothetical fundamental bass.

III

Even in the sixteenth century, counterpoint (the composite concept defined by the
rules of composition) was distinguished from harmony. However, the agreement
with eighteenth- and nineteenth-century terminology conceals a divergence between
the concepts. By harmonics (unlike later harmonic theory) was meant a theory of
relationships between notes, not of chords and chord progressions.

Although counterpoint, the abstract structure comprising intervals, was little

affected by chromaticism, the effect of the latter on “harmony” was far-reaching. The
intervals contained within the hexachord were regarded as “harmonic relations”
(relationes harmonicae), from the perfect fifth as the simplest to the diatonic semitone
as the most complex relationship. All other intervals were regarded as “non-
harmonic relations” (relationes non harmonicae); the latter thus included chromatic
intervals besides the tritone and the diminished fifth. The concept of harmony, in the
theory of the tonal system, does not correspond with the concept of consonance in
counterpoint theory, either in its significance or in its content, the intervals it
comprises. The perfect fourth is a relatio harmonica, but was regarded, as an interval
over the bass, as a dissonance; conversely, the augmented fifth and augmented sixth,
although they were relationes non harmonicae, could be treated in terms of
counterpoint as though they were consonances.15 According to the concepts of the
sixteenth century, accordingly, it involved no contradiction to say of a musical
composition that it was “regular” contrapuntally, but “unharmonic”. The separation
of these two categories is a presupposition for Gesualdo’s chromaticism:

15 C. Dahlhaus, “Domenico Belli und der chromatische Kontrapunkt um 1600“, Die Musikforschung, 15
(1962), pp. 327ff.

8
infringements of “harmony” received firm support from counterpoint, which
remained unaffected.

Contrapuntal theory included, however, the regola delle terze e seste, besides the
prohibition of parallel perfect intervals, and rules concerning dissonance treatment.
This rule specified that the transition from an imperfect interval to a perfect interval
should be accompanied by a semitone step in one of the two voices, where this was
possible without doing violence to “harmony”. And chromatic notes were produced
in the tendency to change a minor third to a major third before a fifth, or a minor
sixth to a major sixth before an octave, by chromatic alteration:

However, chromatic intervals were rare; the rules of harmony, expressed

didactically in hexachord theory, counteracted the possibility of extreme
consequences resulting from the regola delle terze e seste.

The chromatically altered notes functioned as leading notes (Leittöne) in

progressions from imperfect consonances to perfect. The functions of the
simultaneities, but not their leading-note character, are affected by the difference
between older counterpoint and that since the sixteenth century, in which a whole-
tone step came to be replaced by a leap of a fourth or fifth as the lower-voice
counterpoint to the semitone step – the simultaneity E-G#-C# in the example is a
“counterpart” (Gegenklang) to D-A-D, not a dominant.

In justified opposition to Clough’s theory of “fundamental-bass progressions”,

Walther Dürr emphasized that late sixteenth-century chromaticism was bound to a
“basic conception of melodic counterpoint”.16 The practice of juxtaposing a rising
major third or a falling minor third to a chromatic semitone (ex. 10) depends on a
tradition stretching back to Marchettus of Padua.17

16W. Dürr, “Zur mehrstimmigen Behandlung des chromatischen Schrittes in der Polyphonie des 16.
Jahrhunderts“, Kongreßbericht Kassel 1962, p. 138.
17 Dürr, op. cit., p. 136.

9
 The superficial similarity with Marchettus’s examples (ex. 11)18 should not,
however, efface the differences in meaning.

It may be unimportant that the tenth progresses to a twelfth in Marchettus, but in the
sixteenth century generally to an octave;19 this alters nothing in the character of the
chromaticism. However, the leading-note function is often effaced in the extreme
chromaticism of the sixteenth century, and it no longer comprises an independent
raison d’être for chromatic alteration; this represents a change which affects the sense
of chromaticism and drives a coach and horses through the continuity of the
tradition.

For Marchettus, a chromatic semitone is merely a transition; it has no purpose

in itself, but provides the possibility of creating a closer bond between an imperfect
and a perfect consonance – a leading-note connection. Gesualdo, on the contrary –
not as a unique example, but as the most prominent example – tends towards the
isolation and “emancipation” of the chromatic semitone. Leading-note tendencies
are suppressed or suspended, so that the chromatic note is emphasized in an
independent manner.

It is still the rule in Gesualdo that the progression G–E is extended to a, and has
a as its goal.20 However, it is characteristic that the exception – a chromatic semitone
which has no goal and is therefore not justified – is quite possible.21 And with the

18Gerbert, Scriptores, vol. III, 73b; in the third example, the first note in the lower voice should be C,
analogously to 74b, not G as in Gerbert’s text.
19The following are exceptions: CW, vol. III, p. 69, system 3, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 63, system 1, bar 2; vol.
VI, p. 64, system 1, bar 3; vol. VI, p. 74, system 3, bar 4; vol. VI, p. 93, system 3, bars 1-2; vol. VII, p. 29,
system 1, bar 3.
20 Examples: CW, vol. III, p. 19, system 2, bars 1-2; vol. III, p. 35, system 1, bar 3; vol. IV, p. 38, system
2, bar 1; vol. V, p. 28, system 3, bar 4; vol. V, p. 43, system 1, bars 4-5; vol. V, p. 47, system 2, bar 2; vol.
V, pp. 51-2; vol. VI, p. 17, system 3, bar 2 ; vol. VI, p. 30, system 2, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 42, system 1, bar 5;
vol. VI, p. 59, system 3, bar 3; vol. VI, p. 67, system 3, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 87, system 2, bar 1; vol. VII, p.
20, system 3, bar 3; vol. VII, p. 25, system 2, bar 3; vol. VII, p. 40, system 1, bar 2; vol. VII, pp. 53-4; vol.
VII, p. 58, system 4, bar 5; vol. VII, p. 59, system 2, bar 1; vol. VII, p. 72, system 3, bar 1; vol. VII, p. 76,
systems 2-3; vol. VII, p. 81, system 3, bars 4-5; vol. VII, p. 83, system 3, bar 1; vol. VII, p. 93, system 1,
bar 5.
21Examples: CW, vol. VI, p. 41, system 3, bars 3-4; vol. VI, p. 75, system 1, bars 1-2; vol. VI, p. 99,
systems 1-2; vol. VII, p. 48, system 3, bar 2; vol. VII, p. 67, system 1, bars 2-3.

10
progression C–E, the leading-note tendency is suppressed22 as often as it is used to
lead in traditional fashion from a tenth to an octave or twelfth. 23 It seems as if the
suppression of the leading-note character is grounded in aesthetics, in a quest for a
momentary lyrical effect; the coloristic effect of chromaticism increases, according to
the measure by which the compositional function of the chromatic alterations
(circumscribed by the regola delle terze e seste) is weakened.

The progressions C–E and G–E are reversible, as E–C and E–G. However, E
and C, or E and G, occur in immediate juxtaposition only rarely. 24 Gesualdo usually
separates them with caesuras, and indeed often with rests. 25 The E triad forms the
close of a line or phrase, the C or G triad the beginning of the next, and the falling
chromatic semitone therefore appears as a “dead” interval.

Progressions in which the chromatic semitone is doubled in parallel thirds,

sixths, or tenths, are more characteristic of Gesualdo’s chromatic technique than the
progressions E–C and E–G, whose treatment is almost always conventional.

22CW, vol. V, p. 15, system 1, bars 3-4; vol. V, p. 15, system 2, bar 2; vol. V, p. 56, system 1, bars 1-2;
vol. VI, p. 28, system 1, bar 3; vol. VI, pp. 41-42; vol. VI, p. 45, system 1, bar 2; vol. VI, p. 58, system 3,
bar 2; vol. VI, p. 66, system 1, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 70, system 2, bar 3; vol. VII, p. 29, system 1, bar 5; vol.
VII, p. 47, system 1, bars 3-4; vol. VII, p. 65, system 1, bar 1.
23 CW, vol. III, p. 69, system 3, bar 1; vol. IV, p. 23, system 2, bar 2; vol. IV, p. 23, system 2, bar 3; vol.
IV, p. 46, system 1, bar 1; vol. IV, p. 56, system 3, bars 1-2; vol. V, p. 23, system 1, bars 1-2; vol. V, p. 31,
system 1, bar 2; vol. V, p. 81, system 3, bar 3; vol. VI, p. 26, system 1, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 34, system 3,
bars 3 and 5; vol. VI, p. 36, system 1, bar 2; vol. VI, p. 37, system 1, bars 1-2; vol. VI, p. 63, system 1, bar
2; vol. VI, p. 74, system 3, bar 4; vol. VI, p. 79, system 3, bars 2-3; vol. VI, p. 84, system 2, bar 2; vol. VI,
p. 99, system 1, bars 3-4; vol. VI, p. 101, system 3, bar 1; vol. VII, p. 23, system 2, bars 3-4; vol. VII, p.
47, system 2, bar 4; vol. VII, p. 59, system 4, bars 6-7; vol. VII, p. 84, system 1, bar 7; vol. VII, p. 85,
system 2, bars 2 and 3.
24 CW, vol. IV, p. 40, system 1, bar 4; vol. IV, p. 51, system 3, bars 1-2; vol. IV, p. 52, system 3, bar 2;
vol. IV, p. 60, system 2, bars 2 and 4; vol. V, p. 57, system 2, bar 2; vol. V, p. 71, system 1, bar 2; vol. V,
p. 71, system 3, bar 4; vol. V, p. 72, system 1, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 26, system 3, bar 2; vol. VI, p. 43, system
2, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 66, system 1, bars 1-2; vol. VII, p. 58, system 4, bars 3-4; vol. VII, p. 65, system 2, bar
5; vol. VII, p. 73, system 2, bars 2-3; vol. VII, p. 84, system 1, bar 3.
25 It may suffice to cite the examples from CW, vols. III and IV: vol. III, p. 21, system 3, bar 2; vol. III,
p. 27, system 2, bars 3-4; vol. III, p. 44, system 3, bars 2-3; vol. III, p. 53, system 2, bar 1; vol. III, p. 64,
systems 2-3; vol. III, p. 67, system 1, bar 1; vol. III, p. 68, system 3, bars 3-4; vol. IV, p. 22, system 2, bar
2; vol. IV, p. 36, system 1, bar 4; vol. IV, p. 36, system 2, bar 2; vol. IV, p. 43, system 1, bar 1; vol. IV, p.
46, system 2, bar 1; vol. IV, p. 57, system 2, bar 1.

11
The sequences in ex. 12, each comprising four elements, are to be understood as
basic forms, or compositional models, to which the reduced forms comprising one,
two, or three elements should be referred. (The models were adopted in tonal
harmony,26 although a tonal interpretation is often difficult or indeed impossible to
determine.) The sequential structure determines the division: however prominent
the chromatic semitone may be through its doubling, it is placed in the caesura; it
bridges the gap between two progressions based on diatonic leading-note steps (in
ex. 12a, F–E and E-flat–D; in ex. 12b, B–C and C#–D; in ex. 12c, F–E and E-flat–D),
and corresponding whole-tone steps or leaps of a fifth.

However, Gesualdo dissolves the connection between the chromatic semitone

and its “foundation” in its context. The models appear to be exceptions; 27 the
reduced forms appear to be the rule.28 The chromatic progressions E–c, c–A and A–c
are all taken as fragments of the basic forms – these four-element sequences – in
order to be presented as isolated self-contained effects.

The assertion that the exceptions must be understood as the basic form may
seem a questionable paradox. However, it is inescapable. In the sixteenth century the
understanding of chromaticism depended primarily on the conventional
understanding of a chromatic alteration as a leading note, or in other words on the
idea underlying the compositional models. The latter comprised the tradition from
which Gesualdo was diverging, but which was presupposed by him.

26 Clough’s assertion (op. cit., p. 18) that the progression E–c is not found in Bach is disproved by bar
9 of the a-minor Prelude from Vol. 2 of the Well-Tempered Clavier.
27Model “a”: vol. V, p. 44, system 3, bars 5-6; vol. VII, p. 15, system 1, bars 3-4; model ”b”: vol. V, p.
20, system 1, bars 3-4; vol. V, p. 23, system 3, bars 1-2; vol. VII, p. 20, system 2, bars 1-2; vol. VII, p. 83,
system 2, bars 2-3; model ”c”: vol. VII, p. 81, system 3, bars 2-5.
28Progression E–c: vol. VI, p. 61, system 1, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 61, system 1, bar 2; vol. VI, p. 74, system 1,
bar 1; vol. VI, p. 95, system 1, bars 3-4; vol. VI, p. 99, system 1, bar 3 (with a caesura between E and c);
vol. V, p. 59, system 1, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 28, system 3, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 36, system 1, bar 4; Progression
c–A: vol. V, p. 18, system 3, bar 2; vol. V, p. 19, system 1, bar 1; vol. V, p. 29, system 3, bar 5; vol. V, p.
70, system 1, bar 3; vol. VI, p. 16, system 1, bar 1; vol. VI, p. 29, system 1, bar 2; vol. VI, p. 40, system 2,
bars 1-2; vol. VI, p. 42, system 1, bars 4-5.

12
 It is often possible to see even from the music itself that the exceptional
instances of chromaticism, despite their large number, are intended as an
overturning of a pattern, or the breaking up of a model.

In the extract from “Itene, o miei sospiri” (ex. 13),29 rests separate leading notes from
their goals. And the relationship between music and text shows that the division
G / c–A / d–B / e is to be understood as an deformation of the sequential pattern G–
c / A–d / B–e, or in other words as an artificial divergence from the norm. The rests
are expressive or descriptive: they depict the sighs referred to in the poem, “Itene, o
miei sospiri, precipitate il volo a Lei, che m’è cagion d’aspri martiri”. And one would
detract from the expressive character of the madrigal if one were to deny that the
rests are intended as a deliberate breaking of the “natural” leading-note connections.
The compositional relationships are parallel to aesthetic considerations.

IV

The attempt to understand the isolation of the chromatic semitone as a musical

concept, rather than taking it as a bare fact, may proceed from the premise that
sixteenth-century chromaticism was intended to be a revival of the chromaticism of
antiquity; it is the words “antico stile” that provoke Luca Marenzio to produce an
extreme modulation in “O voi che sospirate”.

To dismiss the attempts at restoring the music of antiquity as excesses of naive

enthusiasts would be blind arrogance, for our own understanding of the
chromaticism of antiquity is marked by gaps, shown very obviously in the
impossibility of notating the chromatic tetrachord unambiguously in modern
notation, which is the expression of our musical thought. The tunings of antiquity

29 CW, vol. V, p. 20, system 1, bar 3.

13
suggest the notation E-C#-C-B, which was chosen by the humanists of the sixteenth
century: E-C# was tempered in antiquity as a Pythagorean or harmonic minor third
(32:27 or 6:5), C#-B as a major or minor whole tone (9:8 or 10:9). However, the
musical significance of the tetrachord is concealed by this transcription. The
chromatic note represented in the tunings as C# in fact represents a variant of D as a
step of the tetrachord, and should therefore be notated D flat, if it should be shown
that the central notes of the tetrachord are different steps (D flat and C), not simply
altered “colourings” of the same step (C# and C): D flat was “chromatic” in relation
to D and not to C.

The two aspects which make up the concept of the significance of notes (their
character as scale-steps and their position in the hierarchy of relationships between
notes) thus fail to coincide, according to our concepts, in the chromaticism of
antiquity. The fact, moreover, that the chromatic tetrachord seems self-contradictory
to us implies that it represents an unsolved problem, even though it can be
reconstructed acoustically.

The “illiterate” Nicola Vicentino, who identified the D mode with the ancient
Dorian mode – this error drew the contempt of scholars upon him30 – constructed the
chromatic tetrachord as D-B-Bb-A and G-E-Eb-D.

In Vicentino’s chromatic counterpoint,31 the note B natural represented a “colouring”

of B flat, not a change of note in the melodic line. In a diatonic version of the piece, as
allowed as an alternative by Vicentino in the rubric to “Dolce mio ben”, B natural
would have been identified with B flat and not with C.

The chromatic sequences of the sixteenth century replaced the melodic

alternation of the scale-steps of ancient chromaticism (emphasized by the notation
C#-C) by an alternation of chords, which were established in the tonal chordal

30 D. P. Walker, Der musikalische Humanismus im 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhundert, Kassel, 1949, p. 24;
H. W. Kaufmann, “Vicentino and the Greek Genera”, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 16
(1963), p. 329.
31 Vicentino, op. cit., fol. 70v.

14
texture of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as an alternation of harmonic
scale-steps.

As an attitude towards antiquity, an attempt to restore ancient music, the procedure

is incoherent. The chromatic semitone is certainly less accidental than in Vicentino’s
counterpoint, but was fragmented by the caesura between the members of the
sequence, and neutralized as a melodic interval.

Cipriano de Rore seems to have sought a compromise in his ode “Calami

sonum ferentes”, which was accepted and imitated in the sixteenth century as a
model of chromaticism in imitation of antiquity:

On the one hand, the structure of the text allows the chromatic semitone to be
emphasized as a melodic interval; chromatic semitones fall in the middle of words,
and diatonic semitones in the breaks between words. On the other hand, the two-
voice texture is based on the model sequence

which expounds the diatonic semitones as leading-note steps. However, Rore

disguises the compositional model by retarding the sixths over the leading notes.
The structure of the text, the counterpoint, and the rhythm are staggered, so that the
effect is created of chromatic and diatonic semitones in unstable equilibrium.

Gesualdo’s method, of combining the isolation of the chromatic semitone with

a change of chord, is more decisive but also more strained:32

32 CW, vol. VI, p. 31, system 2, bar 3.

15
The chromatic semitone is neither reduced to an accidental “colouring” nor to an
interval in the break within a sequence: it receives independent emphasis. It is
possible to view Gesualdo’s technique as a solution of the problem, both
questionable and brilliant, by the representation of the chromatic semitone (despite
the notation, C#-C [sic]) in an extreme manner that could be taken as an analogue to,
and a replacement of, the alternation of melodic scale-steps in the chromatic
tetrachord of antiquity: the seconda prattica and stile antico are joined in this.

Analogously to the conception of musica ficta, that of chromaticism in the sixteenth

century encompassed the “colouring” of whole passages through transposition,
besides the alteration of individual notes; and the boundary between chromatic
alteration and transposition is often uncertain. Certainly, the extreme cases – an
accidental fa supra la and a general flat signature – are unmistakable; however,
intermediate cases are less clear, both in hexachord theory (which tended to efface
the difference) and in composition. And the agreement between theory and practice
forces one to regard the indifference of the period to this question not as due to a
lack of clearly defined concepts, but as the expression of their preference.

In Gesualdo’s responsory “Aestimatus sum”,33 the simultaneity F#-A#-C#,

which seems to destroy the harmonic coherence of its context, arises through a
colouring of the notes F and C as F# and C#: it is no more than a variant of F-A-C.
According to the presuppositions of tonal harmony, it could be understood neither

33 CW, vol. VII, pp. 88-89.

16
as a transposition nor as a chromatic alteration: as an isolated chord, it represents no
scale; on the other hand, it cannot be explained as a chromatic alteration of an F-
major triad, for roots of triads cannot be altered chromatically in tonal harmony (the
root-position version of the Neapolitan sixth represents a doubtful exception to this
rule). However, in sixteenth-century intervallic composition there was no difference
in principle between the chromatic colouring of the “root” and the alteration of the
third; the result was chromaticism with uncertain borders with transposition.

In ex. 19, an extract from “Già piansi nel dolore”,34 the chromatic colourings appear
first as chromatic alterations of the thirds, G and C, as G# and C#. It is only after the
C# and F# chords that the concept of transposition is suggested. However, the abrupt
change to the d triad, which would be nonsensical in tonal harmony, shows that this
transposition is to be interpreted as a chromatic variant, and the F# triad as a
chromatic colouring of the F triad.

On the other hand, passages unambiguously resting on transposition are not

infrequent in Gesualdo’s madrigals.

The chromaticism in “Mercè grido piangendo”35 was interpreted, even in the

seventeenth century, as the result of a transposition of the scale by a semitone, by
Giovanni Battista Doni, an admirer of Gesualdo:

34 CW, vol. VI, p. 99, system 1, bar 1.

35CW, vol. V, p. 49, system 3, bar 3. [An error in the alto voice in ex. 20 has been hypothetically
emended editorially, but without reference to the text in the Collected Works.]

17
 In iis verbis “morrò dunque tacendo” ubi in diversam plane speciem melos
mutatur, videlicet in harmoniam Lydiam (siquidem tonus hypothematicus seu
fundamentalis Dorius sit) quae omnibus Chordis signum # usurpat, quam
partem si quis vulgaribus syllabis ut re mi fa etc. recte enuntiare potuerit – nisi
novam clavem seu systema adhibeat – nae ille magnam rem praestabit.36

In Doni’s terminology, which is in imitation of antiquity, “Dorian” is the mode on E

and “Lydian” the mode on C; and the expression “quae omnibus Chordis signum #
usurpat” shows that Doni was thinking of a transposition of the C Lydian mode to
C# Lydian.

However, transposition is clearly distinguishable from chromatic colouring

only when the transposition is undertaken at an interval other than the chromatic
semitone.

Bars 3–4 of the extract from “Se vi duol” (ex. 21)37 are a slightly modified sequential
repetition of bars 1–2. However, the tritone represents a divergence from the normal
sequential interval of a fourth or fifth, and the fifth seems to represent the “original”
interval in “Se vi duol”. If bars 3-4 are transposed up a semitone, the transitions are
smooth: the C triad at the beginning would form the consequence of the G triad, and
the d triad at the end the presupposition of the a triad that follows it.

The progression c#-a, equivalent to e–c, which has the effect of an abrupt
change in “Se vi duol”, is not unusual in Gesualdo’s music, but is generally derived
from a transient chromaticization of a contrapuntal formula.38

3636 A. W. Ambros, Geschichte der Musik, vol. IV, Leipzig, 3/1909, p. 203, n. 2.
37 CW, vol. V, p. 40, system 1, bar 2.
38 See note 12 above.

18
 The few exceptions to this rule can be explained as resulting from
transposition, analogously to “Se vi duol”.

“Io parto”:39 a f B flat E flat c6 E

instead of g C F d6

“Mille volte”:40 e c f A
instead of b e

And it may be regarded as a proof of the transposition hypothesis that the endings,
as well as the beginnings, of the transposed sections are set off from their context by
complicated chord progressions which may be changed to simple progressions by
reduction.

The two types of chromaticism, that through transposition and that through
alteration, are not mutually exclusive. An abrupt transition to a transposition scale
can be intended at the same time as a pointed representation of the chromatic
semitone.

The chromatic semitone doubled in parallel tenths in “Io pur respiro” 41 is a

colouring effect in Gesualdo’s style in imitation of antiquity. On the other hand,
however, it is hardly to be doubted that the progression F#–f#–b6–f#6/4–C# may be
reduced to A–a–d6–a6/4–E.

39 CW, vol. VI, p. 31, system 2, bar 2.

40 CW, vol. VI, p. 35, system 3, bar 2.
41 CW, vol. VI, p. 45, system 3, bar 1.

19
 VI

Modern enharmonicism (that is, real, and not simply notated, enharmonicism 42) is
described in the theory of tonal harmony as a transformation [Verwechslung] or
change [Verwandlung]. A note is established as A flat or D flat and then treated as G#
or C#, so that it has a twofold definition: differently in what follows it than in what
precedes it. It seems not to have been noticed in enharmonic theory (which has been
taken to be a part of harmonic theory) that melodic motifs, as well as chords, can be
modified enharmonically, and that both harmonic and melodic enharmonicism can
thus be identified.

Objections can be raised to the idea of melodically determined enharmonicism.

Unlike enharmonically altered chords, motifs are not intrinsically ambiguous, and
become enharmonically altered only when repeated or imitated; thus it seems that
melodic enharmonicism corresponds more closely to the reinterpretation of a
recurring chord than to that of a held chord. However, the argument is aesthetically
questionable even if it may be irrefutable in logic. For the recurrence of a melodic
motif is undeniably more striking than that of an isolated chord; and in the primacy
of the motif over the chord, the self-contained unit over the incomplete fragment,
there is a reason to explain why an enharmonic modification of a recurring motif
appears analogous to that of a held chord.

Gesualdo’s madrigal “Ardita Zanzaretta” closes with imitation at the fifth,

varied enharmonically.43

42 Enharmonic re-spellings that are not grounded in alterations of the meanings of notes, but are
intended simply to facilitate reading, are merely “graphic”.
43 CW. vol. VI, p. 61, system 2, bar 3.

20
 The motif F#–G–C in the middle voice is imitated in the lower voice, in the
version D-flat–D–G. The change is enforced by the context. The five-voice texture is
reducible to a form in which a sequential structure is set forth, disguised through
chromaticism, additional doublings, and staggered rhythm,

If the sequence had been exact, however, the chord progression b-flat–A6
would have been necessary at the transition from the third to the fourth bar; in other
words, a reinterpretation of the scale-step D flat as C#. And Gesualdo avoided the
enharmonic change – not the chord progression as such.44 He selected an indirect
melodic enharmonicism in order to avoid an immediate, harmonically motivated
enharmonicism.

Whether the discovery of melodic enharmonicism is due to the technical

constraints of composition or whether the two are mutually dependent, the
importance of the former remains undiminished. 45 However, like other discoveries
of Gesualdo, it remained without any historical consequence.

44The progression b-flat6–a6 appears in Gesualdo’s works, in the form d6–c#6: CW, vol. VII, p. 70,
system 3, bar 3.
45 In other examples of points of imitation modified enharmonically, too, the constraint exerted by the
contrapuntal context, not the idea of enharmonic variation, seems to represent the most important
aspect (CW, vol. VI, p. 21, system 1, bars 2-3: g#–g–f and d-flat–c–b-flat;.CW, vol. VI, p. 76, system 3
to p. 77, system 1: f–e–d–e-flat–e and b/b-flat–a–g–g#–a; CW, vol. VII, p. 40, system 2, bar 3 to system
3, bar 3: a–b-flat–b and d–d#–e, besides b– b-flat–a and a–g#– g).

21