Luther’s Polyphony: Petreius’s Liber quindecim missarum in
Protestant Nuremberg
A thesis submitted to the
Graduate School
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Music
In the Division of Composition, Musicology and Theory
of the College-Conservatory of Music
by
Anna Pranger
B.A. Xavier University, May 2006
M.L.S. Indiana University Bloomington, December 2010
Committee Chair: Dr. Stephanie P. Schlagel, Ph.D.
Abstract
In 1539, Johann Petreius published a book of masses in Nuremberg, the Liber quindecim
missarum. He included masses by prominent composers such as Josquin des Prez, Heinrich
Isaac, Antoine Brumel, Pierre de la Rue, and even Johannes Ockeghem, along with some lesserknown works, such as those by Wilhelm Breitengraser, Francesco Layolle, and Pierre Moulu.
But Nuremberg had adopted Luther’s reformed church making the use of complex Catholic
polyphony practically impossible. The City Council of Nuremberg had lifted the ban on
polyphonic music in 1537 and Petreius, along with fellow Nuremberg printer Hans Ott, began
publishing music by these composers at a feverish rate. This included Ott’s monumental Novum
et insigne opus musicum of 1537-1538 and his Missae tredecim that, like Petreius’s collection,
would also come out in 1539. Petreius was likely aware of Petrucci’s tradition of printing this
music starting in 1501 with the Misse Josquin appearing a year later, and publications like this
would have a strong influence on what Petreius included. In a city that adopted a religion wary of
complex music that obscured the intention of the words, Petreius understood that his Liber
quindecim missarum still served a strong purpose in the roles of education and in saving this
music from obscurity. This thesis will also include a modern transcription of Breitengraser’s
Missa Dominicale.
ii
Copyright © 2013, Anna Pranger
iii
Acknowledgements
Of primary importance, I must thank my adviser, Dr. Stephanie P. Schlagel, without
whose guidance and support I would not have finished this thesis. I offer my heartfelt thanks to
my readers, Dr. Matthew Peattie and Dr. Richard Schade, for agreeing to be part of this process
and offering their advice and support. Thank you to the librarians of the Loeb Music Library at
Harvard University for providing their assistance while using their collection of early print
microfilm, and my thanks to Mary Beth Bruns for working her magic to make the Moderne
prints legible. Further thanks must be given to my colleagues, past and present, at the Cook
Music Library at Indiana University for their friendship and support, and also my parents, Gary
and Mary Pranger, for their unending encouragement and love throughout this entire process.
iv
Luther’s Polyphony: Petreius’s Liber quindecim missarum in Protestant Nuremberg
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
iv
Introduction
1
Chapter
1. Wittenberg, Nuremberg, and Questions of Liturgy
4
2. Composer Reputations, Novelty in Writing, and Printer’s Decisions
23
3. The Roads That Led to the Liber of 1539
43
Conclusion
56
Appendix: Breitengraser Missa Dominicale transcription
58
Bibliography
114
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Orders Specifying Mode of Performance
20
Table 2: Contents of the Liber quindecim missarum, 1539
29
Table 3: List of Potential Printed Sources for the Masses of the Liber quindecim missarum
48
vi
List of Examples
Example 1: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales, Kyrie, in
Petreius, 1539, Excerpt
54
Example 2: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s L’homme armé svm, Kyrie, in Ott, 1539, Excerpt
54
Example 3: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa Fortuna desperata, Kyrie, in Petreius, 1539, Excerpt
54
Example 4: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa Fortuna desperata, Kyrie, in Ott, 1539, Excerpt 55
Example 5: Transcription of Tenor Voice of Moulu’s Missa Duarum facierum, Sanctus, Giunta
1522, Excerpt
57
Example 6: Transcription of Tenor Voice of Moulu’s Missa Duarum facierum, Sanctus, Petreius
1539, Excerpt
57
vii
Introduction
In 1539 the Liber quindecim missarum was published in the city of Nuremberg during a
time of enormous change. It was the first city to adhere to Luther’s religious philosophies, but
because of this there was not much structure to the religion and no tradition to follow. Regardless
of what role the music of the polyphonic masters like Josquin would play in the new church,
printers like Johannes Petreius and Hans Ott believed it was important to preserve this music.1
Petreius also included in his Liber music of contemporaries that preserved their style for the
same reason, but one unanswered question is where Petreius got his music. There was another
printer in Nuremberg; Petreius also had a colleague in Lyon, but Petrucci’s prints seem to have
been readily available to Petreius.
Nuremberg was the first city to declare an adherence to the Lutheran faith rather than the
Catholic Church. However, Luther believed that each city that adopted his teachings should
figure out what worked in their situation instead of Luther dictating to them how they should
practice it. Since Nuremberg was the first city to reject Catholicism in favor of Luther’s reformed
church, its citizens had no model to follow, and the government’s relationship with the Holy
Roman Emperor meant strict consequences if it was discovered that Nuremberg had switched
faiths. There were some religious camps in Nuremberg that wanted to eliminate completely the
traditional polyphonic music because of the difficulty of performing and understanding it, but
others fought to preserve this music through their own connections to the political hierarchy in
Nuremberg. The need to keep up appearances and the work of a few powerful men in Nuremberg
meant that polyphony would continue to have a place in the reformed liturgy.
1
Stephanie P. Schlagel, “Fortune’s Fate: Josquin and the Nürnberg Mass Prints of 1539,” in Josquin and
the Sublime: Proceedings of the International Josquin Symposium at Roosevelt Academy Middleburg, 12-15 July
2009, ed. Albert Clement and Eric Jas (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011), 197.
When Petreius was compiling the music for his Liber, there seemed to be three different
motivators for what he included: famous names that would help the publication sell, gaining
music through personal connections, and including music that had some sort of compositional
construct to it. Six out of fifteen masses in the Liber are by Josquin suggesting that Petreius knew
what would sell and purposely selected many of his masses. He also included composers like
Heinrich Isaac, Antoine Brumel, and Pierre de la Rue who would also have been well-known
names to the right audience. But Petreius also demonstrated that his knowledge of this music
went beyond name recognition in that several of the masses he included have some sort of
constructivist device that would only be clear to someone looking at the music. This is why he
included masses like Josquin’s Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales and Missa La sol fa
re mi, Ockeghem’s Missa Cuiusvis toni, and others. Petreius also searched locally for masses to
include and a potential local resource was Wilhelm Breintengraser, who was a teacher in
Nuremberg and whose music had been published prior to the Liber.
The task then becomes to determine what sources Petreius used for his own publication.
There were a number of people who were printing this music throughout Europe such as Jacques
Moderne in Lyon, Andrea Antico and Luca-Antonio Giunta in Italy, and even Hans Ott who was
located in Nuremberg and held the Emperor’s privilege to print music in that city. Even though
Petrucci was no longer printing—having died in 1539—his music publications were still very
respected for their beauty and accuracy as much during the sixteenth century as they are today.
Chapter 1 of this thesis looks at the social and religious context of Nuremberg in the
1520s and ‘30s that surround Petreius’s Liber quindecim missarum. Chapter 2 explores
Petreius’s repertory selections and motivations by examining the internal evidence of the print as
well as Petreius’s professional background, the reputations of the composers included, and the
2
compositional construction of the masses in the Liber. Chapter 3 explores the external evidence:
previous prints that might have been available to Petreius that he might have copied from for his
own publication. Many of Petrucci’s first editions play a large role in Petreius’s selection
process. As an appendix to this document, I also have included a transcription of Wilhelm
Breitengraser’s Missa Dominicale.
3
Chapter 1: Wittenberg, Nuremberg and Questions of Liturgy
By the sixteenth century, Nuremberg had been a favorite city of the Holy Roman
Emperors for almost 200 years, starting when Emperor Frederick II declared in 1219 “that every
citizen of this city shall have no other liege than Us and Our successors, the Roman kings and
Emperors.”1 Nevertheless, the influence of a2nother German town, Wittenberg, was
unmistakable. Martin Luther’s role as a teacher at the University of Wittenberg meant that his
influence stretched into matters of politics, religion, and music in Nuremberg. An examination of
the relationship between these two cities as well as the role of music during the time of transition
between two religious confessions reveals a careful balance of elements of the old and new
traditions and beliefs. Nuremberg converted to the reformed church less than ten years after
Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, but many questions remained about the format
this new church would take. Although these decisions took place almost twenty years before
Petreius published his Liber quindecim missarum, they would affect a great deal of the liturgical
problems that Nuremberg faced.
Luther had many reasons to want to reform the Catholic Church, the practice of selling
indulgences being the most well known complaint. But in all of his voluminous theological
writings, he never clearly stated in a stand-alone document the role he felt music should play. For
example, in the process of giving general guidance on the structure of a new Mass, he might
mention where one could sing a Sanctus if so desired, or where a hymn might be appropriate, but
he never gave more direct instructions in the use of music than this. Primarily his friends and
colleagues, such as Philipp Melanchthon and Georg Rhau, preserved his thoughts on the use of
1
Stephen Brockmann, Nuremberg: The Imaginary Capital (Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2006), 13.
music in the form of cursory quotations that are the most direct record of what Luther said. He
also wrote prefaces to quite a few publications that added substance to the initial framework of
his philosophy.3
Early on, Luther knew that music would have an important role in this reformed church.
He was an accomplished lutenist, and most say he had a fine tenor voice. Like most boys during
that time, he sang in the church choir and received his musical education from the church.4
Luther’s primary concern with the use of music in church was its intention, saying “If it [music]
was performed merely in fulfillment of the demands of unreformed ecclesiastical law then it was
to be condemned, but if it was performed in response to the gospel then it was to be
commended.”5 Luther understood that the inclusion of music could add to any kind of worship
service as long as the intention of the music was the glorification of God rather than the
glorification of music. Combined with Luther’s admiration of the great composers of his day,
this attitude toward the use of music in the liturgy makes it easy to assume that the music of
these composers would have likely played a significant role in the reformed church.
Luther also worried that too much sudden change would frighten new congregants. “The
first step is to let the old practice continue. . . but besides that, through the sermon keep the
consciences free, so the congregation may learn that these things are done not because they have
to be done that way or because it would be a heresy to do them differently, as the nonsensical
laws of the pope insist.”6 Luther understood that with so much change happening at once,
3
Volume 53 of Luther’s Works contains Luther’s writings about the liturgy and hymns. It includes sections
from his Formula missae of 1523 and Deutsche messe of 1526; he also wrote introductions to six hymnals printed
between 1524 and 1545. A number of brief quotations about specific hymns are also preserved in this volume.
4
Robin Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music: Principles and Implications (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 22.
5
Helmut Lehman, ed., Treatise on Good Works, vol. 44 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO: Concordia,
1955-1976), 39.
6
Helmut Lehman, ed., Receiving Both Kinds of the Sacrament, vol. 36 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO:
Concordia, 1955-1976), 254.
2
congregations and religious leaders could feel a little unsettled. Luther believed that the old
traditions could continue for a while as long as the intention behind the ceremony remained
focused on God and not the pomp of the ceremony. Indeed, Luther never wanted to create his
own church: he wanted to reform the Catholic Church from within. However, his
excommunication for his heretical statements proved that impossible.
He also believed that certain musical traditions of the Catholic Church would fit into the
new version of the Mass because of the inherent praise of God in some of the hymns and parts of
the Mass Ordinary. By 1530 Luther had a more established view of the role music would play in
the Mass. He stated in Concerning the Sacraments:
I believe that many hymns were included and retained in the Mass which deal
with thanksgiving and praising [God] in a wonderful and excellent way, as for
example, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Alleluia, the Creed, the Preface, the Sanctus,
the Benedictus, and the Agnus Dei. In these various parts you find nothing about a
sacrifice but only praise and thanks. Therefore, we have also kept them in our
Mass. Particularly the Agnus Dei, above all songs, serves well for the sacrament,
for it clearly sings about and praises Christ for having borne our sins and in
beautiful, brief words powerfully and sweetly teaches the remembrance of Christ.7
He understood that some of the old tradition had value in his new church. He appreciated the
parts of the Mass that praised God, and most of the liturgical items listed above have strong
musical elements, namely the Gloria, Sanctus, Benedictus, and Agnus Dei, which were all
included in any Mass Ordinary setting. Luther’s continuous message from the early days of the
Reformation to the 1530s was that music would have a place in the liturgy as long as the
motivation behind the music was God’s glorification. He even stated later that certain parts of the
Catholic Mass preserve the original intention of God’s glorification.
Luther had the good fortune to work at a university in a region where the ruler had a
greater tolerance for new ideas than most of his contemporaries. Frederick the Wise, made the
7
Helmut Lehman, ed., Concerning the Sacrament, vol. 38 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO: Concordia,
1955-1976), 123.
3
Duke of Saxony in 1486, held a position in the Holy Roman Empire second only the Emperor
Maximilian I, his cousin. Frederick’s close relationship with the Emperor allowed him to serve
as Maximilian’s court adviser for one year between 1496 and 1497; Frederick also stood in for
Maximilian at an Imperial court proceeding in Augsburg in 1502. He followed Maximilian as the
Imperial court traveled throughout the Holy Roman Empire, and he served the emperor in
whatever further capacity Maximilian desired. Despite the kinship between these royals,
Frederick believed that the power of the Holy Roman Emperor should be limited and this person
should not have the power to rule as an absolute monarch, as had been the case for centuries.
Normally someone in Frederick’s position would not have held such views, but they required
him to act one way when serving the Emperor while keeping his true feelings to himself. When
his service to the Emperor ended around the time he founded his university, Frederick had the
freedom to retire to his duchy and establish a haven for academics sympathetic to reform.8
When Frederick established the University of Wittenberg in 1502, he did so with the
intention of making it a model for education based on humanistic ideas. His initial choice of
teachers would have a profound effect on the development of the university from its very
beginning. His personal physician, Martin Polich von Mellerstadt, received his medical training
in Leipzig and became a teacher at the university having been influenced by the humanistic
movement already established in Leipzig; Johann von Staupitz came from a position at a
religious establishment in Munich to teach.9 Though Staupitz remained faithful to the Catholic
Church throughout his life, he voiced his call for reform within the Church and he served as
Luther’s confessor. With the two earliest teachers at this university—as well as its founder—so
amenable to humanistic ideas, more like-minded teachers gravitated toward Wittenberg as well.
8
Kathryn Ann Pohlman Duffy, “The Jena Choirbooks: Music and Liturgy at the Castle Church of
Wittenberg under Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995), 31-4.
9
Ibid., 53.
4
Some members of the faculty would greatly influence the evolution of a separate Lutheran faith
within the confines of both Wittenberg and Nuremberg, such as law professor Christoph Scheurl
and theology professor Philipp Melanchthon.
Frederick developed a reputation as a ruler with a deep appreciation for the arts. He
communicated with composers Pierre de la Rue, Alexander Agricola, and Paul Hofhaimer;
Adam Rener served as his court composer starting in 1507.10 Most of these composers had a
connection to the Habsburg court: Pierre de la Rue served as the court composer at the
Habsburg-Burgundian court for the majority of his life, Paul Hofhaimer as Maximilian’s court
organist, and Adam Rener as a chorister for Maximilian’s court. During this time German courts
tried to imitate the music that Maximilian’s musicians created. Frederick’s position as a ruler
second only to Maximilian meant that much of the music and musicians at his court would
imitate what he heard at the Imperial court. It further meant that residents of Wittenberg and
teachers at the University would have experienced this music on a regular basis, possibly making
someone like Luther less reluctant to separate from such a strong part of the religious tradition.
The musicians of Frederick’s chapel served two roles: as choristers for the Duke’s private
chapel and as musicians in an official capacity for the university. To assure these musicians had
the best compositions available to sing, Frederick began compiling masses and other sacred
compositions from a number of different places. He commissioned a few of the manuscripts,
received some from Maximilian as gifts (including through his familial relationship to Margaret
of Austria, whose court scriptorium produced the books), and he personally commissioned some
from the copyist Petrus Alamire.11 This collection of manuscripts, known today as the Jena
Choirbooks, has a number of masses in common with the Liber quindecim missarum including
10
Leaver, 35.
Eric Jas, “Index of Composers and Compositions,” in The Treasury of Petrus Alamire: Music and Art in
Flemish Court Manuscripts 1500-1535, ed. Herbert Kellman (Ghent: University of Chicago, 1999), 84.
11
5
five by Josquin des Prez and Pierre de la Rue’s Missa Tous les Regrets.12 While this is not to
imply that Petreius copied from these choirbooks, it suggests that the musical taste in the regions
of Wittenberg and Nuremberg favored traditional polyphony of Franco-Flemish origins, at least
in the early years of the church.
The power and influence of Frederick’s position would also benefit Luther in 1521 after
his formal excommunication at the Diet of Worms. Luther hid at Wartburg castle under the
protection of Frederick for a year during which time he translated the Bible from Latin to
German. But the call for reform was not silenced simply because Luther no longer served as the
figurehead: other leaders from Wittenberg emerged to push forward these changes.
The more ardent teacher and theologian Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, also based in
Wittenberg, decided to publish his own ideas of what role music should have in religious
services. His De cantu gregoriano disputatio of 1521 lists fifty-three theses criticizing the music
of the liturgy. Among these he states that chants were created by “the church of which Gregory
was the head” and “not by the church of which Christ is the head.”13 He further says about
polyphonic music that “if, therefore, you wish chant to remain in the church, you should desire
none except that which is one, so that there may be one God, one baptism, one faith, and one
chant” (i.e., monophony only).14 Karlstadt believed in a uniform sound for worship and that the
church as it had existed put the musical tradition of Gregory ahead of music meant to praise God.
Under Luther’s tenets as well as Karlstadt’s, the proper motivation for music should be praise of
God. But Karlstadt believed that the church needed a different kind of music separate from this
Gregorian tradition to also remove any papal influence. However Luther hoped that by
12
Duffy, 251.
Hermann Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (Nieukoop: de Graaf, 1968), 31.
14
Ibid., 29.
13
6
redirecting the intention of the music back to worship, he could redeem its use for the new
church.
Only after Karlstadt published his own views on the use of music did Luther start making
more decisions about what role music would have in the liturgy. In 1523, he wrote his Formula
missae et communionis pro eccelsia Vuittembergensi [An Order of the Mass and Communion for
the Church of Wittenberg] in which he described services in Wittenberg as a guide for cities
wanting a model for this new church. He did not make many changes and did not encourage
other churches to change too quickly, “for I [Luther] have been hesitant and fearful, partly
because of the weak in faith, who cannot suddenly exchange an old and accustomed order of
worship for a new and unusual one, and more so because of the fickle and fastidious spirits . . .
who delight only in novelty and tire of it as quickly, when it has worn off.”15 Luther encouraged
slow change for anyone considering this new faith not only because to do otherwise might scare
some worshippers, but also to convince the newly converted that the leadership had a vision and
a plan for this faith beyond the immediate future. Luther further stated in his Formula missae
that he approved of the temporary conversion of the Mass to the common language of German,
but that perpetuation of this practice was not a wise course of action.16 Again Luther preferred to
maintain the traditions of the Catholic Church rather than encourage radical reform. His mention
of music within this context also suggests that his preference for keeping some traditions
expanded into the realm of music.
Luther included further descriptions of the role music should play in reformed services in
other writings. He provided the preface for the first Lutheran partbooks, the Geystliche gesangk
Buchleyn or Chorgesangbuch published in 1524, in which he wrote “I would like to see all the
15
Helmut Lehman, ed., An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, vol. 53 of
Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976), 19.
16
Ulrich Leupold, Introduction to vol. 53 of Luther’s Works (St Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976), xvi.
7
arts, especially music, used in the service of Him who gave and made them.”17 Luther
emphasized his belief that the importance of music lay in the intentions of those making music: if
the intention was to serve God, then music complements the worship, but if it served man, then
the music distracted from the worship of God.
Luther had maintained a consistent message from the beginning, but when he finally put
his beliefs into print it helped solidify the role he wanted music to have. This also gave more
confidence to worshippers in regions that waited for more guidance before embracing the
reforms for which Luther called.
The leaders of Nuremberg closely watched each event surrounding Luther and this new
church with great interest. The City Council felt sympathetic toward the reforms that Luther was
trying to enact but they had to keep up a policy of appearances that discouraged reformist
thoughts because of the city’s close relationship with the Holy Roman Emperor.18 This policy
meant that the Council could not be seen to participate in any way with the reforms, and instead
left the religious changes to the city churches to implement. But there existed a period of eight
years between the end of an attempt to keep up this policy, which occurred around the same time
that Nuremberg banned the use of polyphony in 1525, and the city signing a confession of faith
known as the Brandenburg-Nuremberg Church Order in 1533.19 During this time, Luther still
had not decided the details of his new religion, so Nuremberg’s religious leaders created their
own form of worship that discarded some old traditions but kept others.
Nuremberg had a governing structure unique for the cities of the Holy Roman Empire
and indeed for Western Europe in general. It did not have a bishop’s seat or a secular ruler to
17
Helmut Lehman, ed., Preface to the Wittenberg Hymnal, vol. 53 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO:
Concordia: 1955-1986), 316.
18
Barlett Russell Butler, “Liturgical Music in Sixteenth-Century Nürnberg: A Socio-Musical Study” (PhD
diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1970), 78.
19
Ibid., 78.
8
whom the city governors answered; they answered solely to the Emperor. All aspects of daily life
in both sacred and secular matters were controlled by a city council. In its beginning, Council
members could come from any level of the social hierarchy through a local election, but by the
sixteenth century, membership on the Council was limited to citizens of the highest social rank.
The Council had always leaned toward conservatism in matters of state and religion, but during
the first half of the sixteenth century it became harder and harder to appease both the Emperor’s
call for the quieting of reformers, and the people’s call for reform. Some would agree that
Nuremberg took this conservative view toward all aspects of city life to please the Emperor, but
Bartlett Butler states that “it is perhaps closer to the truth to see in its policies a calculated
technique for survival in a rapidly changing, complex, and often hostile environment.”20
Whatever the reason for the stance they took, it meant that members of the Council had to
constantly say one thing to the Emperor while they did quite the opposite.
The control that this Council held over all matters extended into music, both sacred and
secular. German Meistersingers had had a strong presence in Nuremberg going back to the
fourteenth century. But with the acceleration of the reform movement, Meistersingers no longer
were permitted to meet in the city and could no longer play an educational role in the Nuremberg
schools according to the ruling of the Council in 1533.21 The ban on polyphony that the Council
began in 1525 also demonstrates the power that this ruling body had over every aspect of
worship and education.
Nuremberg had always maintained a close connection to Wittenberg because of the
movement of prominent people between these two cities. Nuremberg did not have an institution
of higher learning, so many of the wealthy families sent their sons to study either in Italy or at
20
Butler, 36.
Susan Gattuso, “Sixteenth-Century Nuremberg” in The Renaissance: From the 1470s to the End of the
16th Century, ed. Iain Fenlon (London: Macmillan, 1989), 294.
21
9
the University of Wittenberg. 22 Since Luther began teaching in Wittenberg in 1512 and
Nuremberg would convert to Lutheranism in 1525, some of his students may have risen to places
of prominence within the governmental structure of the city. The education of Nuremberg’s
upper class in Wittenberg may also explain the city’s tendency toward the new religion despite
their allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor. The humanistic philosophies championed by Duke
Frederick the Wise, Luther, and his fellow teachers would be fresh in the minds of these
Nuremberg elite who mixed it with a desire to implement these ideas in their own city.
Hector Pömer is one such example. In Nuremberg he served as a priest, a doctor of law,
and a musician. He received his law degree in Wittenberg before returning to Nuremberg in 1521
and becoming a provost at St. Lorenz Church, one of two prominent churches in Nuremberg.
During his time in Wittenberg and after he returned to Nuremberg, he kept in communication
with many members of Luther’s circle including Luther himself, Philipp Melanchthon, and
Luther’s primary publisher, Georg Rhau.23 Pömer had important Reformation connections and
the proper position in Nuremberg during a crucial time in the city’s transition. It is easy to
imagine the political and religious leaders of Nuremberg approaching Pömer to ask how Luther
might interpret a question of liturgy during such an early period of the new church.
Some connections between Nuremberg and Wittenberg extend to a time before Luther
posted his Ninety-Five Theses. Christoph Scheurl, one of Frederick’s original recruits for the
University of Wittenberg, began serving as an advisor to the Nuremberg City Council as early as
1512. His association with the City Council would continue through their years of transition to
Lutheranism until his death in 1542, and Scheurl had the responsibility of traveling to the court
of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V to initially ask for the emperor’s protection from local
22
23
Gattuso, 286.
Butler, 64.
10
barons who wanted to use the resources of the city and its outlying lands to improve their own
financial standing. But while he was there, members of the court forced him to answer questions
about rumors that Nuremberg allowed anti-Catholic sentiment to spread throughout the city.24
His careful interactions at the Imperial court gave Nuremberg time, if nothing else, to lay the
groundwork for the Lutheran church and decide how to appease their terrestrial ruler while
following their desire for a new form of worship of their heavenly ruler.
Nuremberg also drew its newest clergy from the ranks of Wittenberg’s finest theologians.
Georg Pessler and Dominus Schleupner both became preachers and administrators at the most
prestigious church in Nuremberg, St. Sebald, along with Hector Pömer at St. Lorenz. These new
religious leaders came to Nuremberg in the early 1520s when the Reformation had just started;
the Council’s conscious choice to recruit religious leaders and Luther’s former students from
Wittenberg gave the impression that these leaders wanted to show their allegiance to Luther and
other Reformation supporters through his former students and encourage the Reformation
movement in their own city.
Andreas Osiander, while neither a graduate of the University of Wittenberg nor an
associate of Luther, stirred up the fire for reform in Nuremberg in both his sermons and his
publications. The City Council appointed him to St. Lorenz Church in 1522, one year after the
appointment of Pömer as provost, knowing full well his sympathies to the reformation
movement. He spoke with such passion on this topic that he almost served as an embarrassment
to the Council because two more years would pass after his appointment during which the
Council would continue this policy of appearances toward the Emperor.25 His writings on church
reform showed his dedication to the idea that a Mass in German was the easiest way for a
24
25
Butler, 71.
Ibid., 101.
11
congregation to fully participate. Osiander went a step further than Luther by contending that
Latin and Greek had no place in the reformed rituals and that saying the Mass in the vernacular
would encourage more participation and understanding among the congregation.26 While Luther
had the opinion that musical elements such as the Gloria and Agnus Dei could still play a part in
the reformed Mass, Osiander thought differently. By reciting and singing in the vernacular
instead of the language of the learned elite, he hoped it would induce more congregational
participation. The initial years of the Nuremberg reform quickly became characterized by radical
changes despite Luther’s urging for moderation, and despite the close connections between
Council leaders in Nuremberg and Martin Luther and his associates in Wittenberg.
Luther did write something of a guide for worship at the insistence of a colleague in
Zwickau. The Formula missae was published in December 1523, a mere year and three months
before Nuremberg converted to Lutheranism. The document is quite short and readable in a few
hours’ time—hardly enough space to lay out an entire theology—and it only described the
practice as it existed in Wittenberg. Luther expressed that he did not want others simply to copy
him, but to adopt practices that suited the local congregation: surely his colleague in Zwickau
had hoped for some more substantial guidance.27 Luther explained that he wanted to wait a while
before publishing his thoughts on the religion to allow for a period of adjustment between the
traditional and new approaches.28 He also worried that too much change in the initial stages of
worship would turn people away, so his approach to reform tended toward conservatism. Even
though so many people in his circle called out for more guidance, Luther realized that he
navigated unknown waters and wanted to take deliberate, strategic steps to guarantee the success
26
Ibid, 104.
Helmut Lehman, “Introduction,” Luther’s Works 53 (St Louis, MO: Concordia: 1955-1986), xvi.
28
Bard Thompson, “Martin Luther, Formula missae and Deutsche Messe,” in Liturgies of the Western
Church (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1965), 99.
27
12
of this new church. He was very hesitant to start a separate church because he thought that his
call for reform might convince Church leaders in Rome to enact some of the changes for which
he had been calling. This helps to explain why most of the ceremony did not deviate in the early
years of the new church.
By October 1524, the Nuremberg Council could no longer keep up appearances. The first
Lutheran mass was said, and a ban on celebrating Catholic mass came the following year. With
the Lutheran movement growing and Nuremberg’s religious personnel so vocal in their support
of Luther, it was impossible to pretend that Catholicism still had a strong standing in the city.
But only Luther’s Formula missae gave any kind of guidance in establishing this new form of
worship. Because Luther had left most of the formula of the mass up to the individual
congregation, Nuremberg developed its own interpretation of Luther’s theology and tended
toward a conservative interpretation. Despite the influence of Protestant leaders such as
Osiander, Scheurl, and Pömer, the ultimate decisions regarding liturgy and music fell to the
Council, which still tended toward conservatism.
Between the years 1524 and 1533, two forms of the Mass appeared in Nuremberg: one
more traditional version that the Nuremberg provosts wanted to perform; and another that more
closely followed Luther’s suggestions, and thus, made more changes to the Mass. However, both
versions still deviated little from the Catholic Mass. In fact, the only musical element completely
eliminated was the Offertory chant with some silent prayers also deleted in both versions of the
early Nuremberg Mass.29 One insertion into the Lutheran Mass unique to the Nuremberg
Reformation was a presentation in German explaining the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.30
Luther mentioned in his Formula missae that the clarification of these rituals was extremely
29
30
Butler, 159.
Ibid., 167.
13
important so that the congregation understood the purpose of certain recitations.31 In including
the history of the rituals, the purpose of the Mass clearly changed from one of mystery and
sacrifice to education and celebration, a point that Luther heavily emphasized and concluded the
Catholic Church had forgotten. The lack of radical modifications to the Mass structure ensured
that people would follow the new church because of the similarity to the established ritual.
More decisive changes occurred in 1525 and would continue until the standardization of
the religion in 1533. The first change concerned the number of Masses to be said during the
week: Luther believed that Mass should only occur on Sundays and holy days; but Nuremberg
gave two services per day, one in the early morning and one in the afternoon, until forced to
abolish this practice in 1533.32 The sermon, which had been embedded in the afternoon Mass,
was moved to its own separate Mass that occurred between the early morning and afternoon
services.33 Consequently, more people attended the sermon Mass because of its use of the
vernacular and singing chorales in which the congregation could participate. For those wanting
reform and those wanting consistency, separate services seemed the perfect way to please both
factions. Although the practice of separate services ended with the Church Order in 1533, it gave
conservative congregations a chance to get accustomed to a different format, and it allowed the
reformed congregation the opportunity to experiment with a new service to find a balance
between traditional and “Lutheran” elements on which everyone could agree. This
experimentation extended into the realm of music as much as any other part of the Mass.
Theologians based in Wittenberg approved the Brandenburg-Nuremberg Church Order
(Kirchenordnung) in 1533, and it finally provided a framework for how to practice this new
31
Helmut Lehman, ed., The German Mass and Order of Service, vol. 53 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO:
Concordia: 1955-1986), 64.
32
Butler, 169.
33
Ibid., 170.
14
religion.34 But as other cities adopted Luther’s reformed church, each region could deviate from
the rules to fit the needs of its own congregation, so determining the actual practice in any
Lutheran city becomes quite difficult. Some mandates of worship appear in almost every church
order, including those about the use of music during services. The list of requirements and
degree of specificity in any church order varied from city to city, but in each they served as a
guide to religious practice for that city and its outlying areas.
Some church orders even included the level of participation the choir would have. The
role of the choir depended on many variables: the resources available to the church; whether the
congregation preferred a Latin or German mass; and how often churches wanted to have daily
mass instead of weekly, to name a few. It appears that each city chose whether to have services
in Latin or German with no apparent reasoning. Some recited the traditional parts of the mass in
Latin while others, such as the sermon, Lord’s Prayer, and the consecration, were in German so
that everyone could understand the words.35 The choice of using Latin or German also impacted
the extent to which a congregation needed a choir. Since the small amount of congregational
music would have been simple enough for most people to sing, a highly skilled choir seemed
excessive. But when church orders kept parts of the traditional Latin Mass, the choir needed to
learn either the traditional chant and its notation, or even more complex polyphony. With the
conservatism of the council, Nuremberg preferred Latin to German, although instances of both
were used before the Church Order of 1533. The city’s preference for more traditional elements
also suggests that the music at their services would have retained a nostalgic quality. Just four
years after this, the ban on polyphony would be lifted in Nuremberg making way for the
34
Butler, 198.
Joseph Herl, Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism: Choir Congregation, and Three Centuries of Conflict
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 40.
35
15
publication of Hans Ott’s multi-volume set of motets, Petreius’s collection of psalm settings, and
the two mass prints by both men in 1539.
Each church made further decisions about their services based on the personnel available
and the role that a particular church played in its community. This was true in large cities such as
Nuremberg where there was a greater likelihood that mass would be recited daily instead of
weekly. The increased musical demand meant that churches had to draw talent from the Latin
schools of larger cities, a tradition that went back to the days of the Medieval church.36
Nuremberg was one of the larger cities in the German-speaking territories, and the conservative
leaning of the Council would suggest that services would continue much as they had in the past.
Boys studying at the Latin school in Nuremberg were required to study music and participate in
the church choir a certain number of times per week, provided it did not interfere with the rest of
their schoolwork. Consequently, the quality of music and the level of musicianship at such wellfunded institutions would stand above what small, rural parishes could provide.
While Luther stressed the importance of participation by the congregation, the actual
level of congregational involvement in musical aspects of worship varied. Joseph Herl has
compiled a chart that summarizes how many church orders specified who should perform certain
musical parts of the mass. A simplified version of Herl’s data appears in Table 1. 37
36
37
Herl, 38.
Herl, 55. The table on page 55 is an abbreviation of the data he presented in his Appendix 3.
16
Table 1. Number of orders specifying mode of performance
Choral
Part of mass liturgy
Total orders38
Introit
163
38
Kyrie
138
24
Gloria
137
25
Gradual
125
26
Sequence
67
14
Creed
157
8
Hymn before sermon
35
2
Hymn after sermon
73
4
Sanctus
98
20
Agnus Dei
104
19
Communion hymns
140
10
Dismissal hymn
43
4
Congregational
8
0
2
6
0
26
6
9
2
11
46
8
Either/both
17
6
14
8
1
32
0
2
5
5
8
0
Herl consulted a total of 169 original editions and reprints of church orders before 1600, and the
totals represented in the “Total orders” include those church orders in which that specific part of
the liturgy is included regardless of whether the original language was to be Latin, German or
some combination of both. “Choral” indicates how many of the “Total orders” mandated that the
choir should sing a specific part of the mass liturgy, whereas “Congregation” indicated that the
congregation should sing. “Either/both” means that either the congregation or choir could sing;
or the congregation and choir could sing together.
For the most part, church orders specified that choirs should sing the majority of the mass
with congregational participation encouraged especially for the Creed and during most of the
hymns. Luther said from his earliest publication, Formula missae of 1523, that more worshippers
needed to participate in the Mass and one way to encourage participation was through singing
hymns. Luther also asserted in his Deudsche Messe that the Creed constituted one of the most
important parts of a Christian’s primary beliefs, along with the Ten Commandments and the
38
The choral, congregational, and either/both columns do not equal the total because in many cases the
desired format was not available or could not be determined
17
Lord’s Prayer.39 Although the Creed, or Credo, typically appears with the “Ordinary of the
Mass” (i.e., Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei), when considering Luther’s emphasis on
the importance of the Creed, it stands to reason that church orders would encourage
congregations to participate in the recitation of their beliefs instead of having the choir simply
sing the prescribed musical setting of the Credo. According to the table above, it seems that most
cities adhered to Luther’s tendency toward consistency, rather than radical reform. The choir still
sang all parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, except the Creed for the above reason.
The question of the role of polyphonic music in worship was moot between 1525 and
1533 because of the ban of its use or publication in Nuremberg, but that does not mean that this
music did not have its champions. Religious leaders and teachers such as Sebald Heyden,
Hieronymous Baumgartner, and Veit Dietrich used their positions in the city to further the
performance of polyphony in the classroom and call for its reinstatement in the liturgy. Heyden
served as the rector at Saint Sebald School and published three different manifestations of an
educational treatise on polyphonic music.40 Heyden’s reasons for reinstating polyphony
consisted of liturgical and educational arguments: Heyden agreed with Luther and other
reformers that reciting or singing parts of the mass in Latin or Greek without understanding the
language separated the worshippers from the meaning of the text. Heyden understood that unless
people knew why the mass included the parts that it did, then one would question the inclusion of
those parts. But Heyden was also a humanist and had a high appreciation for music, which he
believed added beauty and solemnity to the Mass. So rather than eliminate polyphony from the
Mass because some people may have found it too decorative and distracting, Heyden took it
upon himself to write Musica stoicheiosis in 1532 as a defense of and guide to polyphony.
39
40
Lehman, ed., The German Mass and Order of Service, vol. 53 of Luther’s Works, 65.
Musica Stoicheiosis, 1532; Musicae, 1537; De arte canendi, 1540; all published by Petreius.
18
Heyden’s purpose in writing Musica Stoicheiosis was to make polyphony easier for students to
learn.41 He realized that learning this music took time that students could spend on other
subjects, and thus justifying the reason for its exclusion to some, so Heyden wanted to lighten the
burden for them. In 1537 and 1540 he wrote two more modified versions of this treatise, Musicae
and De arte canendi, respectively. In both of the later editions he dedicated the work to
Hieronymous Baumgartner, a Nuremberg patrician who worked hard to re-establish polyphony’s
place in the reformed liturgy.
Heyden believed that church leaders wanted to remove polyphony partially because it
seemed complicated and not many people understood how to read the notes and rhythms of the
music of Obrecht and his generation. Heyden wrote in his preface of the 1540 edition
“Therefore, we consider the use of [musical] signs so necessary that we contend nobody can
truly understand the art of singing without investigating and observing them very diligently.”42
From this statement we can deduce that the ability of students to read musical notation had
dwindled, since Heyden stresses that one cannot sing properly without this ability. Heyden
continued, “These, then, are the things I wished especially to fulfill in our books. First, to make
the art of singing as easy and expeditious as possible for young students. Second, to return the
value and use of signs to definite proportional relationships, so that in any examination one may
immediately understand their use and value.”43 Once again, Heyden states that his students find
the performance of polyphony difficult, and he hopes that his treatises would make the task
easier. But on a deeper level, he wanted to show that this music did have value and should not
just be preserved but also performed as was its original intention.
41
42
Butler, 423.
Sebald Heyden, De arte canendi, translated by Clement Miller (S.l.: American Institute of Musicology,
1972), 21.
43
Ibid., 22.
19
Heyden had an ally on the City Council in his crusade to return polyphony to classrooms
and choir lofts. Hieronymous Baumgartner was part of the Nuremberg patrician class as well as
the dedicatee of Heyden’s treatise, but he also served as the city’s Kirchenpfleger, or church
administrator, starting in 1533 when the Nuremberg church order took effect. This position held
the responsibility of enforcing the rules of the Council, solving any problems and interacting
directly with the religious personnel at each church, including people like Osiander who wanted
less of the traditional polyphonic music. As with many other leaders in Nuremberg, Baumgartner
studied with both Luther and Melanchthon at the University of Wittenberg and had a close
friendship with these men. He shared the opinion of Melanchthon that polyphony did have a
position in the new church, along with other humanistic and progressive ideas.44 Baumgartner
began in his position as Kirchenpfleger the same year that the city’s Kirchenordnung took effect,
but he was not in a position to institute dramatic change to the music of the liturgy despite his
own beliefs. Instead he allied himself with people like Heyden and other Nuremberg religious
leaders to resurrect polyphony in the churches and schools.
Religious support for polyphony also came from a recently installed preacher at St.
Sebald in Nuremberg, Veit Dietrich. Martin Luther personally recommended him for the job, and
Baumgartner undoubtedly used the influence of his position to secure Dietrich’s employment.
Immediately upon being hired in 1535, Dietrich started instituting reform in churches throughout
Nuremberg both in the liturgy and the music that accompanied it. He wrote a letter to
Baumgartner within the first year of his employment about the state of music in the churches of
Nuremberg and made a reference to the current status of music in Wittenberg as well:
But since the common people need such things as inducements, so to speak, to
attend church regularly and since we can have no worthier reason for providing
and preserving music than to use it for worship, I [Dietrich] think we can also
44
Butler, 411.
20
succeed in using the organ for Mass on solemn feasts. . . . And at Wittenberg the
organ is used not only on holy days but every Sunday. Since, then, there is no
danger in this practice and since art music in its best form is honored as the most
pleasing of all the arts, I think we can attempt this change without any complaint.
Our rector [Sebald Heyden] has promised us his assistance and that of his
school.45
We can deduce from this letter that the use of the organ during Mass had not disappeared in
Wittenberg as it had in Nuremberg along with polyphony; and that religious leaders in
Wittenberg also had a higher tolerance for polyphony in the city than did those of Nuremberg.
We can also assert that Dietrich and Heyden collaborated in an attempt to bring back the use of
polyphony in the churches. Since Baumgartner served as the final word on the use of music in
the liturgy, Dietrich knew the importance of his approval. And given Baumgartner’s educational
background and association with Luther and Melanchthon, Dietrich could safely assume that his
request for Baumgartner’s approval on reinstituting organ music and more ornate vocal music
would not go disappointed.
During the early sixteenth century, the leaders of Nuremberg spent a large amount of
time trying to reconcile the city’s many contradictions. Despite its history as a favorite city of the
Holy Roman Emperor, the Council chose to convert to Lutheranism but still wanted to convince
the Emperor of their (false) Catholic devotion. Nuremberg church leaders had no more guidance
than those of any other city, and Luther purposely provided few details on the structure of
worship because he wanted each region to discover and practice whatever worked for their
specific congregation. Concerning details of music within the service, he was even more vague.
With the ban of polyphony in Nuremberg lifted in 1537, the range of possibilities in church
45
Translated by Butler, 435. Originally from MS Thom, no. 84.
21
music expanded, and printers including Ott and Petreius would both provide repertory and take
advantage of this new source of revenue.
22
Chapter 2: Composer Reputations, Novelty in Writing, and a Printer’s Decisions
When the printer Johannes Petreius planned which composers he wanted to include in his
Liber quindecim missarum, he had a number of things to consider. He decided upon those who
his potential buyers would recognize, thus making the book more appealing to a larger number of
people. Also his personal relationships with colleagues in Nuremberg and in the printing
business would have made these ideal candidates for Petreius’ publication because of easy
accessibility. His Liber quindecim missarum is also unusual in the chronological time span that
he covers: he not only included works by his contemporaries, like Francesco Layolle, Wilhelm
Breitengraser, and Pierre Moulu, but Petreius incorporated works by composers who experienced
their greatest popularity earlier in the sixteenth century, like Heinrich Isaac and Josquin, for
example. Petreius also included Ockeghem, who was two generations removed from the
printer’s, and the Liber was the first printed edition in which his Missa Cuiusvis toni appeared.
Petreius also demonstrated that his musical taste went beyond just name recognition in that a
number of the masses he chose have some sort of compositional constructivist device such as a
cantus firmus that ascends step-wise in each mass movement, or a mass that could be performed
two different ways depending on whether one includes all notated rests. By considering
Petreius’s role in the printing industry in Nuremberg, the reputations of the composers he
included, and the printer’s choices in repertory we may better understand how Petreius
assembled this collection.
Petreius had a strong background in humanistic ideas and counted among his associates
and correspondents some of the leaders of the humanistic movement in Nuremberg. He attended
the University of Basel, an institution that Heinrich Glarean would later attend, receiving his
master of arts in 1517.1 A university education during this time meant a background in classical
literature and veneration for the writings of those who had come before: ideas embraced by the
humanistic movement. This foundation on the writings of classical scholars meant that Petreius
could easily position himself as well-read when he established his own printing business.
Petreius received his professional experience from one of the most significant printing
firms in Switzerland: the house of the Petri family to whom he was also related.2 He worked as
an editor there for at least four years before inheriting a printing business in Nuremberg from a
friend in the 1520s.3 While Petreius was learning his craft in Basel, Petri was publishing writings
by Luther and Melanchthon as well as other documents that showed sympathy for the
Reformation movement. Petri also published a number of Glarean’s works including his later
Dodecachordon in 1547.4 Petreius had surely gained quite a bit of knowledge on running his
own printing house by the time he arrived in Nuremberg to take up his inherited business. His
exposure to the Reformation movement in Basel as well as his university training in classical
writings and literature made Nuremberg a comfortable fit for Petreius.
Once he settled in Nuremberg and became a citizen in 1523,5 he started associating with
the literati of the city. He also corresponded with professors at the University of Wittenberg.
Petreius counted among his associates Philipp Melanchthon, who took on the task of laying the
foundation for a new church after Luther’s call for reforms to the old church; Melanchthon also
1
Mariko Teramoto, Die Psalmendrucke des Johannes Petrejus in Nürnberg (Gedruckt 1538-1542)
(Tutzing, Germany: Hans Schneider, 1983), 23.
2
Mariko Teramoto, “Die Rezeption der Franko-Flämischen Musik in der Deutschen Musiktheorie in der
ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in Musikkonzepte-Konzepte der Musikwissenschaft, ed. Katherine Eberl (Kassel:
Bärenreiter, 2000), 161.
3
Anthony Grafton, Johannes Petreius (c. 1497-1550): A Study of the History of Learned Publishing
(Oberlin, OH: Oberlin College, 1998), 4.
4
Teramoto, Psalmendrucke, 24.
5
Ibid., 25.
24
taught Petreius’ son.6 Georg Rhau, the primary music printer in Wittenberg and Reformation
movement sympathizer, exchanged letters with Petreius. And despite their different opinions on
the importance of music in the reformed church, Petreius corresponded with Andreas Osiander, a
staunch supporter of the Reformation and a preacher at St. Lorenz church, the second-most
important church in Nuremberg. Petreius also knew Georg Forster through their mutual teacher
Martin Luther.7 Petreius and Forster would participate in discussions that Luther hosted in
Wittenberg, and Forster wrote music (published by Rhau) that was considered acceptable for the
Lutheran church. Petreius also published writings by Willibald Pirkheimer, who was a leading
Humanist in Nuremberg.8 He was in frequent communication with fellow Humanists as well as
some of the most important people in the Reformation movement. Each of these religious and
intellectual leaders saw Petreius not only as a tradesman, but a colleague. They appreciated
Petreius’s grasp of and belief in humanistic ideas. More importantly, his background in music
printing would have given his publications a level of authority because his colleagues respected
his expertise. When the ban on polyphony ended in 1537, he was perfectly poised to gather
music that would appeal to traditionalists who wanted music from Josquin’s generation, and
would recognize his own contemporaries who composed in this earlier style.
Some music publishers had a twofold mindset when it came to choosing which
composers to print: to represent the compositional practices from the previous generation9 and
preserve these works because of their artistic value.10 We cannot know whether Petreius had
either of these intentions with the Liber quindecim missarum because the publication offers no
6
Teramoto, Psalmendrucke, 27.
Ibid., 29.
8
Ibid., 28-9.
9
Stephanie P. Schlagel, “Josquin des Prez and His Motets: A Case Study in Sixteenth-Century Reception
History” (PhD diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1996), 11.
10
Stephanie P. Schlagel, “Fortune’s Fate: Josquin and the Nürnberg Mass Prints of 1539,” in Josquin and
the Sublime: Proceedings of the International Josquin Symposium at Roosevelt Academy Middleburg, 12-15 July
2009, edited by Albert Clement and Eric Jas (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011), 197.
7
25
information on this issue in the form of a preface, dedicatory letter, or any other writings of that
nature. But of the nine composers that he included five came from a previous generation and,
with the exception of Ockeghem’s Missa Cuiusvis Toni, Isaac’s Missa O Praeclara, and la Rue’s
Missa Tous les regrets, these masses had all previously appeared in print. Table 2 gives the
complete contents of the Liber quindecim missarum as well as prior printed sources.
Table 2. Contents of the Liber quindecim missarum, 1539
Composer
Mass Title11
Josquin
Sources
Missa L’homme armé super
voces musicales
J666 (1502); J667 (1514);
J668 (1516); J669 (1526);
15392
Josquin
Missa La sol fa re mi
J666 (1502); J668 (1516);
J669 (1526)
Josquin
Missa super Gaudeamus
same as La sol fa re mi
Josquin
Missa super Fortuna desperata
same as L’homme armé
Josquin
Missa de beata Virgine
J673 (1514); 15161; 1522;
J675 (1526)
Antoine Brumel
Missa Festivale (Missa Je nay dueul)
B4643 (1503)
Heinrich Isaac
Missa O praeclara (Missa La mi la sol)
not published before 1539
Lupi
Missa Hercules dux Ferrariae
15328
Pierre de la Rue
Missa Tous les regrets
not published before 1539
Francesco de Layolle Missa Adieu mes amours
15328
Josquin
Missa Ave maris stella
J670 (1505); J671 (1515);
J672, (1526)
Wilhelm Breitengraser Missa Dominicale
not published before 1539
Antoine Brumel
Missa A l’ombre d’ung buissonet
15161
Johannes Ockeghem Missa Cuiusvis toni
not published before 1539
Pierre Moulu Missa Duarum Facierum (Alma redemptoris mater) 1522
That a composition had been previously published suggests that it had a history of making
money for the one who printed it because of the fame and esteem in which certain composers
were held.
11
The mass titles that appear in parentheses are alternative titles.
26
Petreius’s inclusion six masses by Josquin surely helped make the Liber attractive to a
wide range of buyers; and it seems that his popularity had barely waned since his death eighteen
years earlier. But other composers from Josquin’s generation had strong followings as well.
The composers from this time period that Petreius included are Josquin (c. 1450-1521),
Isaac (c. 1450-1517), la Rue (c. 1452-1518), and Brumel (c. 1460-1512/3). Despite the
background that Jacob Obrecht shared with these composers, the popularity of his masses, and
the appearance of his music in print in or around Nuremberg, none of his compositions are
present in Petreius’s Liber quindecim missarum, making his absence something of a mystery.
The composers mentioned above make up a legacy generation: for the first time in history,
people looked back to examples of the past and picked out those who were worth following.
Even though Josquin died in 1521, his music appeared in Petreius’s Liber almost two decades
later. Petreius would not be the last to print Josquin’s music: Glarean’s Dodechachordon of 1547
holds Josquin’s music up as an example that composers and publishers should follow for
success. The composers that Glarean chose also tells us who he and his contemporaries already
held in high esteem and whose music was worthy of imitation.
One can find Josquin’s music among both Catholic and early Protestant repertories
because of his reputation as one of the best composers of his age. Many reformers worried that
the dense polyphonic music of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries obscured the words and
distracted worshippers from the true purpose of celebrating Mass (i.e., religious devotion).
Luther’s followers could only use Josquin’s psalm settings or contrafacted motets because Luther
believed that only words from the Bible could be set to music.12 Marian devotion had quickly
risen in popularity in the Catholic Church during the Renaissance and a large body of music
12
Jessie Ann Owens “How Josquin Became Josquin: Reflections on Historiography and Reception,” in
Music in Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis Lockwood, ed. Anthony Cummings (Warren,
MI: Harmonie Park, 1997), 278.
27
developed around devotion to the mother of Jesus, but it was also a major point of contention
between Luther and the Catholic Church, so motets and other music in praise of Mary were
limited to the Catholic rite. But the ability of Josquin’s music to bridge the religious gap shows
that both groups could and wanted to claim his music for their own. The acceptance of Josquin’s
music by both Lutherans and Catholics would have been particularly significant in Nuremberg
where their policy of appearances meant that they had to prove their Catholicism to higher
authorities while instituting a new religion without incurring the Emperor’s anger.
A motet to Mary by Josquin, his Ave Maria virgo serena, even took pride of place in
Petrucci’s first book of motets in 1501. The appearance of Josquin’s music in publications from
the earliest years of the sixteenth century would only increase for the next fifty to sixty years. By
the middle of the century, he had surpassed all of his contemporaries in the number of times his
music had appeared in print. It began appearing in German publications as early as 1520 in the
Liber selectarum cantionum13 but not until 1555 in any substantive way in French-speaking
territories.14 These publishers looked not only to local manuscripts but also to Petrucci’s and
others’ prints sold at book fairs taking place in Paris, Frankfurt, and other cities.15 Even Petreius
frequently attended the book fairs in Frankfurt and could have potentially bought there some of
his sources for his Liber quindecim missarum.16 Josquin had to his advantage not only his
popularity, but also the wide distribution and multiple copies that music prints could have over
manuscripts. Many more people in different locations could then collect and perform his music,
13
Schlagel, “Josquin des Prez and His Motets,” 28.
Ibid., 88.
15
Jane A. Bernstein, “Buyers and Collectors of Music Publications: Two Sixteenth-Century Music
Libraries Recovered,” in Music Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis Lockwood, ed. Anthony
Cummings (Warren, MI: Harmonie Park, 1997), 24.
16
Teramoto, Psalmdrucke, 27-8.
14
28
something new to this generation where printing made information much cheaper to reproduce
and distribute widely.
Sometimes called the “French Josquin,” Antoine Brumel’s employment at prominent
churches and courts in France and Italy made him another obvious choice for inclusion in the
Liber quindecim missarum. Brumel (c. 1460-1512/3) worked at the cathedral of Notre Dame in
Paris, which held much prestige because of the importance of the church itself, and also because
of its dedication to Mary and the popularity of Marian devotion mentioned above. Around 1500,
Brumel resigned from his position at Notre Dame possibly because his recommendation of
someone for a position at the church was ignored.17 The church council tried to appease Brumel
after he handed in his resignation, but he still left. His paper trail has him in Lyon five years
later. The church administration’s attempts to convince Brumel to stay would suggest that he
already had a reputation as a quality musician and composer who added to the prominence of the
church with him as a member of the faculty. And just a year after this incident, Petrucci would
publish a book of Brumel’s masses. His reputation would grow as he traveled south in search of
work.
During the year 1505 and part of 1506, Brumel worked as the court composer for the
Duke of Sora living in Lyon, a city that would become very important for music printing with
Moderne’s first music publication in 1532.18 The Duke of Ferrara, Alfonso, approached Brumel
about him becoming his next court composer. He gave Brumel a very generous initial offer but
Brumel negotiated with the Duke for a number of months on the salary and other contingencies
of his employment.19 Brumel’s demands for higher pay and better perks show that he knew his
own value for a prominent court like Ferrara, with its reputation for musical excellence. Since
17
Lloyd Biggle, “The Masses of Antoine Brumel” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1953), 21-22.
No record exists that Moderne published any music by Brumel.
19
Biggle, 26.
18
29
Alfonso initially pursued Brumel and he accepted the terms that Brumel proposed, Alfonso knew
the prestige Brumel would bring to his court was worth the higher price. However Alfonso did
stipulate that Brumel’s employment would last for the rest of the composer’s life, indicating that
the Duke meant to have a return on the large investment he had made. The Este court in Ferrara
had already developed a reputation for employing the best composers, including Josquin and
Obrecht, prior to Brumel’s appointment. To find Brumel worthy to fill such shoes certainly
spoke to his ability and reputation during his lifetime as well as justification for preserving his
music for the future.
Two of Brumel’s contemporaries, Pierre de la Rue and Heinrich Isaac, served two
Habsburg family members. Pierre de la Rue worked at the Habsburg-Burgundian court of
Margaret of Austria for most of his life, and the music he created while under its employ helped
increase his reputation as a “legacy” composer. His official role was as a singer in the grand
chapelle, which was an elite choral group in Margaret’s court, but he was also a highly
productive composer. 20 La Rue was not just one of many singers employed at the Burgundian
court, he was one of the best. In his free time, he chose to write new music to contribute to the
repertory of the court. He established a reputation as a musician whose ability seemed worth
preserving and sharing, and Margaret surely enjoyed spreading his music to other European
centers through music manuscripts such as those copied in her own scriptorium by Pierre
Alamire. In fact, it is possible that la Rue was a favorite of Margaret as suggested by their
similarities in musical taste and in the inclusion of so many of his compositions in her personal
chansonniers.21 Margaret had received a solid musical education so she recognized good
musicians and chose to reward those like la Rue, whose music particularly agreed with her.
20
Honey Meconi, Pierre de la Rue and Musical Life at the Habsburg-Burgundian Court (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003), 53.
21
Meconi, 87.
30
Having such favor with a ruler also meant that his music would appear more frequently in
written records, and thus was likely to spread to a larger audience as well. In fact, Meconi writes,
“perhaps the most important factor in crediting la Rue with greater significance than his
colleagues is his unquestioned dominance of the court manuscript repertoire. No one else even
comes close in either the number of individual pieces included or the amount of times pieces
were recopied.”22 Like Josquin’s dominance in the world of music printing, la Rue dominated the
repertory found in the Habsburg-Burgundian collection; therefore, la Rue’s compositions were
more likely preserved and distributed. Margaret also gave these manuscripts as gifts, meaning
she would include the music of her favorite composers, among them, la Rue. As a result, his
compositions spread to courts all over Europe.
Another composer employed by the Habsburg family, namely Maximilian, was Heinrich
Isaac. He started his career as a singer at the Medici court during the reign of Lorenzo de Medici
where he stayed until Lorenzo’s death,23 and the rise of Savonarola compelled Isaac to leave
Florence quickly. Isaac worked at one of the most important courts in Italy for a ruler who
famously brought about a flowering of both visual and aural arts and was instrumental in the
creation of the Italian Renaissance. That Isaac would be worthy enough to work at this court
demonstrates his ability as a musician and his desirability as an employee. Four years after
Lorenzo’s death, Isaac entered Maximilian’s court and he was appointed as the Imperial court
composer—the first musician to hold this title.24 Under the Medicis, Isaac was one of many
singers working for the Medici family. But with his appointment as the composer at the court of
the Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian bestowed on Isaac a great deal more prestige and he
likely concluded that Isaac’s musical ability made him worthy of the position. Later in his life,
22
Meconi, 89-90.
Martin Staehelin, Die Messen Heinrich Isaacs (Bern: Paul Haupt Verlag, 1977), 17.
24
Staehelin, 19.
23
31
Isaac received Maximilian’s permission to return to Florence for his retirement, but still collected
a salary from Maximilian.25 Isaac had practically no obligations to Maximilian by this point, but
the Emperor continued to include him on the payroll, suggesting that Maximilian still wanted to
claim Isaac as an employee. After Isaac’s death, his music appeared in theoretical treatises and
anthologies of music well into the second half of the sixteenth century.26 The Nuremberg printer
Hans Ott began the process of creating the most important collection of Isaac’s sacred music, the
Choralis Constantinus between 1550 and 1555. In Ott’s dedicatory letter he states that he wants
to “save from destruction” music by Isaac and other composers associated with the imperial
court of Maximilian.27 We can interpret Petreius’s actions as participating in this tradition
through his inclusion of a mass by Isaac.
With the choice of composers partially resolved, Petreius now had to select which works
of the legacy generation he would include. While publishing a book of masses limited the
repertory, he still had many decisions to make about specific selections. Most of the
compositions by the legacy generation that Petreius picked have particularly advanced structures
underlying the music that make them stand out more than other compositions. These include
masses by Josquin, Brumel, Isaac, Petreius’s contemporary Moulu, and Ockeghem.
Josquin’s compositional creativity within such a formal structure is best evident in two of
his masses, Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales and Missa Fortuna desperata. He did
not simply follow a pattern to create them, but he tried to do something different within such an
unalterable structure. The Missa L’homme armé SVM has the traditional “L’homme armé” tune
in the tenor voice, but it is unique in that each appearance of the “L’homme armé” tune comes on
25
Louise Cuyler, The Emperor Maximilian I and Music (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), 51.
Cuyler, 110.
27
Stephanie P. Schlagel, “Ab Interitu Vindicarem: Isaac and the Music Books of Ott and Petreius” (Paper
presented at “Heinrich Isaac and His World,” Bloomington, IN, May 21-23, 2010).
26
32
successive notes of the hexachord through all five mass movements while maintaining a modal
center of D Dorian. The mass also has many points of complex rhythms, mensuration canons,
augmentation and diminution: in spite of these manipulations, the composer maintains the
integrity of the original tune.28 From the opening of the Kyrie to the final Agnus Dei Josquin
wrote the mass in such a way that performers would have to draw from a number of different
skills to perform it correctly. It also put Josquin in a league of his own when it came to
composing. As early as 1502, printers and others who wrote about music recognized the genius
of this piece. Petrucci placed it first in his 1502 publication of Josquin’s masses and Petreius
shares five out of six of the same pieces as this early Petrucci print; music theorists would also
write about this mass throughout the sixteenth century. The fame of this mass made it a natural
candidate for the Liber quindecim missarum and the attention it received gave Petreius the
confidence that it would help sell the collection.
The Missa Fortuna desperata has an ambitious form because of the way Josquin
distributes the borrowed material during each movement of the mass.29 The tenor of the original
three-voice canzona shows up in the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, and Agnus III, the bass of the canzona
is placed in the tenor of the Sanctus, and the superius provides the tenor melody of Agnus I.30
Josquin also creates the effect of acceleration because the time signatures become progressively
faster as they change within each section of the first four mass movements. In the Agnus Dei the
melody originally found in the superius voice is placed in the bassus voice, inverted, and is four
times longer than in its original context as if the composer wanted to show a sudden change in
28
Bonnie Blackburn, “Masses Based on Popular Songs and Solmization Syllables,” in The Josquin
Companion, edited by Richard Sherr (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 53.
29
Jennifer M. Bloxam, “Masses Based on Polyphonic Songs and Canonic Masses,” in The Josquin
Companion, edited by Richard Sherr (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 166.
30
Ibid., 166.
33
fortune.31 This mass represents much more than a composer finding a tune from one source and
using it in another composition. He created a number of effects through manipulations of the
original canzona beyond just the cantus firmus: the time signatures become progressively faster
through each movement to create a sense of acceleration and urgency, and he included
unexpected changes in the melody of the voices which would have been clear to the listener. The
many manipulations to the original musical material help make this mass one of Josquin’s most
imaginative, and the many hidden compositional devices would have also made it perfect for
inclusion with the other clever masses in the Liber.
Another mass that takes its inspiration from previous material is Brumel’s Missa A
l’ombre dung buissonet. It is based on a chanson by Josquin and it shares both an overall
structure and cadence pattern with its source material. As in Josquin’s chanson, Brumel’s mass is
a four-voice double-canon, with the tenor and bass voices derived from one part and the superius
and contratenor derived from another. Brumel wrote a mass that not only incorporates music
from a famous composer’s chanson, but he also manipulates the music so that the entire mass
works out as a double-canon and still has variety and is pleasant to listen to. One would only find
this level of creativity in a composer who understood the rules of harmony and counterpoint as it
existed in the Renaissance and in a composer whose talents lay above that of an ordinary
musician.
Isaac’s own motet O Praeclara, which has not survived, was probably the basis for his
Missa O Praeclara or Missa La mi la sol. The chant “O praeclara” begins with the melodic
motive “La mi la sol,” giving the mass its name.32 Throughout the mass, the sequence of notes
“la mi la sol” shows up in every voice in different rhythmic values from semiminims to longs;
31
Ibid., 167.
Willem Elders, “Zur Frage der Vorlage von Isaacs Messe La mi la sol oder O Praeclara,” in Von Isaac
bis Bach: Festschrift Martin Just (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1991), 10.
32
34
sometimes the tune has neighboring or passing notes in the sequence, but it is still recognizable.
The original four notes are frequently also paired with “la sol la mi,” which is not quite the
retrograde version of the tune, but it does switch the placement of the whole step and the fourth.
The structure of the mass has much in common with other masses from the same time period.
Some of the appearances of the motive would have been audible, but to truly detect the
pervasiveness of the motive, one would have to look at the music, a characteristic of other
masses that Petreius included, such as Josquin’s Missa La sol fa re mi.
While the compositional technique of Isaac’s Missa O proaeclara is sometimes cleverly
hidden, that of Josquin’s Missa La sol fa re mi is purposely obvious. Josquin had asked a favor of
an influential person to which he said “laise faire moy,” or “leave it to me.” He then did
everything in his power to avoid this obligation, leading Josquin to write his mass using the
syllables “la sol fa re mi” to remind this person of their promise.33 If one believes the story
behind the mass’s composition, then the repetition of this phrase helped reinforce his point. But
other techniques in this mass make it another example of Josquin’s compositional prowess: the
five-note motive, la sol fa re mi, plays the role of cantus firmus, subject, and motif. The nature of
the soggetto means that there will be inherent tonal ambiguity, but this does not seem to faze the
composer, and he was able to use the motive in any rhythmic value from the maxima to a
semiminim, with the melody appearing in multiple voices at the same time.34 While the mass
may be somewhat repetitive to listen to, the true appreciation of Josquin’s comes from a closer
examination of the music. The reputation of it stands on the fact that it appears second in
Petrucci’s first book of Josquin’s, and this likely weighed heavily in Petreius’s decision to
include it with the other Josquin masses.
33
34
Blackburn, 78.
Ibid., 79.
35
Josquin wrote another mass based on a soggetto cavato, his Missa Hercules dux
Ferrariae. While this is not included in the Liber, Petreius did include a mass with the same
name by the composer “Lupi.” Bonnie Blackburn’s research on the so-called “the wolf pack” of
composers uncovered three contemporaries with similar names who were often confused during
their lifetimes and afterward. These include Johannes Lupi from Cambrai, Lupus Hellinck from
Bruges, and a mysterious third Lupi that Blackburn indentified as Pietro Lupato, who worked at
the Cathedral of St. Mark in Venice in the 1520s.35 It is this Lupi whose music appears in the
Liber. Blackburn suggests that Lupato served as the chapelmaster at St. Mark’s for a short time
before Willaert’s arrival as the new composer.36 No archival evidence for Lupato exists other
than his name on a list of singers, and after Willaert’s arrival, his name disappears completely.
His employment at such an important church meant that no composition of his would have
strayed too far from the accepted traditions of the time. Petreius probably did not know this
composer personally, but chose his mass based purely on the style that seemed in line with the
rest of the masses. And the title of the mass Missa Hercules dux Ferrariae recalls Josquin’s mass
of the same name.
The soggetto cavato of Josquin’s Hercules mass follows the words of the phrase: re-ut-reut-re-fa-mi-re, but this is not the case with Lupi’s mass: his has the phrase sol-fa-re-fa-re-mi-refa-fa-mi-re. We can deduce “Ferrariae” from re-fa-fa-mi-re, and sol-fa-re-fa can be equivalent to
re-ut-re-ut for “Hercules dux” depending on how the pitches are solmized, but it does not
account for the entire soggetto.37 Blackburn suggests that Moderne made a copying error when
publishing this mass in his Liber decem missarum in 1532 by adding the note “mi.” She further
says “Lupus clearly was not touched by the Italian trend toward clear declamation of the text. If
35
Ibid., 38.
Ibid., 38.
37
Ibid., 109.
36
36
any work of his indelibly stamps him as a Franco-Flemich composer, it is the present one.
Contrapuntal techniques take precedence over good declamation.”38 This statement is consistent
with Petreius’s seeming motivation to not only present the Flemish masters such as Josquin and
Brumel, but also contemporaries who preserved this style.
The mass by Petreius’s contemporary Moulu, his Missa duarum facierum or Missa Alma
redemptoris mater, has a special feature that helped make it his most famous piece. The mass
exists simultaneously as a version performed with all of the notated rests and one performed by
omitting rests larger than a minim. Chapman even claims that Moulu’s reputation may have
rested predominantly on this mass,39 and this may help explain Petreius’s inclusion of it. Like
Brumel’s mass created by means of a canon, the composer of such a work must have had a solid
understanding of counterpoint and harmony. It could have presented a challenge or game to the
singer, and required him to pay attention to which rests to sing and which rests to omit.
Another mass that would have challenged the singer, but for entirely different reasons,
was Ockeghem’s Missa Cuiusvis toni. It fascinated literati and musicians who wrote about it
even after it appeared in Petreius’s Liber and many years after the composer’s death. In the
Dodecachordon Glarean claims that one could sing this mass in “three tones only, corresponding
to the three fourth-species.”40 While Glarean discounts the possibility of singing the mass in all
twelve modes, the fact that he still writes about it potentially a century after its composition
means that it still held significance for either the puzzle it presents or the continued high regard
of the composer. Ockeghem may have written this mass as an exercise in sightreading and
38
Ibid., 121.
James Chapman, “The Works of Pierre Moulu: A Stylistic Analysis” (PhD diss., New York University,
1964), 141.
40
Johannes Ockeghem, Masses Based on Freely Invented Melodic Material, vol. 3 of Masses and Mass
Sections, edited by Jaap van Benthem (Utrecht: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis,
1994), VII.
39
37
transposing for the composer’s more advanced students.41 With the constantly changing
combinations of half steps and whole steps and mutations between hard, natural, and soft
hexachords, the mass would stand as a formidable challenge especially to students learning
music theory as it existed in the sixteenth century. Therein could lay Petreius’s decision to
publish the Missa Cuiusvis toni. A well-rounded humanistic education in music during this time
and in this location would have included study of the great composers of the past and admirable
contemporaries who imitated that style. Sebald Heyden wrote his De arte canendi for the
purpose of giving students a guide to learning this very music. Ockeghem’s role as the teacher to
the best composers of that time and the didactic potential that presented itself in the Missa
Cuiusvis toni would have given Petreius two very strong reasons for preserving this older work.
Later German printers would continue to include Ockeghem’s music in anthologies and
theoretical treatises into the mid-sixteenth century. Adrian Petit Coclico gave Ockeghem
something of a backhanded compliment when he wrote in 1552 that Ockeghem, Obrecht, and
Agricola made up a founding triumvirate of music but “they were only theorists.”42 However, the
music of these three composers circulated much more than other composers that Coclico
categorized as theorists,43 and this reinforces Ockghem’s popularity, even though it may not have
suited the taste of Coclico. The presence of Ockeghem’s music in print so long after his death
suggests that his name and music still carried weight and a certain kind of reverence especially in
a city that had introduced his Missa Cuiusvis toni to a larger audience.
41
Johannes Ockeghem, Missa Cuiusvis Toni in Its Original Notation and Edited in All the Modes,
introduction by George Houle (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992), 7.
42
Lawrence Bernstein, “‘Singende Seele’ or ‘unsingbar’? Forkel, Ambros and the Forces Behind the
Ockeghem Reception During the Late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” Journal of Musicology 23 (Winter,
2006): 47.
43
Bernstein, 48.
38
The generation that would come after Ockeghem, the legacy generation along with
printers like Petreius, saw an importance in this music and recognized how important it was to
preserve it. When Hans Ott, another Nuremberg music printer, applied for a new imperial
printing privilege in 1545, he said he wanted to publish this music so that it had a greater chance
of surviving into the future.44 Again, people looked back to previous generations for a guide, in
this case, in musical composition. Ott and many others saw Josquin and his contemporaries as
the greatest musicians and this new method of reproducing music meant that it was easier to save
more music. Schlagel also states that between 1537 and 1539 Ott and Petreius published several
collections of sacred music with most compositions coming from the previous forty to fifty
years.45 This time span would include all members of the Josquin generation and Ockeghem.
Although we cannot know what motivation led Petreius to publish the Liber quindecim
missarum, this book and his other musical publications put him in line with a greater movement
happening in Nuremberg and German lands. There was a sense that the music of these
composers deserved to be preserved because of their artistic merit and part of the role of a
publisher was to make it available to a wide audience of people.
In addition to older repertory, Petreius included music by four composers who were alive
at the time of the publication of the Liber quindecim missarum in 1539: Wilhelm Breitengraser
(c. 1495-1542), Francesco Layolle (1492-c. 1540), Pierre Moulu (1484-c. 1550), and potentially
Lupi. Breitengraser seemed to move in the same circles as Petreius and other prominent
humanists of Nuremberg. One citizen of this city associated with Breitengraser was Sebald
Heyden,46 whose De arte canendi (and earlier versions; see Chapter 1), a treatise that praised the
44
Schlagel, “Fortune’s Fate,” 198.
Ibid., 192.
46
Rudolf Wagner, “Wilhelm Breitengraser und die Nürnburger Kirchen- und Schulmusik seiner Zeit,” Die
Musikforschung 2 (1949): 144.
45
39
polyphony of the Josquin generation, was published by Petreius. Each version of Heyden’s
treatise is full of examples of the best music by composers like Brumel, Josquin, Isaac,
Ockeghem, and la Rue. The composer also corresponded with Veit Dietrich, a prominent
religious leader of Nuremberg.47 What these two people—Heyden and Dietrich—also have in
common is their admiration for polyphonic music like that found in the Liber. Dietrich worked
with Hermann Baumann of the Nuremberg Council to reinstate polyphonic music in the city
citing its use in Wittenberg. Breitengraser was well positioned with the educated members of
Nuremberg to justify his place in Petreius’s Liber. In the transcription of his Missa Dominicale
(see Appendix), one can see that he has studied the rules of composition as they existed at that
time, but his music lacks the constructivist devices of the great composers like Josquin or Isaac
that make their compositions particularly admirable. At some points in the Missa Dominicale, his
music seems to lack direction; however other parts of the mass show a careful adherence to the
text. The other Nuremberg printer Hans Ott published sixteen of Breitengraser’s Lieder in Der
erste Teil hundert und ainundzweintzig newe Lieder (1534).
Petreius likely had a professional connection to Francesco de Layolle through the latter’s
work as an editor at Moderne’s printing house in Lyon. Layolle’s early music training, acquired
in Florence, would have made him an ideal candidate to edit music for Moderne’s first book of
music. Layolle had to leave Florence because of his anti-Medici sentiments during a time when
the republic was highly unstable.48 Layolle received his musical education and employment in
Florence. He and other refugees from Florence set up their own academic circle in Lyon
positioning this composer among the educated members of the city’s society. But primarily,
Layolle’s work as Jacques Moderne’s editor and proof-reader meant that he was invaluable as
47
Wagner, 147.
David Sutherland, Francesco de Layolle (1492-1540): Life and Secular Works (PhD diss., University of
Michigan, 1968), iii.
48
40
Moderne ventured into music publishing for the first time, and it gave Layolle a means to publish
his own music. The appearance of his music in so many of Moderne’s publications also gave it
wide distribution and high accessibility to publishers in other regions.
Layolle was probably a professional colleague of Petreius, but his musical style also leads
one to classify his compositions as imitating Josquin’s. In Layolle’s Missa Adieu mes amours
(first published in Moderne’s 1532 Liber decem missarum), one can easily see his indebtedness
to Josquin. The five-note ostinato in the tenor part provides the structure for the entire mass and
is thus similar to the structure of Josquin’s Missa La sol fa re mi.49 In the final Agnus Dei
Layolle includes other melodic material in the tenor voice and the texture is expanded to five
voices from four through a canon in the alto voice.50 These characteristics of better-known
composers demonstrate that Layolle had a solid education in the compositional technique of his
predecessors, and for a printer like Petreius looking to preserve the style of the old masters
Layolle would be an ideal contemporary imitator.
Another contemporary of Petreius, Pierre Moulu, helped keep alive the musical tradition
of the legacy generation. Chapman states that Moulu and Richafort were responsible for
continuing the Netherlandish style into the sixteenth century.51 Moulu’s music even had the
honor of appearing in the Medici Codex.52 Other composers who appeared in this important
manuscript include Adrian Willaert, Josquin, Brumel, Jean Mouton and Andreas de Silva;
Josquin and Brumel’s music also appear in the Liber quindecim missarum. For Moulu’s music to
be preserved with such company speaks to the high esteem with which it was held. Although
49
Sutherland, 285.
Frank A. D’Accone, “Layolle, Francesco de,” Oxford Music Online accessed April 15, 2013
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/16159?q=francesco+de+
layolle&search=quick&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit
51
Chapman, 6.
52
Ibid., 5.
50
41
Moulu was born a generation after Josquin and Brumel, he represented the best of the inheritors
of that style, and he is sometimes called a “disciple of Josquin.”53
Petreius gathered music together for his Liber quindecim missarum from a number of
places and for multiple reasons. He recognized the importance of not only the “legacy
generation,” but also that this style continued into his own time and went back beyond Josquin.
Certain masses also show a higher level of creative thought than others in using such devices as
mensural, modal, motivic, and cantus firmus manipulations. But sometimes Petreius simply
grabbed what was available: Breitengraser’s mass seemed an obvious choice for inclusion
considering his standing in Nuremberg and his proximity, and Layolle was both a colleague and
composer who had the perfect route for the proliferation of his own music. With the wide
distribution of much of Petreius’s selections in publications by Moderne, Petrucci, and others,
the next step is to determine whether or not he may have used the earlier prints as his source.
53
Ibid., 6.
42
Chapter 3: The Roads That Led to the Liber of 1539
Johannes Petreius had a number of ways of accessing music for his Liber quindecim
missarum including acquiring masses from local composers, purchasing earlier music
publications, and using his professional connections in the printing business. It has not yet been
determined exactly what sources Petreius might have used, but the majority of masses were
printed before Petreius’ Liber and many of these publications were by Petrucci, whose prints had
spread far and wide even forty years after he produced the Odhecaton. Other publishers like
Nuremberg’s own Hans Ott, the French printer Jacques Moderne situated in Lyon, and the
Italians Giunta and Antico also figure in as possible sources from which Petreius could draw.
This chapter will show the significant role that Petrucci’s prints played in the creation of the
Liber and also, despite the geographical proximity between Petreius and Ott, the different
sources that each printer turned to. In the case of masses surviving only in manuscripts this
question will remain unanswered here because of scope of this examination.
Asserting the existence of a relationship between Petrucci’s and Petreius’s prints can be
furthered by stemmatic filiation. Researchers commonly apply this technique because it
establishes a hierarchy of differences between sources and can help methodically lead to an
original source preferably created under the supervision of the composer. James Grier mentions
two kinds of errors that help determine filiation between source: conjunctive and separative.1
Conjunctive errors occur when two printers or scribes reproduce the same error from the same
source rather than both making the same mistake independently. This suggests that the two
versions came from the same source that contained the mistake; it establishes a relationship
1
James Grier, The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1996), 77-8.
between those manifestations of the music that share a particular error. Separative errors show
that a particular ancestry is impossible. Just as two sources with the same mistakes suggest a
relationship between them, the absence of the same separates a third source from the other two
and creates a different line of development that it must have followed. It is by tracing the errors
in copying rather than making assumptions from the lack thereof that one can establish
connections between sources.
Variants between sources do not carry as much analytical weight as errors when
determining their filiation, but they can still provide useful information in the absence of clear
errors,2 and as music printing surpassed the production of manuscripts, the importance of major
and minor variants increases. Since printing created the ability to produce a larger number of
copies that looked exactly the same in a relatively short amount of time, the potential for errors
decreased dramatically as compared to producing manuscripts, each as its own unique version of
the same material. More importantly, an aggregate of variants can provide clues on the filiation
of sources, especially in printed sources where errors have diminished.3 By establishing patterns
between variants, researchers can collate publications with the same variants and build
something of a family tree of the development of a particular publishing tradition. Therefore
variants such as cadential characteristics or passing tones as opposed to an interval of a third or
fifth become more significant when considered as part of a larger trend in one set of sources
compared to another.
The creation of an authoritative collection void of as many errors as possible was what
Hans Ott, Petreius’s contemporary and colleague, sought to provide when he published his
2
James Grier, “Musical Sources and Stemmatic Filiation: A Tool for Editing Music,” Journal of
Musicology 13, no. 1 (Winter 1995): 73-76.
3
Stephanie P. Schlagel, “A Credible (Mis)Attribution to Josquin in Hans Ott’s Novum et Insigne opus
musicum: Contemporary Perceptions, Modern Conceptions and the Case of Veni Sancte Spiritus,” Tijdschrift van de
Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 56 (2006): 105-6.
44
Novum et insigne opus musicum in 1537 and its second volume in 1538.4 Ott along with fellow
humanist Sebald Heyden praised the technology of their modern world as a way to preserve the
music of Josquin and his generation from obsolescence, especially in Nuremberg where certain
members of the church were campaigning to have this music removed. The printer made a
conscious effort, in the wake of so many false musical attributions to Josquin, to present in his
two large volumes only music that could strongly be associated with Josquin.5 Reformers in
Nuremberg encouraged a discontinuation of the performance of this music because of its
connection to the Catholic Church, but Ott and Petreius saw a value and potential in this music
and sought to provide accurate manifestations of the music of the masters. They enthusiastically
began publishing this music when the ban on polyphony was lifted in 1537.
Table 3 provides a list of all the masses in the Liber quindecim missarum and printed
sources in which they appeared prior to the Liber.
Table 3. List of Potential Printed Sources for the Masses of the Liber quindecim missarum
Possible Sources
Composer and Mass
Josquin
Misse Josquin (Petrucci, 1502) RISM: J666
L’homme armé super voces musicales
Liber primus missarum Josquin (Petrucci, 1516)
RISM: J668
Liber primus missarum Josquin (Giunta, 1526)
RISM: J669
Missae tredecim quatuor vocum (Graphaeus,
1539) RISM: 15392
Josquin
Misse Josquin (Petrucci, 1502) RISM: J666
Liber primus missarum Josquin (Petrucci, 1516)
La sol fa re mi
RISM: J668
Liber primus missarum Josquin (Giunta, 1526)
RISM: J669
Josquin
Misse Josquin (Petrucci, 1502) RISM: J666
Liber primus missarum Josquin (Petrucci, 1516)
Super gaudeamus
RISM: J668
4
5
Ibid., 103.
Ibid., 103.
45
Josquin
Fortuna desperata
Josquin
Missa de beata virgine
Brumel
Je nay dueul [Festivale]
Isaac
O praeclara [La mi la sol]
Lupi
Hercules dux Ferrariae
La Rue
Tous les regrets
Layolle
Adieu mes amours
Josquin
Ave maris stella
Breitengraser
Dominicale
Brumel
A l’ombre d’ung buissonet
Ockeghem
Cuiusvis toni
Moulu
Duarum facierum [Alma redemptoris
mater]
Liber primus missarum Josquin (Giunta, 1526)
RISM: J669
Misse Josquin (Petrucci, 1502) RISM: J666
Liber primus missarum Josquin (Petrucci, 1516)
RISM: J668
Liber primus missarum Josquin (Giunta, 1526)
RISM: J669
Missae tredecim quatuor vocum (Grapheus,
1539) RISM: 15392
Missarum Josquin tertius (Petrucci, 1514) RISM:
J673
Liber quindecim missarum (Antico, 1516) RISM:
15161
Missarum decem a clarissimis musicis. Liber
primus (Giunta, 1522) RISM: 1522
Missarum Josquin tertius (Giunta, 1526) RISM:
J675
Misse Brumel (Petrucci, 1503) RISM: B4643
Not printed before Petreius’ publication
Liber decem missarum (Moderne, 1532) RISM:
15328
Not printed before Petreius’ publication
Liber decem missarum (Moderne, 1532) RISM:
15328
Missarum Josquin liber secundus (Petrucci, 1505;
1515) RISM: J670; J671
Libri secundi missarum Josquin (Giunta, 1526)
RISM: J672
Not printed before Petreius’ publication
Liber quindecim missarum (Antico, 1516) RISM:
15161
Not printed before Petreius’ publication
Missarum decem a clarissimis musicis. Liber
primus (Rome: Giunta, 1522) RISM: 1522
Since the masses by Breitengraser, Ockeghem, la Rue, and Isaac were not printed prior to
Petreius’ publication of them, a discussion of the sources for these masses will not be included.
46
From looking at Table 3, one sees the potential for Petrucci’s prints to play a large role in
Petreius’s possible sources. The four Josquin masses at the beginning of the Liber were printed
in Petrucci’s 1502 publication in the same order and were reprinted in 1516. The similarities
between the Petreius 1539 print and the two versions of Petrucci’s first Josquin publication make
the appearance of minor variants all the more important since no major differences appear.
The strongest correlation between the 1539 Liber and the 1502 Petrucci appears when
looking at the Missa fortuna desperata. Hudson asserts that Petreius’s redaction comes from
Petrucci’s 1502 publication based on “the fact that, with a single exception at Sanctus 4-5 T, [the
1502 and 1539] ligatures [appear] at the same places, and only there; those which were added or
dissolved in subsequent Petrucci issues (i.e., Petrucci’s 1516 Liber primus misasrum Josquin) are
not reflected.”6 The only differences between the two versions are in the placement of one
ligature. All of the notes are the same as well as cadential patterns and rhythmic ornamentations.
Other researchers have reached the same conclusion, but to a lesser degree, about the Missa La
sol fa re mi7 and Super gaudeamus.8 While research has yet to be done regarding Petreius’s
source for Josquin’s Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales, the principle of Ockham’s
razor would suggest that Petreius copied all four masses from an interation of Petrucci 1502 that
was easily accessible to him. Schlagel states that Ott’s edition of the Missa L’homme armé is
almost identical to Petrucci’s Misse Josquin9 but stops short of claiming that Ott derived his copy
from the earlier edition.
6
Barton Hudson, ed., Masses Based on Secular Polyphonic Songs 2: Critical Commentary, vol. 8 of New
Josquin Edition (Utrecht: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1996), 70.
7
James Haar and Lewis Lockwood, ed., Masses Based on Solmization Themes: Critical Commentary, vol.
11 of New Josquin Edition (Utrecht: Koninklikje Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2003), 89.
8
Willem Elders, ed., Masses Based on Gregorian chant 2: Critical Commentary, vol. 4 of New Josquin
Edition (Utrecht: Koninklikje Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2000), 23.
9
Stephanie P. Schlagel, “Fortune’s Fate: Josquin and the Nürnberg Mass Prints of 1539,” in Josquin and
the Sublime: Proceedings of the International Josquin Symposium at Roosevelt Academy Middleburg, The
Netherlands, July 2009, ed. Eric Jas and Albert Clement (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011), 206.
47
Petreius likely used Petrucci’s 1505 publication for another Josquin mass in the Liber:
Ave maris stella. As with Petrucci’s 1502 print, his Missarum Josquin liber secundus was
published twice: once in 1505 and again 1515, making it something of a challenge to determine
which version might have been available to Petreius. Elders states that Petreius “is in close
agreement with Petrucci, 1505.”10 They share some of the same errors, but the former [Petreius]
must have had a corrected copy because he does not repeat other mistakes that appear in the
Benedictus.11 The dependence of the Liber on Petrucci’s prints is not surprising given the wide
distribution of these collections and the respect that Petrucci’s work had among his colleagues
and collectors.
This use of Petrucci’s prints likely applies to Petreius’s inclusion of Brumel’s mass Je
nay dueul, which appears in Petrucci’s 1503 publication. Only minor variants exist between the
two. Common variants include a difference in the notation of a rhythm. For example: in the
second phrase of the “Sanctus” in the tenor voice Petrucci’s version has a dotted minim followed
by a semibreve while Petreius notates two even minims. Another occurrence appears in the first
Agnus Dei of the tenor voice as well as an instance in the bassus voice in the phrase “secundum
scripturas” in the Credo. Petrucci has notated a dotted semibreve followed by a minim while
Petreius’s Liber contains a semibreve and two minims. In the Credo of the contratenor voice in
the phrase “Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum,” the Liber has a breve
followed by a semibreve while Petrucci simply notates a dotted breve. In the discantus voice in
the phrase “qui tollis peccata mundi” of the Gloria Petreius has notated two semibreves while
Petrucci indicated a breve. Another minor variant manifests itself in the phrase “Tu solus
altissimus, Jesu Christe” of the tenor voice. The Liber has a breve with a fermata over it as the
10
Willem Elders, ed., Masses Based on Gregorian chant 1: Critical Commentary, vol. 3 of New Josquin
Edition, 24.
11
Ibid., 24.
48
fifth-to-last note while Petrucci’s print has a longa instead. Given Petreius’s apparent
predilection for Petrucci publications, the existence of only minor variants between the two
versions, and the fact that this mass appears in no other printed collection, it is likely that
Petreius drew from Petrucci’s 1503 print.
Antico’s 1516 Liber quindecim missarum provided Petreius with his version of Josquin’s
Missa de Beata Virgine and Brumel’s Missa A l’ombre d’ung buissonet. The Missa de Beata
Virgine also appeared in Giunta’s Missarum decem of 1522 and this publisher also used Antico
as his source. Elders has determined that Petreius copied from Antico because he repeats all of
the latter’s mistakes as well as adding some of his own, but Petreius does not include the errors
that appear in Giunta’s publication.12 This is a perfect example of Grier’s method in practice. By
realizing that Petreius has perpetuated the mistakes of Antico’s earlier publication, but not the
errors found in and created by Giunta’s 1522 edition, we can determine that Petreius copied from
the earlier source rather than that produced closer to his own time. The assertion that Petreius
drew from Antico’s Liber quindecim missarum for the Missa de Beata Virgine further
strengthens the suggestion that Brumel’s Missa A l’ombre d’ung buissonet also came from the
1516 print, especially given Petreius’s habit of using prints as opposed to manuscripts and
Antico’s print being the only one that published this mass prior to 1539. Unfortunately, we do
not know whether Petreius chose Antico’s print because of better quality or because the Giunta
1522 collection was not available to him. Despite the concordances, there is no evidence that
Petreius used any Giunta prints when preparing his Liber.
Moderne’s Liber decem missarum of 1532 shares two masses with Petreius’ 1539 Liber:
the Missa Adieu mes amours by Francesco de Layolle and the Missa Hercules dux Ferrariae by
12
Willem Elders, ed., Masses Based on Gregorian chant 1: Critical Commentary, vol. 3 of New Josquin
Edition, 92.
49
“Lupi.” Between the Moderne and Petreius versions of Layolle’s mass almost no variants exist;
the only one is in the discantus voice in the phrase “Confiteor unum baptisma” of the Credo.
While Moderne indicates a string of five notes on B-flat, Petreius indicates the same rhythm but
has B-flat, A, 2 B-flats, and another A in the same phrase. Other than this section, both versions
are the same. The only difference between the two manifestations of Lupi’s mass is Moderne’s
use of minor color versus Petreius’s use of a dotted semiminim to indicate the same rhythmic
value.
Grier is adamant in pointing out that the absence of errors proves nothing.13 We cannot
determine a relationship between the two sources or lack thereof based on what they have in
common; rather we must look to their differences for our evidence. We also cannot draw
conclusions without analyzing both manuscript and printed sources of all fifteen masses, and that
level of analysis has not occurred in the case of Moderne’s prints or any other prints discussed
here. But other factors such as the similar professions of Petreius, Moderne, and Layolle, the fact
that the 1532 and 1539 Liber have two masses in common, and that these masses have not
survived in any sources other that these two publications make Moderne’s print a strong
contender as Petreius’ source.
Two publications, Giunta’s Missarum decem of 1522 and Ott’s Missae tredecim of 1539,
appear in Table 3 as prints concordant with the Liber. Ott’s Missae tredecim contains Josquin’s
Missa L’homme armé and Fortuna desperata, similar to Petreius. Giunta’s 1522 print shares
Missa Duarum facierum and Missa de Beata Virgine with Petreius’s Liber. While both prints are
almost certainly not sources for Petreius, an explanation is still necessary as to why this is not the
case, especially concerning Ott because of the chronological and geographic proximity to
Petreius.
13
Grier, “Musical Sources and Stemmatic Filitaion,” 89.
50
Hans Ott published a book of thirteen masses the same year that Petreius published his.
The two books have two masses in common: Josquin’s Missa fortuna desperata and L’homme
armé super voces musicales. Schlagel states that the presence of these two masses in Petreius’s
and Ott’s books attests to the popularity and respect that these compositions held at the time.14
One first notices differences in presentation between these prints. While the beginning of each
mass in Petreius’s print has decorated woodcut letters, Ott’s publication is not decorative and
rather more plain. Below are Petreius’s and Ott’s editions of the tenor voices Josquin’s Missa
L’homme armé and Missa Fortuna desperata.
Example 1: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales, Kyrie, in
Petreius, 1539, Excerpt
Example 2: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s L’homme armé svm, Kyrie, in Ott, 1539, Excerpt
14
Schlagel, “Fortune’s Fate,” 194-195.
51
Example 3: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa Fortuna desperata, Kyrie, in Petreius, 1539, Excerpt
Example 4: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa Fortuna desperata, Kyrie, in Ott, 1539, Excerpt
Since the L’homme armé mass is the first selection in Petreius’s Liber, it would have obviously
received a highly decorative setting, but the care that Petreius took in the presentation of the
music is apparent throughout the publication. In contrast, it almost looks like Ott hastily
assembled his book and presentation was not as important as availability and function. The date
of Ott’s dedication, February 1539,15 suggests that his publication came out before Petreius’s
Liber and further leads to the idea that Ott felt a need to have his print available before anyone
else, so an attention to presentation may not have been as important. The detail shown in
Petreius’s version of the Missa L’homme armé may be atypical because it is the first work in the
Liber, but the decoration found in Petreius’s version of the Missa fortuna desperata is greater
than what is found in Ott’s Missae tredecim.
When comparing both versions of the Missa Fortuna desperata there are not many
differences between the sources; these are mostly minor variations in pitches and differences in
15
Royston Gustavson, “Hans Ott, Hieronymus Formschneider and the Novum et insigne opus musicum
(Nuremberg, 1537-1538)” (PhD diss., University of Melbourne, 1998), 53.
52
divisions of certain notes. In the final Kyrie of the tenor voice, Petreius’s version has notated D,
B-flat, B-flat, while Ott has printed D, C, B-flat, filling in the third. In the bassus voice in the
opening phrase of the Gloria there is a combination of melodic and rhythmic variants. While
Petreius’s edition has D, B-flat, G notated with equal minims, Ott has the same phrase notated
with a dotted minim followed by a semiminim and a final minim, and Ott has the notes D, C, A
which is quite different than what Petreius has.
Another minor variant appears in the tenor and contratenor voices of the Missa fortuna
desperata. In Ott’s version of the Sanctus in the tenor voice, he indicates that the “Pleni sunt”
section should be “tacet,” but in Petreius, he has the tenor voice notated. Petreius further
indicates in his contratenor voice that “Pleni sunt” is “tacet,” while Ott has included music in his
contratenor “Pleni” section. When Petreius prepared his Liber for publication, he caught that
these two “Pleni” parts needed to be switched. The music that Ott includes for the “Pleni” should
appear in his tenor voice and not his contratenor voice. Hudson writes “a peculiarity of [Ott’s
potential source] is that the page positions of the contratenor and tenor throughout the Sanctus
and Agnus Dei are reversed,”16 but I did not find this to be entirely the case in my analysis of
Ott’s printing of this mass. I found that the “Sanctus” and “Osanna” were in the correct
placement, but the “Pleni,” “Benedictus,” and entire “Agnus Dei” were indeed switched. Without
comparing Ott’s print to his supposed source, I cannot say if Ott’s potential source introduced
these variants and he simply reproduced them, or if he himself created these variants. Despite the
proximity in time and geography, it is impossible that Petreius copied from Ott for the Missa
fortuna desperata, and was, in fact, working from different sources.
The Missarum decem printed by Giunta in 1522 also shares two masses with Petreius’s
Liber: Josquin’s Missa de Beata virgine and Moulu’s Missa Duarum facierum, the second of
16
Ibid., 72.
53
which had never appeared in print before 1522. It was stated previously that Petreius likely
copied from Antico and not Giunta for the Josquin mass, and it is clear that Petreius did not copy
the Moulu mass from Giunta either. In the tenor voice, there is a combination of notes missing
from passages in Giunta; this redaction also contains rhythmic variants and more decorative
cadences that do not exist in Petreius. The most definitive difference comes in the second Agnus
Dei of the tenor voice. A transcription of both versions is seen below.
Example 5: Transcription of Tenor Voice of Moulu’s Missa Duarum facierum, Sanctus, Giunta
1522, Excerpt
Example 6: Transcription of Tenor Voice of Moulu’s Missa Duarum facierum, Sanctus, Petreius
1539, Excerpt
The four measures that are bracketed in example 5 occur in Giunta’s version but do not appear in
Petreius’s Liber. The other three voices of this source do not have these four additional
measures, thus misaligning all four voices when they were sung together. In the phrases that both
versions share, one can see slight differences in rhythm such as Giunta’s seventh measure and
54
Petreius’s third. But the Liber has a rhythmic variant in the penultimate measure that does not
appear in Giunta’s Missarum decem. While the example above is the most extreme found when
comparing the two versions, variants—especially in the case of cadential decorations—appear
throughout Giunta’s version and do not appear in the Liber. The frequency of these cadences
along with the number of incorrect pitches in Giunta makes it likely that Petreius used a different
printed source that has not survived, or manuscript source that is outside the scope of this project.
After comparing the masses in Petreius’s Liber to sources that appeared before 1539, it
seems that his indebtedness to Petrucci is quite significant. Six of the fifteen masses likely came
from Petrucci prints with a seeming partiality toward the earlier versions rather than later ones.
Whether Petreius chose to use the earlier versions or whether it was all that was available to him
we will never know. But it does indicate that music printed by Petrucci and at least one other
Italian printer, Antico, had made it north of the Alps into the hands of German literati eager for
this music. However, the role that Giunta played in this tradition seems rather small given that he
issued the same repertory as Antico and Petrucci, and it appears that Petreius did not use them.
Petreuis did, however, have relatively quick access to Moderne’s music books, from which he
derived masses by lesser-known composers. This music would have caught a customer’s
attention and contributed to the overall salability of the Liber. He also seemed to have drawn on
many different sources including acquiring repertory from people he knew through personal
connections, and music that had a reputation of selling well in the past.
55
Conclusion
Petreius had a number of methods of acquiring music by both contemporary and past
composers, including getting music from local colleagues and turning to other professionals
publishing similar repertories. The indebtedness to Petrucci, however, overpowers these other
methods with six of the fifteen masses seemingly coming from this Italian’s prints. Whether
through a conscious decision or using sources that were available to him, Petreius’s Liber is
enriched because he drew from some of the finest publications of polyphonic music.
When Petreius was initially compiling the Liber, he had many composers to consider for
inclusion, but his decisions seem to have been based on three things: the popularity of the
composer, any personal connection between the composer and Petreius, and masses that had
some sort of constructivist device or puzzle. Including names like Josquin and Heinrich Isaac
would surely help sell a large number of copies, but the presence of music by local musician
Wilhelm Breitengraser would appeal to potential customers who might have also known this
composer. For those buyers who had a strong grasp on the nuances of this music, Petreius
included masses like the Cuiusvis toni of Johannes Ockeghem that had an intellectual appeal as
well as a beautiful sound. These same kinds of compositional devices appear in Josquin’s Missa
L’homme armé super voces musicales and La sol fa re mi and have made these masses
continuously popular since their creation.
To fill out his Liber Petreius drew from sources other than Petrucci’s earliest
publications. He also took masses from Jacques Moderne’s Liber decem missarum and Andrea
Antico’s Liber quindecim missarum, although Giunta’s publicaiton seems to be entirely nonrepresented. Despite using music by local composers like Nuremberg resident Wilhelm
Breitengraser, Petreius does not seem to have collaborated or borrowed from Nuremberg printer
56
Hans Ott, evidenced by the differences in appearance and accuracy of Josquin’s Missa fortuna
desperata and L’homme armé super voces musicales in the Liber quindecim missarum and the
Missae tredecim.
A strong motivator of the Liber and other collections that included Catholic music of the
legacy generation was Nuremberg’s unique situation in history and its status within the Holy
Roman Empire. Its allegiance to the Emperor but also its desire to freely practice a different
religion meant that the city’s citizens had to play a careful game of keeping up appearances. But
throughout the many changes that this city saw in such a small amount of time, polyphonic
music by the Renaissance masters always had its champions, allowing the music to survive.
57
Bibliography
Scores
Brumel, Antoine. Missa A l’ombre d’ung buissonet. Edited by Barton Hudson. Vol. 5 of Corpus
Mensurabilis Musicae. S.l.: American Institute of Musicology, 1970.
———. Missa Je nay dueul. Edited by Armen Carapetyan. Vol. 5 of Corpus Mensurabilis
Musicae. S.l.: American Institute of Musicology, 1956.
Isaac, Heinrich. Missa “La mi la sol/O Praeclara.” Edited by Martin Staehlin. Vol. 2 of Messen.
Mainz: B. Schott’s Söhne, 1969Des Prez, Josquin. Missa Ave Maris Stella; Missa De Beata Virgine. Edited by Willem Elders.
Vol. 3 of The New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koningklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse
Muziekgeschiedenis, 2003.
———. Missa Fortuna Desperata. Edited by Barton Hudson. Vol. 8 of The New Josquin
Edition. Utrecht: Koningklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1995.
———. Missa Gaudeamus. Edited by Willem Elders. Vol. 4 of The New Josquin Edition.
Utrecht: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2000.
———. Missa La sol fa re mi. Edited by James Haar and Lewis Lockwood. Vol. 11 of The New
Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koningklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse
Muziekgeschiedenis, 2002.
———. Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales. Edited by A. Smijers. Vol. 1 of Werken.
Amsterdam: G. Alsbach, 1926.
La Rue, Pierre. Missa Tous les Regrets. Edited by Nigel St. John Davison, J. Evan Kreider, and
T. Herman Keahey. Vol. 6 of Opera Omnia. S.l.: American Institute of Musicology,
1989-1992.
Layolle, Francesco de. Music of the Florentine Renaissance, Vol. 6 of Layolle, Francesco de:
Masses and Penitential Psalms. Edited by Frank D’Accone. S.l.: American Institute of
Musicology, 1969.
Ockeghem, Johannes. Missa Cuiusvis Toni. Edited by Jaap van Benthem. Vol. 3 of Masses and
Mass Sections. Utrecht: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis,
1994-
58
Primary Sources
Johann Petreius
Heyden, Sebald. De arte canendi. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1540.
———. De arte canendi. Translated and transcribed by Clement Miller. American Instiutute of
Musicology, 1972.
———. Musicae. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1537.
———. Musicae stoicheiosis. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1532.
Liber quindecim missarum. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1539.
Tomus primus psalmorum selectorum a praestantissimis musicis. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1538.
Tomus secundus psalmorum selectorum quatuor et quinque vocum. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1539.
Tomus tertius psalmorum selectorum. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1542.
Hieronymus Formschneider/Grapheus
Der erst Teil: hundert und ainundzweintig newe Lieder. Nuremberg: Formschneider, 1534.
Missae tredecim quatuor vocum a praestantissimis artificibus compositae. Nuremberg:
Grapheus, 1539.
Novum et insigne opus musicum, sex, quinque, et quatuor vocum. Nuremberg: Formschneider,
1537.
Secundus tomus novi operis musici, sex, quinque et quatuor vocum. Nuremberg: Grapheus, 1538.
Ottaviano Petrucci
Liber primus missarum Josquin. Fossombrone: Petrucci, 1516.
Missarum Josquin liber secundus. Fossombrone, Petrucci, 1505, 1515.
Missarum Josquin liber tertius. Fossombrone: Petrucci, 1514.
Misse Brumel. Venice: Petrucci, 1503.
Misse Josquin. Venice: Petrucci, 1502.
59
Giunta
Liber primus missarum Josquin. Rome: Giunta, 1526.
Libri secundi missarum Josquin. Rome: Giunta, 1526.
Missarum decem. Rome: Giunta, 1522.
Missarum Josquin liber tertius. Rome: Giunta, 1526.
Andrea Antico
Liber quindecim missarum. Rome: Antico, 1516.
Jacques Moderne
Liber decem missarum. Lyon: Moderne, 1532.
Secondary Sources
Barge, Hermann. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. Nieuwkoop, Holland: de Graaf, 1968.
Bernstein, Jane A. “Buyers and Collectors of Music Publications: Two Sixteenth-Century Music
Libraries Recovered.” In Music Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of
Lewis Lockwood, edited by Anthony Cummings, 21-33. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park,
1997.
Bernstein, Lawrence. “‘Singende Seele’ or ‘unsingbar’? Forkel, Ambros and the Forces Behind
the Ockeghem Reception During the Late 18th and 19th Centuries.” Journal of Musicology
47 (Winter, 2006): 3-61.
Biggle, Lloyd. “The Masses of Antoine Brumel.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1953.
Blackburn, Bonnie. “The Lupus Problem: Stylistic Analysis of the Works of Lupus, Johannes
Lupi, and Lupus Hellinctus.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1970.
———. “Masses Based on Popular Songs and Solmization Syllables.” In The Josquin
Companion, edited by Richard Sherr, 51-88. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Bloxam, Jennifer M. “Masses Based on Polyphonic Songs and Canonic Masses.” In The Josquin
Companion, edited by Richard Sherr, 151-209. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Brockmann, Stephen. Nuremberg: The Imaginary Capital. Rochester, NY: Camden House,
2006.
60
Brown, Howard Mayer. “Hans Ott, Heinrich Finck and Stoltzer: Early Sixteenth-Century
German Motets in Formschneider's Anthologies of 1537 and 1538.” In Von Isaac bis
Bach—Studien zur Älteren Deutschen Musikgeschichte: Festschrift Martin Just zum 60.
Geburtstag, edited by Wolfgang Osthoff, 73-84. Kassel: Bärenreiter 1991.
———. Introduction to Trium vocum cantiones centum, a praetantissimis diversarum nationum
ac linguarum musicis compositae (Nuremburg: Johannes Petreius, 1541). London:
Garland, 1986.
Buszin, Walter. Luther on Music. Saint Paul, MN: North Central Publishing, 1958.
Butler, Bartlett Russell. “Liturgical Music in Sixteenth-Century Nürnberg: A Socio-Musical
Study.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1970.
Chapman, James. “The Works of Pierre Moulu: A Stylistic Analysis.” PhD diss., New York
University, 1964.
Crawford, David. “Reflections on Some Masses Published by Moderne.” The Musical Quarterly
58 (1972): 82-91.
Cuyler, Louise. The Emperor Maximilian I and Music. London: Oxford University Press, 1973.
Dobbins, Frank. Music in Renaissance Lyons. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.
Duffy, Kathryn Ann Pohlmann. “The Jena Choirbooks: Music and Liturgy at the Castle Church
in Wittenberg under Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony.” PhD diss., University of
Chicago, 1995.
Elders, Willem, ed. Masses Based on Gregorian Chant 1: Critical Commentary, vol. 3 of New
Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koninklikje Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis,
2003.
———, ed. Masses Based on Gregorian Chant 2: Critical Commentary, vol. 4 of New Josquin
Edition. Utrecht: Koninklikje Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2003.
———. “Symbolism in the Sacred Music of Josquin.” In The Josquin Companion, edited by
Richard Sherr, 531-568. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
———. “Zur Frage der Vorlage von Isaacs ‘Messe La mi la sol’ oder ‘O Praeclara.’” In Von
Isaac bis Bach-Studien zur Älteren Deutschen Musikgeschichte: Festschrift Martin Just
zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Wolfgang Osthoff, 9-13. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1991.
Fenlon, Iain. Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992.
61
Fitch, Fabrice. Johannes Ockeghem, Masses and Models. Paris: H. Champion, 1997.
Gattuso, Susan. “Sixteenth-Century Nuremberg.” In The Renaissance: From 1470 to the End of
the 16th Century, edited by Iain Fenlon, 286-303. London: MacMillan, 1989.
Gould, Ronald. “The Latin Lutheran Mass at Wittenberg, 1523-1545: A Survey of the Early
Reformation Mass and the Lutheran Theology of Music, as Evidenced in the Liturgical
Writings of Martin Luther, the Relevant Kirchenordnung, and the Georg Rhau
Musikdrucke for the Hauptgottesdienst.” Doctor of Sacred Music diss., Union
Theological Seminary, 1970.
Grafton, Anthony. Johannes Petreius (c. 1497-1550): A Study of the History of Learned
Publishing. Oberlin, OH: Oberlin College, 1998.
Grier, James. The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
———. “Musical Sources and Stemmatic Filiation: A Tool for Editing Music.” Journal of
Musicology 13, no. 1 (Winter 1995) 73-102.
Gustavson, Royston. “Hans Ott, Hieronymus Formschneider, and the Novum et insigne opus
musicum (Nuremberg, 1537-1538).” PhD diss., University of Melbourne, 1998.
Haar, James. “Josquin as Interpreted by a Mid-Sixteenth-Century German Musician.” In
Festschrift für Horst Leuchtmann zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Stefan Hörner, 179-205.
Tutzing: H. Schneider, 1993.
———. “Some Remarks on the ‘Missa La sol fa re mi.’” In Josquin des Prez: Proceedings of
the International Josquin Festival-Conference held at The Julliard School at Lincoln
Center in New York City, 21-25 July 1971, edited by Edward Lowinsky, 564-588.
London: Oxford University Press, 1976.
——— and Lewis Lockwood, ed. Masses Based on Solmization Themes: Critical Commentary,
vol. 11 of New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koninklikje Vereniging voor Nederlandse
Muziekgeschiedenis, 2003.
Herl, Joseph Herl. Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism: Choir Congregation, and Three
Centuries of Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Hudson, Barton, ed. Masses Based on Secular Polyphonic Songs 2: Critical Commentary, vol. 8
of New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse
Muziekgeschiedenis, 1996.
Jas, Eric and Herbert Kellman. “Notes on the Catalogue and Sigla.” In The Treasury of Petrus
Alamire: Music and Art in Flemish Court Manuscripts, 1500-1535, 64-168. Ghent,
Belgium: Ludion, 1999.
62
Judd, Cristle Collins. “Music Anthologies, Theory Treatises, and the Reformation: Nuremberg in
the 1530s and 1540s.” In Reading Renaissance Music Theory: Hearing with the Eyes, 82114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Just, Martin. “Lateinische Sentenzen und Deutsche Lieder: Wilhelm Breitengrasers
Fünfstimmige Werke in Otts Sammlung von 1534.” In Musikalische Quellen: Quellen
zur Musikgeschichte-Festschrift für Martin Staehlin zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Ulrich
Konrad, 65-80. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002.
Krautwurst, Franz. “Musik des 15. und der 1. Halfte des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In Nürnberg:
Geschichte einer Europäischen Stadt, edited by Gerhard Pfeiffer, 211-218. Munich,
Germany: C.H. Beck, 1971.
Leaver, Robin. Luther’s Liturgical Music: Principles and Implications. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans, 2007.
Lehman, Helmut, ed., Concerning the Sacrament. Vol. 38 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO:
Concordia, 1955-1976.
———. The German Mass and Order of Service. Vol. 53 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO:
Concordia: 1955-1986.
———. An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg. Vol. 53 of Luther’s
Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976.
———. Receiving Both Kinds of the Sacrament. Vol. 36 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO:
Concordia, 1955-1976.
———. Preface to the Wittenberg Hymnal. Vol. 53 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO:
Concordia: 1955-1986.
———. Treatise on Good Works. Vol. 44 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 19551976.
Leupold, Ulrich. Introduction to Vol. 53 of Luther’s Works. St Louis, MO: Concordia, 19551976.
Lowinsky, Edward. Historical Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1 of The Medici Codex of
1518; a Choirbook of Motets Dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, Duke of Urbino. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Meconi, Honey. “Josquin and Musical Reputation.” In Essays on Music and Culture in Honor of
Herbert Kellman, edited by Barbara Haggh, 280-297. Paris: Minerve, 2001.
63
———. Pierre de la Rue and Musical Life at the Habsburg-Burgundian Court. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003.
Nowacki, Edward. “The Latin Psalm Motet, 1500-1535.” In Renaissance Studien. Helmuth
Osthoff zum 80. Geburtstag, edited by Ludwig Finscher, 159-184. Tutzing: Hans
Schneider, 1979.
Owens, Jessie Ann. “How Josquin Became Josquin: Reflections on Historiography and
Reception.” In Music in Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis
Lockwood, edited by Anthony Cummings, 271-280. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park, 1997.
Planchart, Alejandro Enrique. “Masses on Plainsong Cantus Firmi.” In The Josquin Companion,
edited by Richard Sherr, 89-150. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Pogue, Samuel. Jacques Moderne: Lyons Music Printer of the Sixteenth Century. Geneva:
Librairie Droz, 1969.
Rodin, Jesse. “Finishing Josquin’s ‘Unfinished’ Mass: A Case of Stylistic Imitation in the
Cappella Sistina.” Journal of Musicology 22 (2005): 412-453.
———. “Josquin and the Polyphonic Mass in the Sistine Chapel.” PhD diss., Harvard
University, 2007.
———. “A ‘Most Laudable Competition’? Hearing and Composing the Beata Virgine Masses of
Josquin and Brumel.” Tjidschrift van de Koninklijke Vereinging voor Nederlandse
Muziekgeschiedenis 59 (2009): 3-24.
Roelvink, Veronique. “Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel: A Motet by Johannes Lupi and a Mass
by Gheerkin de Hondt.” In Uno Gentile et Subtile Ingenio: Studies in Renaissance Music
in Honour of Bonnie J. Blackburn, edited by Jennifer Bloxam, 23-57. Turnhout, Belgium:
Brepols, 2009.
Schlagel, Stephanie P. “Ab Interitu Vindicarem: Isaac and the Music Books of Ott and Petreius.”
Paper presented at “Heinrich Isaac and His World,” Bloomington, IN, May 21-23, 2010.
———. “A Credible (Mis)Attribution to Josquin in Hans Ott’s Novum et insigne opus musicum:
Contemporary Perceptions, Modern Conceptions, and the Case of Veni Sancte Spiritus.”
Tjidschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 56
(2006): 97-126.
———. “Fortune’s Fate: Josquin and the Nürnberg Mass Prints of 1539.” In Proceedings of the
International Symposium “Josquin and the Sublime,” Roosevelt Academy, Middleburg,
The Netherlands, July 2009, edited by Eric Jas and Albert Clement, 79-189. Turnhout,
Belgium: Brepols, 2011.
64
———. “Josquin des Prez and His Motets: A Case Study in Sixteenth-Century Reception
History.” PhD diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1996.
———. “The Liber Selectarum Cantionum and the ‘German Josquin Renaissance.’” Journal of
Musicology 19 (2002): 564-615.
Staehelin, Martin. “Luther über Josquin.” In Festschrift Martin Ruhnke zum 65. Geburtstag, 326338. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler Verlag, 1986.
———. Die Messen Heinrich Isaacs. Bern: P. Haupt, 1978.
———. “Eine Wenig Beachtete Gruppe von Chorbüchern aus der Ersten Hälfte des 16.
Jahrhunderts.” IMS Report 1972, edited by Henrik Glahn, 664-668. Copenhagen: Edition
Wilhelm-Hansen, 1972.
Sutherland, David Agnus. “Francesco de Layolle (1492-1540): Life and Secular Works.” PhD
diss., University of Michigan, 1968.
Sutton, Owain. The Mass Music of Antoine Brumel. Manchester: University of Manchester,
2002.
Teramoto, Mariko. Katalog der Musikdruke des Johannes Petreius in Nürnberg. Kassel:
Bärenreiter, 1993.
———. Die Psalmendrucke des Johannes Petrejus in Nürnberg (Gedruckt 1538-1542). Tutzing,
Germany: Hans Schneider, 1983.
———. “Die Psalmmotetten von Heinrich Isaac.” In Heinrich Isaac und Paul Hofhaimer im
Umfeld von Kaiser Maximilian I: Bericht über die vom 1. bis 5. Juli 1992 in Innsbruck
abgehaltene Fachtung, edited by Walter Salmen, 179-187. Innsbruck: Helbling, 1997.
———. “Die Rezeption der Franko-Flämischen Musik in der deutschen Musiktheorie in der
Ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In Musikkonzepte-Konzepte der Musikwissenschaft,
edited by Kathrin Eberl, 155-171. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2000.
Thompson, Bard. “Martin Luther, Formula missae and Deutsche Messe.” In Liturgies of the
Western Church. New York: World Publishing Company, 1965.
Wagner, Rudolf. “Wilhelm Breitengraser und die Nürnburger Kirchen- und Schulmusik seiner
Zeit,” Die Musikforschung 2 (1949): 141-177.
Well, Helmut. “Johannes Ockeghem: ‘Missa Cuiusvis Toni’?” Musiktheorie 18 (2003): 223-239.
65
Editor’s Notes
Credo
Measure 46 of the contratenor voice indicates a C, but was corrected to indicate an E. This
edition has notated the E
Measure 96 of the discantus originally notated G, but it did not work with the harmonies around
it so it was changed to F
Measure 152 of the contratenor originally indicated a fusa and minim together. This version
corrects that error with two fusae
Sanctus
The “Benedictus” section of the tenor voice has two different time signatures:
and
.
The different signatures along with a fermata halfway through suggests that there might
be a way to notate this section using both. Petreius has not provided instructions as to this
section’s resolution and the editor was not able to come up with a viable option.
However, this particular section is still complete having left the puzzle unresolved.
66
Missa Dominicale: Kyrie
Wilhelm Breitengraser
& b 31 W
Discantus
Ky
V b 31 „ .
Contratenor
5
D
Tenor
V b 31 „ .
Bassus
? b 31 „ .
&b w
-
Vb W
Ky
B
e
-
W
-
-
ri
W
Ky
-
-
? b „.
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
bw
-
-
-
-
-
-
„.
-
-
˙ w
-
-
-
˙ ˙. œ œ œ w
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
w
-
-
e
ri
w
-
-
-
-
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
-
-
w
Ó
w
w
e
-
-
˙
e
W.
W
-
68
-
-
˙ w
-
„.
˙ w
-
˙ w
w
-
-
„.
bw
-
-
„.
W
Ky
ri
-
-
„.
-
ri
-
W
-
W
-
-
„.
-
-
˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙. œ œ ˙
w
-
. œ œ œ ˙. œ w
V b ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
T
-
Ó ˙ ˙. œ w.
e
Ct
w
w
e
-
˙ œœ
e
-
-
w
-
-
-
b
-
-
-
˙ ˙ w
e
-
9
D
&b ˙
-
le
Ct
˙.
Vb
w
-
T
-
V b W.
le
B
? w.
b
le
˙ w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chri
Ct
i
-
-
-
-
-
W
-
-
-
w
-
B
„
? C „
b
„
Ct
-
Vb ˙ ˙
-
T
-
i
w
-
-
W
-
-
˙.
-
-
i
-
-
-
C
œ W.
C
son.
son.
w
-
-
-
-
w
˙ ˙
-
-
˙.
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
˙ ˙ w
-
ste
˙ ˙.
ste
Vb W
W
? „
b
∑
[e
-
Ó
˙.
e
-
W
-
-
-
œ w.
œ œ œ œ
-
-
˙
˙
Chri
69
-
-
œ
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
le
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
œ œ œ
œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ
W
e
Ó
-
„
œ ˙
œ œ œ œ œ œ
-
œ
W
„
„
˙.
œ ˙.
-
„
„
ste
B
W.
-
œ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙
-
-
C
son.
-
-
-
W.
W.
-
i
w
Chri
&b ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙
-
W
˙ ˙ ˙.
-
son.
W
18
D
w
C
W.
W.
-
w
-
„
Vb C „
-
-
Chri
T
-
w
-
-
Vb C „
w
-
W
w
-
le
-
˙ w
-
w
-
-
-
&b C W
-
œ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙
13
D
-
W
œ ˙
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
-
-
-
-
ste
-
˙.
[e
-
-
22
D
& b w.
˙
-
[le
Ct
-
-
T
-
Vb W
-
&b ˙
-
Vb w
Ct
-
-
B
]
w
-
i
-
œ œ ˙
-
le
-
-
-
-
-
i
˙
? Ó
b
e
le
[e - le
˙
w
-
i
-
-
˙
-
-
-
-
˙
˙
˙
˙
-
-
-
-
w
-
w.
-
-
-
? 3 ˙. œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙.
b 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
W
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
son.
70
-
-
W
3
1
W
3
1
W
3
1
3
1
w.
-
-
œ
œœœœ œ
-
-
W
-
-
-
-
-
˙ w
-
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ w
˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
„.
˙. œ ˙ ˙ w
w
W
-
-
son.
W
„.
œœœw
œ
son.
-
-
˙.
-
i - son.]
W.
˙
-
-
son],
œ œ
-
-
i
-
-
W
„.
-
-
-
-
˙. œ œ œ w
Ky
-
-
le
œ
˙.
W
œ
-
3
V b 1 W.
-
-
e
-
i
Ky
-
˙
le
W
„.
3
V b 1 „.
w
-
˙.
3
& b 1 „.
-
w
W
˙
-
-
˙
-
w
-
Ó
-
le
˙
-
son
-
˙
son],
-
˙
Ó
w
-
-
˙
œ œ œ œ ˙
W
-
˙
-
i
Ky
T
˙
-
˙
-
e
˙
-
-
30
D
son,
œ œ œœ ˙
Vb œ œ œ œ œ
-
B
-
-
˙
-
T
w
-
-
-
26
Ct
-
-
i
˙
? œ œ œ ˙
b œ
-
D
-
˙
W
-
B
-
œ œ œ œ ˙
Vb
œ ˙
˙.
-
-
-
-
-
-
ri
-
#
& b ˙ ˙. œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w
34
D
-
Ct
-
w
Vb
-
V b W.
Ky
B
?
-
ri
-
-
w
W
-
ri
-
-
-
-
Ó w
e
T
-
B
-
-
-
-
-
Vb w
W
W.
b w
e
e
Ó
w
e
-
˙
e - [le
& b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙
Ct
V b ˙.
-
T
V b W.
-
B
le
-
-
-
œw
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
lei
-
˙ w
-
-
-
-
w
w
-
-
-
˙ ˙ W
-
-
-
-
le
-
w
˙ ˙ ˙ bw
˙ ˙ w
-
-
son,
˙ w
-
-
˙ ˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ri
-
W
le
-
-
-
ri]
-
œœœœ
W
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
w
-
-
i
-
w
son,
W.
W.
W.
-
-
-
-
Ó ˙ w
e] - le
71
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙ w
-
w
-
˙
-
W.
˙
œ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
-
W.
-
e
-
Ó ˙. œ ˙ ˙
˙
w
-
Ó ˙ w.
˙. œ w
son.
-
W
-
W.
w
-
˙ w
-
-
-
-
-
? ˙ ˙ ˙
b
˙ w
W.
-
e
Ó ˙.
-
W.
w.
˙ ˙ b˙ ˙
-
w
-
˙
-
-
b
˙ w w.
-
-
#
˙ ˙ ˙ œœœœw
-
-
w œœ
-
-
-
w.
43
-
-
-
w.
-
-
˙. œ œ œ ˙ w
˙ ˙
-
D
-
˙. œ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
-
Vb w
?
-
W
-
& b ˙. œ ˙. œ w
-
-
w
w
e
W
-
˙ w
[Ky
-
Ct
e
W.
-
39
D
-
W.
w
b
-
W
-
T
-
∑
W.
-
-
-
i - son.
i - son.
˙ w
-
-
i
-
W.
son.
-
-
Ó ˙
e -
Missa Dominicale: Gloria
Wilhelm Breitengraser
in ter - ra
Et
V b 31 „ .
Contratenor
Tenor
V b 31 „ .
Bassus
? b 31 „ .
5
D
.
&b œœ˙
-
Ct
w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
& b 31 w ˙ w ˙
Discantus
Ó ˙
ho - mi - ni - bus
bo
-
w
Ó w
˙
pax
ho - mi - ni - bus
bo
„.
„.
„.
„.
„.
„.
˙
w ˙ w
Et
in ter
-
-
-
œw
Vb ˙ œ œœœœ
-
-
-
-
-
˙ w
-
-
-
-
ra
tis.
˙ w
-
ta
w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
˙
-
Lau - da
-
˙. œ œ œ ˙
˙
-
V b „.
„.
„.
B
? b „.
„.
W
Lau
-
-
nae
w w
-
mus
Ó ˙ bw w
Lau - da
tis.
T
72
Ó ˙ ˙. œ w
w
˙
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œœœœ
nae vo - lun - ta
pax
œ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙. œ w
-
vo - lun
W
-
„.
w
-
-
da
w
-
-
w w
-
mus
9
D
&b w
te,
Ct
-
Lau
da
V b ˙ ˙. œ œ œ b˙ ˙
B
w
-
mus
te,
te,
V b „.
Lau - da
Be - ne - di
Lau
w
mus
-
W
w
?b W
Ó ˙ ˙. œ ˙. œ œ ˙ ˙. œ
˙
W
da
-
w
-
-
-
Ó
W
te,
-
&b œœœœ˙ ˙ w
-
Ct
-
-
B
mus
Vb w
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
w
Vb w
∑
w
w
ne
-
w
Be
?b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w
A - do - ra
&b w
17
D
ra
Ct
Vb w
ra
T
B
˙ w
-
mus
di -
˙
w
∑
te,
w
mus,
∑
-
-
do - ra
-
w
Ó w
-
w
w
A
-
do
-
ra
˙ w
Glo - ri - fi
73
-
-
w
do
-
-
˙ W
∑
W
∑
˙
a
mus
w
-
ri
˙. œ
w
-
fi
-
ca
te, Glo - ri - fi - ca -
∑
∑
mus
te,
˙ ˙ w
w
∑
∑
mus
-
˙
˙ ˙ ˙
˙ ˙
mus,
-
do -
te,
˙ ˙. œ œ œ w
ca
-
te,
w
∑
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
w.
a
A - do - ra - mus
-
-
te,
mus
Glo
W
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
-
te,
Ó w
˙ ˙ ˙
œ œ ˙. ˙ w
œ
-
∑
-
w
mus
-
A
- ci
-
w
W
∑
˙. œ œ œ ˙. œ w
-
ci
-
˙ ˙. œ w
˙ ˙
-
w
te,
˙ ˙
W
-
˙ ˙ w
-
-
-
V b „.
?b ∑
w
te,
di
∑
w
œœ˙ ˙
be - ne - di - ci - mus
te,
T
w.
mus
-
-
w
W
˙ ˙. œ w
Be - ne
ci
-
be - ne - di - ci - mus
w
-
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
te,
13
D
-
œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙
mus
T
W
œœ w
Ó w
te.
& b œ œ ˙.
21
D
-
Ct
Vb
-
B
-
Ct
T
B
Gra
Vb w
?b w
&b
w
a
w
-
w
gi
w
w
mus
-
ti
w
-
˙ w
gi - mus
ti
-
ti
-
as
a
w
˙ w
ti
bi,
-
a
˙ w
ti
-
˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
Gra
W
-
ti
-
ti
as
-
w
-
-
w
gi - mus
-
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w
˙.
a - gi -
bi,
Ó
bi
-
w
w
-
œw
ti
-
-
a - gi
ti
mus
-
˙ ˙. œ w
˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙
bi, prop - ter mag- nam
glo
w.
-
-
-
?b w
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙
glo - ri - am
a - gi - mus ti - bi prop - ter mag - nam
glo
74
bi,
˙. œ ˙ ˙ w
glo
prop - ter mag- nam
∑
˙
˙ ˙. œ w
bi prop - ter mag- nam
Ó w ˙ ˙ ˙
a
bi,
W
˙
˙ ˙. œ ˙ w
gi - mus ti
-
gi - mus
-
˙ ˙ w
∑
bi
-
˙ w
as
˙
-
mus ti
W
-
Ó w
Vb w
∑
-
w
Ó w
˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙
-
-
˙ w
w
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙
-
-
-
„.
Gra - ti - as
˙ w
-
-
ti
bi
˙ ˙ ˙ w
b
V ˙
bi
B
w
w
-
-
gra
w
a
W
w
a - gi - mus
mus ti
T
∑
˙ w
b
Ó
V
29
Ct
te. Gra - ti - as
w
-
D
mus
? b „.
∑
a - gi
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
œœ w
„.
&b w
Gra - ti - as
te.
mus
-
Ó ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ w
˙
˙ w
V b „.
25
D
-
œœœœœœ
-
T
œ w
-
˙
-
-
-
-
˙ ˙. œ ˙ w
-
-
-
tu - am.
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
˙ w
-
˙ ˙. œ ˙ œ œ œ
œ
ri - am
w.
-
-
-
ri - am tu
˙ w
tu
-
#̇
W.
-
am.
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
-
ri - am tu
-
-
-
33
D
&b ˙ ˙ w
-
Ct
B
-
mi - ne
Vb w
T
am. Do - mi
& b w.
w
Vb
w
tis,
De
pa - ter om
˙ ˙
-
us
De
T
-
-
w
us
pa
-
-
?b
˙ ˙ w
w
ni
Rex
cae - les
cae - les -
-
˙ ˙ w
ter
-
-
˙
om - ni
w
w
us
pa
-
-
w
-
po
-
-
˙
˙ ˙ ˙ w
-
tens, om - ni - po
75
-
om
w
˙
w
-
ne
Do - mi - ne
W
w
W
tens,
ter
mi
∑
-
-
pa -
w
˙
-
ni
om - ni
-
De - us om
w
Fi
˙
po -
-
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
Fi
-
-
-
w
W
ne
Fi
bW
w
Do
tis,
De - us
˙. œ ˙ ˙ w
˙
˙ ˙ ˙
˙
-
˙. œ w
tens.
-
w
˙. œ ˙ w
tens, Do - mi - ne
˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ ˙ w.
Do
-
˙
Do - mi
tens.
„.
∑
-
w
Ó w
-
-
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
∑
pa - ter
po
˙ ˙ w
˙ w
˙ œœœœ
Rex
De - us
w
-
Rex cae - les -
ni - po - tens,
w
tens.
B
us
-
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w
∑
po - tens. om - ni - po
∑
-
om - ni - po-tens,
-
˙
Vb w
w.
us,
-
Do - mi - ne De - us,
-
w
-
-
˙
-
˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ W
-
˙ ˙
Ó ˙
Ó w
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó ˙
Ó ˙
w
De -
us,
∑
De
ne
-
-
De
Ó ˙
∑
w
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
w
w
˙ ˙ ˙. œ w
˙ ˙ ˙
Vb ˙
˙ ˙ w
-
De - us,
-
De - us,
ne
De
&b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
-
w
-
W
ter om - ni - po
Ct
w
w
41
D
W
-
pa - ter
V b W.
? b w.
-
-
w
˙ ˙ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
œœw
Do - mi
ne
-
˙ ˙ ˙
tis,
B
∑
˙ œœœ w
œ
˙
?b
us
Ct
De
∑
37
D
-
mi
˙ ˙. œ ˙ w
Vb w
Do
T
-
am. Do
w.
w
-
-
mi
-
-
45
D
&b ˙ œœw
-
Ct
Vb w
-
T
B
-
li
li
w.
li
u
?b w
w
Ct
&b ∑
B
-
Vb ∑
?b ˙ w
-
su
w
w
w
li
u - ni - ge - ni -
w
w
Chri -
su
ste
-
-
w
-
-
ste al
D
Ct
Vb Ó
˙ w.
-
si
al - tis
˙ w.
al - tis
T
V b W.
B
?b Ó
˙ w.
al - tis
-
ste.
-
si
˙
si
-
-
si
te
-
-
-
-
su
W
Ó ˙
w
w
Chri - ste.
Je -
œ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ w
si
-
-
-
W
w
tis- si - me,
-
-
-
-
me,
˙ ˙ ˙. œ w
al - tis - si - me,
-
-
-
∑
W.
me
Ó ˙ ˙. œ w
al - tis - si - me,
W.
W.
C
me
˙ ˙ ˙
Do - mi - ne
∑
me
n
œ œ œ œ w
De
w
Do
W.
C
W.
C w
∑
Do
76
œ˙
Chri - ste,
Ó ˙
C Ó
me
ste,
Je
w
œœ˙ w
-
-
Ó ˙.
al - tis - si - me,
˙
-
-
-
-
w
Je - su
Ó ˙ ˙. œ W
w
˙
tis
W
- tis
Chri
al -
-
w
te
˙.
˙
˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙
-
-
Ó
-
-
su
-
˙ w
ni
-
-
53
&b Ó
ge
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
al -
-
Je
w
W
-
w
ni - ge - ni - te
w
Je
-
Chri
W
Fi
w
-
Je - su
˙. œ œ œ w œ œ w
˙ ˙ ˙ W
w
Vb ˙ ˙ w
Chri
T
-
ne
-
49
D
u - ni
Vb w
-
ni - ge - ni - te
œœ W
Ó ˙ ˙. œ ˙. œ œ œ
w
-
-
u
Ó ˙ w
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
w
us,
w
-
mi
-
∑
w
-
-
mi
-
w
w
ne
De
-
57
D
&b ˙
˙
De -
Ct
Vb w
˙
-
w
ne
T
B
-
De
Vb
˙
us,
Do - mi - ne
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
˙
us,
Do
&b W
-
A
T
œw
-
Vb W
B
-
-
˙
w
-
mi
&b w
li
gnus A
-
-
-
Ct
Vb
˙
˙
li - us,
T
Vb w
us
B
?b Ó
-
-
œ
˙.
Fi
-
œ
Pa
˙
us
˙
-
De -
-
-
De
˙.
-
-
-
-
-
œ
Ó ˙
Pa
-
w
tris.
Ó
tris.
˙
Qui
˙
˙
˙
Fi - li - us
Pa
-
w
tris.
77
-
œ
-
Fi -
-
w
-
w
-
-
-
i,
Qui
tol
-
lis
Ó
˙
˙
tol - lis
pec
Qui
#̇
œ#
˙ ˙.
w
˙
˙
Ó
∑
w
Ó
us,
-
Fi - li
˙
˙
-
w
˙
˙
w
us
A
W
Pa - tris.
w
i,
˙
-
∑
w
-
w
-
Fi
-
˙
-
-
-
˙
- i,
œw
œ œ ˙
-
Ó ˙
-
-
˙
w
w
˙.
˙
-
w
W
De
w
-
œ œ w
∑
Ó ˙ ˙
˙
w
gnus
li - us,
˙.
˙
-
-
De
-
w
-
w
-
-
˙ ˙
˙
˙
A - gnus
D
De
ne
-
?b Ó
˙ ˙. œ W
66
-
w
w
˙ ˙. œ ˙
-
-
-
-
A - gnus De - i,
w
-
˙
-
˙
∑
W
V b ˙.
-
∑
us
Ct
œ œ œ œ
œ œ ˙
Ó
61
D
-
De
w
∑
?b w
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
Qui
-
tol
-
˙
lis
-
w
tol - lis
w
-
˙
w
pec - ca
w
-
w
˙
-
˙
ca
-
w
pec - ca
-
70
D
&b ˙
ta
Ct
˙
-
Vb w
-
w
Vb w
-
B
-
mun
pec
T
œ œ ˙
-
-
ca
-
w
W
ta
mun
w
?b w
ta
mun
&b w
Ct
-
Vb w
se
B
Ct
B
-
-
-
-
-
-
mi
mun
W
?b
-
-
-
-
re
-
Qui
-
˙
˙
re
-
˙ ˙
tol - lis
œ ˙ ˙
-
re
w
œ ˙.
-
-
-
- se
-
˙ ˙
.
re
no
˙ ˙ ˙
tol - lis
Vb ∑
Ó ˙
˙ ˙ w
?b w
Ó ˙
˙ ˙ ˙.
bis.
Qui
-
re
˙
˙ w
re
no
∑
Ó
-
˙
pec
-
-
-
-
˙ w
-
-
-
˙ w
tol - lis
pec - ca
pec - ca - ta
78
œ
-
-
mun
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
bis.
-
-
-
w
˙ ˙.
œœ˙
-
-
-
∑
bis.
-
˙ ˙ bw
re - re
-
W
œ
mun
-
no
-
-
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙
ca
-
ta
mun
˙
w
w
ta
mun
œ ˙ ˙ w
tol - lis
œ ˙.
w
-
˙ w
re
-
no
- ta
-
re
w
œ w
mi - se
pec - ca -
-
-
W
˙
˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙.
Qui
Qui
re
w
-
mi
bis.
-
no
&b Ó ˙
mi - se -
-
re
di,
-
mi -
di
œ ˙ ˙
∑
w.
w
w
w
.
Vb ˙
-
˙.
-
se
˙.
˙
ta
-
-
mi - se -
bis,
bis.
T
di,
œ œ œ œ œ ˙
Ó ˙ ˙
w
78
D
-
˙
Vb œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ Ó ˙
-
T
-
di,
-
w
-
no
-
w
˙
W
74
D
-
˙.
-
-
W
W
-
di,
-
di,
-
31
31
31
31
á k»á
& b 31 w
82
D
di
Ct
-
su
V b 31 w
∑
V b 31 W
? b 31 w
su
w
-
sci
86
D
&b W
Ct
-
-
?b w
no
Ct
&b ∑
Vb w
Vb „
B
?b w
se
w
w
-
-
pe
de -
w
-
w
ad
dex
˙
-
-
-
ter
˙
-
˙
˙
-
-
-
des
ad
˙
-
-
dex - ter
-
-
ca
-
ti - o
˙
am
Pat
˙
˙
-
79
am
w
-
ca
-
ti
-
w
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
w
-
nem
W
-
-
-
des
˙
-
se
˙. œ ˙
des], Qui
„
w
∑
Qui
stram.
w
˙
-
stram.
Pa
-
-
ca
C W
˙
˙
-
-
˙
-
˙
-
#̇
œ œ w
-
˙
-
-
-
˙
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
„
„
˙
pre
C W
dex - te - ram
w
pre
se
-
w
œ œ ˙
ad
-
-
W
w
w
-
w
pre
[Qui
W
-
C W
W
-
-
w
C ˙ ˙ w
œ œ w
W
á k» á
w
-
w
-
w
(C)
-
w
-
w
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
w
no - stram.
-
no
w
de
de
w.
nem
W
„
-
-
w
pe
∑
w
w
des
w
Qui
-
˙
se
T
no
w
-
sci
„
˙ ˙
nem
-
90
D
-
nem
w
Vb w
o
B
-
o
-
o
pe
w
w
Vb w
ti
T
-
∑
stram.
-
W
sci
w
-
su
w
-
w
W
∑
-
de - pre - ca - ti
pe
w
su
B
-
sci
di,
T
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
w
w
˙
˙
Pat
-
˙
-
w
-
˙
˙
-
-
-
-
&b w
94
D
w
Ó
∑
ris,
Ct
w
tris
mi
T
B
-
-
?b w
Ó
&b W
Vb w
w
re
no
Vb W
-
? b w.
-
Ct
Vb ˙
-
T
-
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
re
˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
?b
w
-
˙
œ œ w
-
-
Ó
˙
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
-
-
Ó
no
80
w
˙
w
-
-
˙
˙
bis.
˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
w
-
-
˙
w
-
-
re
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
-
W
-
-
˙
-
W
w
˙
-
˙
-
-
-
-
-
no
œ ˙
-
-
-
-
w
-
re
˙.
œ
-
˙
-
˙
se
w
-
-
-
Ó
w
-
-
œ œ ˙
-
-
˙.
-
no
w
no
-
-
-
bW
˙
W
w
-
re
-
bis,
-
no
-
œ œ ˙
se
˙
-
W
˙
w
-
-
W
re
-
-
no
˙
re
-
W
œ
re
-
œ œ w
-
w
˙
w
-
-
w.
-
Vb w
w
˙
- se
mi
-
re
B
-
-
w
˙
˙
102
&b ˙
-
w
-
W
-
D
-
-
mi -
-
B
-
w.
∑
bis,
T
se
re
œ œ ˙.
W
mi
98
Ct
-
se
w
-
˙
W
Vb „
ris,
D
-
mi
Vb œ œ œ œ w
-
˙
-
˙
˙
-
bis.
-
˙
-
w
˙
-
-
W
-
-
bis.
w
bis.
w
no
-
&b W
106
D
Ct
Vb ˙
-
T
B
˙
œ œ ˙
-
-
bis.
Vb W
?b
-
˙
Quo
˙
-
&b œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙
˙
Vb ˙
T
B
Vb ∑
w
T
Vb W
?b W
-
w
ctus],
san
B
san
Vb ˙
-
so
-
-
w
&b w
-
-
˙
-
˙
lus
-
-
-
[san
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
œ ˙.
œ ˙
-
san
-
-
-
œ œ w
-
-
œ œ
-
-
-
-
Ó
ctus.
ctus.
˙
Tu
-
-
-
˙
˙
so - lus
-
-
-
81
-
-
-
-
-
w
lus
san
˙
˙
Tu
so
-
-
lus
w
-
-
-
˙
˙
lus
Do - mi -
œ œ œ œ w
-
w
-
w
Do
-
mi
˙
˙
-
-
-
„
ctus.
w
-
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
W
-
w
w
w
-
am
-
w
so - lus
-
w
ni
œ ˙
œ œ œ œ œ
˙
am
w
-
œ
W
w
w
-
-
-
W
œ ˙.
-
w
-
w
-
˙
-
-
-
œ ˙.
W
W
-
-
œ ˙
˙
w.
san
-
ni
-
W
˙ bw
tu
W
Quo
-
so
ctus,
Ct
-
tu
114
D
-
w
?b Ó
tu
∑
˙ ˙
w
so
-
˙ œ œ ˙.
tu
Ct
am
-
-
œ ˙.
bis.
-
110
D
-
am
-
œ ˙.
W
˙
-
˙.
œ ˙.
ni
-
Quo - ni
W
˙
Quo
˙
˙
-
˙.
w
∑
ctus.
Ó
˙
˙
Tu
so
-
˙
˙
lus
Do - mi -
˙
118
D
Ó
&b w
nus,
Ct
Vb ˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
tu
so
˙
-
˙
˙
#̇
Do - mi
lus
œ œ œ œ w
˙
-
nus,
B
Vb „
?b w
Ó
˙
Tu
so
-
B
˙
˙
Vb w
-
˙
˙
lus
Do - mi
Al
-
tis - si
?b ˙
˙
˙
126
œ œ w
-
-
˙
˙
˙
-
-
-
&b w
∑
V b ˙.
œ ˙
-
-
-
œ œ ˙
-
-
-
˙
-
T
B
-
-
Vb ∑
? b ˙.
-
w
Je
-
œ ˙
-
-
-
-
˙
-
w
-
-
-
-
w
w
Tu
so
-
˙
tis
-
-
[Al
-
-
lus
w
-
lus
-
lus
˙
si
w
-
œ œ œ ˙
˙.
-
-
˙
œ œ
-
-
˙
˙
˙
˙
tis - si
-
W
˙
w
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
W
w
mus]
Je
su
W
w
W
su
Chri
w
W
W
su
Chri
-
-
W
w
-
-
82
Al
Je
˙
-
˙
˙
W
#
-
-
˙
mus,
Je
-
-
Ó
mus,
w
-
œ œ ˙
-
-
w
mus,
-
-
mus,
w
-
Ó
nus.
-
-
-
œ œ w
-
-
W
˙
„
˙
w
-
so
w
mus,
Ct
-
-
w
w
˙
œ œ w
˙
Al - tis - si
D
˙
Al - tis - si
Al - tis - si
T
˙
˙
Ó
lus
Vb ˙
so
œ œ w
Tu
˙
∑
&b w
œ ˙
so
W
„
122
Ct
w
Tu
nus.
D
tu
w
nus.
T
˙.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
&b w
130
D
w
˙. œ ˙. œ œ
su
Ct
B
Vb
-
W
-
-
-
?b W
-
-
-
&b w
Ct
-
w
-
-
-
W
-
w.
˙
-
-
-
-
-
ste.
-
W
-
ste.
-
W
cto
Spi
-
-
-
-
w
w
Cum
San
-
C „
„
˙.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
œ œ œ ˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
„
„
B
?b „
„
„
„
tu,
Ct
Vb W
Ó
˙
Cum
˙
w
San
-
œ œ w
-
-
„
-
Ó
Vb W
Cum
B
?b „
cum
w
San
-
w
-
-
„
-
w
„
83
-
cto
˙
˙
tu,
T
-
˙
-
˙
-
ri -
œ œ œ œ œ ˙ w
„
&b w
Spi - ri -
œ œ w
Vb „
D
˙ ˙
cto
„
T
140
Cum
w
C „
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙
˙.
b
œ
œ
œ
V
œ
˙ œ
œ
-
w
∑
ste
w
w
w
C
W
W
-
C „
ste.
-
W
-
W
-
-
San
W
-
-
-
136
D
-
˙. œ w
Vb w
Chri
T
-
Chri
w
w
w
˙
Spi
-
-
ri
˙
w
San - cto
Spi
w
w
cto
Spi
„
-
˙
-
˙
-
-
˙
˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
144
D
&b œ œ ˙
-
Ct
Vb w
ri
T
Vb w
ri
B
-
-
w
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
W
W
∑
tu,
Ó
w
-
tu,
-
?b „
& b w.
-
Vb W
-
œ œ
ri
-
a
De
Vb w
?b W
ri
w
w
i
Pa
-
-
-
-
-
˙.
&b W
-
Ct
.
Vb ˙
A
T
Vb w
-
B
?b W
tris.
De
-
-
-
œ w
w
W
ri
-
-
-
˙.
-
-
œ
-
-
w
A
w
w
˙
˙
i
-
Pa
-
w
-
-
-
w
-
tris.
w
∑
-
-
-
-
-
-
A
-
-
-
84
w
W
i
Pa
w
-
-
-
W
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
œ bw
œ œ œ œ œ
-
-
-
-
w
œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙
w
-
A
œ œ w
-
-
A
„
W
-
∑
-
tris.
-
-
a
w
Pa - tris.
De
Ó
∑
-
w
-
˙
i
a
-
-
-
w
men,
-
-
ri
-
bW
˙
W
-
w
œ œ œ
-
w.
152
D
glo
W
w
De
B
glo
in
glo
œ œ
a
T
in
w
w
in
glo
Ct
w
w
in
w
˙
W
148
D
∑
tu,
-
w
-
W
-
-
-
-
-
W
-
w
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
bw
-
-
-
156
D
&b W
-
Ct
Vb
W
-
T
Vb W
-
B
?b w
-
&b ˙
-
-
-
-
-
Ct
-
T
Vb w
-
B
?b w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
˙
-
w
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
w
-
-
˙.
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
-
˙.
-
w
-
-
-
w
œ w
-
-
-
œ œ
-
-
W
men.
W
-
men.
W
W
W
W
men.
-
w
-
-
-
85
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
-
˙
w
-
-
-
˙
˙
˙
A]
-
œ œ œ ˙
-
w
-
-
w
-
-
˙
Ó
W
w
-
-
-
-
-
œ
˙.
w
W
-
-
-
˙
[men,
W
-
w.
w
-
-
w
Vb ˙
-
W
-
œ œ
W
160
D
-
w.
-
men.
-
Missa Dominicale: Credo
Wilhelm Breitengraser
Discantus
& b 31 „ .
„.
Contratenor
V b 31 „ .
w
w
Pa
-
V b 31 w w w
Tenor
Pa
5
D
Ct
om
? b 31 „ .
Bassus
&b ∑
w
Pa
w
-
-
-
-
∑
V b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙.
?b w
-
-
-
om
-
-
w
trem
om
-
-
-
ni
-
ni - po
-
-
-
-
ten
„.
Ó w
w
trem
om
po
-
-
ten -
-
∑
œœ˙
-
-
∑
ni
-
-
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w
om
tem,
B
trem
∑
-
w
Pa
tem,
T
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙
Ó w
„.
w
Vb w
w
„.
Ó w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ œ œ ˙
˙ ˙. œ ˙ w
trem
-
„.
-
-
-
˙
-
-
tem,
Ó ˙ ˙ w
om
86
-
-
-
-
-
ten -
ni
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
-
-
-
po
-
ten
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
-
œ
-
om - ni
˙
-
-
w ˙
ten
po
˙
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙
po - ten
ni - po
#
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙.
-
ni
˙ ˙ ˙
-
po
-
-
ten - tem,
8
D
∑
&b W
tem,
Ct
V b ˙. œ ˙
-
T
-
tem,
tem,
B
?
˙ ˙ ˙
w
b Ó
fac
˙ ˙
fac
to -
to
-
Ct
-
Vb w
rae,
T
vi
si - bi - li -
Vb W
∑
rae,
B
?b w
Ó w
rae,
vi
14
D
&b w
∑
um
Ct
T
Vb
bw
li
Vb w
um
B
? b „.
-
∑
˙ ˙ w
-
-
w
et
-
-
-
˙
si
cae -
-
-
Ó
˙.
œ ˙
li
-
et
Ó ˙ ˙.
om - ni
w
-
˙.
vi
-
Ó ˙ w
et
87
in
-
-
˙
ni -
-
œ œœ œ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
-
-
ni -
w
-
ni
um
-
vi
-
- si
∑
-
-
-
Ó ˙
∑
um,
si
˙
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
et
œ w
-
˙.
in - vi - si - bi
om
-
œ w
n
#
˙ ˙ bw
li - um
in
˙
-
w
-
et
˙ ˙
w
-
˙
om
w
-
˙ ˙ ˙
si - bi - li - um
w
-
-
w
-
ter
-
w
-
œw
-
˙
-
-
œw
˙
˙ ˙
bi
ter
et
ter
om - ni - um
-
rae,
b˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
et
-
-
et
˙ ˙.
˙
-
li
-
˙
˙ ˙ w
in
-
œœ œœ˙ ˙
-
˙ ˙ ˙ w
-
- li
-
um
-
-
˙ ˙
w
vi
˙
rem cae
-
w
˙
um.
w
-
om
œ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
ter
et
˙ w
w
si - bi - li - um
˙.
-
- rem
-
& b ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w
vi
li
w.
11
D
œ ˙ œ œœ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
-
cae
cae
˙ ˙ ˙
-
˙.
œœ œœ ˙
˙ ˙
fac - to - rem
∑
Vb w
Ó
˙ w
-
-
-
-
bi
˙ w
li - um.
˙ ˙
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
vi - si
-
bi
-
-
-
-
17
D
& b ˙ ˙.
bi
Ct
T
B
-
˙.
Vb
in
-
œ w
-
-
œ ˙
-
-
-
&b w
Et
-
num,
-
-
˙.
Do
-
-
in
˙ ˙
num
Do - mi
De
V b ˙. œ w
-
Vb w
stum,
stum,
-
-
-
-
˙ ˙
-
w
Fi - li - um
-
mi - num
li
-
Ó
w
De
˙.
88
-
-
-
Je
#
ni - gen
˙
li
-
˙
in
w.
˙ w
Et
in
œ ˙ ˙
De
w
w
um
De
-
˙
w
-
i
Fi
-
-
-
-
w
li
Chri
W
w
sum
Chri
∑
˙ ˙ ˙
u
w
u
w
ni -gen
˙
-
-
œ w
-
-
-
∑
u - ni - gen
˙ ˙.
i
-
w
sum
i
-
sum Chri
W
tum.
-
u
˙ w
w
-
i
-
w
Je
w
w
-
-
W
Chri - stum,
mi-num
Je
-
-
w.
w
w
-
sum
œ w
Fi - li - um
w
-
Do
-
œ œ œ œ ˙ w
˙
stum,
w
Fi
u
w
-
Je
˙.
˙ ˙
œ ˙ ˙ w
˙ ˙ w
˙ ˙
num
-
œ ˙ ˙
i
um.
-
W
Do
˙.
w
mi - num
u - num
Ó ˙
&b w
-
-
u - num,
in
Et
œ ˙ ˙
˙ ˙
œ
˙
li
-
et
˙.
˙
w
-
Et
?b W
?b w
-
˙.
V b w.
-
B
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙ ˙
-
in u
œ w
w
in u - num
Vb W
um
T
-
œ ˙ ˙
˙.
23
Ct
Et
˙ ˙.
˙ w
œ ˙
? ˙.
b
num
D
um.
-
œ w
˙.
„.
u
B
-
li
vi - si - bi
um.
T
-
w
˙ ˙ ˙
20
Ct
˙
V b „.
-
D
#
-
˙
n
i -
˙
i -
˙ w
ni - gen - i
-
26
D
& b ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w
ex Pa - tre
Et
Ct
-
na
-
Ó ˙
Vb W
tum.
T
w
V b W.
?
tum.
Et
ex
Pa
29
D
&b œ œ ˙
-
Ct
ni
-
a
-
Vb w
te
B
-
.
Vb ˙
De
B
w
-
-
&b ˙ ˙
de
T
w
om
32
Ct
om - ni
ni
?b œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w
-
D
te
De -
-
Vb ∑
œ ˙ ˙
-
-
de
-
-
a,
-
um
w
-
˙ ˙ w
De - o,
lu
-
an - te
-
na
-
tre
na - tum
w
w
tum
an
Ó ˙
w
tum
-
-
w
a
w
sae
-
-
de
De -
˙ ˙ w
-
˙ w
um
men
89
-
w
de
-
-
˙
-
om - ni -
um
3
˙ ˙. œ ˙
-
cu
-
la.
˙
˙ ˙ w
lu - mi
-
w
la.
-
De
-
W
w
- um
de
-
De
de
-
˙ ˙ w
sae - cu
Ó ˙ w
De
-
-
la.
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙
w
an -
W.
cu
om - ni - a
Ó ˙
te
-
˙ w
-
om -
œ ˙ w
De
sae
an - te
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
an
om - ni - a
w
w
-
tum
Ó ˙.
∑
˙ ˙
De
na
-
w
˙ ˙ ˙
an - te
o,
-
-
œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
˙ ˙ w
-
-
ex Pa - tre
˙
a,
∑
?b ˙ ˙
um
-
-
„.
˙ ˙ ˙.
-
-
œ ˙ ˙
tre
-
∑
w
Vb œ œ ˙
-
T
Pa
Et
˙ ˙ w
-
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
˙ ˙
œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œœ w
˙.
b w
w
-
ex
tum.
B
-
˙.
Et
˙ ˙
-
˙ w
-
W.
o,
W.
ne,
-
œ œ w
-
o,
35
D
Ct
&b
w
B
-
De
Vb w
lu
T
˙ ˙.
o
-
lu
w
-
œ œ œ ˙.
de
men
-
men
de
„.
w
w
w
˙ ˙
men
de
lu - mi - ne,
b
lu
-
&b w
w
de
˙.
Vb Ó
De - o
œ ˙ w
B
?b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
de
&b ∑
De - o
ve
-
w
-
fac
-
-
De
-
?b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
tum, con - sub - stan - ti - a
-
˙
-
ti
um
-
ve - rum
˙
w
˙
ve -
-
œ œ œ œ ˙
-
-
˙
lem
Pa
90
-
w
um
ve
-
œ œ œ˙
˙.
- ro.
-
ni
Ge -
-
- ni -
˙ w
tum,
non
fac
˙ ˙ ˙ w
-
˙
tum,
˙
Ge - ni - tum, non
ro.
fac -
-
w
tri:
w
per
w
œ œ œ ˙ ˙
w
w
˙ ˙
˙
-
-
-
w
w
-
˙
a
˙ w
„.
∑
-
˙.
˙
-
ve
˙ w
De
-
con - sub
-
De - um
ne
w.
-
-
˙
tum,
Vb ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
ro
o
-
con - sub - stan -
˙ ˙ w
œ w.
œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
con - sub - stan - ti - a
B
˙
Ge
˙ ˙ ˙ w
Vb ˙
tum, non
T
-
-
-
mi
˙.
w
W
ve
W
41
Ct
-
V b „.
rum
D
De
œ ˙
„.
œ œ œ œ w
˙ ˙
de
T
lu - mi - ne,
∑
rum
Ct
˙
∑
38
D
˙
Vb w
?
-
lu
˙ ˙
w
-
œ ˙ ˙.
w
lem
-
Pa
#̇
-
stan - ti
w
lem
Pa
˙
˙
-
-
-
-
w
tri:
-
a
w
-
tri:
„.
-
lem
∑
Pa - tri:
w
per
˙.
44
D
& b w.
quem
Ct
per
T
B
Vb
?
quem
om
w
˙
˙
quem
œ ˙
quem
47
T
B
-
om
w
&b C w
Qui
Ct
˙.
prop
-
Ct
T
œ ˙
ni
˙
a
˙.
fac
ni - a
w
w
ter
nos
˙
-
˙.
-
˙.
ho
prop
?b C „
„
„
Vb
w
ter
nos
ho - mi
w
nos
-
w
nes,
˙.
Vb w
Ó
?b ∑
w
w
Qui
prop
˙
et
w
prop
ta
-
n
-
-
-
-
C
W.
sunt.
˙
ho
-
œ œ ˙
mi
-
-
w
nes,
w
Qui
prop
w
w
ter
nos
˙.
ho
-
œ
mi -
-
„
∑
Ó
œ w
w
˙
mi- nes,
et
w
˙
œ œ ˙
w
w
˙.
ter
nos
ho
91
C
w
∑
ter
C
sunt.
ta
mi - nes,
W.
W.
w
œ ˙
C
sunt.
˙
-
W.
sunt.
„
w
ho
fac -
˙
Qui
˙
w
œ ˙
W
˙
˙
ta
Vb C „
˙
fac - ta
-
„
&b Ó
˙
œ w
fac
-
œ œ œ ˙
a
Vb C „
nes,
B
w
-
51
D
ni - a
-
om - ni
˙.
˙
-
˙
˙ ˙
w
b ˙.
-
œ ˙
per
D
-
om
V b ˙.
œ ˙
˙
˙
prop - ter
et
˙
w
prop - ter
nos
w
˙
nos - trum
sa
œ
-
˙
w
mi - nes,
-
˙
˙
˙
˙
nos - trum
trum
sa -
w
-
lu
-
Ó
˙
et
55
D
&b ˙
˙
˙ ˙
sa - lu - tem
Ct
˙
Vb
-
T
˙
-
˙ ˙
-
lu
-
de
-
Vb W
?
b
˙
prop - ter
nos - trum
&b w
lis.
Ct
T
Vb
w
˙
˙
scen - dit,
œ ˙
-
˙
-
tem
de
˙
œ w
-
Et
˙
w
in - car - na
˙.
œ
˙
˙
˙ ˙
scen - dit
W
?b W
Ó
&b œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙
œ œœ
de
63
D
car
Ct
T
Vb
˙
-
˙
-
w
in - car - na
-
na
-
Vb W
B
et
˙ ˙
w
Ó
in
-
˙
œ œ œ œ ˙
˙
-
na
w
w
˙.
tus
est
de
car
w
˙ ˙ ˙
-
na
˙
˙
de
˙
˙ w
de
cae -
cae
˙.
˙
Et
Ó
-
92
tus
de
w
est
-
in
-
œ
˙.
Ó
œ
Et
œ ˙
de
˙
w
Ó
˙
n
w
Ó
est,
-
de -
cae - lis,
w
tus
est
tus
Ó
de - scen - dit
w
cae
w
˙ ˙
w
w
-
de
w
cae - lis,
de
w
„
est
?b w
in - car
# n #̇
˙
cae - lis.
˙ ˙
Et
de
dit
Et
lis.
˙ ˙
˙
˙.
˙
dit
tem
lis.
B
-
w
-
Ó
w
scen - dit
-
lu
˙
Vb W
˙
œ
-
œ
-
-
w
de - scen
sa
w
-
˙.
de
-
˙.
˙.
˙ ˙
˙
59
D
scen
Ó
tem
B
˙.
w
in - car
-
-
-
w
Spi
œ ˙
tus
-
˙
Spi
w
Spi
-
-
-
na
w
w
tus
∑
est,
-
-
-
w
-
-
w
-
ri
œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
-
w
w
w
de
Spi
-
-
-
-
w
ri
ri
-
w
-
ri
-
-
67
D
&b w
w
tu
Ct
T
B
Vb
˙
tu
-
San
˙
San
-
˙.
œ ˙
-
tu
San
? w
b
w
-
San
ex
Ct
Ma
T
B
Vb
?
cto
ex
W
W
-
ri
-
w
-
ri
w
b ∑
-
Ct
T
a,
Ma
B
w
w
w
w
˙.
w
-
ri
ho
-
mo
˙
˙
˙
w
fac
-
w
-
-
-
œ
ho
fac
-
a
-
˙
œ œ œ œ
˙
-
W
-
a,
ex
˙
˙
-
a
Vir
˙.
Vir
˙
-
-
-
˙
tus
93
-
-
-
˙
gi -
œ w
œ ˙.
-
œ œ ˙
-
-
-
gi
-
W
-
-
-
-
Vir - gi
œ œ ˙
-
-
˙
-
-
-
tus
-
est,
w
w
mo
est,
fac
Et
˙
˙
w
˙
w
et
ho
w
-
-
-
˙
ne:
fac
w
-
ho - mo
mo
˙
-
œ œ ˙
w
w
œ w
˙.
-
gi
˙
˙
a
-
ho
w.
˙
w
Vb w
?b w
ri
Vir
ho - mo
Et
-
a
Et
ne:
-
W
ne:
w
˙
W
˙
Vb w
œ
˙.
w
Et
˙
Ma - ri
Ma
ne:
-
˙
W
˙
ex
&b w
˙
˙
-
W
75
D
ri
-
W
w
w
w
Ma
Ma
W
&b W
w
Vb
ex
˙
cto
-
71
w
˙
cto
-
„
W
cto
w
Vb w
tu
D
W
-
w
-
tus
w
w
mo
fac
-
79
D
Ct
T
&b ˙
˙
fac - tus
˙
est.
˙
w
tus
est.
Vb
-
-
˙
˙
Cru
˙
˙
-
ci - fix
˙
˙
Vb W
?
b
˙
-
-
˙
w
tus
& b ˙ ˙ ˙.
T
B
fix
Cru
?
Ct
-
ci
-
us
w
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
˙ ˙
sub
pro
?b ˙ ˙
pro
-
w
no
-
w
no
Pon - ti - o
Ó ˙
bis:
˙ ˙ ˙.
bis:
sub
sub
Pon
œ
-
W
-
-
˙ ˙ w
w
ci
w
94
-
bis:
e - ti
-
fix
-
w
-
-
œ ˙ ˙
ti - o
ti - am,
-
-
˙
w
us
e
-
w
ti - o
Pi
˙ ˙
Pi - la
-
˙.
la
˙.
-
la
-
w
to
„
-
-
am
˙
ti -
-
˙
e
˙.
˙ ˙
-
œ ˙
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
us
Pi
-
œ w
∑
Ó
∑
Pon
-
ci
w
Ó ˙
„
bis:
e
w
˙ ˙
˙ ˙
˙.
us
w
Ó ˙
Vb ˙ ˙
˙
˙
œ ˙
ci -
w
-
cru
-
w
cru - ci - fix
no
fix
-
-
„
w.
pro
Ó
Vb ˙ œ œ w
us,
-
no
∑
&b ∑
am
w
ti - am
Cru
b w
am
B
-
-
W
pro
T
fix
-
˙
cru
w
w
œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙
Vb „
87
D
e
V b ˙ ˙ ˙.
-
w
„
w
est.
fix - us
Ct
us,
w
w
Ó
œ W
„
83
D
-
Cru - ci
est.
B
˙.
ti -
-
œ ˙
-
#
-
˙
œ œ œ ˙
-
-
Ó
-
-
˙
pas -
91
D
&b w
to
Ct
Vb ˙
to
T
B
Vb
?
∑
„
˙ ˙ ˙
˙.
pas
w
w
sus
et
pas
T
est.
Et
re - sur
˙
Vb w
w
w
w
it
w
w
˙
-
?
sur
b ˙
˙ w
&b w
Ó
Vb œ œ ˙ ˙
-
ti - a
di
B
?b w
-
se
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
cun
˙
e
-
˙
˙.
e
se
-
-
˙
-
w
˙
˙
dum
-
-
n
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
-
Scrip
-
œ ˙
-
cun
œ ˙
˙
cun
-
95
cun
Et
-
-
-
˙
-
ti
-
-
e
˙.
-
-
-
˙
ti
-
a
a
di
-
ras,
w
-
-
-
-
dum
-
dum
w
Scrip
˙ ˙ b˙.
dum Scrip - tu
-
w
w
w
œ
-
-
-
œ w
-
tu
-
w
bw
˙.
œ
-
w
W
-
-
-
˙ ˙
˙ ˙ w
w
se
w
di
-
ter
-
w
a
-
ter
-
Et
w
w
˙
est.
œ œ œ œ œ w
-
ti
w
est.
w
it
-
˙
tus
˙.
tus
-
w
tus
-
œ œ ˙
w
-
-
-
rex
˙.
se
-
˙
ter
∑
e
˙
˙
it
˙
di
ter
w
-
w
Vb w
rex
-
w
it
-
˙
-
w
se - pul
-
re
œ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ ˙ w
œ ˙
-
T
˙.
se - pul
˙ ˙.
-
˙.
Vb w
rex
et
-
-
99
Ct
˙ ˙
-
-
re - sur - rex
D
-
w
&b w
re
B
se - pul
Et
œ œ œ ˙
sus
sur
Ct
˙ ˙.
w
w
˙
-
95
D
œ œ œ ˙
et
˙ ˙
w
b
sus
-
„
-
tu
œ œ œ œ w
-
-
-
-
103
D
Ct
T
B
&b w
Vb Ó
Scrip
T
B
T
-
-
-
œ œ œ ˙
-
-
tu
-
Ó
w
Vb
˙
˙
-
w
dit
˙
˙
˙
in
cae
-
˙
w
˙
a - scen - dit
in
Vb „
„
? „
b
„
& b ˙.
-
Vb Ó
œ ˙
˙
Pa
Vb w
-
-
-
˙
-
˙
-
-
˙
˙
-
∑
Ó
w
∑
∑
Ó
Et
˙
w
˙
˙
˙
-
˙
lum:
-
-
dit
in
˙
˙
˙
a - scen - dit
in
˙
-
tris,
œ œ œ œ w
det
ad
dex - ter - am
-
w
Pa
˙
w
am
Pa
-
-
-
96
se - det
ad
˙
˙
-
-
-
˙
-
-
am
˙
˙
w
˙
˙
-
-
-
˙
w
ad
œ
˙.
-
Pa
-
˙
dex - ter
ter - am
˙
Ó
det
œ ˙
W
-
-
˙
dex
Pa
-
˙
ad
-
ter
w
-
˙.
w
-
-
˙
w
w
w
˙
˙
˙
-
cae - lum:
˙
n
˙
w
w
-
-
˙
˙
dex
Ó
œ œ ˙
˙
cae - lum:
ad
se
tris.
˙
w
˙
se - det
w
-
˙
˙
˙
se
œ œ w
Et
Et
a - scen
˙
˙
ras.
˙
cae - lum:
-
ter - am
?b œ œ œ œ ˙
-
w
Et
&b ˙
˙
w
ras.
„
dex
B
-
˙
ras.
Pa
Ct
-
˙.
W
b
111
D
œ ˙
#
œ ˙
∑
a - scen
Ct
-
scrip - tu
ras.
107
D
˙.
˙.
W
Vb
?
˙
Ó
-
-
-
-
-
˙
w
-
-
W
tris.
w
tris,
∑
∑
w
Pa
-
-
115
D
&b ˙
˙
˙
˙
Vb w
Ó
˙
Vb w
w
tris.
Ct
i - ter
Et
tris.
T
B
?
-
um,
˙
Et
Et
b ˙
tris.
˙
˙
Et
i - ter
est
Ct
T
˙
˙
˙
-
˙
b ˙
˙
˙
glo - ri
Ó
Vb w
w
re
mor
et
Ó ˙
?b w
w
˙
Vb w
vi
-
-
vos
-
-
w
et
Ó
˙
w
˙
et
˙
˙
Ó
w
-
˙
tu
mor
-
-
œ œ ˙.
-
-
ca
w
W
˙
-
-
-
vos
et
mor - tu
Ó
-
œœ˙
-
-
n
-
tu
-
tu
˙
-
˙
cum
˙
˙
os:
˙
os,
˙
di - ca - re
œ w
-
di - ca
-
w
-
re
˙
iu
w
˙ w
97
di
-
rus
w
Ó
˙
-
iu
w
-
-
˙
˙.
-
˙
w
-
˙
˙
Ó
cum
tu
di - ca - re,
-
-
mor
˙
iu
-
˙
est
glo - ri - a
iu
˙
ven - tu - rus
w
w
œ œ œ œ w
-
-
˙
Ó
˙
w
ven
˙
w
˙ ˙
vos
˙ ˙
˙
˙ ˙
w
-
est
a,
w
iu
˙
-
ven - tu - rus
w
-
˙
Ó
-
˙
vi
-
vi
˙
w
&b ˙ w
re
B
cum
˙
glo - ri - a,
w
vi - vos
T
˙
˙
cum
˙
ven - tu - rus
cum
Ó
˙
˙
um
Ó
w
123
Ct
-
um
glo - ri - a,
D
ter
glo - ri - a,
Vb w
?
-
w
w
W
w
est
B
Ó
w
i
Ó
˙
i - ter - um
et
w
w
Ó
&b W
Vb
˙
˙
˙
i - ter - rum
119
D
Ó
w
˙
- di - ca -
31
˙.
mor
˙
œ ˙
-
tu -
31
os:
31
W
31
W
os:
3
&b 1 W
127
D
-
Cu
Ct
3 w
Vb 1
Cu
T
3 W
Vb 1
? 3 W
b 1
fi
Ct
T
B
-
w
-
-
-
∑
Vb ∑
? W
b
-
nis,
-
-
non
W
non
er
-
W
w
it
& b 31 W
w
Et
Ct
V b 31 w .
Et
T
in
˙
w
in
V b 31 W .
? b 31 W
Et
w
Spi
w
Spi
-
-
w.
˙ w
-
fi
it
w
w.
it
fi
-
-
in
w
Spi
-
-
-
-
w
w
ri -
-
-
-
-
n
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
in
98
w
-
-
-
-
w
tum,
W.
3
1
nW.
3
1
nis.
nis.
nis.
w
œ w
tum,
Spi
ri -
w
ri - tum
w.
Spi
-
˙
-
˙
-
3
1
W.
Spi
-
3
1
nis.
w.
w
Spi
bw
it
W.
W
-
- tum,
n
-
˙.
-
-
œœw
-
œ ˙
˙.
˙
ri
-
˙ w
w.
-
w
er
W
˙ w.
-
ri
-
-
W
w
W
w
in
w
w
non
W.
Et
B
-
fi
- it
w.
˙ w
w w
w
136
D
-
er
-
-
W.
gni
w
-
w
non
w.
˙ w
˙ ˙ W
w
w
er
-
Ó
˙ w
˙ w
gni
-
re
-
er
gni
W
w
w.
W.
re
-
w
-
W
w
non
w.
re
w
W
gni
W
ius
-
-
re
ius
w
w
W
ius
-
w w w
b
V
fi
w
w
131
&b W
-
-
Cu
D
w
w
Cu
B
w
ius
w
os
w
˙
-
ri -
&b ˙ ˙ ˙ w
139
D
-
Ct
ri - tum Sanc -
Vb w
Ó w
Vb w
w
tum
T
San
B
San
Ó w
tum
San
&b w
Ó w
w
Ó w
b
142
D
num,
Ct
T
B
Vb
Vb
?
et
num,
w.
˙.
num
et
145
D
& b ˙ ˙.
Qui cum
Ct
˙.
Vb
œ ˙
Qui
T
w
ctum
Do
-
-
-
-
Do
ctum
˙
vi
-
˙
et
vi
˙
˙ ˙
-
-
œ ˙ ˙
vi
œ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙ ˙ ˙
cum
˙ ˙.
vi - fi
w
-
vi
-
fi
˙ ˙.
-
-
˙ w
-
-
-
w
˙ ˙.
Pa
-
-
-
-
œ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
-
ḃ ˙
˙
-
-
Qui
œ ˙ ˙ ˙
cum
-
-
99
-
-
-
-
œ œ w
tem:
w
˙ ˙
can
-
-
tem:
tem:
-
tem:
-
˙ ˙.
-
-
-
œ ˙ ˙ ˙
tre
˙.
et
œ ˙
tre
et
w
w
Pa
-
-
can
mi
-
W.
˙ ˙ œ œ b˙ ˙ ˙
Pa
-
W.
cum
? b Ó ˙.
-
et
-
w
˙
can
-
œœœw
-
-
-
w
˙ w
n
˙ w
w.
-
-
mi -
œœ œ
mi
˙.
-
W.
V b W.
-
num, Do
œ ˙ ˙
˙
-
∑
˙
-
œ w
-
vi - fi
Pa
-
-
˙
˙
-
mi
-
can
-
∑
œ œœ
-
˙.
œœœœ
˙
-
˙. œ ˙ ˙.
˙
Qui
B
-
œœœ˙ ˙
-
ctum Do
W.
vi - vi - fi
b w
-
San
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙
˙ ˙.
Do - mi - num,
w
?
Ó ˙
Do - mi-num,
tum
˙ ˙
ctum
-
-
˙. œ w
˙
w
tre
-
˙ ˙ œ œ
Fi - li
Ó ˙
tre
Ó
-
et
˙ ˙ ˙
et
Fi - li
-
148
D
&b ˙ ˙
-
Fi
Ct
-
li
˙
o
si - mul
a
Vb ˙ ˙
w
˙ ˙
-
-
? ˙ ˙
b
o
si
-
œ ˙.
-
-
D
-
Ct
T
Vb
w.
Vb ˙
?
b
-
-
glo
ri
B
-
-
-
-
&b w
T
Vb
est
-
-
-
per
Pro
w
phe
?b w
Ó ˙ w
-
qui
cu
lo
˙.
et
-
-
tur,
œ ˙.
-
-
-
-
tur: Qui
-
tur: Qui
lo
w
-
œ ˙ ˙ w
-
-
-
W
Ó ˙
W
Ó ˙
-
cu
-
˙.
-
cu
-
am
tas.
Et
un
-
-
-
am
œ w
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
est
per
Pro - phe
˙. œ w
Ó ˙
cu - tus est
per
100
tus
œ
tus
-
˙ ˙ w
-
tas.
-
cu - tus
˙ ˙ w
lo
œ
˙ ˙
∑
tur: Qui
-
-
˙.
∑
tur:
˙.
w
-
tus
-
lo
˙ ˙ w
-
con - glo -
con - glo - ri
et
œœ˙
-
˙ ˙
˙ ˙
˙ ˙ w
-
-
et
˙ ˙
ra
-
Ó ˙
tur,
w
-
-
w
ra
-
-
-
œ w
œ ˙.
con
w
-
con - glo - ri
et
un
-
˙.
lo
Ó ˙
w
Et
w
-
tur,
˙ w
-
-
-
ra
˙ ˙
˙ ˙
Pro - phe -
Vb w
est,
˙ ˙.
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
per
a - do
˙ ˙
W.
-
ca
do
-
-
˙ ˙ ˙
-
˙ ˙ w
Qui
B
-
w
-
mul
-
ri - fi - ca
fi - ca
-
w.
˙ ˙ w
˙
est
Ct
-
w.
fi
˙
-
˙ w
a
-
˙ ˙ ˙
-
154
D
fi - ca
˙
w
n
˙ w
&b œ œ œ œ
a - do
œ ˙ ˙ bw
-
151
mul
w
do - ra - tur,
si - mul
˙.
o
˙ ˙ w
-
si
w
Fi - li
B
˙
œ œ ˙ ˙
Vb ˙
o
T
w
˙ œ œ ˙ ˙
w
˙ ˙
-
-
-
˙ ˙
Pro
-
˙ ˙ w
tas.
Et
un
˙ ˙ ˙.
phe - tas.
Et
-
œ
157
D
& b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙.
-
san
Ct
˙
ca
-
˙ ˙ w
˙
œœ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
san
w
ctam
-
? ˙ ˙ ˙ w
b
-
Ec - cle
˙ w
pos - to
& b ˙ ˙.
-
-
Vb ˙ w
-
B
-
V b ˙ œ œ ˙.
Con
T
-
fi
? b ˙ ˙.
fi
-
fi
-
cle
-
cam
-
te - or
u
-
˙ ˙ ˙
-
te - or
u
-
œ˙ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
te
num
˙
-
w
˙ bw
u
-
-
101
li
-
si
-
w
˙ w
˙
˙ ˙ ˙.
˙
et
a -
œ
œ ˙.
et
˙ œ œ˙ ˙
w
Con - fi - te - or
am.
-
-
-
-
˙ Ó Ó w
∑
si - am.
am.
Con -
-
˙
-
œ
œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ œ
si - am.
-
-
sma
w
˙
-
- ti
w
˙
˙
-
ti
˙ ˙ ˙
num bap - ti
Con
w
w
bap
-
pos - to
-
˙
et
w
b
œ
œ
˙
˙ œ˙
.
˙
˙
bap -
num
or
˙ ˙ w
-
si
bap - ti
œœ w
li - cam
˙
˙ ˙ ˙
num
œ˙ ˙
-
ca - tho - li - cam
Ec - cle
w.
-
-
w
-
Ó
˙ ˙ w
-
ctam
-
-
w.
˙
-
-
-
œw
-
œ œ ˙.
œ˙ ˙ ˙
a
-
œ ˙.
-
-
pos - to - li
163
Ct
-
li - cam Ec
-
-
œœ w
œ ˙ ˙ ˙ b˙
b ˙.
u
-
˙.
˙ ˙ ˙
-
a
D
-
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
et
tho - li - cam
pos-to - li - cam Ec - cle
Vb w
Vb
san
œ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
& b ˙.
?
am
li - cam
-
œ ˙
-
˙
ctam ca - tho
-
cam
B
ca - tho
ctam
Vb ˙ w
a -
T
-
˙ ˙ ˙ w
160
Ct
-
˙
un
D
-
˙
am
B
-
Vb Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
san
T
œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙.
-
-
˙.
-
œ˙
˙
in
-
re
mis -
∑
w
sma
w
-
-
-
˙
w
sma
in
re -
œœœœœœœœ˙ ˙
-
-
-
-
-
166
D
& b œ œ œ œ ˙. œ œ œ œ œ
-
Ct
-
Vb w
Vb w
-
B
?
re
-
Ct
T
B
w
w
b
n
ca - to -
-
-
˙.
œ w
-
-
˙
-
-
-
nem
pec - ca - to
w.
˙
o
-
si - o
-
-
-
-
rum.
-
˙ ˙ w
-
w.
w.
-
-
ex - spec
Et
-
to
rum.
Et
& b ˙ ˙.
-
Ct
sur
Vb Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
Et
T
Vb ˙ w
re
B
-
œœœ˙ ˙
- rec -
? b ˙ ˙.
rec - ti -
˙ ˙
ex - spec - to
re
w
˙
-
sur
-
-
œœw
-
ti
˙.
-
rec
-
-
-
o
-
-
102
w
-
-
re
-
o - nem
-
-
œ ˙
-
-
to
-
˙.
œ œ œ ˙
œ œ ˙
ti - o - nem
-
-
-
˙ ˙ ˙
-
˙ w
w.
-
to
-
re
œ ˙
-
sur -
n n
Œ œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ œœ˙
mor - tu
-
-
˙
˙ w
o
œœœ˙ œœ œœw
∑
-
W.
˙
ti
-
to
˙
W
-
Ó ∑
-
˙
-
nem
˙
ex - spec
-
-
Ó ˙.
œ œœ˙ ˙ ˙
sur - rec
˙
-
-
pec - ca - to
-
˙ ˙ ˙
-
o
œ œ œ ˙ ˙
172
D
-
rum.
ex - spec
w
˙ . œ# œ #̇
˙
œ
œ
˙
nem
Et
rum.
-
si
w
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙.
-
-
-
˙ w
˙
nem
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙.
-
-
œ ˙ w
w
-
si -
-
-
o
-
re - mis
Vb
?
˙ ˙
˙ ˙. œ œ œ ˙ ˙
pec - ca - to -
-
˙
˙
-
w
pec
-
-
˙ ˙
V b ˙.
re - mis
w
&b Ó ˙
rum, pec - ca
˙
in
˙
in
˙
w
nem,
˙
˙. œ ˙
169
-
˙ ˙
˙
mis - si
mis
b w
˙
-
Ó
-
w.
sma
D
o -
˙
w
in
T
-
si
w
o
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
mor
-
tu
˙ ˙ ˙ w
nem mor - tu - o
˙
nem mor - tu
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
-
-
˙
-
& b ˙ Œ œ ˙ ˙.
175
D
rum,
Ct
˙ ˙
b
V
-
T
-
mor -tu - o
-
b
-
&b W
vi
Ct
w
Vb
-
T
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
w
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙
-
-
-
-
-
˙.
-
-
-
Ó w
vi
181
D
&b w
-
Ct
T
V b ˙.
ri
-
sae
-
?b Ó w
œ œ œ w
sae -
-
-
cu
-
- cu
-
ven
sae
-
˙ w
-
-
#̇
-
-
-
li.
li,
-
-
∑
∑
∑
-
-
Ó w
W
tu
˙
-
-
ven
-
-
w
-
˙
tu -
-
-
W
-
-
ri
w
-
cu
w
œ œ œ œ
-
-
W.
A
-
-
˙
ri
w
W
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
sae -
li,
-
Ó w
sae
103
-
˙
ri
-
-
∑
-
ri,
-
-
-
-
˙ w
w
-
-
n
-
w
-
˙ w
-
w
-
ven - tu
-
-
œ W.
˙.
œ œ œ w
w
cu
tu
œ ˙ w
vi
vi
-
Et
œ œ œ w
˙
-
W
-
Et
tu
˙
rum.
˙.
Et
-
-
w
˙.
˙.
W
-
tam
˙ w
-
tam
˙
œ w
ven
-
˙
w
w
Vb ∑
sae
B
-
rum.
-
-
∑
˙.
#
-
∑
w
-
-
-
˙ w
w
-
-
∑
w
-
-
# n #̇
-
˙ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
w
œ œ œ œ w
œ ˙. œ œ
-
w
œ œ œ ˙
ven
tam,
-
o
w
b w
-
˙.
-
tam
Vb W
?
-
w
tam
B
-
˙
vi
rum.
178
D
-
mor - tu - o - rum.
˙ ˙
-
-
Et
o
Vb w
?
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
rum,
B
œœœœ˙ ˙ w
œ˙
-
˙ w
-
cu
-
-
&b ˙
˙
184
D
˙ w
li.
Ct
Vb W
?
cu
-
-
B
-
V b œ œ ˙.
-
T
A
-
-
-
-
li.
A
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
∑
b W
-
w.
œ ˙ w
-
-
˙
œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w
-
w
-
D
∑
V b ˙.
œ ˙
˙
Ó
men,
Ct
-
T
Vb w
A
B
?b
˙
men,
-
w
-
-
-
˙
A
-
-
-
w
-
-
˙
˙
w
-
-
˙
˙
W.
-
-
-
-
-
˙
-
104
-
-
-
-
˙
-
˙
-
-
-
-
˙
-
œ
-
-
w
-
-
˙.
-
-
A
-
œ w
˙ w
-
-
˙.
-
-
-
˙
-
men,
-
-
-
˙
W.
w
-
-
-
men,
w
w
-
˙
-
œ œ œ œ ˙
˙
-
˙ w
-
-
˙
-
œ œ œ œ ˙
-
A
-
w
Ó
-
˙ w
-
A
&b w
-
w
-
li.
187
-
w
-
-
-
-
W.
men.
W.
men.
w
-
-
-
W.
men.
W.
men.
˙ w
-
-
Missa Dominicale: Sanctus
Wilhelm Breitengraser
& b 31 W .
Discantus
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
San
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bassus
? b 31 „ .
-
-
Vb w
-
Vb W
?b
w
w
-
#
W
-
-
-
-
„.
„.
„.
„.
∑
Ó ˙ W
-
-
-
-
san
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
W
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
105
-
-
#
-
-
-
Ó ˙
ctus
W
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙ w ˙
-
-
w
ctus
˙
-
w
w
w
San
w
œ œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙. ˙ w
˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ
œ
-
W
w
w
Ó ˙. ˙ ˙
Ó ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
œ
˙
w
-
-
„.
∑
w
ctus
-
-
San
& b ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w
San
B
-
V b 31 „ .
-
T
San
Tenor
-
Ct
W
˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙. ˙ ˙ ˙ œ w
œ
œœw
V b 31 ˙ . œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙
œ
Contratenor
5
W.
-
-
-
∑
∑
˙ ˙ ˙ w
ctus, [San -
-
-
9
D
&b W
Ó
ctus,
Ct
b˙ ˙ ˙
˙ w
Vb
-
T
-
Vb w
San
B
?
-
-
-
13
D
&b w
V b W.
-
B
w
?b w
-
-
-
-
Ó w
Ct
-
˙ ˙ W
-
-
Vb w
-
-
?b ˙ ˙ w
-
-
-
ctus,
-
-
˙
w
-
-
-
-
W.
Ó ˙
San
-
-
˙.
-
bW
-
˙.
w
-
-
-
-
˙ ˙ w
-
-
-
ctus,]
-
-
-
Ó w
˙ w
˙
-
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
-
-
w.
-
œ œ w
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
W
-
w
Ó ˙
San
-
-
˙ ˙ w
-
-
-
˙ œœ˙ w
w
-
-
-
San
-
w
-
w
˙
-
-
-
ctus,
˙ ˙ w
-
-
W
-
San
106
-
-
-
-
˙ ˙
ctus
-
˙. œ œ ˙
-
-
-
-
w
[San
-
-
W.
Ó
˙
-
w
-
-
˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
˙
-
-
œ œ w
-
ḃ
œ bœ œ
ctus,
-
-
w
-
San
San
œ ˙
-
-
-
Ó ˙
Ó
W
˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙. œ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ w
ctus,]
-
-
san
-
-
-
-
W
-
B
-
Ó w
-
ctus,
W
˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w
V b w.
-
T
-
Ó
-
San
16
D
-
w
-
-
-
-
w
w
ctus,
&b
˙
˙ w
-
-
w
-
-
San
˙ ˙
Ó ˙
W
ctus
-
-
˙ w
Vb
-
-
W.
Ó w
ctus San
T
-
-
ctus]
Ct
-
-
-
˙. œ w
Ó ˙ w
b ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w
-
-
[san
w
w
-
w
˙
-
-
-
#
˙
-
-
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
w
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
-
-
-
-
Ó ˙. œ œ œ w.
20
D
&b w
ctus
Ct
bw
Vb ˙ ˙
-
T
B
-
-
Do
˙ ˙
-
-
?
T
B
-
-
mi
-
-
-
w
mi -
-
-
Sa
Vb w
.
Ó ˙ œœœ W
Vb w
W
-
Sa
nus
-
-
?b ˙ ˙ W
-
-
&b C ∑
Ple
˙.
Vb C w
Ple
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
us
Sa
œ ˙
-
˙
-
-
˙
-
˙ w.
-
-
Ó
-
˙
ple
˙.
˙
-
#
-
-
œ ˙
-
-
W.
C
-
oth.
-
-
W.
C
W.
C
oth
ba - oth
œ w
Ó
˙.
œ w
-
ni
-
T
Vb C „
„
„
„
B
?b C „
„
„
„
107
-
˙ ˙
˙ ˙ ˙
-
˙ w
ba - oth.
-
˙
-
C
-
-
-
W.
-
-
˙.
us
˙
-
ba
-
De
˙ ˙ w
-
-
œœw
-
w.
nus
-
-
-
De
De
-
-
ni
Ó
nus
œœœœ˙ w
-
-
W.
-
mi
-
w.
nus
œ ˙ w
˙
-
˙
-
œ ˙.
-
W.
De
W
-
Sa
˙.
-
-
w
w
˙
-
w
-
us
-
w
-
W.
-
-
-
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
Do
w
ba
w
∑
˙. œ ˙ ˙ w
Ó ˙
˙ ˙. œ œ œ œ œ ˙
& b W.
∑
Do - mi
-
ctus Do -
28
Ct
-
œœœœ w
-
D
-
w
nus
Ó ˙
ctus
Do
-
mi
w
-
W
-
ctus
œ˙
b ˙ ˙. œ bœ
˙
-
-
œœ˙
V b W.
us
Ct
-
-
24
D
-
œœw
˙
sunt
-
ni
32
D
&b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
coe
Ct
Vb Ó w
˙
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙.
-
-
-
-
œ ˙.
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
sunt
Vb „
„
„
B
? „
b
„
∑
&b w
Ó
Vb ˙
œ œ œ œ ˙
˙
˙
li
sunt
coe
Vb „
B
?b Ó
&b ˙
40
D
ni
Ct
T
B
˙
˙
-
œ œ w
coe
sunt
coe
w
˙
-
˙
-
-
-
-
#
˙
Ó
-
-
coe
Vb ∑
w
-
-
-
-
Ple
-
-
-
-
-
œ œ œ œ w
-
-
li
ple
-
-
-
w
li
ni
w
W
w
∑
∑
ple
-
œ w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ni
w
-
œ ˙
w
coe
w
sunt
˙
-
-
˙
˙
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
w
w
ni
œ œ œ œ œ œ
˙
-
-
W
coe
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
W
w
sunt
108
-
˙
œ w
˙.
w
w
-
œ œ w
˙.
˙
ple
˙
-
„
w
ni
li
˙.
li
œ œ œ œ œ
œ ˙
sunt
˙
˙
∑
w
-
w
li
„
œ œ ˙
-
œ œ œ œ ˙
?b W
-
„
Vb ˙
-
-
-
œ œ ˙
„
˙
w
˙
-
sunt
T
-
Ple
36
Ct
-
œœ˙
-
coe
T
D
-
œ ˙
w
w
coe
-
&b W
44
D
Ó
sunt
li
Ct
w
Vb
-
T
B
w
&b W
-
coe
Ct
-
Vb w
-
Ó
B
Vb w
?b
w
Ct
T
-
W
˙ ˙ ˙
Ple
-
-
˙ ˙ ˙
Vb ˙
-
-
-
w
Vb w
ni
B
?b œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
˙
w
-
ra
˙
w
-
ter
&b Ó
-
˙
w
52
D
Ó
ter
-
ter
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
li
-
œ œ w
˙
ni
W
-
ni
sunt
coe
w
w
-
-
et
ter
#
˙
-
-
-
-
-
˙.
-
-
˙
li
et
œ ˙
-
-
w
∑
W
w
˙.
w
ni
ra
-
-
-
-
˙ ˙
w
coe
-
-
-
-
-
˙
ra
ple
-
sunt
-
W
li
˙
-
˙
-
œ ˙
ter -
˙ ˙.
˙
coe
Ó ˙
-
et
œœ˙ ˙
li
-
œ œ ˙.
coe - li
-
-
w
˙
œ
˙.
ple
œ œœ˙
w
w
-
w
-
li
w
w
ra
sunt
109
-
∑
-
w
-
-
-
ple
-
#̇
œ œ w
-
˙
sunt
coe
-
w
∑
˙
-
ter
w
˙ ˙ ˙
sunt
et
w
˙
ni
œ œ œ œ
w
„
-
w
˙
w
-
ra
˙
œ ˙
w
w
et
T
-
W
li
-
-
w
sunt
w
˙.
-
ple
w
-
˙
˙
Ó
48
D
-
coe
li
Vb ∑
-
w
w
-
? w
b
˙
˙
-
˙ ˙
œ
-
-
˙
coe -
56
D
&b ˙
œ œ ˙
-
Ct
T
B
-
Vb ˙
˙.
li
coe
-
-
& b ˙.
.
Vb ˙
-
œ ˙
-
-
-
-
˙
-
glo
T
B
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
˙
-
Vb W
?b w
-
w
w
w
et
ter
w
˙.
œ w
w
w
-
˙
-
-
-
W
-
ri
W
tu
-
w
w.
a
tu
-
-
a
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
˙
-
110
-
-
˙
-
-
-
-
-
ra
w
˙
-
-
-
-
˙
-
w
-
-
œ œ œ
˙.
-
w
w
w
w
w
-
-
-
glo
-
-
w
-
w
-
ra
glo
-
œ
W
˙
w
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
a
w
-
-
w
-
-
-
tu
-
œ œ
œ ˙.
bw
˙
-
W
-
ter
-
-
glo
ter
w
W
-
-
-
w
-
˙.
et
w
-
-
˙
-
li
˙
-
ra
˙
et
-
-
ri
-
w
œ œ œ
-
Ó
-
-
-
w
W
Vb w
-
-
-
li
w
64
Ct
-
ri
-
-
œ œ ˙
˙.
˙
w
-
W
-
-
w
?b W
-
-
œ w.
-
Vb ∑
&b w
-
œ ˙.
-
D
-
ḃ
˙
-
-
B
-
œ œ œ œ œ ˙
-
? ˙ b˙
b
-
T
-
w
∑
60
Ct
-
œ œ ˙
Vb W
-
D
-
˙
#
w
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙.
a
O
˙
˙.
a
w
a
W
a
glo
ri
œ œ œ
-
-
-
œ œ œ
-
ri
w
-
O -
-
-
68
D
&b œ œ œ œ w
-
Ct
Vb
w
-
-
V b ˙.
sa
B
? „
b
-
-
-
tu
-
-
-
Ct
-
T
B
?b
-
Ct
V b ˙.
-
-
˙
œ
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
˙
in
ex
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
cel
-
-
˙
w
˙
œ œ œ ˙
˙
-
w
-
-
Vb ˙
? b w.
-
-
˙
˙
in
ex
˙
w
-
-
w
˙.
cel
-
-
˙.
˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
w
-
-
cel
-
Ó
111
-
-
-
˙
w
˙
-
-
-
˙
ex
œ œ w
-
-
w
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
-
˙
-
#
˙
cel
-
-
-
œ œ œ ˙
˙.
œ w
-
-
sis
sis
w
-
W
-
cel
w
-
-
˙
-
w
-
-
W
w
in
-
-
sa
„
na
œ ˙
-
W
-
w
˙
na
-
-
˙
W
w
ex
-
B
-
œ ˙
O
˙
w
&b Ó
ex
T
œ ˙.
-
75
D
#
Ó
in
w
w
ex
V b ˙.
Vb W
na
W
&b W
-
˙.
œœ ˙
∑
œ œ w
72
D
-
sa
a
œ œ œ ˙
-
-
W
w
a
T
-
˙.
˙
˙
-
-
˙
-
-
w
˙
˙
˙
-
-
-
˙
˙
-
-
W
C
W
C
sis.
sis.
W
C
W
C
sis.
-
sis.
79
D
Ct
&b C
∑
Vb C w
˙. œ ˙ ˙ w
B
-
-
-
T
w
B
Vb Ó
?b ∑
-
˙
˙
-
B
?b
˙
ve
-
˙
-
œœ˙ w
-
ne - dic
-
w
Ó
-
-
-
-
-
˙
˙
-
-
-
Ó
-
-
˙
ve
-
-
˙
˙
-
-
˙.
Ó
-
-
œ
-
˙
˙
qui
-
-
qui
ve
˙.
œ w
-
ven
-
˙
nit
W
W
∑
œ W
W
W
nit
-
-
-
112
-
-
∑
w
tus,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
qui
-
˙
-
nit
œ
˙.
-
-
-
œ ˙
˙.
ven -
qui
w
in
-
-
Ó
˙
qui
-
-
tus
˙
nit,
-
-
w
-
dic
Ó
-
ne
W
œ
˙.
be
w
-
tus,
œ œ œ œ w
w
w
ven
W
dic
˙
tus,
∑
-
-
˙
-
w
ne
-
w
˙
w
˙
∑
w
-
be - ne
-
w
tus
˙.
˙
œw
ne - dic
tus
-
w
-
w
w
qui
˙
w
-
-
-
be - ne
œœœœw
w
˙.
˙
˙ ˙
tus,
„
be
w
-
w
be
Vb ˙
-
Ó ˙
Ó w
tus,
w
&b w
Vb W
-
˙
ne - dic
dic
T
-
„
œ œ
be - ne - dic
tus
Ct
-
be
ne - dic- tus,
-
˙
88
D
w
˙. œ w
-
Be
&b œ œ w
-
-
dic
#
œœw
Be
? C ∑
b
Vb ˙
-
„
dic
Ct
ne
ne - dic - tus,
Vb C „
84
D
-
Be
Be
T
w
˙. œ ˙. œ ˙ ˙
&b w
92
D
Ó
nit
Ct
in
Vb ˙
˙
-
T
Vb W
-
Ct
Vb w
in
no
B
Vb w
?b
mi
-
D
˙
-
Do
-
Vb w
B
Vb Ó
?b W
˙
ne
Ó
w
w
-
w
Ó
-
-
mi
-
-
-
w
-
Ó
˙
in
-
˙
in
no - mi - ne,
˙
in
no - mi
-
w
ne,
˙ ˙ w
-
˙
w
Ó
mi
-
no - mi
ne
Do
w
˙.
˙
ne
-
-
-
˙
-
-
˙
-
-
œ w
-
mi
-
Ó ˙
mi - ne,
in
w
˙ ˙
ni,
in
no - mi -
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙ œœw
-
W
W
˙
-
-
∑
-
-
ni,
˙
-
w
-
-
-
œ ˙
w
w
-
-
˙.
in
w
-
-
-
no - mi
˙
˙
˙
-
-
˙ ˙ w
-
˙
w.
w
-
œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ
Do
w
w
˙
˙
ne
-
no
w
-
-
w
in
˙
˙
mi
˙
w
w
w
˙
-
Do
w
-
no - mi
Do
˙
-
in
-
∑
ne,
T
-
mi
mi - ne,
-
ni,
&b ˙
˙
-
œœ˙ w
w
-
-
mi - ni,
no - mi - ne,
Ct
-
Ó ˙
w
101
-
Ó
w
∑
œ ˙
#
ne
T
-
W
-
˙.
˙
&b ˙ w
-
-
˙
„
96
D
œ ˙
it
-
? Ó
b
no
w
-
no
B
˙.
˙
˙.
Do
-
-
ni,
œ w
Ó
∑
Ó
˙
mi - ni,
„
Do -
˙
in
˙
in
˙
˙.
in
113
˙
no - mi - ne
Ó
W
˙
˙
Do
-
˙
œ œ œ ˙
no
˙
mi
˙
-
-
˙.
˙
œ
-
-
˙
mi - ne,
105
D
& b ˙.
-
mi
Ct
Vb
˙
W
œ w
ni,
˙
Ó ˙ ˙
w
no - mi - ne,
T
B
in
?
˙ ˙
b œ œ œ œ
-
&b ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙
ne,
-
Do
-
Vb ˙ ˙
˙
Vb w
w
no - mi - ne
T
B
?b
-
Do
-
-
Ct
w.
˙
-
-
-
-
mi
˙.
-
mi
-
-
W
-
?b c w
O
-
-
-
-
san
˙
sa
˙
-
-
-
˙
-
W
sa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
114
-
-
-
Ó
mi -
˙
ni,
in
-
-
-
W
na
ni,
# #
-
Ó w
-
œ˙
W
c
˙
W
c
mi - ni.
mi - ni.
˙ ˙ w
-
-
-
Do
-
-
-
˙
˙
W
c
W
c
ni.
-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
W
ne
W
-
-
-
-
œ œ w
-
w
-
-
-
mi
no - mi - ne
˙
˙
-
˙ ˙.
Ó ˙ ˙ ˙
˙
˙
-
-
œ˙
W
˙
-
Do
O
˙
n
œ œ œ ˙
w
œ ˙
-
„
Vb cw
-
ni,
∑
-
mi
-
œ˙
˙ ˙.
W
&b c „
Vb cW
Do
no - mi
in
O
B
-
-
∑
O
T
˙
Do
œœ ˙
114
D
˙ w
œ œ œ ˙ ˙.
˙ w
-
Do
no
mi - ne
-
˙
in
˙.
W
˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ
˙
˙ ˙.
no
˙
ne
-
in
109
Ct
Ó
ni,
in
D
no - mi
∑
Vb W
˙
Ó w
mi - ni.
w
sa
-
-
Ó
w
-
-
-
-
-
Ó
-
-
˙
[O -
na,
w
-
w
-
w
na
˙
˙
˙
in
ex - cel -
118
D
&b w
„
∑
na
Ct
w
Vb ˙
-
T
B
-
-
Vb Ó
w
ex
? œ œ ˙
b
Ct
T
B
-
Vb ˙
sa
?b
-
-
˙
D
-
-
cel
-
-
-
-
-
Ct
T
Vb Ó
Vb ˙
-
B
-
?b ˙
-
-
-
˙.
sis,
œ ˙
w
˙
-
-
-
˙.
-
cel
-
-
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
w
-
˙.
˙
in
ex
-
sis.
w
-
-
-
-
-
115
-
-
˙.
-
œ
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
˙.
-
-
-
˙
˙
cel
-
˙
-
œ
-
œ œ ˙.
œ
˙.
œ
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
W
sis.
W
W
-
sis.]
-
W
w
-
-
-
#
w
˙
na]
-
w
-
-
˙
œ œ ˙
˙
-
-
-
W
-
œ ˙
œ ˙
˙.
W
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
w
-
œ ˙
˙
˙
-
-
-
˙
cel
-
˙.
-
˙
O -
w
w
-
Ó
na,
-
-
[ex - cel
-
˙
-
-
Ó
w
-
w
w
cel
-
˙
-
sis,
w
-
-
-
w
œ bw
-
-
-
w
œ w
Ó
ex
w
-
-
w
b˙
w
˙
-
-
W
in
-
-
w
-
˙.
ex
-
˙
[ex
-
w
w
-
-
w
sis,
˙
-
W
126
&b ˙
-
sis,
w
-
œ œ w
w
cel
-
-
-
w
w
˙
Vb ˙
-
-
w
-
-
w
-
122
ex
-
w
-
&b w
-
w
˙
in
-
D
sa
in
˙
w.
˙
W
„
sis.]
-
-
Missa Dominicale: Agnus Dei
Wilhelm Breitengraser
&b C w
Discantus
A
-
-
-
gnus
„
Bassus
?b C „
„
∑
Vb ˙
-
˙.
˙
-
A
-
w
-
-
-
i]
w
gnus,
W
?b W
w
A
-
-
-
˙
-
Ó
[a
-
Ó
gnus
-
˙
[A
116
˙
a
-
-
˙
˙
˙
[De
-
-
˙
-
w
-
œ œ
-
˙
-
-
-
„
Ó
W
Vb W
-
-
˙
˙
-
w
˙
˙
-
˙
-
˙
-
˙
-
˙
˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
-
˙
-
˙
w
-
-
-
-
W
˙
-
-
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙ b˙
˙
A
œ ˙
-
bw
w
„
&b ˙
Ó
W
Vb C „
-
B
-
˙
Tenor
-
T
-
w
„
5
Ct
-
˙
Vb C „
Contratenor
D
w
-
˙
w
-
-
˙
-
9
D
&b ˙ ˙ w
-
Ct
-
W
-
gnus]
Vb ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
-
T
-
-
-
-
Vb W
-
W
De
?b ˙
˙ w
-
˙ ˙ ˙.
-
gnus
B
∑
-
-
-
-
gnus]
Ct
-
Vb ˙
-
T
Vb w
-
B
?b ˙
-
Ct
-
T
Vb W
tol
B
?
b
w
lis,
qui
-
i
qui
w
tol
-
-
-
-
Ó
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
˙
w
qui
tol
˙.
lis
˙
qui
tol
Ó
˙
w
qui
tol
lis,
117
-
-
-
-
-
W
-
w
-
˙.
œœ˙
-
-
-
-
Ó
-
˙
œ ˙
˙
-
-
œ œ ˙
-
-
-
˙
w
qui
tol
-
-
-
˙
-
w
-
w
-
˙
-
-
-
˙
-
-
-
-
˙
w
-
-
-
Qui
˙
˙
-
˙
˙
tol
-
-
w
˙.
œ ˙
œ
qui
˙
œ
œ œ œ
˙
w
-
-
-
Ó
-
-
w
tol
˙.
lis,
-
-
-
i
w
-
-
-
œ
œ œ ˙ b ˙ . 3 œ ˙ ˙ œ ˙b
.
˙.
qui
-
-
w
œ ˙.
Ó
-
˙ ˙.
3
-
Ó
i
-
-
-
3
W
-
De
œ œ œ ˙
-
b
˙ w
W
œ œ œ w
w
gnus
˙.
-
3
i
˙.
-
˙.
˙
-
w
˙
tol
-
w
W
w
-
-
˙
lis,
-
-
&b ˙
Vb
-
˙
16
D
-
b
w
-
De
&b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
-
-
-
De
W
Ó ˙
13
D
-
-
w
-
œ
w
lis,
w
-
w
lis,
-
20
D
&b ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ W
-
Ct
-
-
Vb Ó ˙
w
qui
T
Vb W
-
B
-
?b Ó ˙
24
Vb w
Ó
lis,
T
V b w.
-
B
-
?b Ó
-
w
qui
28
D
&b w
Ó
Vb w
w
lis
Ct
-
T
B
-
-
-
-
tol
Ó
lis
Ct
-
w
&b w
lis,
-
W
-
-
-
-
-
[lis,
lis,
-
-
qui
W
-
˙ ˙ ˙
˙
-
˙
-
˙
-
˙
-
w
-
-
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
-
-
˙
-
-
-
˙
qui
tol
˙
˙
-
˙
-
˙
-
˙
-
˙
-
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
˙
-
-
tol
˙
˙
qui
tol
˙
lis,
qui
˙
-
-
˙
-
˙.
tol
-
w
-
-
œœ˙
-
-
„
tol
-
˙
w
-
-
-
˙
w
-
˙
w
-
-
118
-
-
˙
˙
˙
-
-
w
-
ca
˙
œ œ œ œ
-
-
lis
lis,
œ w
-
-
-
œ
˙.
-
-
-
lis
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
W
œ w
-
-
w
-
-
-
œ œ œ œ
w
-
lis
-
W
˙.
-
Ó
˙.
-
-
-
-
w
pec
b ˙
-
˙
˙
-
-
-
tol
-
-
-
˙
-
-
tol]
tol
tol
-
œ œ œ œ ˙
˙
qui
qui
˙
˙ ˙
œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙
-
œ ˙
˙
-
˙
Vb W
?
-
˙.
Ó ˙
qui
˙
˙ œ œ ˙
w
-
qui
D
tol
-
w
Ó
w
˙
lis,
˙
qui
w
˙
˙
pec - ca
-
ta,
w
-
w
-
-
-
˙
pec
-
˙
-
˙
-
-
-
˙
-
-
w
ta
œ œ w
-
ca
-
32
D
Ct
&b Ó
˙
ca - ta
Œ œ b˙
Vb ˙
-
-
-
Vb W
?b
˙
˙
ta
T
Vb ˙
?b ˙
-
D
Ct
&b
B
-
w
-
-
-
-
V b ˙.
-
-
re
˙
˙
˙
-
-
œ œ w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
di
˙.
-
-
-
-
w
-
Ó
re
˙.
˙
-
re - [no
˙
mi
œ ˙
-
-
-
-
-
W
œ w
re
˙.
no
-
-
-
-
-
119
-
re,
se
-
bis],
w
bis,
w
mi
mi -
-
-
re
Ó
w
˙
mi -
re,
mi
w
re
-
-
Ó
se
˙
˙
œ œ ˙
se
-
-
re
-
˙
œ
-
-
˙
-
-
-
˙
˙
˙
-
˙
-
˙
œ œ b˙
˙
˙
-
˙
-
no
˙
-
œ ˙.
˙
re
-
mi
-
˙
-
-
-
˙.
-
w
˙
no
-
˙
w
w.
œ w
˙
Ó
œ w
se
œ ˙
-
mi
W
˙
w
˙
w
di
˙.
W
˙
re
re
-
-
mi
pec -
di
w
-
w
-
se
-
w
-
œ œ ˙.
œ ˙
di,
W
-
˙
˙
Ó
∑
∑
w
-
mun
-
-
re
-
-
-
W
-
œ œ œ ˙
Vb W
? ˙.
b
˙
se
se
-
re
˙
mi
se
T
w
Ó
˙
40
w
w
w
mun
„
w
mun
ta
∑
-
w
w
w
mun
Vb „
-
B
ca - ta
w
˙
ca - ta
Ct
-
pec
&b ˙
˙
b˙
ca - ta
˙
-
˙
˙
-
pec
-
di
36
D
di,
œ œ œ œ ˙
mun
B
˙
˙
-
mun
œ œ
pec - ca
lis
T
-
pec
w
˙
˙
se
-
re
-
-
-
-
-
-
44
D
Ct
T
&b
-
˙
Vb ˙
no
Vb ˙
˙
?b ˙
re
˙
-
-
-
-
-
-
œ œ w
-
-
˙
-
-
˙
W
-
bis.
W
w
˙
bis.
˙
-
-
-
˙
˙
no
œ œ
˙
w
re
-
B
-
˙
#
-
-
˙
˙
-
-
-
˙
˙
-
-
˙
˙
-
-
120
-
-
w
-
W
-
bis.
w
-
-
-
-
W
bis.