Some thoughts on Palestrina’s polychoral style
Thomas J. D. Neal
In any style whatsoever, the presence of tension between the
horizontal and vertical musical conceptions may be substantiated; but
in the one style, the primary interest lies in the line—in the other, it
lies in the chord; in the first, one has to do with melodic impulses,
which recoil from the impact with the sonorous requirements—in the
second, with the sense of sonority, which finds an aesthetic corrective
in the linear demands. The line is undoubtedly the starting-point of
Palestrina‘s style. [...] All that was required of the vertical in
Palestrina‘s time was clearness and sonority; [...] It is as if the
fundamental compository forces here may be traced back to certain
chord-like, modulative and emotional impulses, which break like light
through a prism into a myriad of shimmering colours—a multitude
which is seen, on closer inspection, to be illusory.1
Although it has long been accepted that Palestrina was less ‗conservative‘ in matters of
contrapuntal technique than our basic teaching has lead us to believe, there have been
comparatively few attempts to identify and describe the composer‘s progressive
tendencies in detail. 2 The more Franco-Flemish aspects of Palestrina‘s music have been
well documented, whether dealing with t he regularisation of dissonance treatment, issues
of textual declamation, or the perfection of ‗classical‘ polyphony. But too many studies of
sixteenth century music continue to be plagued by notions of ‗the Palestrina style‘ (der
Palestrinastil) perpetuated by nineteenth and early-twentieth century theorists. Under the
guise of the prima pratica, a didactic attitude to Palestrina‘s contrapuntal technique
emerged in the Monteverdi-Artusi controversy and in the writings of theorists such as
Pietro Pontio (Dialogo, 1595), Pietro Cerone (El Melopeo y Mæstro, 1613), 3 and Ludovico
Zacconi (Prattica di Musica, 1592 and 1619/22). That ethos, however, was exploited by
Knud Jeppesen, The Style of Palestrina and the Dissonance (London: Oxford University Press, 1946;
reprinted, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1970), 84-85
2 This study is the product of research begun in Michaelmas term 2010. Some content comes from a
paper titled ‗Palestrina in the twilight of the Renaissance: exploring the evolution and significance of his
polychoral motets‘ (unpublished, University of Cambridge, 2011) and a paper read at the annual Clare
Research Symposium, 17th March 2011. I am grateful to Dr. David Skinner (Sidney Sussex College,
Cambridge) for his comments and criticisms; to my friends and colleagues at Clare College, Cambridge
for many lively conversations on the subject; and finally, to Dr. Noel O‘Regan (University of Edinburgh)
for his help in the acquisition of materials, and for his many hours spent cataloguing, studying, and raising
awareness of Palestrina‘s polychoral works, without which this article would not have been possible. Any
errors or misreadings herein are mine alone. Thanks must also be given to members of The Clare Consort
and Collegium Vocale, who have brought this music to life in rehearsal and performance.
3 R. Hannas, ‗Cerone‘s Approach to the Teaching of Counterpoint‘ in Papers of the American Musicological
Society (1937), 75-80
1
133
Johann Joseph Fux (Gradus ad Parnassum, 1725) in his attempt to rescue his
contemporaries from an alleged state of artistic corruption. 4 That Fux‘s treatise was
misconstrued by succeeding generations as a grammatical discourse on Palestrina‘s
contrapuntal technique has had a profoundly damaging effect on the study and
perception of sixteenth century music, both in print and in the lecture theatre. As JenYen Chen puts it, ‗Palestrina did not matter to him [i.e. Fux] as an individual composer of
late sixteenth-century Rome; he mattered as a paradigm, an idealized model of voiceleading purified of the unpredictable, haphazard aspects of personality.‘ 5 And yet every
significant exposition on the subject of ‗Palestrinian‘ counterpoint since the mid eighteenth century felt obliged to position itself in relation to Fuxian contrapuntal
theory. 6
The misreading of Fux‘s treatise had far-reaching consequences: it exerted a considerable
influence on the Palestrina revival elicited by Giovanni Tebaldini, Lorenzo Perosi, and
the Cecilian Movement in southern Germany. In turn, whilst most scholars consider the
devout Roman Catholic climate at Regensburg to have contributed little but historicist
mystique to the Palestrina revival, the current musicological literature has not yet
questioned the influence exerted by Cecilian Movement and ‗the Regensburg group‘ on
the writings of Heinrich Bellermann (Der Contrapunkt, 1862), Michael Haller
(Kompositionslehre für den polyphonen Kirchengesang, 1891), or Knud Jeppesen (Der Palestrinastil
und die Dissonanz, 1925; Kontrapunkt, 1930)—and yet these same writings continue to
influence the way we think about Palestrina‘s compositional technique. In the Preface to
The Style of Palestrina, Jeppesen decries ‗The moment of inertia which causes the theorists
to transfer rules from older textbooks to new without proper critical revision‘; but it is
now clear that the author of those words must also be reconsidered, taking into account
the influence of the Cecilian Movement and the conclusions advanced in this article. 7
Jen-Yen Chen, ‗Palestrina and the Influence of ―Old‖ Style in Eighteenth-Century Vienna‘ in Journal of
Musicological Research, No.22 (2003), 1
5 Ibid., 9
6 In the Preface to The Style of Palestrina, Jeppesen makes the mistake of considering Fux‘s treatise as a
study of Palestrina‘s countrapuntal technique. He decries ‗the inability of the theorists, when describing
the practices of past times, to discriminate between these and the elements of style typical of their own
contemporaries, (which was the case with Fux).‘ See: Jeppesen, The Style of Palestrina, 2. Elsewhere,
Jeppesen acknowledges that Palestrina acted simply as ‗the basis of [Fux‘s] style‘, also noting ‗To this art
[i.e. Palestrina] it has but slight relation‘, but this does not prevent him from employing Fuxian
methodology in his discussions of Palestrina‘s music. See, for instance, Jeppesen‘s attempts to categorise a
technique of Palestrina‘s as either second or fifth species counterpoint. See: Jeppesen, op. cit., 116.
7 Jeppesen, The Style of Palestrina, 2. A comprehensive examination of this pocket of Palestrina
historiography is badly needed. Several closely-related issues have been explored in James Garratt,
Palestrina and the German Romantic Imagination: Interpreting Historicism in Nineteenth-Century Music (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002) and Anna Maria Busse Berger, Medieval Music and the Art of Memory
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).
4
134
There have, of course, been a handful of studies which have moved towards a reappraisal
of Palestrina‘s achievements, most notably Karl Gustav Fellerer‘s Palestrina. Leben und
Werk (Düsseldorf: Musikverlag Schwann, 1960), but little has absorbed into the
musicological literature and a number of crucial lacunæ remain. So, too, have there been
several studies of the Roman polychoral style, notably in Anthony Carver‘s Cori Spezzati:
The Development of Sacred Polychoral Music to the Time of Schütz and Noel O‘Regan‘s studies of
Victoria, Palestrina, and the colleges and confraternities in counter-reformation Rome.
Until recently, Palestrina‘s polychoral style has been studied through a handful of
carefully-selected motets, often in comparison to repertoire by Animuccia, Victoria, the
Anerio brothers, and others. In short, there has been no sustained discussion of the
origins and development of Palestrina‘s polychoral style, or its significance in his output.
Given that five of Palestrina‘s six polychoral motets of the Holy Year 1575 were the first
works for harmonically-independent cori spezzati to be published by any composer, this is
quite surprising. 8 It is a peculiar feature of Carver‘s book, for example, that he considers
only a handful of Palestrina‘s polychoral motets, without any attempt to evaluate their
position within the broader context of the composer‘s output or to distinguish between
compositional procedures in different periods of Palestrina‘s career, applying the same
principles to the polychoral works as to the earlier works in the Franco-Flemish style.
Approaching any work of Palestrina‘s from a contrapuntal perspective has been the sine
qua non of musicological literature, both historical and analytical, for nearly two hundred
years. The basic teaching fed to college students and undergraduates usually considers
Palestrina‘s contrapuntal technique as ‗consist[ing] mainly in inventing and combining [...]
independently conducted and conceived lines‘, unadulterated by harmonic planning. 9 Yet,
as I shall argue, examining the development of the fundamental form-building processes
of Palestrina‘s polychoral style reveals a gradual attenuation of contrapuntal processes,
with the bassus voice retreating from the contrapuntal fabric to a primarily harmonic, nonthematic function. The present enquiry was triggered by an observation of Noel
O‘Regan‘s: ‗While the basses were still on the whole involved in the contrapuntal fabric
of the 1572 [Motettorum [...] liber secundus] eight-voice pieces, by 1575 [Motettorum [...] liber
tertius] they have withdrawn to a great extent, providing a harmonic foundation and
Those who consider Palestrina a conservative composer should note, as O‘Regan reminds us, that in
1575 neither Lassus nor Andrea Gabrieli—the two composers generally considered the greatest
innovators in second-generation polychoral repertoire—had composed polychoral works for multiple
harmonically-independent choirs. See: O‘Regan, ‗Palestrina‘s polychoral works‘, 343. Five years
previously, Giovanni Animuccia published some 8vv motets in his Il Secundo Libro delle Laudi (1570), but
these are closer in style to the 8vv motets in Palestrina‘s Motettorum [...] Liber Secundus, as the texture is not
equally or consistently divided. See: L. Cervelli, ‗Le laudi spirituali di Giovanni Animuccia e le origini
dell‘oratorio musicale a Roma‘ in Rassegna Musicale xx (1950), 116-161.
9 Jeppesen, The Style of Palestrina, 48
8
135
having many long notes.‘ 10 Although O‘Regan does not elaborate further, these remarks
have far-reaching implications, and will be explored and developed in the present article.
In this article I have attempted two separate but related tasks. In the first part I have
sought to identify the origins of Palestrina‘s polychoral style in his experiments with
textural contrasts and formal design in earlier motets, which I label the ‗pseudo polychoral style‘. 11 In reconstructing a chronology for the genesis of Palestrina‘s
polychoral style, I hope to demonstrate how the styles of both the 8vv psalm-motets of
1572 and 8vv cori spezzati motets of 1575 were the result of innovations demonstrated in
earlier contrapuntal works. In the second part I have attempted to assess the significance
of the polychoral idiom in Palestrina‘s stylistic development, arguing that the changing
role of the bassus voice points to an essentially harmonic (vertical) conception of the later
works. In a sense, then, this article is an attempt to position Palestrina‘s polychoral works
firmly within the polemics of the Renaissance -Baroque transition, in which horizontallyconceived contrapuntal practices were gradually replaced by vertically-conceived
harmonic practices as the primary mode of musical conception and expression. My
narrative revolves around a broad selection of masses and motets spanning Palestrina‘s
career—an approach which, I hope, demonstrates the importance of harmonic processes
as a critical category in the analysis and interpretation of Palestrina‘s music.
*
*
*
Although the term coro spezzato is often used with reference to the polychoral idiom‘s
distinctive split-texture (‗broken choir‘), in fact it probably derives from the expression
spezzare una cantilena, meaning ‗to add rests to a musical composition‘ —a reference to the
long rests encountered on one folio of the choirbook while the other group sings from
the opposite folio. 12 Whilst there are several subtypes of the coro spezzato (or coro battente)
style, Anthony Carver identifies the following general characteristics: 13
Noel O‘Regan, ‗Palestrina‘s polychoral works: a forgotten repertory‘ in Giancarlo Rostirolla, Stefania
Solidate, and Elena Zomparelli, eds, Palestrina e l’Europa. Atti del III Convegno Internazionale di Studi,
Palestrina, 6-9 October 1994 (Palestrina: Fondazione G. P. da Palestrina, 2006), 344
11 See Appendix. Whilst this phenomenon in Palestrina‘s earlier works has remained largely unnoticed,
O‘Regan briefly mentions a similar idea: ‗The double-choir pieces published in 1575 were the culmination
of a trend found in Palestrina‘s music from the 1560s onwards, particularly in works for six voices,
towards a more homophonic texture with contrasting blocks of voices.‘ See: O‘Regan, ‗Palestrina‘s
polychoral works: a forgotten repertory‘, 342. Incidentally, a similar phenomenon has often been
observed in Domenique Phinot‘s (=Dominico Finotto, 1520-1571) 8vv motets of 1547 and 1548, which
were known in Rome.
12 Walter Gerstenberg and Hermann Zenck, eds, Adriani Willaert: Omnia Opera, vol.8, Psalmi Vesperales
1550. Corpus Mensurabilis Musicæ (American Institute of Musicology, 1972), x-xi
13 Anthony F. Carver, Cori Spezzati: The development of sacred polychoral music to the time of Schütz (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988), xvi
10
136
The ensemble is consistently split into two or more groups, each retaining its
own identity, which sing separately and together within a through-composed
framework in which antiphony is a fundamental compositional resource; in tutti
passages all voice-parts should normally remain independent, with the possible
exception of the bass parts.
The origins of the polychoral idiom can be traced to two strands of fifteenth century
Franco-Flemish polyphony: the division of large textures into multiple subgroups and, in
Venice, the alternation of plainchant and falsobordone for the performance of Vespers
psalms. The principle of textural subdivision forms polychoral-like vocal groupings,
which are often employed in antiphonal exchange or (double-)canonic imitation, as in
Jean Mouton‘s celebrated motet Nesciens Mater. 14 Whilst the precise origins of these
polychoral tropes are not absolutely clear, we might conjecture a shared ancestr y with the
homophonic textures and semi-functional tonal progressions of the frottola style. In
contrast, the origins of falsobordone and cantus planus binatum can surely be traced to the
alternatim performance of psalmody and monophonic chant in the liturgy of the medieval
church. The alternation of plainchant and simple fauxbourdon harmonisations of the
psalm-tone (salmi a versi senza Riposte) evolved first into settings of individual verses in
short fragments of closed polyphony (salmi a versi con le sue Riposte), and then into the
double-choir salmi spezzati with multiple harmonically-independent choirs.
Indeed, it is clear the origins of the polychoral idiom were closely related to the earliest
suggestions of harmony conceived in the Baroque sense 15—through the development of
a character and function unique to the bassus voice. Aside from the need for consonance
between the multiple groups in the double-choir Vespers psalms, composers developed
the technique of writing bassus lines moving, by octaves, in contrary motion, effectively
doubling the line at the octave. This technique was considered so important to the salmi
spezzati idiom that it features in Nicola Vicentino‘s theoretical treatise L’antica musica
ridotta alla moderna prattica (1555), 16 and was singled out by Gioseffe Zarlino as Willaert‘s
greatest innovation. 17
As Morelli and O‘Regan have discussed, the Roman polychoral style revolved around the
Manfred Bukofzer, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music (New York and London: Norton & Co.,
1950), 180
15 In discussions of sixteenth century perception(s) and conception(s?) of composition, it is frequently
forgotten that the categorical distinction between harmony and counterpoint was not fully realised until
the years following the publication of Jean Philippe Rameau‘s Traité de l’harmonie (Paris: Ballard, 1722). See:
Alfred Mann, ed, The Study of Counterpoint from Johann Joseph Fux’s ‘Gradus ad Parnassum’ (New York and
London: Norton & Co., 1965), vii-xvi
16 Denis Arnold, ‗The Significance of Cori Spezzati‘, Music & Letters Vol. 40, No. 1 (January, 1959), 6
17 Iain Fenlon, Music and Culture in Late Renaissance Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 40
14
137
dialogue texts, psalm-motets, and Marian antiphons in vogue at the Oratory of San
Filippo Neri and other similar institutions which, partly owing to the polychoral idiom‘s
predilection for syllabic declamation and homophony without abandoning musical
artifice, closely associated polychoral technique with the counter-reformation spirit. 18 A
distinctively ‗Roman‘ polychoral style developed, characterised by a preference for
harmonically independent choirs employing the same tessitura or chiavette; opening each
motet with a polyphonic passage for one choir alone; a close identification with texts
which suggest antiphonal performance, particularly psalms and Marian antiphons;
maintaining the verse structure by adopting the half-way caesura as the point of
antiphonal exchange, effectively dividing the verse into two parts; 19 and a moderated use
of triple metre according to the proportio tripla, rather than the proportio sesquialtera used by
their Venetian counterparts. 20
Although Palestrina‘s 8vv polychoral works remained unpublished until 1575, a survey of
his earlier publications reveals a predilection for dividing the ensemble into multiple
subgroups, together with the adoption of techniques such as homophony and antiphony
which characterise the polychoral style—in short, ‗the fundamental form-building process
of polychoral music‘, if I may recycle a phrase of Carver‘s. 21 The earliest published signs
of these ‗pseudo-polychoral‘ techniques can be found in a handful of the thirty -three
motets published in the Motettorum [...] liber primus (1569), most notably O admirable
commercium, O beata et gloriosa trinitas, and O magnum mysterium (all 5vv). Indeed, O beata et
gloriosa trinitas exemplifies the experimental nature of the 1569 publication, exhibiting
every textural effect known to Palestrina: free counterpoint, the fugal style, homophony,
and ‗note-against-note counterpoint‘ (often described as ‗the intermediate style‘)—so
much so, that the ‗Jeppesenite‘ Herbert K. Andrews writes of the ‗kaleidoscopic
permutations of clear-cut contrasts‘ in this motet. 22 The fragmentary phrasing which
results from the antiphonal exchanges is partly masqueraded by the need for the altus and
tenor voices to be employed in both vocal groupings, with the latter taking on the role of
the bassus. Points of antiphonal exchange are highlighted by the repetition of text (such as
bb.13-17:3 and bb.17:2-21), changes in the tessitura and the density of the texture, and
the clear articulation of cadences and ends of phrases. The following example [Fig.1] has
Arnaldo Morelli, ‗Il tempio armonico: musica nell‘oratorio dei filippini in Roma (1575-1705)‘ in Analecta
Musicologica, 27 (Laaber, 1991); Noel O‘Regan, ‗Early Roman Polychoral Music: Origins and
Distinctiveness‘ in La Schola Policorale Romana del Sei-Settecento, atti del Convegno Internationale di Studi in
Memoria di Laurence Feininger, Trento, 4-5 October 1996, a cura di Francesco Luisi, Danilo Curti e Marco Gozzi
(Trento: Servizio Beni Librari e Archivtici, 1997), 43
19 O‘Regan, ‗Early Roman Polychoral Music‘, 43-48
20 Zygmunt M. Szeweykowski, Introduction to Giovanni Francesco Anerio: Missa Constantia, trans. Teresa
Bałuk-Ulewiczowa (Kraków: Musica Iagellonica, 1997)
21 Carver, Cori Spezzati, 50
22 Herbert K. Andrews, An Introduction to the Technique of Palestrina (London: Novello & Co., 1958), 176-191
18
138
been annotated with brackets to highlight these quasi-antiphonal exchanges and to
demonstrate how easily the material might be re-scored for 8vv coro spezzato ensemble.
[Fig.1] Palestrina, O beata et gloriosa trinitas (bb.12-27)
Another significant characteristic of Palestrina‘s polychoral style which first appears in
the Motettorum [...] liber primus is the formal design of the opening paragraphs. As
discussed above, one of the defining characteristics of the Roman polychoral style was
the practice of opening each motet with a polyphonic passage for the chorus primus (‗first
choir‘) alone, followed by the second choir‘s entry with either a short phrase of ‗noteagainst-note‘ counterpoint (either introducing the next segment of text or repeating the
first line), or an altered repetition of the first paragraph (repeating the first line of text). A
variation of the latter format is demonstrated in both the 5vv O admirable commercium and
6vv O magnum mysterium, which open with bold homorhythmic phrases for reduced forces
(the four upper voices), followed by an altered sequential repetitio n for the second
subgroup (comprising all five voices in the former, and four voices of mixed range in the
139
latter), before the next segment of text is taken up by another subgroup. Whereas O
admirable commercium eventually abandons antiphony in favour of free counterpoint, O
magnum mysterium undertakes an extensive succession of antiphonal exchanges, with each
segment of text being heard first in one subgroup before an altered repetition from a
second subgroup [Fig.2]. For example, the entry of the second subgroup (b.7) varies the
first subgroup‘s initial paragraph by increasing the speed of the harmonic rhythm, altering
the top voice in sequence (maintaining the melodic contour of the initial paragraph), and
acting as a tonal return section. Whilst the precise make-up of the subgroups is subject to
frequent modification, the principles of textural alternatim and textual repetition are
sustained throughout the prima pars, and even through the proportio tripla section (at
‗collaudantes Dominum‘), right up until the outbreak of free counterpoint for the
‗Alleluia‘. The balancing of this binary phrase structure is a key feature of Palestrina‘s
pseudo-polychoral style and can be seen in several early motets, such as O vera summa (the
secunda pars of O beata et gloriosa trinitas).
Although similar techniques are demonstrated in other works published in the Motettorum
[...] liber primus—such as the 5vv Crucem sanctam, 6vv Dum complerentur, and the famously
homophonic 6vv Viri Galilaei—perhaps it is significant that the two 7vv motets, Tu es
Petrus and Virgo prudentissima, do not demonstrate any such characteristics, but are
composed in the ‗Franco-Flemish‘ imitative style without any apparent consideration for
textual intelligibility. It seems, therefore, that pseudo-polychoral techniques were not the
preserve of motets scored for larger forces, but were textural effects in their own right.
140
[Fig.2] Palestrina, O magnum mysterium (bb.1-29)
Palestrina‘s pseudo-polychoral style came to a head in the 6vv Missa Papæ Marcelli (MPM).
For the last few decades, scholars have been so intent on obliterating ‗the Marcellus
legend‘—the (in)famous tale of Palestrina securing the continued use of polyphony in
141
post-Tridentine liturgy through his ingenious blending of textual intelligibility and musical
artifice—that the real significance of the MPM has been somewhat overshadowed, and
the origins of its style almost entirely neglected. 23 Although the work is justly noted the
clarity of textual declamation through the extensive use of ‗note-against-note‘
counterpoint in the Gloria and Credo movements, when viewed in the broader perspective
of Palestrina‘s stylistic development the Mass emerges as existing not ‗in such isolation as
to constitute virtually a singular style in itself‘, 24 nor as a mere ‗demonstration‘ of stylistic
possibilities 25, but as a significant milestone in the development of polychoral techniques
in Palestrina‘s musical language. 26 What this Mass setting demonstrates, to a far greater
degree than any other of Palestrina‘s earlier works, is the division of the choir into
partially self-sufficient subgroups, anticipating the permanently split textures of the coro
spezzato style. 27 For example, the 6vv ensemble of the Gloria [Fig.3] is divided into two
subgroups (usually 4vv), with the cantus and altus voices appearing in both groups. These
two subgroups imitate the effect of polychoral dialogue through an alternating sequence,
highlighted by the modified repetition of phrases and the segmentation of each half-verse
as an individual antiphonal unit. Palestrina achieves this by adopting a caesura in the text
as the point of interchange (or by dividing longer segments of text into smaller clauses),
and the regular and clear articulation of cadential points.
Gustave Reese touched on a similar issue some fifty-seven years ago: ‗The position of Palestrina in the
history of music is in some ways anomalous. [...] a slightly derogatory attitude has taken form in some
quarters during the 20th century, as a reaction against romanticization [sic] of the composer in the 19th
century, when he was often looked upon as a lonely figure without a flaw. The more recent view has
replaced overevaluation with underevaluation.‘ See: Gustave Reese, Music in the Renaissance (New York and
London: Norton & Co., 1954; rev.1959), 459. In addition to the standard literature on the MPM, I have
also found references to a more recent study by Irving Godt, but my attempts to obtain a copy were
unsuccessful. See: Irving Godt, ‗A New Look at Palestrina‘s Missa Papæ Marcelli‘ in College Music Symposium,
Vol.23 No.1 (Spring, 1983), 22-49.
24 Hermann J. Busch, Preface to Giovanni Francesco Anerio and Francesco Soriano: Two Settings of Palestrina’s
Missa Papae Marcelli (Madison: A-R Editions, Inc., 1973), 5
25 Jeppesen, The Style of Palestrina, 44-45
26 Indeed, a brief survey of lesser-known Masses by Palestrina reveals the character of the MPM to be far
from unique. Take, for example, the well-known Missa Æterna Christi munera, or the lesser-known 6vv
Missa Nasce la gioja mia, both published in the Missarum [...] liber quintus (1590), though probably composed
much earlier. The latter setting is modelled on a 6vv madrigal by the napolitana composer Giovan
Leonardo Primavera (ca.1540-1585) published in 1565—i.e. probably within a few years of the MPM.
27 Incidentally, a similar quasi-antiphonal technique was attempted by Vincenzo Ruffo in his 4vv Missa
Quarti toni and 4vv Missa Octavi toni, which were probably composed for Cardinal Borromeo and Cardinal
Vitelli‘s famous experiments in text-setting, and for which Palestrina‘s MPM may also have been
composed. See: Lewis Lockwood, ed., Vincenzo Ruffo: Seven Masses. Madison: A-R Editions, Inc., 1979, viixiii
23
142
[Fig.3] Palestrina, Gloria from Missa Papæ Marcelli (bb.1-16)
The close relationship between the MPM and the polychoral style is further demonstrated
by an adaptation for 8vv cori spezzati by Francesco Soriano (=Surianus; ca.1548 -1621),
who studied with Palestrina at Giovanni Maria Nanino‘s public music school at the
Chiesa di San Luigi dei Francesci. 28 This curious adaptation, identified as the Missa in
Papæ Marcelli [sic] in Soriano‘s Missarum [...] liber primus (1609), does not result from the
transformative procedures of parody technique, but through the expansion of the
pseudo-polychoral textures of Palestrina‘s original into full scoring for cori spezzati [Fig.4].
In his adaptation, Soriano preserves the phrase structure, points of antiphonal exchange,
and, consequently, the character and scale of Palestrina‘s original setting. (The most
significant differences concern Soriano‘s ‗Baroqueified‘ musica ficta and occasional
ornamentation, particularly at pre-dominant and secondary dominant chords.) It has been
suggested that similar adaptations, such as Ruggiero Giovannelli‘s 8vv Missa Vestiva i colli
There is also a 12vv expansion of Soriano‘s adaption (Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Vaticana, Fondo
Cappella Sistina 469), which was copied by Giuseppe Baini from a manuscript at Santa Maria in Vallicella
(chiesa nuova), the mother church of the Oratory of S. Filippo Neri. See: José M. Llorens, Cappellæ Sixtinæ
Codicis, Studi e testi, 202 (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1960), 426.
28
143
modelled on Palestrina‘s well-known 5vv madrigal, simply served to bring the original
work ‗up-to-date‘, and therefore reflect the continued popularity of the Roman
polychoral idiom in the early Baroque. 29 But the current literature has not asked why these
particular works appealed to Soriano and Giovannelli as the basis for polychoral
adaptations; the notion of a ‗pseudo-polychoral‘ style in Palestrina‘s music provides a
reasonable explanation.
[Fig.4] So riano, Gloria from Missa in Papæ Marcelli (bb.1-16)
Conversely, the difficulty of reworking more contrapuntal movements into a convincing
polychoral style is particularly evident in Soriano‘s adaptation o f the Agnus Dei, which
gives a greater share of the material to tutti scoring in an attempt to replicate the decidedly
Franco-Flemish texture of Palestrina‘s 7vv Agnus Dei II. However, Palestrina‘s Kyrie and
Sanctus, although ostensibly ‗run of the mill‘ 6vv contrapuntal settings, nevertheless allude
to polychoral division through 2vv canonic alternatim in the two bassus parts. This is
particularly striking because neither text is usually associated with the Roman polychoral
style or the need for textual intelligibility. The Sanctus opens with a brief canon at the
unison [Fig.5a], on which Soriano establishes the textural division of his adaptation, with
the first choir being founded on the dux and the second on the comes [Fig.5b].
Graham Dixon, ‗The Performance of Palestrina. Some questions, but fewer answers‘ in Early Music,
Vol.22 No.4 (Nov. 1994), 672
29
144
[Fig.5a] Palestrin a, Sanctus from Missa Papæ Marcelli (bb.1-8, bassus i & ii)
[Fig.5b] Soriano, Sanctus from Missa in Papæ Marcelli (bb.1-8)
But far more notable is Palestrina‘s treatment of the two bassus voices in the Kyrie. Short
phrases engage in simple canonic imitation (primarily at the unison), and the resulting
alternatim effect produces a pseudo-polychoral division. At first it may seem incongruous
that a phenomenon concerned with melody (the horizontal) should simultaneously
influence harmonic (vertical) procedures, but the regularisation of harmonic rhythm,
phrase-lengths, and antiphonal dialogue define the structure collectively. Whilst
reproducing the two bassus parts for nearly half the movement may seem extravagant
[Fig.6], it is important to demonstrate how this 2vv imitation underpins the structure of
the whole composition and is the foremost aspect of its formal organization. In other
words, the two bassus parts dictate the regular phrase-structure and harmonic thrust of
145
each segment, and are withdrawn from the contrapuntal filigree in the upper voices. That
the two lowest voices demonstrate such a unified, directive purpose surely demonstrates
that Palestrina was working from the bass upwards, rather than combining independently
conducted and conceived lines.
Two further points are central to this argument: first, compare the number of exact or
close imitations with the number of interpolations of non-imitative material; secondly,
with the exception of one brief passage (bb.33-39), no comparable pairing of voices or
exact canonic imitation can be found in the upper voices. The following example has
been annotated with horizontal brackets to identify each imitative fragment and
subsequent variations: each new fragment of imitative material is labelled ‗A‘, ‗B‘, etc.;
variations in melodic contour are labelled ‗Ai‘, ‗Bi‘, etc.; and transpositions are labelled
‗Aii‘, ‗Bii‘, etc. 30
[Fig.6] Palestrina, Kyrie from Missa in Papæ Marcelli
Such passages not only support the theory that Palestrina‘s 8vv polyc horal motets are
When annotating passages such as this, it becomes apparent that a more mathematical method of
analysis, perhaps based on Sergei Ivanovich Taneyev‘s methods for deriving new imitative material from a
given voice pairing, would be particularly useful. See: Sergey Taneyev, Podvizhnoy kontrapunkt strogogo pis’ma
[‗Imitative Counterpoint in the Strict Style‘] (Leipzig and Moscow, 1909; English trans. 1962); and A.
Wehrmeyer, ‗Sergej Ivanovic Taneevs Theorie des ―dewegbaren‖ Kontrapunkts‘ in Musiktheorie, vii
(1992), 71-79. I am grateful to Denis Collins (University of Queensland, Australia) for introducing me to
Taneyev‘s theories of moveable counterpoint in his paper ‗S. I. Taneyev‘s Theories of Moveable
Counterpoint and Canon‘ read at the Russian and Soviet Music: Reappraisal and Rediscovery conference in
Durham, UK, 11-14 July 2011.
30
146
closely related to the canonic and antiphonal effects found in earlier works—including
those which might be described as ‗pseudo-polychoral‘—but also point towards the
increasing (although functionally non-specific) importance of the bassus voice at this stage
of Palestrina‘s stylistic development.
Further evidence, though perhaps less convincing, that Palestrina assigned particular
value to the bassus voice in his polychoral works is demonstrated by his occasional
employment of Willaert‘s technique of writing bassus parts moving in octaves by contrary
motion, having the effect of doubling at the octave. One such example can be found in
the Kyrie of the 8vv Missa Laudate Dominum [Fig.7a], published posthumously in the Missæ
Quattuor octonis vocibus concinendæ (1601). This parody setting is modelled on a motet from
the Motettorum [...] liber secundus (1572), again highlighting how useful an analysis of parody
processes can be in identifying concealed pseudo-polychoral characteristics in the model
motet. O‘Regan has also observed this phenomenon in a passage from Palestrina‘s 8vv
Veni Sancte Spiritus from the Motettorum [...] liber tertius (1575) [Fig.7b], although no attempt
was made to explore its significance. 31 A similar technique can also be found in the
Sanctus from the MPM, cited above [Fig.5a].
[Fig.7a] Palestrin a, Kyrie from Missa Laudate Dominum (bb.88-101, bassus i & ii)
[Fig.7b] Palestrina, Veni Sancte Spiritus (bb.39-50, bassus i & ii)
*
*
*
When searching for models for Palestrina‘s polychoral technique, the figure of Jacquet of
31
O‘Regan, ‗Palestrina‘s polychoral works‘, 344
147
Mantua (=Jacques Colebault, Jachet da Mantova; 1483-1559) comes to the fore. Jacquet
was one of the primary exponents of polychoral technique in the generation before
Palestrina and, arguably, the foremost composer in Willaert‘s collaborative collection I
salmi appertinenti alli vesperi (1550). O‘Regan has claimed that the salmi spezzati repertory of
Willaert and Jacquet had little influence in Rome until the 1570s, 32 but nevertheless
Palestrina was clearly familiar with Jacquet‘s music at least by the mid -1560s as he
modelled four parody settings on motets by Jacquet—the largest number of motets by a
single composer taken by Palestrina as parody models: the 5vv Missa Aspice Domine and
Missa Salvum me fac in the Missarum [...] liber secundus (1567); and the 4vv Missa Spem in alium
and 5vv Missa Repleatur os meum in the Missarum [...] liber tertius (1570).33 All four Jacquet
motets were well-known and had been published in a retrospective collection of 1565
(although Aspice Domine had been in wide circulation for some time 34) and three of the
motets had particular associations with Rome. 35
The Missa Aspice Domine demonstrates a decorated and full-texture variation of the
‗Marcellus style‘ (incidentally, the MPM also appears in the 1567 publication), with the
illusion of antiphony through a rapid succession of short phrases in tutti passages, rather
than antiphonal exchange between two subgroups. The text -setting in the more
contrapuntally-orientated phrases (e.g. ‗Et in terra pax‘) resembles that of Vincenzo
Ruffo‘s experiments for Cardinal Borromeo and the Council of Trent, suggesting
Palestrina was indeed concerned with the intelligibility of the text, irrespective of the
Council‘s musical dictates or lack of them. [Fig.8] Conversely, the 5vv ensemble of the
Missa Salvum me fac is regularly divided into two subgroups, each comprising three voices
(with one voice appearing in both groups, often shifting functions), and textual clarity is
much less of a concern—as demonstrated by the melismatic lines, the antiphonal
repetition of text, and the mismatching of syllabic text underlay in passages of
homophony [Fig.9].
O‘Regan, ‗Early Roman Polychoral Music‘, 43
Coincidentally, Jacquet‘s Aspice Domine and Salvum me fac were also chosen as models for two parody
settings by Vincenzo Ruffo (published 1557 and reprinted by Gardano, 1565 and Merulo, 1567). See:
Lewis Lockwood, ‗Vincenzo Ruffo and musical reform after the Council of Trent‘ in The Musical Quarterly,
XLIII (1957), 357
34 George Nugent, ‗Jacquet, Palestrina and Strategies of Patronage: Some Reflections‘ in Giancarlo
Rostirolla, Stefania Solidati, Elena Zomparelli, eds, Palestrina e l’euoropa. Atti del III Convegno Internazionale di
Studi Palestrina, 6-9 October 1994 (Palestrina: Fondazione G. P. da Palestrina, 2006), 69-80
35 Philip T. Jackson and George Nugent, eds, Jacquet of Mantua: Collected Works, Vol.V: The Five-Voice Motets
of 1539. Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 54 (American Institute of Musicology: Hänssler-Verlag, 1986)
32
33
148
[Fig.8] Palestrina, Gloria from Missa Aspice Domine (bb.1-15)
149
[Fig.9] Palestrina, Gloria from Missa Salvum me fac (bb.102-114)
But the most striking development demonstrated in the Missa Aspice Domine and Missa
Salvum me fac is the role and function of the bassus voice which, unlike the upper voices, in
both cases is copied extensively from the model motet, implying a particular purpose and
significance. A similar conclusion was reached by Veronica Franke in her study of
Palestrina‘s ‗vertical‘ parody procedures. Franke identifies a species of parody settings
which emphasise vertical structures and are governed by a structural bass, thereby
challenging the notion of sixteenth century parody technique being based solely on the
contrapuntal manipulation and transformation of motives from a pre -existent source. 36
(Such a method contrasts with Carver‘s brief discussion on Palestrina‘s parody technique,
in which he approaches an analysis of the four ‗published‘ polychoral masses on the basis
of ordinary linear and motivic parody procedures. 37) Franke‘s argument is based on
analyses of Palestrina‘s 6vv Missa Tu es Petrus 38 and 8vv Missa Laudate Dominum (see
above), the models for which are, according to my reading, both prominent examples of
pseudo-polychoral technique in the Motettorum [...] liber secundus (1572)—thereby
establishing a direct interaction between these two strands of Palestrina‘s stylistic
Veronica M. Franke, ‗Borrowing & transformation procedures in Palestrina‘s masses‘, in Giancarlo
Rostirolla, Stefania Solidati, Elena Zomparelli, eds, Palestrina e l’euoropa. Atti del III Convegno Internazionale di
Studi. Palestrina, 6-9 October 1994 (Palestrina: Fondazione G. P. da Palestrina, 2006), 169-218
37 Carver, Cori Spezzati, 116-118. David Bryant has also raised concerns about Carver‘s approach to the
application of parody technique in works for cori spezzati. See: David Bryant, ‗Review: Anthony F Carver,
Cori Spezzati‘ in Early Music History Vol. 9 (1990), 263
38 Further evidence of a connection between Palestrina‘s 6vv Tu es Petrus and polychoral technique can be
found in an anonymous late-seventeenth century 18vv parody Mass setting from the Cappella Giulia,
previously (and unconvincingly) attributed to Palestrina, and scored for three 6vv choirs (Città del
Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Fondo Cappella Giulia, XIII 19). See: José M. Llorens, Le opere
musicali della Cappella Giulia I: manoscritti e edizioni fino al ‘700, Studi e testi, 265 (Città del Vaticano:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1971), 116. I am grateful to Noel O‘Regan for this information. An
edition of the Mass is available for free download at www.cpdl.org
36
150
development. 39
In contrast to the preservation of rhythm and melodic contour in Palestrina‘s earlier
parody technique, 40 Franke argues these later parody settings favour the model‘s
harmonic content, being governed by the outer voices and especially the bassus:
‗Palestrina tends to explore various permutations of the vertical intervallic structure of
the model, reworking material from the bass upwards. [...] outer voices of the model are
borrowed far more extensively and literally, especially the bass or lowest-sounding
voice.‘41 With this hypothesis in mind, it is significant that a comparison between
Palestrina‘s two Jacquet parody settings in the Missarum [...] liber secundus (1567) and their
respective models reveals the extent to which the original bassus parts remained integral to
Palestrina‘s thought processes. For example, in the Missa Salvum me fac the upper voices
explore many contrapuntal permutations and points of imitation not realised in Jacquet‘s
motet, but the bassus voice [Fig.10a] survives more or less unaltered [Fig.10b]:
[Fig.10a] Jacquet, Salvum me fac (bb.10-27, bassus)
O‘Regan has briefly observed the different characters of the bassus voice in the Motettorum [...] liber
secundus (1572), which he describes as being ‗still on the whole involved in the contrapuntal fabric‘, and
the Motettorum [...] liber tertius (1575), which he describes as ‗withdrawn to a great extent, providing a
harmonic foundation and having many long notes‘—but if Franke‘s hypothesis and the present article are
correct, the development between the two collections is but a part of a greater trend in Palestrina‘s music.
See: O‘Regan, ‗Palestrina‘s polychoral works‘, 345.
40 A comparison of parody processes in Jacob Vaet‘s motet Aspice Domine, which is also modelled on
Jacquet‘s motet, and Palestrina‘s Missa Aspice Domine highlights the distinctiveness of the latter composer‘s
parody technique and its diversion from earlier contrapuntal practices.
41 Franke, ‗Borrowing & transformation procedures in Palestrina‘s masses‘, 172
39
151
[Fig.10b] Palestrina, Gloria from Missa Salvum me fac (bb.8-28, bassus)
Franke briefly mentions that ‗vertical‘ parody procedures can also be found in Palestrina‘s
5vv Missa O magnum mysterium in the Missarum [...] liber quartus (1582), and the 5vv Missa O
admirabile commercium in the posthumous Missarum [...] liber octavus (1599). This is significant
because both the parody settings and their respective model motets are among the most
conspicuous examples of Palestrina‘s pseudo-polychoral technique, as discussed above.
To return momentarily to the MPM, and if we accept the existence of a ‗pseudopolychoral‘ trend in Palestrina‘s music, Franke‘s hypothesis may also shed light on the
nigh-impenetrable question of the work‘s model motet—if indeed it can be considered a
parody setting at all. Jeppesen considered this question as one of the work‘s central
‗problems‘ and, having convincingly refuted theories of it being modelled on plainchant 42
or the French chanson L’homme armé,43 Jeppesen briefly discusses the similarities between
the Kyrie [Fig.11b] and Palestrina‘s 8vv Domine in virtute tua [Fig.11a] from the Motettorum
[...] liber secundus (1572): 44
It is immediately clear that the cantus and bassus of the two compositions are
virtually identical. Doubtless the motet passage is a citation from the Mass. The
Mass was published in the Second Book of Masses [Missarum [...] liber secundus] of
1567, dedicated to King Philip II of Spain; it was probably well received by the
kings since Palestrina dedicated his Third Book of Masses [Missarum [...] liber
tertius] of 1570 to him as well. Thus it is understandable that Palestrina should
seek to offer the king a pleasant remembrance in this motet which was also
written for Philip II.
To illustrate Jeppesen‘s thoughts, the following examples have been annotated with
brackets to identify the common fragments.
Félix Raugel, Palestrina (Paris: 1930), 77
J. Samson, Palestrina ou la poesie de l’exactitude (Geneva: Henn, 1950), 176
44 Knud Jeppesen, ‗Problems of the Pope Marcellus Mass: Some Remarks on the Missa Papæ Marcelli by
Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina‘ in Lewis Lockwood, ed, Palestrina: Pope Marcellus Mass. Norton Critical
Scores (New York and London: Norton & Co., 1965), 115. In a footnote, Jeppesen elabo rates on the
biographical details: ‗On August 12, 1570, Don Annibale Capello, musical agent for Duke Guglielmo
Gonzaga, wrote from Tivoli (where Palestrina was then living in the Villa d‘Este as master of the chapel
of Cardinal Ippolito II d‘Este of Ferrara) that he would soon send to Mantua a motet for eight voices,
Domine in virtute tua, which Palestrina had written for the King of Spain. The composition was then
dispatched on September 2.‘ This letter is also cited in F. X. Haberl, ‗Das Archiv der Gonzaga in Mantua‘
in Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch (1886), 36.
42
43
152
[Fig.11a] Palestrina, Domine in virtute tua (bb.1-5; Chorus secundus tacet)
[Fig.11b] Palestrina, Kyrie from Missa Papæ Marcelli (bb.1-5)
In light of the issues raised in the present article, it would not be unreasonable to suggest
Jeppesen was closer to a convincing conclusion than he himself imagined, even if
categorising the MPM as a ‗free‘ Mass setting remains the more convincing answer.
Whilst it seems likely that the motet was modelled on the Mass (not vice versa, as might be
expected), it is clear Palestrina associated the MPM with pseudo-polychoral textures and
the vertical parody procedures explored in Franke‘s paper.
But these parody procedures are far more significant than might first be supposed. As
Franke puts it, ‗the tendency [...] to borrow and rework model material from the lowest
voice upwards anticipates the polarization of melody and bass apparent in the Baroque
and the whole process whereby the vertical elements of music came to dominate the
153
horizontal.‘ 45 Moreover, the distinctly quasi-diatonic character of these bassus parts—
which often comprise little else but slow-moving progressions based around the tonic,
dominant, and subdominant (to adopt dangerously non-modal terminology)—is very
much in evidence in both the Masses and their models, and contrasts considerably with
the florid nature of the upper voices. 46 In a discussion on Palestrina‘s 4vv Missa Veni
sponsa Christi from the posthumous Missarum [...] liber nonus (1599), Jerome Roche
describes this phenomenon as ‗independent harmonically-angled bass lines‘. 47 The notion
of this ‗harmonic bass‘ is also demonstrated at the opening of the Credo from the Missa
Salvum me fac,48 where the lowest voice acts as a non-thematic ‗quasi-fundamental bass‘,
providing a simple, unadorned harmonic foundation for the more typical motivicallyorientated parody processes in the four upper voices [Fig.12].
[Fig.12] Palestrin a, Credo from Missa Salvum me fac (bb.1-7)
Whilst any attempt to explain Fig.12 in terms of Baroque harmonic practice would
border on conjecture, such passages undoubtedly demonstrate an attenuation of
contrapuntal processes, rejecting the Renaissance ars perfecta in which ‗each voice [...]
preserves a clear melodic individuality‘, 49 by assigning a specifically harmonic, nonthematic function to the bassus voice. Some may doubt the importance—even
existence—of these ‗harmonically-angled‘ bass lines, yet this manner of part-writing
appears with increasing frequency in Palestrina‘s stylistic development, most especially in
Franke, ‗Borrowing & transformation procedures in Palestrina‘s masses‘, 172
These ‗monoliths which defy the ages‘, as Richard Wagner put it, were a fundamental compositional
device for the historicist epigonism of the German Romantics‘ fascination with ‗the Palestrina style‘ (der
Palestrinastil). See: James Garratt, Palestrina and the German Romantic Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002), 195; and Zsuzsanna Domokos, ‗Wagner‘s Edition of Palestrina‘s Stabat Mater‘ in
Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 47/2 (2006), 221-232.
47 Jerome Roche, ‗Monteverdi and the Prima Prattica‘ in Denis Arnold and Nigel Fortune, eds, The
Monteverdi Companion (London: Faber & Faber, 1968), 179
48 A similar technique can be found in, among other works, Palestrina‘s Missa pro defunctis appended to the
1591 reprinting of the Missarum [...] liber primus (1554).
49 N. Pirrotta, ‗Italien‘ in F. Blume, ed, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 16 vols. (Kassel: 1949-79),
1949, vi. English translation by Harold S. Powers.
45
46
154
the pseudo-polychoral and 8vv polychoral motets. (Indeed, Roche identified the
technique as conforming to ‗the late Palestrina practice‘. 50) The issue of distinguishing
harmony from ‗note-against-note‘ counterpoint is very much the elephant in the room;
but examples of part-writing uncharacteristic of ‗the Palestrina style‘ would have to be
unearthed and scrutinized before any attempt were made to describe Palestrina as an
early Baroque composer. Clearly he was capable of applying and developing new
methods of part-writing, as the transformation of the bassus voice demonstrates, but the
same principal would also have to be found in the inner voices before we begin to
reconsider Palestrina‘s understanding of ‗harmony‘.
Nevertheless, whilst in the earlier works ‗the line is undoubtedly the starting-point of
Palestrina‘s style‘, 51 we can be reasonably certain that Palestrina‘s stylistic development
not only nurtured contrasts of sonority and texture, but also cultivated a greater concern
for vertical, harmonic planning, starting with the bassus or lowest-sounding voice. If this
can be substantiated with further evidence (and the subject clearly needs further, more
detailed discussion), we might begin to review remarks such as ‗the technique of
[Palestrina‘s] art consists mainly in inventing and combining [...] independently conducted
and conceived lines‘. 52 The conclusions advanced in the present article signify a radical
departure from the conventions of Franco-Flemish polyphony, in which the various
voices of the ensemble are defined by a uniformity of motivic substance and harmonic
function, and in which (at risk of over-simplification) concern for vertical sonorities
extends only to adapting the pitch contours of imitative lines in order to satisfy the
harmony (‗recoil[ing] from the impact with the sonorous requirements‘, as Jeppesen puts
it53).
The parody techniques demonstrated in the pseudo-polychoral settings described above
clearly demonstrate a fundamental rejection of Franco-Flemish transformation
procedures based on cantus-firmus technique, syntactic imitation, and the ‗working out
[of] parts to a tenor, elaborating or paraphrasing pre-existent monophonic or polyphonic
materials, or carrying out points of imitation with the original or borrowed thematic
Roche, ‗Monteverdi and the Prima Prattica‘, 180
Jeppesen, The Style of Palestrina, 84
52 Ibid., 48
53 Jeppesen, The Style of Palestrina, 84. Jeppesen‘s concept of ‗harmony‘ in the sixteenth century relates only
to consonance between voices and, in Palestrina, the concern to complete the (vertical) triad wherever
possible. Thus, when he pens phrases such as ‗the leading characteristic of [Palestrina‘s] art is his great
natural genius for harmony‘ (op. cit., 12), Jeppesen is simply observing a sixteenth century Italianate
equivalent of the Contenance Angloise. Therefore, the ‗tension between the horizontal and vertical
conceptions‘ (Jeppesen, op. cit., 84) is a question of exact or altered imitation, rather than a contrapuntal
(horizontal) or harmonic (vertical) process of composition.
50
51
155
material.‘54 The shift in emphasis from the tenor to the bassus represents one of the most
profound changes to musical conception and expression in the twilight of the
Renaissance, and was one of the most significant factors in the transition to Baroque
aesthetics. That such a development can be demonstrated in a selection of works
spanning Palestrina‘s career surely calls for a fundamental reappraisal of his music.
*
*
*
Although space has allowed for only a cursory glance at a handful of questions posed by
this extraordinary repertory, I hope, at least, to have presented a case for accepting
‗vertical‘ processes as an essential critical category for the analysis and interpretation of
Palestrina‘s music. A comprehensive examination of Palestrina‘s polychoral repertory and
its significance will require a more detailed approach than could be accommodated in the
present article. By extension, I hope to have demonstrated the need to give further
consideration to Palestrina‘s position in the Renaissance-Baroque transition; and to
approaching the polychoral idiom not simply as an antecedent to the Baroque, but also as
a consequent of innovation in Renaissance contrapuntal practices. This is not to say
developments in Palestrina‘s technique acted as a catalyst for early Baroque aesthetics
(although further study of his pupils‘ works may reveal a more convincing connection
with the concertato alla Romana idiom55), but it does at least demonstrate that, when
unshackled from the prosaic eye of a theorist, Palestrina is revealed to have been at least
as vivacious and progressive as his contemporaries.
Among other issues surrounding the Renaissance-Baroque transition, there is clearly a
problem with terminology. Whilst Peter Phillips‘s description of Palestrina‘s famous 8vv
Stabat Mater as ‗proto-baroque‘ 56 may at first seem overly reductionist, it does at least
allude to the limbo-like plurality of Palestrina‘s late style. I am, however, wary of
attempting to divorce Palestrina from one set of historically-fixed parameters only to
fabricate an even less desirable alliance with Baroque aesthetics.
In order to advance our understanding of Palestrina‘s historical position and importance,
further consideration needs to be given to his immediate legacy and reception in the
earliest stages of the Baroque. Such a study might consider the music of Pietro Cerone,
Angelo Berardi, Guilio Belli, Giammatteo Asola (=Giovanni Matteo Asula, Asulæ, etc.),
Harold S. Powers, ‗The Modality of Vestiva i colli‘ in Robert L. Marshall, ed, Studies in Renaissance and
Baroque Music in Honor of Arthur Mendel (Kassel: 1974), 31
55 A comparison with the concertante style of Victoria‘s 8vv Missa pro Victoria (a parody setting modelled on
Janequin‘s La Guerre) may prove a fruitful exercise.
56 Peter Phillips, ‗Reconsidering Palestrina‘, 585
54
156
Agostino Agazzari57, Peter Philips (=Pietro Philippi, Pierre Philippe), and Andrea
Feliciani, among (I suspect) many others. Furthermore, whist the retrospective definition
of the prima pratica may provide the basis for an historiographical study of Palestrina
reception (at least from a Venetian perspective), the perceived diametric opposition to
the seconda pratica (first realised in Marco Scacchi‘s Breve discorso sopra la musica moderna,
1649) belies the close interaction between the two practices. Indeed, it is easy to forget
that Monteverdi viewed the seconda pratica as an ‗historical evolution‘ from the prima pratica
and the aesthetic ideals of Renaissance humanism. 58 With this in mind, it seems puzzling
that little consideration has been given to Agostino Agazzari‘s (Del sonare sopra il basso con
tutti gli strumenti, 1607) and Michael Prætorius‘s (Syntagma musicum, vol. 3, 1619) claims that
Palestrina and the Council of Trent were among the primary sources of the seconda
pratica.59 It is my belief that a carefully considered study 60 of these issues will shed further
light on the significance of Palestrina‘s polychoral works and challenge the long -held
conservative generalisations typical of the basic teaching which has informed generations
of students. 61 In particular, it would be worth revisiting the link Jeppesen draws between
dissonance treatment (an issue central to the seconda pratica) and growing tension between
the horizontal and vertical dimensions, and then considering these issues in light of
Palestrina‘s polychoral style. 62
As I say, a thoroughgoing revisionist study of Palestrina‘s music, compositional
Perhaps it is significant that the archives of the Duomo di Siena contain a copy of Palestrina‘s
Mottetorum [...] Liber Tertius (1575), and that by 1620 it was worn with overuse (‗consumati‘): Palest[r]ina
libro terzo a più voci, mottetti (Archivio dell‘Opera del Duomo, Siena, 874, Inventario 1620, fos. 8v-9v). See:
Colleen Reardon, Agostino Agazzari and Music at Siena Cathedral, 1597-1641 (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1993), 63n.27, 183-184. It may also be significant that, among other works, Agazzari‘s 6vv setting
of the Christmas responsory Quem vidistis pastores, published in his Sacrum cantionum [...] liber primus (1602),
demonstrates the same pseudo-polychoral division as the MPM. A comparison could be drawn with
Palestrina‘s 6vv pseudo-polychoral setting of the same text—the secunda pars of the pseudo-polychoral O
magnum mysterium discussed above.
58 Tim Carter, Music in Late Renaissance & Early Baroque Italy (London: B. T. Batsford Limited, 1992), 20.
See also: Stephen R. Miller, Music for the Mass in Seventeenth-Century Rome: Messe piene, the Palestrina Tradition,
and the ‘Stile antico’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1998).
59 Helmut Hucke, ‗Palestrina als Autorität und Vorbild im 17. Jahrhundert‘ in Congresso internazionale sul
tema Claudio Monteverdi e il suo tempo (Venezia: Mantova e Cremona, 1968), 253-261. Without wishing to
fabricate another conspiracy theory surrounding the MPM, I believe it may be significant that Agazzari
and Prætorius were among the earliest writers to crown Palestrina der Retter der Musik (‗the Saviour of
Music‘), as the libretti by Johann Sachs (1886) and Hans Pfitzner (1917) put it, for the apparently
miraculous composition of the MPM. For a comparative study of the early myth-making by Adriano
Banchieri (Conclusioni nel suono dell’organo, 1609), Agostino Pisa (Battuta della musica, 1611) et al., see Hucke,
op. cit.
60 Thomas Neal, ‗Palestrina, Petrarch, and the Seconda Pratica‘ (forthcoming)
61 As Gustave Reese puts it, ‗Palestrina has sometimes been considered as too conservative for his period.
[...] those who proceed from a theoretical study of counterpoint to an actual examination of the music
(i.e., those who place the cart before the horse, as happens too often in this field) find, in the music, what
their training has led them to believe orthodox.‘ See: Gustave Reese, Music in the Renaissance, 459.
62 Jeppesen, The Style of Palestrina, 293-244
57
157
techniques, and immediate legacy is long overdue.
APPENDIX
Table 1. Palestrina’s ‘pseudo-polychoral’ works 63
Publication
Composition
Notes
1567
Missa Aspice Domine [5vv]
Parody on motet by
Jacquet of Mantua
Parody on motet by
Jacquet of Mantua
Kyrie; Gloria; Credo.
Missarum [...] libert secundus
Missa Salvum me fac [5vv]
1569
1570
1572
Missa Papæ Marcelli [6vv]
Crucem sanctam [5vv]
Dum complerentur [6vv]
O admirabile commercium
[5vv]
O beata et gloriosa trinitas [5vv]
O magnum mysterium [6vv]
Missarum [...] liber tertius
Missa Ut Re Mi Fa So La [6vv]
Motettorum [...] liber secundus Viri Galilaei [6vv]
Ascendo ad patrem [5vv]
Canite tuba [5vv]
Motettorum [...] liber primus
Corona aurea [5vv]
Tu es Petrus [6vv]
Confitebor tibi, Domine [8vv]
Laudate pueri Dominum [8vv]
1575
Motettorum [...] libert tertius64
1582
1584
Missarum [...] liber quartus
Motettorum [...] liber quartus
Domine in virtute tua [8vv]
Laudate Dominum omnes
gentes [8vv]
Hæc dies [6vv]
O bone Jesu [6vv]
Missa O magnum mysterium
Introduxit me [5vv]
Surge amica mea [5vv]
Gloria; Credo
Prima pars only
Including secunda pars,
Rorate cœli
Including secunda pars,
Domine prævenisti eum
Including secunda pars,
Quod cunque ligaveris
Including secunda pars,
Quis sicut Dominus
Prima pars only
Parody on 1569 motet
A complete survey of Palestrina‘s output is a daunting task. With a handful of notable exceptions, this
table intentionally excludes most works unpublished at the time of the composer‘s death, and makes no
attempt at comprehensiveness. Some of these compositions (or movements, in the case of Mass cycles)
are entire pseudo-polychoral structures in themselves; others demonstrate only passages of pseudopolychoral technique. The 8vv motets in the Motettorum [...] liber secundus (1572) generally fall into the latter
category, although there is some dialogue between two 4vv groups and occasional repetition of
paragraphs, both altered and exact.
64 This collection contains the first strictly polychoral works, scored for 8vv cori spezzati: Surge illuminare
Hierusalem, Lauda Sion, Veni sancte spiritus, Ave regina cœlorum, Hodie Christus natus est, and Jubilate Deo.
63
158
Tota pulchra es [5vv]
Vineam meam [5vv]
1584
Motettorum [...] liber quintus
Ave, Trinitatis sacrarium [5vv]
Lætus Hyperboream volet [5vv]
Peccavibus cum patribus [5vv]
1590
Missarum [...] liber quintus
Surge Petre [6vv]
Missa Iste Confessor [4vv]
Missa Sicut lilium [5vv]
Missa Nasce la gioja mia [6vv]
1599
Missarum [...] liber octavus
Missa Quem dicunt homines
[4vv]
Missa Dum esset Summus
Pontifex [4vv]
Missa O admirable
commercium [5vv]
Missa Memor esto
Missa Dum Complerentur [6vv]
1886
1887
Motettorum I (Haberl)
Missarum [...] liber
decimusquartus
Assumpta est Maria [6vv]
Missa Assumpta est Maria [6vv]
1887
Missarum [...] liber
decimusquintus
Missa Tu es Petrus [6vv]
Missa Ecce ego Joannes [6vv]
159
Including secunda pars, O
patruo pariterque
Secunda pars of
Tribulationes civitatum
[5vv]
Gloria. Paraphrase on
1589 hymn.
Gloria; Credo. Parody on
1569 motet.
Gloria; Credo. Parody on
madrigal by Giovan
Leonardo Primavera.
Credo
Gloria; Credo.
Gloria; Credo; Sanctus;
Agnus Dei. Parody on
1569 motet.
Credo
Gloria; Credo; Agnus
Dei [i]. Parody on 1569
motet.
Kyrie; Gloria; Credo;
Sanctus; Agnus Dei
Parody on 1886 motet.
Gloria; Credo; Sanctus.
Parody on 1572 motet.
Gloria; Credo.
Unidentified model.