You are on page 1of 16

Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis

Josquin and Jacquet. A New Tudor Source? Author(s): John Milsom Source: Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, D. 52ste, No. 2 (2002), pp. 117-131 Published by: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/939145 . Accessed: 01/05/2011 04:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=kvnm. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis.

http://www.jstor.org

John Milsom JOSQUIN AND JACQUET A New Tudor Source?*

In the third volume of Augustus Hughes-Hughes's catalogue of music manuscripts in the British Library (formerly the British Museum), there is a brief entry for a cluster of pages at the end of Harley MS 4848.1 The entry, placed under 'Chamber music: sextets', reads as follows: 'Composition unnamed, for 6 instruments, in score, probably of at English origin. Imperfect the end. Anonymous'. The manuscript itself is described as being of 'Paper; 17th cent. Folio'. We might sympathize with Hughes-Hughes who, researching at a time when reference materials were meagre by comparison with the resources we enjoy today, certainly did his best with these enigmatic sheets. Even so, it is remarkable how wrong his description turns out to be on almost every point. The manuscript contains not one composition but two. Both are textless motets; both are correctly for five voices, although the first of them has been provided with a sixth voice; one was composed before 1500, the other probably closer to 1530. They areJosquin's Stabat mater,2 which is copied here with an additional superius part, previously unknown,3 and an incomplete copy of an almost equally famous motet, Jacquet of Mantua's AspiceDomine.4On only two counts does Hughes-Hughes's entry appear to be accurate: both pieces are indeed written out in score, and the manuscript does seem to be English, even if copied in the 16th century ratherthan the 17th. The present study examines this source for the first time - and in some detail, since it is unusual in so many ways. British Library, Harley MS 4848 (hereafter H4848) is not principally a music manuscript. In the catalogue of the Harleian collection published in 1808, its contents were summarized as follows:' A folio written on paper,& containing, 1. The Names& Creations allthe Nobility ofEngland,to theyear1597.This composes of most of the presentNumber [ff. ir, 3r-78v]. 2. Names of Placesthatelect Membersof Parliament. This is writtenon the pagesbefore the aboveArticle [ff. lv-2r]. 3. The mannerof Coronationsof Kings and Queens of England[ff. 79v-82v]. This is comprisedin 7 pages,afterwhich are8 more pagesof Musicbadlywritten [ff. 84v-88r]. From this catalogue entry - and indeed from the current binding and foliation of the volume - the music pages appear to lie at the end of the manuscript, following the non-musical contents, some of which can indeed be dated to the end of the 16th century. But is equally possible to reverse the scenario: the book may originally have 117

been a music manuscript, abandoned after only eight of its pages had been filled, and subsequently used for other purposes. Close examination of the volume tends to support that latter view. As both Hughes-Hughes and the 1808 Harleian catalogue point out, it is in folio, with page dimensions of 347 x 235 mm.6 For the music pages, however, the format is unusual, for they are to be read with the book turned sideways, so that its fore-edge faces the reader and its spine lies horizontally, not vertically. Placed in that position, and opened at what is now treated as the rear of the volume, it presents the reader with the following contents, laid out in double-page spreads:

opening fols. 88v

contents Blankand scuffed;clearlythe beginningor end of the manuscript.

mater 88-87v JosquinStabat begins, in score,one systemto each page, downwards. reading 87-86v 86-85v 85 84v 84 83v 83 mater Stabat (cont.) Stabat mater (cont.) Stabat mater Domine ends;JacquetAspice begins Domine(cont.);abandoned the end of (modern)bar48 at Aspice Ruled with margins,as fol. 83, but otherwiseunused blank Ruled with margins,as fol. 84; last entry in the non-musicaltext from the reverseend of the volume) (reading

2 3 4

The ruled margins on fols. 84 and 83 provide a clue to the compilation history of the manuscript. They have been drawn with the volume in upright format, ready for the insertion of verbal text. In theory such margins could have been ruled consistently from the beginning to the end of the volume without inhibiting subsequent music-copying, since they run parallel to the staves, and might easily have been turned into staff-lines. But there is no sign of this having been done. On the contrary, the ruling of margins begins only where the staves leave off, suggesting that they were added to pages (or, more accurately, to what are now rectos) that were left blank after music-copying had ceased. There is nothing to suggest that the score of Jacquet's Aspice Domine was abandoned because of the presence of ruled margins in opening 5, or an insufficiency of 118

unusedpaper.In fact,the remainder the motet couldhavebeen fittedinto opening5. of Insteadit was left incomplete,for reasonsthat arenow unknown.7 If thisorderof eventsis correct,then it is possibleto datethe copyingof the musicto the 1530s, on account of forms of citationthat occur within the non-musicalpages. The 'manner coronations' of mustdatefrombeforeJanuary 1540, sinceit (fols.79v-82v) and makescontinuousreferenceto the abbot of Westminster the 'eldestmonks' that might act as his deputy at a coronation;in that month the Benedictine abbey of Westminster surrendered Henry VIII'scommissioners, fromDecember of that to and the buildingwasgovernedby a deanandprebendaries.8 cluesexistwithin these No year pages,however,of the book'searlierowner or user;and its laterprovenance historyis also unknown, beyond the fact that in or after 1592 additionswere made to it by 'EdmundRandolph'- possiblythe 'EdmondRandall'of Middlesexwho matriculated ChristChurch, Oxford in November 1581.9 Turningnext to the copies of the motets themselves,it is true that they are 'badly written' (to quote the 1808 Harleiancatalogue)if visual beauty is the criterionfor notatedand fluently judgement. As copies of the music, however,they areaccurately asifby an experiencedmusician personal Variations ink colourmakeit for use. in done, Firsthe ruled the stavesfor the possibleto retracehis stepswith reasonable certainly. and ink. he of Josquinmotet, usinga rastrum a grey-black Possibly didso in systems only five staves the page,butplentyof spacewasalways for the additionof a sixthstave. to left The top threevoice-partswere then copied out in a reddish-brown eitherone at a ink, time or staggered stages,but alwaysbeginningwith the topmostvoice, so that the in barlines- which, unusually,are placed at regulartwo-breve intervals- are pieced that extenddownwards togetherin a seriesof shortstrokes gradually throughthe score, in their verticaltrajectory to the numberof notes to be meanderingfreely according fitted into each bar. The ink colour then turns to grey-blackfor the lowest three for voice-parts.On the lastpage of theJosquincopy (fol. 85), the staves the five upper voices havebeen drawncontinuouslyacrossthe page,allowingcopyingof theJacquet motet to begin immediately. The sixth (lowest)stave,however,is rastrated for the only distanceneeded to accommodatethe end of the Josquin,and it must thereforehave been addedafterthe placementof the motet'sfinalcadencehadbeen determined the by copying of the uppervoices. Evidentlythe copyistknew he would neitherneed nor wanta sixthstavefor theJacquet motet. The secondpageoftheJacquet(fol.84v)is very andthereis no spaceat the foot of the pageforan extrastave,evenhad crudelyrastrated, the copyistlaterwishedto addone. In short,it seemscertainthatthe copyistknew from the startthathe would need six stavesfor theJosquinmotet, only five for theJacquet. With one importantexception,the scoresalignthe voice-parts descendingorderof in with the superiuspart at the top of the five-voice system, the bassusat the range, bottom, exactly as in a modern score. The exception is the extrasixth voice for the own superius.It is placedat the foot of the Josquinmotet - in G2 clef, likeJosquin's 119

Pate 1. London, British Library,Harley MS 4848, fol. 85v: part ofJosquin des Prez, Stabatmater(upper five staves) with added second superius part (lowest stave). Reproduced by permission of The British Library.
-:::":i_: i , ::iiii:_~::: :~:lr : ' :' ~:?::Y.:::: :::._ i_::-:i-~i_:ai__..__-;-?:--. :: ;: _.:1?;:----i:- ::: . : ?:i-..::?: ::.":i?""":..:~~\..:??? ;i:i

i
~t

-1

-----?~, ::~F~ps B~ah

"~

~;~E~s, 3.-1?;~ :::111_?? 1-: .' ? ;??:?~?i: ?i:-i-:I?:?:,;::*::I;ll:u.?,.^.,.il?i\r?;?:::,1:;-:.~,,;,,;:_igl :? :'::i:::.':;:-:::: __:~::::;;::: ?::?? :::: ::.::.::: ::: I : s : ~lasb .. ?.-3:: I::~i:"-': ;-_ -d;::.-::)?~~'r~~.:-::.l?L:i:::: ::B:::?::.;::::::::::i-:ii: :: ,::~: : :;~ ::i:_x:::-r:,:i:::-~up* :li: ; ?:?::~ s~????-:: : ~-~i, i 'Prra~ , ?pur ?99p~ ,*`t-~;1EI::?? . :a I~ ....~ 1II~ %a~a~???????~""" "r~ BJ~iLDIYi~b~t~

~irB~~ ~P~~B~B~a~ ~g ,""i';"~":iwa, :111~

)4E~~

P~b~f~ug~ PP~P

i?-;?-

P~ih-S~a~bw , ~~

n.. _

g?,::,
?? -:?.::?;~? i

"" ;:li
:

a;bt)

~I~ ~LS~i~Js~nr ~u~

"e~8~i~"h~srP i~p9I~F~u~i~'~il -~a~ I-

~ ~ ~a~ ~a~Ba?.

--:--~I

-ilI 1,1

il? :: i I~
aoi

w ,?~"~?i":95?..&

~ilZ
-a

-?-:??--:5 : _i
i

-28
"" i r~b ~-~-~

i;
i ji i t

1~

:I`

'

,i6
I~

I i r

i -a

iii_:a~'~?i3~-r:~~~:::; : ::1 .. : -

120

thatStabat mater scoredup preciselyin orderto was score;andthis raisesthe possibility devise a new sixth voice againstit. The evidence of the manuscriptis, however, ambiguouson that point. In general,the sixth voice too is written out very fluently, with no deletionsand only one erasure. the copyistwas indeed the composerof the If sexta andworkeddirectlyon the page,then he carried his taskwith greatflairout pars the addedvoice-partis both contrapuntally correctandingenious- andapparently did not haveto revisehis work. The only detailthatmight hint at a changeof mind could it just aseasilybe construedasa copyingerror; is shownin Plate1. At the end of the first barof the sexta the copyistdrew the terminalbar-linebeforewritingin thatbar's pars, music; but he was forced to shift the bar-lineto the right when space provedto be insufficient.One possibilityis that he was composing into this space, and allowed himselftoo little room.But it is equallypossiblethathe was copyingfroman exemplar, and failed to look ahead. One final observationcan be made about the added it voice-part:althoughit is writtenwithout text-underlay, was evidentlymeantto be texted.Example1 showsthe closingbarsof the motet, in which the sexta singstwo pars on of for phrases a monotone, each made out of five iterations the pitch, adequate the words 'gloria.Amen' that end the text. Although elsewherein the score the copyist frequentlyelided Josquin'srepeatednotes, as if notating in shorthand,his overall conception of the work seems neverthelessto have remaineda texted one, as if use ultimatelymeant for practical by singers. Whateverthe sequenceof eventsin the Stabat mater scorewith its addedvoice-part,it shedsno light on the function of the Jacquetscore that follows it. This piece is not fromfive voicesto six;on the contrary, therewasneveranyaimhereto devise expanded an additionalvoice-part,and the score'spurposeremainswholly mysterious.Almost it at sinceits unwieldysizeand certainly wasnot meantfor score-reading the keyboard, unusual formatwould virtually landscape precludethat.If it wasdrawnup with the aim of makinga keyboard lute adaptation the music,then no spacewasleft on the page or of 10 to notateit, andthe arrangement musthavebeen writtenelsewhere. If the abandoned scorewasmadenot for the purposeofperforming,or makinginstrumental adaptations, or addingvoice-parts,then therearefew otherexplanations its existenceotherthan for thatit wasmeantfor study.If thatis the case,then thisis one of veryfew study-scores to survivefromthe 16thcentury, is conceivably and the earliest. it hasno among Certainly in parallel earlyTudorEngland." The nationalityof the music copyistin H4848, however,should not be taken for of granted.Althoughthe natureof the remainder the volume - papersrelatingto the English nobility, the English parliamentand the English coronation ceremony usedin England,thatneed not point to virtually provesthatthe book wassubsequently an Englishoriginfor the musicpagesthemselves, if especially they wereindeedthe first to be copied. Fromthe notationalsymbolsused on the musicpages,it is impossibleto judge the nationalityof the copyist.No help is to be had fromletterformationin any verbaltext, for thereareno titles,no incipits,no text-underlay; fromthe notation and 121

Example 1. Josquin, Stabatmater,bars 177-end, with added second superius part (top stave), as notated in H4848.
180

[glo - ri -

a. A-men.

Glo

ri - a. A - men.]

A:

alone - the note-heads, clefs, flats, directs, and so on, all of them written at speed with no concern for calligraphic nicety - it would be unwise to draw any conclusion, other than that the hand is not obviously English.12 Instead, the origins of the book are best explored in relation to two other criteria:first, the likelihood of motets byJosquin and Jacquet being copied in score by an English musician (or a musician in England) in the 1530s; and second, the musical substance of the voice-part added to Josquin's Stabat mater.These two issues are explored below."3 To judge from the surviving sources, very few foreign motets were copied into English manuscripts during the first half of the 16th century. For that reason, it is striking thatJacquet'sAspice,Domine should be one of two Continental works included in the so-called Peterhouse partbooks, a set copied in England probably in the early 1540s that otherwise contains Tudor Masses and antiphons, by Fayrfax, Taverner, Aston, Tallis and others, apparently for use by a collegiate or cathedral choir. In those partbooks the motet appears anonymously; it was a later indexer who incorrectly attributed it to 'Lupus Italus'.14 How this Jacquet motet reached England is unknown. Its earliest printed source dates from 1532 (published by Moderne), and there were editions by Scotto (1539), Gardano (1540), Petreius (also 1540), and others later in the century. Frustratingly,however, this motet circulated with very few substantive variants, and it would be unwise to speculate about the sources used for the copies in either the Peterhouse partbooks or H4848 on the evidence of variables such as ligatures, coloration, written-in accidentals, or the elision or subdivision ofnotes, all ofwhich lay open to modification by copyists.'5Farmore significance should be read into the simple fact of the concordance with Peterhouse, at a time when so few foreign motets were entering the English repertory. In the Peterhouse partbooks, Jacquet's powerfully expressive and tightly imitative motet stands out in sharp contrast to the English polyphony that surrounds it. Seen in that light, the existence in H4848 of a study score

122

of the piece, made in England to examine its inner workings, would not be so very surprising. Wholly without precedent, however, is an English manuscript copy of a Josquin motet. Josquin's works did reach Tudor England, initially in imported manuscripts. Celebrated examples are London, British Library,MS Royal 8.G.vii, a gift from the Burgundian-Habsburg court to Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon probably in the second decade of the 16th century,16 and London, Royal College of Music, MS 1070, a small French-produced choirbook of the early 16th century that has sometimes been linked with Anne Boleyn.'7 (The latter choirbook actually includes Stabatmater, in a but reading that differs in small but substantive details from that in H4848.)'8 Motets by Josquin also entered England in printed form. In the Nonsuch Palace library, for instance, there was a bound volume of Petrucci prints that included the Motetti de la corona,librotertio(1519).1"(This too contains Stabatmater,but again in a reading slightly different from that of H4848.) The mere availability ofJosquin's motets, however, did not mean that they were used, let alone prized, and until now England has stood out from its European neighbours for being the only country in which Josquin's music appearsto have enjoyed no obvious vogue. The score copy of StabatmaterinH4848 may therefore offer the first tangible evidence of Josquin's reception in Tudor England. Moreover, in this source the motet has an added second treble voice, conceivably devised on the page by the copyist himself. That raises an extraordinary possibility. A pair of interweaving treble parts in G2 clef- the so-called treble 'gymel' texture - is a characteristic of Tudor polyphony. Has Josquin's Stabatmaterbeen 'Englished'? The musical evidence suggests otherwise. Although Stabat mater is in many ways constructed along lines that an English church musician of the 1530s or 40s would have understood - which is to say that it is based on a slow-moving cantus firmus, laid out in the tenor, around which the other voices move in melodic lines that are often fashioned out of arpeggios -Josquin's polyphony is much more imitative, far less melismatic, and altogether more restrained and economical than most English church music of the period. The sixth voice, rather than adding an English-sounding layer to the texture, instead blends unobtrusively into the ensemble, and indeed often ingeniously adds further imitative statements ofJosquin's thematic subjects. Examples 2 and 3 show two typical passages, from the second half of the motet's primapars; note in particular the expansion ofJosquin's imitative dialogues at bars 54-62 ('Quis est homo qui non fleret'; Example 2) and 81-5 ('Vidit suum dulcem natum / Morientur desolatum'; Example 3). On the whole the new voice-part has been very skilfully made, evidently by someone who knew the original motet extremely well and who set out to respect its character. Were it not for its survival in a manuscript of apparently English origin, there would be no pressing reason to regard it as the work of an English musician. Like the notation of the manuscript itself, the nationality of the added sixth voice is almost impossible to pin down. A taste for adding extra voice-parts to existing music can sometimes be detected in Tudor England; several examples are to be found, for instance, in the 'booke of In 123

bars47-65, with added second superiuspart (top Example2. Josquin, Stabatmater, stave),as notatedin H4848.
50

["

'

55

-II

"-,.
60 r_

,
r1 r 65

124

bars80-89, with added second superiuspart (top Example 3. Josquin, Stabatmater, stave),as notatedin H4848. qL ]P.iI

;YIO >

80

5ciw9I

A85

f2
'It

wasstillalive.ForMiserere Deus,thereis a nomines&other solfaingesonges',BritishLibrary,sixthvoice composedby the singer mei Additional 31390 parts,not MS innher Lb .Josquin 31390), which was copied probably the 1570s, thoug the contes in are ofJothemselves added largelymuch the second isby no meansan exclusively earlier.ver But this Englishphenomenon,and in fact two other five-voice motets by Josquinwere given extra sixth voices while was Josquin stillalive.ForMiserere Deus,thereis a sixthvoice composedby the singer mei Bidon (Antonio Collebaudi),a colleague of Josquin'sat Ferrara when Miserere was composed." Huc me sydereo has an addedvoice-part,thought by some to be by also osquin himself, and found in the majority ources These two ofsab Thereis na.2 expansionH4848? ondiffer fromthe one in H4848 only on the groundsthatthe extravoices areinnerparts,not a second treble,and thereforedo not encroachupon the territoriesof Josquin's outer voices;the audibleboundaries the originalmotetsarenot changedby theiraddition. of Whoeveraddedthe secondtrebleto Stabat mater, however,builtveryprominently upon its superstructure, introducinga two-treblesonoritythatJosquinhimselfalmostcer-

125

darkandpossiblya deadend, thatmightstillbe explored,if only forthe sakeof alleyway, In Biblioteca thoroughness. a set of Italianpartbookscompiledin the 1530s (Verona, workscomposedlargelyin MS B 218), alongside dellaSocietaAccademia Filarmonica, the Low Countries,thereis a seven-voicesettingof Homoquidamfecit cenam magnam by It to attributed 'Philippede Vildre'.23 is directlymodelledon a five-voice Homoquidam theyalsouse the samehigh clefs, Josquin;24 only do the two worksopen identically; not and are constructedaroundstrict canons between two inner voices, the pitches of which derive from the 'Homo quidam' plainchant.'Philippe de Vildre' must be in to PhilippevanWilder,musician the PrivyChamber HenryVIII,keeperof the royal instruments, lutenist,directorof a consortof singersat the Tudorcourt,andcomposer. ascribed to Only six motetsby him survive- five, if the Vidicivitatem variously him and to Gombertis removed.One of those five motets, Homoquidam, takesits lead overtly froma work attributed Josquin.Another,vanWilder's to five-voiceAspice sets Domine, as its primapars the identical text set to five voices by Jacquet of Mantua.25 The coincidenceof nameswith the two composersrepresented H4848 maybe nothing in more than that:a coincidence. Even so, in Philippevan Wilder we have a musician ideallyplacedto serveasa conduitfor importingforeignmusicto the Tudorcourt,and from there into Englandat large.Whether or not van Wilder himselfhad any direct neverknow,but his presenceas a high-ranking dealingswith H4848 we will probably musicianresidentin England,and the likelihood that he knew the music of foreign creates some sortof context forthe manuscript.26 JosquinandJacquet, Takingthatinto account, together with existence ofJacquet'sAspiceDominein the PeterhousepartcontentsofH4848, it does indeedseem books, andthe Englishslantof the non-musical more thanlikelythatwe do haveherean authenticTudorsourceformotetsbyJosquin andJacquet.
AFTERWORD:THE 'DUNKELD PARTBOOKS'

A few wordsneed to be saidhereaboutEdinburgh, MS UniversityLibrary, 64, the only other manuscript Britishprovenance of thatincludesmotets by JosquinandJachet,if only to explain why its evidence has not been used in the discussionabove. This partbookset - five survivingvolumesfrom the originalsix, lackingthe bassus- was in copied certainlyin the BritishIslesand probably Scotlandin the centraldecadesof the sixteenth century.Includedin the set, all without composerattribution, the are following:motetsbyJosquinandJacquet(butnot the two pieces copied into H4848), and by Certon, Lupi, Claudin de Sermisy and Willaert;the Vidicivitatem ascribed to Gombertand Philippevan Wilder;two otherwiseunknown Masses conflictingly thathavegenerally been claimedasthe work of Scottishcomposers; an incomplete and copy of the Missa Jesu Christe the EnglishcomposerThomas Ashwell. For many by decades these partbookswere linked with Dunkeld Cathedral,on the basis of a recordof theirdonationto Edinburgh which seventeenth-century UniversityLibrary, callsthem 'ChurchMusickatDunkell'without givingexplanatory details.In a sensitive 126

of re-examination the evidence,however,KennethElliotthastentatively that suggested the collegiatechurchof Lincludenmayhavebeen theirplaceof origin:'Dunkell'may in havebeen a misreading 'Lincluden'(perhaps an abbreviated of Latinversionof the the 'Robert dowglas'whose name appearsat the front of one of the place-name); partbooks maybe the Robert Douglaswho wasprovostof Lincludenfrom 1547;andit is conceivablethatthe partbooks werecopiedca.1557, followingDouglas's returnfrom a periodof residencein Parisin the early1550s,since their contentsseem to derivein own subsequent Elliott's partfroma groupof Attaingnant prints.27 writingshavealways stressed speculative the natureof these conclusions,but othershavethrowncautionto the wind; the Census-Catalogue, instance,consolidates for into Elliott'sinterpretation what appearsto be a statementof facts about the partbooks:'Ca. 1557. Copied in Scotland,at Lincluden',with Douglasbeing namedas 'the probable originalowner of the manuscript'.28 The viabilityof Elliott's to the theoryremains be tested,in particular suggestionthat the motetswere copied directlyfromFrenchandItalian sources.Aboveall,the printed in civitatem thissourcecannotbe ignored.No sixteenth-century presenceof Vidi printis known to have included this work, and it survivesotherwise only in three English with to rich manuscripts: an attribution vanWilderin Lbl31390 (amanuscript in works ascribed van Wilder);with an attribution Gombertin Oxford,BodleianLibrary, to to MS ca. Tenbury 1464 (the bassus partbookfroman otherwiselost set;copied probably 1560s or later);and anonymouslyin a partbookset copied in the last quarterof the sixteenthcentury,of which two partbooks survive(Tenbury 389, andthe privately MS owned 'McGhieMS').29 of to Althoughthe attribution Vidicivitatem Gomberthasyet to be fullyinvestigated, leastone authority, Wilder's at van modern editor,rejectsit in favourof van Wilder.30If this is correct,then some explanation needed of how Vidi is came to be embeddedin the Edinburgh civitatem surrounded piecesthat partbooks, by have been suspectedto derive from foreign prints. (It is the ninth in a group of 16 An one possibility, thatmight be testedby thoroughlyexamining motets.)'3 alternative allthe readings the Edinburgh in MS, is thatpartor even allof its contentsderivefroma lost source,perhapsa manuscript Englishorigin, a scenariothatwould explainthe of In aboutthe dateand presencehereof Vidicivitatem. short,cautionshouldbe expressed - andits significance a pointerto the reception as originsof the Edinburgh manuscript of foreign music in 16th-century Britain - until its readingshave been properly evaluated.
* 1 2 3 I am gratefulto Bonnie J. Blackburn,David Fallows,Jeremy Noble, Glyn Redworth, JoshuaRifkin and David Skinnerfor their commentson an earlydraftof this article. Musicin the British III: Etc. Catalogue Manuscript of Museum, Instrumental Music,Treatises, (London 1909), 277. Modern edition in Werken osquin Pres,Motetten van des VIII,ed. A. Smijers(Amsterdam/ no. 36 (51-57). Leipzig 1942), It differs fromthe addedsixthvoice, alsoa superius, Rokycany,ChurchArchive,MS.A V in 22a andb, asreportedinJ. Sni'kovi, 'Josquin Czech Sourcesof the Second Half of the in

127

Sixteenth Century', in Josquindes Prez. Proceedings the International of JosquinFestivalheldat theJuilliard School Lincoln at Center New York in 1971, ed. Conference City,21-25]June E.E. Lowinskyin collaboration with B.J.Blackburn(London1976), 280 and 284. 4 Modern edition inJachet Mantua,Collected CMM 54/V, ed. G. Nugent (1986), Works, of 48-54. A Catalogue theHarleian 5 in III Museum, (London1808), 211. At that of ManuscriptstheBritish time, H4848 wasbound togetherwith HarleyMS 5168, on accountof theirrelated subject matter.The 1808 entry,however,impliesthatthey aretwo discretemanuscripts, they and arenow boundseparately. Thereis no mentionof the musicpagesin H4848 in the Catalogue Musicin theBritish ed. Museum, E Madden(London 1842). of theManuscript 6 The textblockis madeout of a singlebatchof paper, lighterin weightthanwouldbe normal for a music book copied for performinguse, with nine chainlinesto each sheet (the two nearest the fore-edgebeing conspicuously to morecloselyspacedtogetherthanthe others), but with no visiblewatermark. There is no change of paperat the junction between the copying of music and words. Because of the tightnessof the binding and absence of it the watermarks, is not possibleto establish collation. 7 Furtherevidence that the score was abandonedfor reasonsother than the availability of to spacecanbe foundin a disruption the barring systemthatoccursatthe end offol. 84v.Up to thatpoint, bar-lineshadbeen addedregularly the distanceof two breves.However,at at the sectioninJacquet's motetset to the words'plenadivitiis'- starting bar40 in the CMM at edition - the two-brevebarringsystemis abandoned,and the voice-partsare effectively to alignedwith one anotherby vertical placementonly.Soon afterthat,ata point equivalent modern bar49, the score ends mid-phrase, with directspointing into a void. 8 At leastsome of the entriesfor the 'Nobility of England'datefromthe 1540s;one of them (fol. 68v) post-datesthe death of Thomas Cromwell (d. 1540). The entry on fol. 83 (opening6), which wasaddedafterthe copyingof the coronationservice,wasabortedand recopied in fol. 11v,by a hand that can be datedbefore 1547, on accountof its reference elsewhere(fol.79) to Edward Seymourasearlof Hertford(i.e.beforehis creationasdukeof Somersetin February1547). Opening 6 in fact offeredmore than adequate spacefor this which must havebeen abortedfor other reasons. entry, 9 nameandarmsareaddedon fol. 2v,with a note thathe wasaged23 in 1592 (i.e. Randolph's was born ca. 1569). See alsoJ. Foster,AlumniOxonienses. Members the University The of of Oxford,1500-1714 (Oxford 1891), 1231, where Edmond Randallis describedas being 'aged 10' at the time of his matriculation wasborn ca. 1571). In the sixteenthcentury (i.e. the names 'Randolph'and 'Randall'were used interchangeably. 10 A classicexampleof a manuscript vocalpolyphonynotatedin scorethatcould be readat of the keyboard,and which has ornamentedkeyboardintabulations some of its contents of workedout on otherwiseblankstavesat the foot of the page,is York,MinsterLibrary, MS M.91 (S), copied in Englandin the second half of the sixteenthcentury.Fordetailsof this of see Musicc. manuscriptand transcriptions its keyboardadaptations, Tudor Keyboard 56 1520-1580, ed.J. Caldwell,MusicaBritannica (London1995), especially xxvii and pp. 178, and pieces no. 83-89 and 91. 11 The nearest is R.M. 24.d.2, fols. 1-87, the firstlayerof equivalent London,BritishLibrary, so-called'CommonplaceBook', copied probably the lastdecadeof the in John Baldwin's 16th century.Here too, the scoresare copied without text-underlay, if for study.See as

128

12

13

14

15

16

17

R.M. 24.d.2, Renaissance Music in Facsimile8, with an inLondon,BritishLibrary. troductionbyJ.A. Owens (New York/London1987). The only possiblehint of the copyist's nationality andit is not a conclusiveone - occursin the scoreat the triple-timepassage nearthe end ofJosquin's Stabat mater. Josquin's In own methods:blacknotation voice-parts,the copyisthasindicatedtripletime by threedifferent with 3 (see Plate 1, voices I and II at the eighthbarof the page);blacknotationwithout 3 (Plate1, voices IV andV at the eighthbar);andvoid notationwith 3 (Plate1, voice I at the 12th bar).The addedsixthvoice, however,usesanotherpossibility: blacknotationwith C true to saythatthe currency thislatter of (Plate1, voice VI at the eighthbar).It is probably mensurationsign remained more widespreadin 16th-centuryEngland than in other in insistenceon regionsof Europe.Another notationalfingerprint H4848 - the copyist's addinga mensurationsign afterevery clef, no matterwhat the page or the bar (see for but exampleVoiceV in the firstandfourthbarsof Plate1) - is idiosyncratic, does not help with the questionof nationality. Forreasons areexplainedin an afterword the article,discussion avoidedhereof the that to is other sixteenth-century Britishmanuscript containscopies of motetsby Josquin that only and Jacquet:Edinburgh,UniversityLibrary, MS 64, variouslyknown as the 'Dunkeld the 'LincludenAntiphonary' the 'Dowglas-Fischear and Partbooks'. Partbooks', PeterhouseMSS 471-4. On the partbooks general,see in Cambridge, UniversityLibrary, N. Sandon,'The HenricianPartbooks Peterhouse,Cambridge', PRMA 103 (1976at in MusicManuscripts 77), 106-140, and the descriptionby Roger Bowers in Cambridge 900-1700, ed. I. Fenlon (Cambridge1982), 132-135; on the Jacquet motet, see L. in Lockwood, 'A ContinentalMassand Motet in a TudorManuscript', M&L42 (1961), 336-347. It is generallyagreedthatthe partbooks or at leastsome of theircontents- are connectedwith MagdalenCollege, Oxford;but the idea thatthe 'Mr.Jackett' who served as Informator at Choristarum Magdalenbetween 1536 and 1539 might be equatedwith Jacquetof Mantua(mentionedas a 'remotepossibility'in Sandon,op.cit., 112 and 127) cannotbe sustained, sinceJacquet's presencein Mantuais documentedduringthose years; see G. Nugent, TheJacquet Motets their and Authors (Ph.D.diss.,PrincetonUniversity1973), 45 and 104. Tojudge fromthe criticalcommentaryto Nugent'sCMM edition (see note 4 above),the status in voice is only variant readingin H4848 thatmightbe reckonedto have'substantive' II at the startof bar 23, where H4848 agreeswith only two other sources:RISM 15406 and ca. Petreius), Modena,BibliotecaEstense,MS Mus. C313 (copiedFerrara, (Niirnberg: it 1550-60). Nugent'slisting,however,is not comprehensive; omits, for instance,the one variantin Peterhousethat seems to distinguish that sourcefrom all others (bar82, where voice II arrives an F on the firstbeatof the bar).Had the scorein H4848 extendedup to on thatpoint, its relationship Peterhouse to with some certainty; but might havebeen assessed it does not. Currentviews on this choirbookaresummarized HerbertKellmanin The Treasury by of Petrus Alamire. MusicandArt in FlemishCourtManuscripts 1500-1535, ed. H. Kellman (Ghent/Amsterdam 1999), 110-111. Fora critiqueof the theoriesthathavebeen proposedfor the originsof thismanuscript, and a tentativedatingof it to before 1514, see R.M. Warnicke,TheRiseandFallofAnneBoleyn (Cambridge1989), AppendixB ('The Choirbook of Anne Boleyn').

129

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

One notationaldetailshown in Plate 1 may point to H4848 havingbeen copied from a in choirbook,ratherthanfroma set of partbooks: bar4 of thatpagethereis a simultaneous change of clef in voices III and V, a coincidence that would be most likely to ariseat a listedin the criticalcommentaryto the page-turnin a choirbook.Tojudge fromvariants Werken's editionof Stabat mater note 2 above),the reading H4848 doesnot alignwith in (see herein termsof the anyotherknown source,andhasatleasttwo uniquevariants (reported Werken score):in Voice II atbar47 (seeExample2, entrymarked*), the firstnote of'Nati' earlier(i.e. omittingthe precedingrest,thusmakingthe fugaentryin Voice beginsa minima identicalto thosein VoicesI, IV andV); andin VoiceIIin the firsthalfof bar IIrhythmically C three minimae C, D. E, E, 163, H4848 hassemibrevis minima in place of the Werken's 'The Nonsuch MusicLibrary', Sundry in Sorts Books. on J. Milsom, ofMusic Essays theBritish Collections Presented O.W Neighbour his 70thBirthday, C. Banks,A. Searle to on edd. & Library M.Turner(London 1993), 146-182 (at 159-160). Fora discussion inventoryof thismanuscript, and instrumental seeJ. Noble, 'Ler6pertoire in Lamusique instrumentalelaRenaissance, de 1550-1585', anglais: 1955), ed.J.Jacquot(Paris 91-114. Modern edition (includingBidon'saddedvoice) in Werken Josquin Pres.Motetten van des no. 37 (58-76). On Bidon, see L. VIII, ed. A. Smijers (Amsterdam/Leipzig 1942), in Ferrara 1400-1505 (Oxford1984), 206-207, andidem, 'A Lockwood,Music Renaissance Virtuoso Singer at Ferrara and Rome. The Case of Bidon', in PapalMusicians Late in Medieval Renaissance and Rome,ed. R. Sherr(Oxford 1998), 224-239. Modernedition (including spurious the sixthvoice, herecalled'Altusprimavox')in Werken des Motetten ed. A. Smijers VI, (Amsterdam 1936), no. 32 (11-19).Josquin's vanjosquin Pres. of authorship the sixthvoice is rejectedon stylisticgrounds byJoshuaRifkin in 'MotivikKonstruktion Humanismus. Zur Motette Huc mesydereo Josquindes Prez', in Die von Motette. zur ed. Beitriige ihrer Gattungsgeschichte,H. Schneider(Mainz1992), 105-134, and on groundsof its sourcedistribution AnthonyM. Cummingsin 'The Transmission of by SomeJosquinMotets', inJRMA 115 (1990), 1-32 (atp. 12). Modern edition in Philipvan Wilder, Collected ed. and Works, J. Bernstein,Masters Monumentsof the Renaissance part1: Sacred Works(New York1991),no. 4. Foraninventory 4, and descriptionof the Veronamanuscript, N. B6ker-Heil, 'Zu einem friihveneziasee nischen Motettenrepertoire', Helmuth in zu edd. Osthoff seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag, W U. & Stauder, Aarburg P Cahn (Tutzing1969), 59-88. Modern edition in Werken Josquin Pres.Motetten ed. A. Smijers(Amsterdam/ van des V, Leipzig, 1923), no. 28 (147-154). I have raised questions elsewhere about Josquin's of authorship this work; see J. Milsom, 'Motets for Five or More Voices',in The Josquin ed. Companion, R. Sherr (Oxford/New York2000), 281-320 (at p. 312). Whateverthe truth of the matter,no name other thanJosquin'sis attachedto the work in its known sources,and van Wildermay havebelievedit to be by Josquin. Modernedition in PhilipvanWilder, Collected Part Works, 1, no. 2. This motet existsin two in states,the firstfor five voices (underlaid one sourcewith secularLatinwords,'Plangete thereis no modernedition).It vivos'),the secondforsix (of which only two voicessurvive; wasprofoundly influential upon WilliamByrd.Itsopeningsubject,'Aspice,Domine', was takenover by Byrdfor the closingsubjectof his own Aspice Dominequiafacta (fromthe es 1575 Cantiones RISM 15753)at the words'nisi tu, Deus noster'(bars75-end). Van sacrae; Wilder's (five-voicesetting)wasreworked Byrdagainin polyphonyfor 'sedetin tristitia' by

130

26

27 28

29

30 31

his own Aspice Domine,at the words 'plenadivitiis';this is mentioned in J. Kerman,The Masses Motets William and (London1981), 102-103, butwithoutthe knowledgethat of Byrd Byrd'smodel was more probablyvan Wilder'ssix-voice setting,where the polyphonyis underlaid with the words'plenadivitiis',exactlyasin Byrd's motet. The finalsectionof van 'nisitu, Deus noster',provided Wilder's prima Byrdwith the thematiccontent- and,to pars, alimitedextent,polyphonicmodules for hisDomine, secundum actum meum (RISM 15753), at the words'nihilenim in conspectutuo';Byrd's recollectionof thispassage havebeen may of promptedby the assonance 'nihil' with van Wilder's'nisi'. Forwhatit is worth, the mostimportant sourceof vanWilder's works,Lbl31390, surviving notateshis only known triple-timecomposition(the five-voice chansonJefilequand Dieu in medonne quoy) blacknotationunderthe mensuration exactlyasin the addedsixth de C, in voice to Stabat mater H4848; othersourcesin mensural notation(asopposedto tablature) use black notation under the signs4(3 or 03. Although copied in the 1570s, Lbl31390 transmits repertorylargelydatingfrom the second quarterof the sixteenthcentury. a K. Elliott, '"ChurchMusickat Dunkell"',in M&L45 (1964), 228-232; thisincludes(atp. 229) an inventoryof the partbooks. Sources Polyphonic Music 1400-1550, compiled by the Census-Catalogue Manuscript of of of IllinoisMusicologicalArchivesfor RenaissanceManuscript Studies,vol. 1 University 203. 1979), (Neuhausen-Stuttgart, Forbriefoverviewsof thesemanuscripts, in seeJ. Milsom, 'Sacred Songsin the Chamber', Practice Choral ed. J. Morehen (Cambridge1995), 161-179 (at pp. 1400-1650, English 167-168, 171 and 174-175). van Collected Part Works, 1, xxix. The motet is editedin that JaneBernstein,in Philip Wilder, volume as no. 7; it was not incudedin the collected edition of Gombert's works. The inventoryin Elliott,'"ChurchMusickatDunkell"',lists17 motets,but of thesenos. 5 and 6 are the constituentvoice-partsof a single bitextualwork. Only the last of the 16 motets remainsunattributed otherwiseuntraced,an eight-voice settingof Tesanctum and for Music British in Sources1485-c 1610, edd. M. Hofman& c Dominum; its incipit,see Latin Vol. Morehen,EarlyEnglishChurchMusic, Supplementary 2 (London1987), AnonyJ. mous Compositionno. 318 (pp. 101 and 125).

131