TIJDSCHRIFT VAN DE KONINKLIJKEVERENIGING VOOR NEDERLANDSE

MUZIEKGESCHIEDENIS

DEEL LXII-1/2, 2012Eindredacteur: Eric Jas

Redactie: JacquEs Boogaart, alBErt clEmEnt,Paul oP dE coul, rokus dE groot

INHOUD

PEtEr urquhart: Ad fugam, de Orto, and a defense of the ‘early Josquin’3

WillEm EldErs: Did Josquin use a musical ‘signature’?29

PatricE nicolas: Errors and quid pro quos in the Leiden choirbooks. The case of Jacotin’s magnificats

65

klaus kuiPEr: Linda Bandára and the gamelan. A musical soul between east and west

87

hEnk mak van diJk: Een curieuze ontdekking. De Préludes javanais van Sastro Prawiro [Otto Knaap]

129

BOEKBESPREKING

i. dE loos, Patronen ontrafeld. Studies over gregoriaanse gezangen en Middelnederlandse liederen

– Marcel Zijlstra163

l. samama, Alphons Diepenbrock, componist van het vocale– Désirée Staverman

166

n. nElissEn, Willem van Otterloo. Een dirigentenloopbaan– Helen Metzelaar

170

k. goEyvaErts, Selbstlose Musik. Texte • Briefe • Gespräche– Paul van Emmerik

177

J. oskamP, Onder stroom. Geschiedenis van de elektronische muziek in Nederland– Jannie Pranger

183

P. kustErs & t. schulz, Pierre Courbois > Révocation– Loes Rusch

188

h. mEtzElaar & B. lindErs, Sempre appassionato. 75 jaar muziekwetenschap in Amsterdam

– Joost van Gemert191

CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE196

3

Peter Urquhart

AD FUGAM, DE ORTO, AND A DEFENSE OF THE ‘EARLY JOSQUIN’*

Since its publication in 1951 by Albert Smijers, the Missa Ad fugam has generally been accepted as an example of Josquin’s canonic art, respected if not loved, an early work that led to later mass compositions like the Sine nomine and De beata virgine masses. There are only three sources or source families for the Missa Ad fugam: two manu-script sources, Vatican MS Cappella Sistina 49 (Va) and Jena University MS 31 (Je), and one print tradition following Petrucci’s third volume of Josquin masses, the Liber tertius of 1514 (Pe).1 Since the print and its followers are the only sources that name a composer, the attribution to Josquin does not appear to be very strong. However, it is not surprising to be left with only one attribution, in Pe and its followers. Had only one of the two manuscript sources carried an attribution, then the mass would have had the same percentage of attributions as the average for the other masses by Josquin. But these particular sources, Va and Je, are in fact largely devoid of attribu-tions in general: Va, with its 11 masses and one motet, carries only three attributions,

* This paper emerged from the editorial work behind the New Josquin Edition score of the Ad fugam mass (NJE Vol. 12, Canonic masses (Utrecht 2012). Certain issues involving authenticity

questions, canonic procedure, and a related mass arose during the process of creating the Critical commentary, but the length of the discussion exceeded the boundaries of the Edition. TVNM

graciously offered to publish these findings separately. Although an attempt has been made to

provide this paper with its own footing, it may be helpful for the reader to refer to the new edi-

tion in order to gain a fuller understanding of the issues involved. While there is some overlap

with the Critical commentary of the New Josquin Edition, the primary content of this article is

not found there. Thanks are due to Richard Sherr, Keith Polk, Ruth DeFord, Martin Just, and

Willem Elders, for their thoughts on earlier versions of this material. 1 Dates for these sources are: Va, ca. 1495-97; Je, probably 1495-1500; Pe, printed 1514. Ac-

cording to Richard Sherr, Va was copied in Rome ca. 1495-1512, for use by the Cappella

Sistina, while the pages carrying the Missa Ad fugam were copied ca. 1495-97 (Sherr 1996); ear-

lier dissertations by Sherr (1975) and Dean (1984) report 1492-1495. Cf. R. Sherr, Papal music manuscripts in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries (American Institute of Musicology 1996);

idem, The Papal Chapel ca. 1492-1513 and its polyphonic sources (Ph.D. diss. Princeton 1975); J.

Dean, The scribes of the Sistine Chapel, 1501-1527 (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago 1984). For Je, the most recent thoughts by Jürgen Heidrich (Die deutschen Chorbücher aus der

Hofkapelle Friedrichs des Weisen. Ein Beitrag zur mitteldeutschen geistlichen Musikpraxis um 1500 (Baden-Baden 1993)) place the manuscript in the same period of time as Va; on the other hand,

Je transmits a mass quite different from the one found in Va and Pe; a thorough revision had

taken place, one that was not likely to have been by the composer. For more on the evaluation

of the reading in Je, see the Critical commentary to NJE 12.1, Sections 4.1 and 7.

4

while Je, with its 14 masses and one Credo, originally carried no attributions at all.2 Thus, we should not expect these particular manuscripts to offer the composer’s name. The fact that the section of Va containing the mass was created just after the composer was in residence at the Sistine Chapel choir, provides a kind of passive support for the attribution that was later entered in Pe – it would make sense that this mass could be by Josquin. Given the close relationship between Va and Pe, it is likely that Petrucci secured the mass in Rome, and it would be reasonable to assume that the attribution also came from Rome. However, this reasoning is not terribly strong, and in the last twenty years, along with the many changes in our understanding of Josquin’s biography, there have been efforts to reassess the value of Petrucci’s attributions, particularly with the masses. David Fallows in 2009 described the Missa Ad fugam as ‘widely doubted’ and ‘seri-ously questioned’, along with the masses N’auray je jamais [Di dadi] and Une mousse de Biscaye (NJE 9.3 and 5.2), works in which the doubts arose initially because of stylistic issues.3 For Ad fugam, the case has generally not proceeded on the basis of stylistic investigation, at least not explicitly; the mass has barely gained enough notice for anyone to look at it with care. Jesse Rodin dismissed it without consider-ation, as though its inauthenticity was a foregone conclusion.4 Both authors refer to Joshua Rifkin’s paper, the widely circulated if unpublished ‘Masses and evidence’. Yet Rifkin gave the mass not much more attention, and relied on statements about the mechanical reuse of the Kyrie I as a headmotive, and about the use of uncommon mensuration signs, as evidence against Josquin’s authorship. His doubts were founded more on a general suspicion of Petrucci’s motives in publishing the Liber tertius;5 his more critical view of Petrucci demands that there be independent ascriptions before assuming Josquin’s authorship; those masses lacking independent ascriptions beyond Petrucci are considered suspect, even though it is clear that the particular manuscripts carrying this mass were unlikely to have provided a name.

2 Jennifer Bloxam made a similar statement about the two manuscript sources of the Ad fugam

mass, unfortunately marred by a misprint in the accounting. Mass no. 10 in Je carries an at-

tribution to Brumel, but it was entered in a later hand according to Heidrich, 123. Cf. Bloxam,

‘Masses based on polyphonic songs and canonic masses’, in The Josquin companion, ed. R. Sherr

(Oxford 2000), 197-203, at 197.3 D. Fallows, Josquin (Turnhout 2009), 268 and 324. Martin Just offers a good review of the

bibliography of criticism aimed at the masses Une mousse de Biscaye and L’ami Baudichon in his

introduction to NJE Vol. 5, Masses based on secular monophonic songs (Utrecht 2010), xi-xiv.4 J. Rodin, ‘“When in Rome . . .”. What Josquin learned in the Sistine Chapel’, in JAMS 61

(2008), 307-371; the dismissal of the Ad fugam mass in Va is found in footnote 88 on pp. 339-

340. Rodin also discusses this question in greater detail in his book Josquin’s Rome. Hearing and composing in the Sistine Chapel (Oxford 2012), which I did not see in time for this article.

5 J. Rifkin, ‘Masses and evidence. Petrucci’s Josquin’, unpublished paper read at Duke University,

North Carolina, 1999. Thanks are due to Prof. Rifkin for sending me a version of his influential

paper.

5

The central issue with the Ad fugam mass is therefore its place in the Josquin canon: first, whether it has one, and second, what an Ad fugam mass by Josquin might mean for our understanding of the composer’s development, and his relationship with the composer Marbriano de Orto, his associate in the Sistine Chapel during the years 1489-1494. For de Orto also wrote a Missa Ad fugam, or rather a unnamed ca-nonic mass in VatS 35 that has been named ‘Ad fugam’ in the twentieth century. That name was extended to it by Joseph Llorens in 1960, and continued by Ronald Miller in 1974, and by all other commentators afterwards, in recognition of the structural resemblance it holds with the mass that Petrucci published under Josquin’s name.6 Both are G-dorian masses based throughout on a canon between the superius and tenor, and in both masses the superius is the written part, leading before the derived tenor at the 5th below in exact imitation. The two masses are also found in Cappella Sistina manuscripts, and are ascribed to composers who were colleagues in the Cap-pella Sistina. Jesse Rodin has written extensively on the de Orto/Josquin connection, but did not choose to focus on the relationships between these two masses, because of his doubts regarding the authorship of the mass in VatS 49 (Va), doubts that seem to echo Rifkin’s thoughts. The attribution of course depends on Petrucci’s print of 1514, at least 20 years after the copying of the mass in Va, and perhaps 25 years after de Orto’s mass was copied into VatS 35. Nevertheless, a comparison of these two masses deserves full consideration, for the musical and chronological relationships that it would reveal. Only a few comments are possible here. First, a comparison of the two masses suggests that de Orto’s is the more devel-oped composition. It is more expansive in terms of length and larger in scope in terms of divisions: instead of two sections each for the Gloria and Credo, de Orto’s mass presents four in both movements. The variety of mensuration signs and rhyth-mic displacements used between leader and follower voices is greater in de Orto’s mass than Josquin’s, and the texture maintains greater density, with fewer sections of two-voice counterpoint. In Josquin’s mass, the si placet indications in the Benedictus and Agnus II point to earlier versions in which two-voice counterpoint was the in-tent. Va still transmits the Pleni in this way; the bassus added to Pe is a si placet line, thus following the model of the Benedictus and Agnus II as marked in Va, where the designations of ‘Duo’ and ‘Si placet’ are both provided. These markings point to an even simpler version of the Josquin mass in the lost exemplar that preceded Va.

6 J.M. Llorens, Capellae Sixtinae codices musicis notis instructi sive manu scripti sive praelo excussi (Rome

1960); R.L. Miller, The musical works of Marbriano de Orto. Transcription and commentary, 2 vols.

(Ph.D. diss., Indiana University 1974); N. Davison, ‘Marbriano de Orto (c.1455-1529). Per-

sonal thoughts and some surprises’, in EMu 36 (2008), 435-440. Bloxam (‘Masses based on

polyphonic songs’, 202) may have been the first to call specific attention to the ‘hitherto un-

remarked link between Josquin’s mass and the Missa Ad fugam by Marbrianus de Orto’, but it

certainly was noticed; in my 1988 dissertation (Canon, partial signatures, and ‘musica ficta’ in works by Josquin DesPrez and his contemporaries (Ph.D. diss. Harvard University 1988), 360) I wrote that

de Orto’s ‘Missa Ad fugam, possibly based on Josquin’s Ad fugam mass, contains an exact canon

throughout [...]’, an observation that will be elaborated upon below.

6

On the basis of complexity of texture, and even esthetic value, a comparison of the two masses might be thought to reflect poorly on Josquin, and thus used to sup-port the suspicion that the mass was in fact not composed by Josquin. If they were written at the same time by two colleagues, in ‘virtuous contention’ as it were – a phrase used by Thomas Morley to describe the exercise over canons that took place a century later between William Byrd and Alfonso Ferrabosco – then de Orto’s mass might seem to win the contest.7 However, there is little reason to claim that these canonic masses were written at the same time. Rather, one Ad fugam mass could have been the model for the other, in a more traditional pupil/teacher relationship. Jesse Rodin suggested this kind of relationship between de Orto and Josquin, with Josquin in the role of the pupil. Even though they seem to have been very close in age, Rodin considered the possibility that ‘Josquin could seem to be a late-bloomer’.8 Contributing to this viewpoint is the fact that the sources for Josquin’s ‘early works’, in almost anyone’s assembly of that list, are apparently all quite late in the composer’s lifetime. VatS 35, the source for de Orto’s mass, is roughly five to eight years older than Va, the source for Josquin’s mass.9 However, if the relationship between the masses follows from the chronology of these two sources, with the VatS 35 mass stimulating the composition of the Va mass, it places Josquin, the student, in a curi-ous light. His canonic essay is oddly less developed than that of his presumed teacher, de Orto. Much as we might be willing to accept Josquin’s ability to find simple means for accomplishing the task at hand, the Ad fugam mass still gives the impres-sion of a youthful experiment, even an incomplete study; the emphasis on duos, later added to with si placet lines, extends this impression. It does not strike one as a mass written in emulation of another, by a 40-year old composer who would continue to write 15 more masses of the likes of L’homme armé super voces musicales. Rather, it is more likely that the Ad fugam mass in Va was the initial essay in canonic composition, and de Orto’s mass was the emulation, written in response and perhaps some years later, an idea that others have raised before.10 Of course, there is no earlier source for Josquin’s Ad fugam, but it hardly seems likely that we have all of Josquin’s sources; that has never been a reasonable claim for music of this period, and should not be

7 Reference to the Byrd-Ferrabosco contest is not as far-fetched as it might appear. There is

evidence to suggest that Byrd was responding to Willaert’s Musica Nova publication of 1559,

which in turn was likely a response to Josquin’s exact canons in the five- and six-voice chansons

published by Susato in 1545. See my articles, ‘The persistence of exact canon through the six-

teenth century’, in Canons and canonic techniques, 14th-16th centuries. Theory, practice, and reception history, edd. K. Schiltz & B.J. Blackburn (Leuven 2007), 171-196; and ‘Susato’s Le Septiesme Livre (1545) and the persistence of exact canon’, in Tielman Susato and the music of his time, ed.

K. Polk (Pendragon 2005), 165-190.8 Rodin, ‘“When in Rome . . .’, 311.9 Richard Sherr, in his 1975 dissertation (The Papal Chapel ca. 1492-1513) provided the date

1492-1495, while his book of 1996, revised the dating to ca. 1495-1497 (Papal music manuscripts, 199). The date provided by Jesse Rodin for the de Orto mass in VatS 35 is 1489-1490 (p. 321).

10 Notably, Bloxam, ‘Masses based on polyphonic songs’, 202.

7

allowed to limit possibilities, especially in this case. De Orto’s mass in VatS 35 is clear and largely error-free, suggesting that the composer’s handwork was close by. For Josquin’s mass, the sheer number of errors of pitch content and miscalculation over the text underlay in Va suggests that the composer’s copy was not close, that this is a second- or third-hand copy. However, there was something about the mass that attracted Petrucci and caught the attention of the revisor of Je. But it may not have been the qualities of the mass itself, especially as transmitted in the rough ver-sion of Va. Rather, it seems likely that what attracted the printer and the revisor was the reputation of the composer, a reputation that was principally created by his later works, and perhaps not by the Missa Ad fugam itself. Furthermore, the focus of the emulation, or ‘virtuous contention’ between de Orto and Josquin, was canonic imitation, which was the lifeblood of Josquin’s com-positional style from his very earliest works to the latest, in particular canons at inter-vals of a 4th or 5th. Speaking of the four chansons written as double canons at the 4th above, that is, the ‘4 ex 2’ canons Baisiez moy (NJE 28.4), Dictez moy bergere (28.10), En l’ombre d’ung buissonnet (28.13), and Se congié prens (28.31), David Fallows, despite cautions regarding their authenticity, offered the opinion that ‘to judge from their style and some of their sources, it seems possible that Josquin explored this technique in the 1470s, perhaps culminating in his Salve regina, a4 (NJE 25.4)’.11 Other early chansons explore other aspects of canon (NJE 28.35 Une musque de Biscaye, NJE 28.36 Vive le roy, NJE 28.7 Comment peult avoir joye), or were derived from models or studies that explored canon at the 4th or 5th (NJE 27.3 Cela sans plus, NJE 27.12 Fortuna d’un gran tempo, NJE 28.14 Entré je suis among others). The masses also have roots in canonic explorations: a number of early Credo compositions are based on canons at the 4th or 5th, including the Credo [Quarti toni] (NJE 13.4) and the two ca-nonic ‘Credo de village’ settings which may have pre-existed the masses into which they were incorporated, the masses Sine nomine and De beata virgine (NJE 12.2 and 3.3).12 In contrast, de Orto’s canonic mass was the pinnacle of his work with canon. The essence of his compositional style did not involve canon.13 So to consider de Orto’s Missa Ad fugam as a study done in conjunction with, or in emulation of, his more prolific contemporary Josquin, makes better sense than the opposite. The fact that Rodin dismissed the Ad fugam mass as ‘outside the scope’ of his article, means that he ignored the very crux of any stylistic comparison of Josquin and de Orto; but that is assuming that Josquin actually wrote the mass in Va, which he did not assume.

11 D. Fallows (ed.), NJE Vol. 28, Secular works for four voices (Utrecht 2005), xiii.12 These two Credos had some circulation independent of their masses as a whole. In the source

ModE N.1.2 both were entitled Patrem de Villaige.13 Davison and Miller disagree on this question. Davison claimed (‘Marbriano de Orto’, 435) that

canon was one of the ‘important elements in his style’; however, Miller, speaking generally

of all the masses (The musical works of Marbriano de Orto, 135), found that ‘canonic imitation is

conspicuous in its absence. While it is a basic characteristic in Missa Ad fugam, other examples

of canonic writing are rare’. Miller’s claim, supported by statistics, is the more credible.

8

Beyond the gross structural features of how the canon in these two masses is de-ployed – superius to tenor, down a 5th – there is the subtle aspect of the quality of the canon; both masses rely on ‘exact’ rather than ‘diatonic’ canon. Proof of this as-sertion for Josquin’s mass is found in the flat signatures of Va: the manuscript carries partial signatures designed to allow for an exact relationship between the superius and tenor. The other two sources regularize the signature flats to one-flat in all voices, but the reading in Va is clearly the original conception.14 Partial signatures are often found in Josquin canonic works at the 5th below or 4th above, in order to ensure an exact canonic relationship, and they are just as often altered and bowdlerized in later sources by scribes who did not understand or care for the conceit.15

Similar proof for the use of exact canon in de Orto’s mass is made more difficult because of the flat signatures used by de Orto: his given voices, S, A, and B, all carry a one-flat signature, so that the derived tenor would have two flats if the canon were exact. Because the composer was careful to avoid coincidences of E in the tenor with E’s in the other voices, E♭ could be used throughout the tenor, but many passages could also accept E♮. Of those passages where E♭ is clearly preferable, that prefer-ence is based mostly on linear, not harmonic considerations. However, there are a few passages in the Agnus dei in which the bass and tenor coincide on E♭s without significant linear restrictions: the flat is explicit in the bass, while that in the tenor is the result of reading the superius down a perfect 5th at all times, which defines the exact canon. The first example, at m. 12, is nearly self-explanatory (Ex. 1). From a linear point of view, the tenor could have sung E♮ as readily as E♭ in this passage, but the bass inflection, which is forced by the use of an explicit accidental, suggests that the tenor has been singing E♭ throughout. Two other examples from the Agnus dei II require some explanation. As tran-scribed by Miller and Davison, the Agnus II is a trio without the tenor. It is the only trio in the mass, and Miller explains that because there is no signum congruentiae, no canon was intended to be extracted from the given superius.16 Davison agreed, but implied that he had looked for one: ‘No possible canon has been found’.17 However, if one places a tenor follower, down a 5th as usual, beginning three minims after the superius, then the resulting canon works perfectly throughout the movement. Three minims is admittedly an unusual temporal distance, but not out of the question, and the fact that it works perfectly guarantees that it was part of the composer’s original

14 The proof for this assertion for the Josquin mass was provided in the Critical commentary to NJE

12.1, Section 4.3.15 Consider for instance the variety of signature flat configurations to be found in the following ca-

nonic works: the chansons Une musque de Biscaye, Baisiez moy, Nymphes nappées, Faulte d’argent, and the Credos of the Sine nomine and De beata virgine masses. In general, the partial signatures

initially present in many canonic works became regularized in later sources to consistent signa-

tures in all voices.16 Miller, The musical works of Marbriano de Orto, 107.17 N. Davison (ed.), Marbriano de Orto, Latin compositions I. Missa Ad fugam. Antico Edition RCM

43 (Devon 2007), viii.

9

plan for the movement, despite the lack of a signum congruentiae in the source.18 There is no chance that a canon would work out by accident, for the music is too tightly woven.19 With the tenor voice restored (Ex. 2), we see that there are two instances of coincidence between the tenor and bass on E♭, at m. 36 and 51. Together with m. 12 excerpted above, these passages provide firm evidence that the canon oper-ates in an exact manner, with E♮ and E♭ carefully controlled by the composer,

Example 1. Exact imitation between the superius and tenor in the Agnus dei of de Orto’s

Ad fugam mass.

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

› w

A gnus

.w˙ ˙

w

w ∑ ∑

› ˙w

w w ˙ ˙

de

˙

˙˙ ˙ ˙

› w

A gnus

˙ w˙˙

w wÓ w

i, qui

˙

˙w Ó .w

w w ˙ ˙

de

ww ˙ ˙

10˙ w

w

tol lis,

˙ ˙ w

w w Ó

w

i, qui

w

Ó ˙ w

∑ w ˙ ˙

qui tol

˙ ˙ w ˙

˙

˙ ww

tol lis,

˙ ˙ w ˙˙

- - - -

- - -

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

˙˙ w Ó w

lis pec

wÓ ˙ ˙ ˙

∑w ˙ ˙

qui tol

w w ˙b w

˙ ˙.˙ œ˙

ca ta mun

˙

˙w

.˙œ

˙˙ w

Ów

lis pec

˙ w w

w w

Ó

w

di, pec

w Ó

.˙œ˙

˙ ˙.˙ œ˙

ca ta mun

w∑ ∑

- - - -

- - -

18 The asymmetry resulting from canonic imitation after three minims is also encountered in can-

ons imitating after one minim; while there are famous examples of these among Josquin’s masses

(L’homme armé sexti toni, and Malheur me bat final Agnus dei sections), the closest resemblance to

de Orto’s Agnus II is found in Josquin’s stylistically early Credo [Quarti toni] (NJE 13.4) which

is transmitted only in the late source CambraiBM 18.19 Richard Sherr points out two instances of parallel fifths caused by the tenor follower, at m. 37

between altus and tenor, and m. 57 between superius and tenor. These are minor flaws unlikely

to have concerned the composer according to Nigel Davison: ‘In Orto’s hands parallel 5ths,

whether cadential or not, are common enough to be called an Orto fingerprint. They are found

in all but the last compositions, often in large numbers’ (Davison, ‘Marbriano de Orto’, 437).

10

and directed by the operation of the canon at the 5th, in the same manner as Josquin’s mass.20

Example 2. The Agnus II from de Orto’s Ad fugam mass, with the tenor follower realized.

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

C

C

C

C

„

w w

A

„

›

A

„

.˙ œ ˙w

gnus de

„

w ˙ ˙

gnus

„

œ œ ˙ ˙

„

w.˙ œ

de

„

˙ w œ œ

„

˙ w œ œ

„

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

i,

„

˙ œ œ ˙ ˙

30„

Ó˙ ˙

.˙

a

„

˙ w˙

i,

- - -

- - - -

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

„

œ( )ö

œ ˙ ˙.˙

„

w ˙ œ œ

a

„

œ œ œ .˙

#

œ

„

˙ ˙ w

w w

A

˙˙ ˙ ˙

gnus de

∑ Ów

A

ww

gnus

.˙ œ ˙˙

˙ ˙˙ .˙

w .˙

Ó w ˙b

de

35

w

Ó˙

gnus de

œ œœ ˙ ˙

i,

œ ˙˙w

gnus

w ˙w

w ˙ w

w˙ ˙

a gnus

Ó ˙w

de

˙ ˙ ˙b

- -

- - - -

- -

- -

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

˙( )ö

w ˙

œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙

de

˙( )õ

˙ w

˙w ˙

b

w

#

w

i

w Ów

i qui

w ˙ w

n

w ∑

i

∑›

qui

w

˙

tol

w Ó

i

.w˙

qui tol

40

›

˙˙ .˙ œ

Ó ›

qui

.w˙

lis pec

›

˙

w ˙

lis pec

›

w w

ca ta

›

˙w

w

ca ta mun

›

.w˙

mun

- -

- - - - -

- -

- - - - -

20 The realization of the canon also reveals an error in Miller’s transcription, one that was followed

by Davison. Miller mistook a dotted minim in the bass of m. 54 as a semiminim because of

bleed-through in the manuscript. The lost minim value was made up in his transcription two

measures earlier at the rest that begins m. 52; Miller and Davison transcribed it as a semibreve

rest, although it is clearly a minim rest. Thus the intervening notes, between m. 521 and 54

3, are

shifted one minim to the right in both transcriptions. When the canon follower is placed against

this faulty transcription, the error is made evident by parallel 8ves in m. 53 which are not present

with the error removed.

11

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

w( )ö

Ó.˙

tol

˙( )õ

œ œœ œ

.˙

˙( )õ

›

w˙

.˙

di, qui tol

œ ˙˙ ˙

œ ˙

w

di,

Ó .˙ œ

tol

œ ˙˙

b

˙

45

˙˙

Ó .˙

lis pec

˙ ˙ ˙w

qui tol lis

˙˙ ˙ ˙

˙

b

˙

˙ .˙

œ ˙˙ ˙

ca ta

˙ .˙ œ

pec ca

˙ Ó.˙ œ

lis pec

œ œ œ ˙

˙

˙˙∑

mun di,

œ œ w ˙

˙˙ ˙ ˙

ca ta mun

wÓ ˙

lis pec

„

.˙ œ.˙ œ

˙ Ó ∑

di,

w

b

˙w

ca

- - - -

- - - - -

- - - -

- - - - -

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

„

.˙ œ œœ w

„

˙( )õ

˙˙ ˙

50„

w ˙

#

„

˙˙ w

ta

›

quiw

.˙ œ

ta mun

∑ Ó›

qui

wwb

mun di,

›

tol

˙ ww

di, pec

›

tol

Ó ˙ w

qui tol

›

lis

w˙

ca

›

lis

w

.w

lis

›

w œ œ œ œ

ta mun

›

˙ .˙ œ

pec ca

-

- - - - - -

-

- - - - - -

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

55Ó

˙w

pec ca

w ˙ ˙

.w( )õ

Ó

œ œ ˙

w

ta

˙ w w

˙

˙ ˙Ó

di,

˙w ˙

pec ca

˙ ˙˙

w

mun

˙ ˙˙

˙ ˙ w

qui tol lis

w w

˙ w

di,

˙w

˙

ta

˙w

.˙

pec ca

˙ ˙˙ ˙

Ó .˙ œ œ œ

qui

w

.w

mun

œ w .˙

w˙ w

ta mun

.w.w

tol

60

˙ w

di,

œ˙ .˙ œ

.w

.w

lis

- - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - -

- - -

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

Ó˙ ˙ ˙

pec ca

˙

˙

˙ w

˙ w Ó

di,

˙( )ö

˙ ˙ œ œ

pec ca

wÓ˙

ta mun

˙ .˙ œ

ta mun

˙ ˙ ˙w

pec ca ta

w wb

˙ ˙ ˙

˙

di,

˙ ˙b ˙

˙

Ó ˙ ˙

mun

˙ ˙˙ ˙

∑

œ œœ œ

mi

w

˙

w

˙ ˙

˙Ó

di,

˙˙˙˙

65

˙ w ˙

se re

.˙ œ ˙

Óœ œœ œ˙

mi se

˙ w ˙

˙ œ œ ˙ ˙

re,˙

w˙

w ˙˙

re

w

˙ ˙

ta

- - - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - -

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

Ó˙˙ œ œ

mi se

w Ó ˙

di, mi

œ œ ˙ ˙Ó

re,

w w

mun di

˙ ˙Ó

˙

re re no

˙

˙ œ œ ˙

se re

˙˙ œ œ ˙

mi se re

Ó ˙

w

mi se

˙ ˙ ˙ w

˙˙˙ w

˙ Ó˙ ˙

re no

˙ ˙ ˙

b

˙

re

70

˙ ˙ ˙

˙ ˙ ˙b

re

˙ ˙ w

˙Ó˙˙

b

re, mi se

˙ .˙œ.˙

w œ œ œ œ

no

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

˙ ˙

˙w

re

œ ˙ .˙

#

œ

.˙ œw

.˙œ

.˙ œ

˙ w

re no

bis.

bis.

bis.

bis.

- - - - - -

- - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

12

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

Ó˙ ˙ ˙

pec ca

˙

˙

˙ w

˙ w Ó

di,

˙( )ö

˙ ˙ œ œ

pec ca

wÓ˙

ta mun

˙ .˙ œ

ta mun

˙ ˙ ˙w

pec ca ta

w wb

˙ ˙ ˙

˙

di,

˙ ˙b ˙

˙

Ó ˙ ˙

mun

˙ ˙˙ ˙

∑

œ œœ œ

mi

w

˙

w

˙ ˙

˙Ó

di,

˙˙˙˙

65

˙ w ˙

se re

.˙ œ ˙

Óœ œœ œ˙

mi se

˙ w ˙

˙ œ œ ˙ ˙

re,˙

w˙

w ˙˙

re

w

˙ ˙

ta

- - - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - -

&

V

V

?

b

b

bb

b

Ó˙˙ œ œ

mi se

w Ó ˙

di, mi

œ œ ˙ ˙Ó

re,

w w

mun di

˙ ˙Ó

˙

re re no

˙

˙ œ œ ˙

se re

˙˙ œ œ ˙

mi se re

Ó ˙

w

mi se

˙ ˙ ˙ w

˙˙˙ w

˙ Ó˙ ˙

re no

˙ ˙ ˙

b

˙

re

70

˙ ˙ ˙

˙ ˙ ˙b

re

˙ ˙ w

˙Ó˙˙

b

re, mi se

˙ .˙œ.˙

w œ œ œ œ

no

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

˙ ˙

˙w

re

œ ˙ .˙

#

œ

.˙ œw

.˙œ

.˙ œ

˙ w

re no

bis.

bis.

bis.

bis.

- - - - - -

- - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

One other aspect of the Agnus II stands out. Throughout de Orto’s mass there are few melodic features that call attention to themselves (the Credo is an exception, for it quotes freely from the Credo I plainchant). But here in the Agnus II there is one striking melodic contour that is presented as though it is a quotation, in the superius at mm. 39-42, placed in longer note values than the surrounding voices, separated from its surroundings by rests and under ligature. Even the contour of this four-note figure brings attention to itself, for nothing like it has appeared in the mass to this point, and it is then repeated with the same four breve emphasis placed a 3rd higher at mm. 51-54 (Ex. 3). That emphasis is increased by the repetition in the canonically derived tenor at two other pitch levels.

Example 3. The ‘crux motive’ in the superius of de Orto’s Ad fugam Agnus II.

mm. 39-42 mm. 51-54

mm. 39-42 mm. 51-54

Derivations from the cruciform contour of this motive are evident throughout the Agnus II, and create an unusual departure from de Orto’s normal style in the mass (see the superius mm. 44-5 beginning on F, mm. 48-9 on A, and mm. 58-60 on F). This motivic concentration is what originally drew my attention to the passage, and yet the four-note neume itself fairly jumps out of its context, both aurally and visu-ally. There is no other neume larger than two elements in the superius of the entire mass, and no voice has a four-element ligature other than the one in the Agnus II. The contour was meant to be identified; initially it reminded me of a passage in Josquin’s Pange lingua mass, and the instrumental work Vive le roy, both of which use the figure in imitative textures at the 5th. That imitative function suggested that the

13

superius-tenor canon that obtains throughout the mass was probably intended here also, resulting in the discovery of the unmarked canon. Vive le roy is composed almost entirely of this motive, in a canonically generated webbing placed over the cantus firmus derived from the title. The imitation involves not only canon at the 5th be-low, but also at the 4th above, as shown in Ex. 4a. The Agnus II from Josquin’s Pange lingua mass simply involves imitation at the 5th below, shown in Ex. 4b.

Example 4. Use of the ‘crux motive’ in Josquin passages involving imitation at the 5th below.

a) from Vive le roy (NJE 28.36)

&Ó˙ ˙ ˙

Ó

˙

?

Ó ˙&

˙ ˙

wÓ

˙

˙ ˙ w

w Ó ˙

˙ ˙˙ ˙

Ó

˙ ˙ ˙

10

˙ ˙˙ ˙

˙ ˙w

˙ ˙˙ ˙

˙ ˙w

3

˙ ˙ ˙.˙œ

w 3˙ ˙ ˙

3

˙ ˙ ˙ .˙œ

w

Ó .˙

.˙œw

w

Ó .˙

œ˙˙ ˙

Ó

.˙ œ˙

œ˙˙ ˙

ww

˙ ˙w

b) from Agnus II of the Missa Pange lingua (NJE 4.3)

&.w ˙

mi se

.w

V

ww

re re

˙ w

.w˙

no

w.w

50w ∑

bis,

˙ w

.w ˙

mi se

∑

.w

˙˙

.w

re re no

˙ ˙˙

˙ w

bis

.w˙

∑ w

qui

w∑

- - - - - - - -

The motive turns out to be extremely common among Josquin’s works in passages with imitation at the 5th below. In the motet In illo tempore assumpsit Jesus (NJE 19.5) the motive is placed in a canon-like four-voice passage from mm. 61-76; in Absolve, quesumus, domine (NJE 26.1) it is found at the beginning in three and then four voices; in Misericordias domini (NJE 18.4), mm. 77-87, a four-out-of-two canonic framework is gradually abstracted using the motive; and it is found in numerous

14

other motets and chansons.21 But the richest source of examples of the crux motive is Josquin’s Missa Ad fugam: unlike the case of de Orto’s mass, the motive occurs in multiple movements in various rhythmic contexts: in the Credo, Osanna, and twice in the Gloria.22 The motive is often joined together with triadic motion downwards in the mass, which also occurs prominently in Vive le roy. In every case, the composer is using the motive for the purpose of generating the canonic imitation at the 5th below, which of course is true also in de Orto’s Agnus II with the canonic follower restored (Ex. 5).

Example 5. Use of the ‘crux motive’ in de Orto and Josquin’s Ad fugam masses.

a) from de Orto’s Ad fugam mass Agnus dei 2

&b ∑

›

Ó

40

›

ÓV

›bunwritten

Tenor

›

›

›

›

Ó.˙

›

œ˙˙ ˙

Ó .˙ œ

45

˙˙

Ó .˙

˙˙ ˙ ˙

œ˙˙ ˙

˙ Ó.˙ œ

b) from Josquin’s Ad fugam mass Credo

&

35

› w

Ge ni

w ww

tum,

›Vbunwritten

Tenor

w

w .ww

non fac

w ww

˙ w

∑

tum,

w .ww

w ˙ w ˙

con sub stan ti

˙ w∑

40.w

˙ w

a lem

w ˙ w ˙

- - - - - - - -

21 Other related passages are found in Quant je vous voye (NJE 27.32) at the beginning and else-

where; Huc me sydereo (NJE 21.5), mm. 72-75; Nimphes nappées (NJE 30.6), mm. 7-12 and

50-60; Baisez moy (NJE 28.4), mm. 13-15; and Ut phebi radiis (NJE 25.10), at the beginning and

at mm. 51-52. The canonic chanson Plaine de dueil (NJE 29.20) contains the motive running

in retrograde motion, which makes sense given that the canon is presented with the follower a

5th above. The authenticity of Misericordias domini has of course been questioned, but it has also

been strongly supported as an early work of Josquin’s from the early 1480’s, by Patrick Macey

and David Fallows. In some ways, the authenticity question is irrelevant; its style, and perhaps

even the crux motive passage, must have seemed close to Josquin’s style, for the sources with

attributions all agree on his name. See Fallows, Josquin, 99-104. For other doubted motets as-

cribed to Josquin employing the crux motive, see E. Jas, ‘What’s in a quote? Josquin’s (?) Jubilate Deo, omnis terra reconsidered’, in EMu 37 (2009), 9-19.

22 Besides the passages cited in Ex. 5, see also the Gloria Ad fugam, mm. 35-39 for a closely related

motive that transforms into the crux motive in the bass as imitation at the 5th invades the altus

and bass parts. Also related is the ‘Et homo factus’ figure, at mm. 82-98 in the Credo.

15

c) from Josquin’s Ad fugam mass Gloria

&

50

›

Qui

„

w›

tol lis

„

w

pec

w w

ca ta

›Vb

.w˙

mun

wunwritten

Tenor›

55

›

di,

w

∑ ›

mi

w w

w

se

.w˙

w w

re re

›

.w˙

no

∑›

60

›

bis.

w

„

w w

›

Qui

.w˙

w w

tol lis

›

- - - - - - - - -

d) from Josquin’s Ad fugam mass Osanna

&›

o

„

70

w w

san na

„

›

in

w w

ex cel

›Vbunwritten

Tenor

›

sis,

w w

w w

in ex

›

75

›

cel

w w

w w

sis, o

›

ww

-san

w w

.w ˙

›

›

w w

80

›

ww

- - - - - - -

Given Josquin’s use of the motive in imitations at the 5th below throughout the Ad fugam mass, as well as in other later works, it is difficult not to imagine the influence as flowing from Josquin to de Orto. The notational character of the motive in its appearance in de Orto’s mass, together with its use only in the Agnus II and not elsewhere in the mass, suggests that it is a quotation. While it isn’t possible to prove that the motive came from Josquin, it seems more likely than the other way around.23 Canon at the 5th appears to be an exercise or technical study in de Orto’s mass – se-vere and largely featureless, and intimately linked with the mass by Josquin. Josquin’s mass has many of the same characteristics, but is clearly related to his other works employing canon at the fifth, a device of special interest throughout his career. De Orto’s mass was not picked up by Petrucci for publication in 1505, the only mass by

23 The earliest instance of this motive that I have come across occurs in Ockeghem’s bergerette

Ma maistresse, at the beginning in the cantus and tenor. There is always a danger that a motive

of such limited size will be ‘discovered’ nearly everywhere, because it is part of the melodic

background of the time. But in this case its appearance may not simply be a coincidence, for

Ockeghem uses the same 5th-down imitation between the two voices that Josquin employs

almost every time it arises in his music. Furthermore, the melody with the attached text ‘ma

maistresse’ also appears in the rondeau Au travail suis, which Ockeghem may have written, or at

least composed a mass upon. In Au travail suis the imitation is at the 8ve rather than at the 5th,

but the motive is nevertheless memorable in the context of the chanson because it is marked

by the imitation. Commentators have in general favored Barbinguant as the composer of Au travail suis, and have tended to favor the idea that Ockeghem in Ma maistresse was quoting from

Barbinguant’s chanson. If so, it may have been Ockeghem who discovered the usefulness of the

imitation at the 5th for the motive, and thus its use by Josquin and de Orto may have begun as

a reference to the older composer. References to the bibliography surrounding these chansons

and a discussion of the shared motive may be found in Jaap van Benthem’s edition of Johannes Ockeghem, masses and mass sections II. Masses based on secular settings, fasc. 3 (Utrecht 2002), xxii.

16

de Orto that was never published, despite being one of his earliest settings.24 Josquin’s mass was in fact picked up by Petrucci, more than twenty to thirty years after it was composed, and probably from an exemplar that we no longer have. If we were to allow the Ad fugam mass to retake its position as an early work by the composer, preceding the composition of de Orto’s mass, a much more reasonable picture emerges, with the mass from VatS 49 serving as the model for the one from VatS 35, rather than vice versa. The dating of the remaining sources would thus be discounted in favor of returning a period of compositional activity to the composer in his 20’s and 30’s: in a word, to allow a profile of the ‘early Josquin’ as a com-poser. While speculative, the picture better fits our modern understanding of how a composer’s voice develops than to claim that Josquin was a ‘late bloomer’, receiving training from a contemporary composer such as de Orto at the age of 35 or 40. However, this thesis depends wholly on whether one can include the Ad fugam mass as Josquin’s work, as attested by Petrucci. The case against the mass, besides the distrust its sole attribution from Petrucci evokes, consists of just two observations by Joshua Rifkin: use of the mensuration sign O2, use of a headmotive consisting of the entirety of the first Kyrie. Rifkin’s claim that the use of the mensuration sign O2 in the Ad fugam mass is uncommon for Josquin, is undercut by the number of works that he himself cites that use the sign: Homo quidam (NJE 19.4), Preter rerum seriem (NJE 24.11), the final Agnus dei of the Pange lingua mass (NJE 4.3), and the Credo of Missa L’ami Baudichon (NJE 5.1). Other works may be added to this list: the final Agnus dei movements of the masses on L’homme armé sexti toni and N’auray je jamais [Di dadi] (NJE 6.2 and 9.3), and the motet Huc me sydereo (NJE 21.5).25 To be fair, Rifkin’s statement is more nuanced than this: ‘Ad fugam also stands out for a mensural practice uncommon, if not in fact unknown, in Josquin: except for this mass and the doubtful Magnus es tu Domine, O2 as a signature for all voices occurs solely in music constructed around long-note cantus firmi’.26 There may be value in this observation,27 but the condition placed upon it – presence of a long-note cantus firmus – would not apply to this mass, for instead of a cantus firmus the work is based on a canonic scaffolding. Nor do the many works with O2 use it for the same pur-pose. The mensuration sign serves to differentiate the cantus firmus from the quicker lines by its absence from cantus firmus lines in the masses L’homme armé sexti toni and

24 Miller (The musical works of Marbriano de Orto, 115-116, 139) as well as Davison (Marbriano de Orto, Latin compositions I, iii) claimed that the earliest mass by de Orto was probably the Ad fugam

mass of VatS 35. Rodin (‘“When in Rome . . .’, 321, note e), on the basis of some rather opaque

source commentary, suggested that de Orto’s L’homme armé mass preceded the Ad fugam mass.25 A number of these occurrences of O2 in masses and motets are visible in the NJE Vol. 2 of fac-

similes, pp. 10-11, 17, 52, and 76. For the Missa Di dadi, see the comments by Barton Hudson

on mensuration and proportion signs, in NJE 9.3, Critical commentary, Section 8E, p. 73.26 Rifkin, ‘Masses and evidence’, 17.27 According to Rifkin, the observation was made originally by Richard Sherr.

17

L’ami Baudichon. And in other works the purpose seems simply to call for a faster tempo, as in Homo quidam, and those sections of the Ad fugam mass where it appears. It is likely that O2, a favorite mensuration sign of Antoine Busnoys, was in common use early in Josquin’s life and music. Later, the trend was to use D instead of O2, and to bring older works up to date by revising their mensuration signs, as evidenced by the changes made upon numerous works by sixteenth-century publishers, including this particular Ad fugam mass, which was printed by Petrucci without its original O2 signs. The use of O2 in the Va need not be seen as a strike against Josquin’s author-ship, but rather an indication of the early genesis of the mass. And clearly Josquin never forgot the use of O2, for it appears in the final Agnus dei of his late mass on Pange lingua; the section does not actually have a long-note cantus firmus, but in-stead a reminiscence of one, along with the old-fashioned mensuration sign O2 in all parts.28

Jennifer Bloxam made sense of Josquin’s use of O2 in this way:29

O2 is rare among works attributed to Josquin in extant sources. It must be noted,

however, that composers’ use of modus cum tempore signs declined over the course of

Josquin’s life; he would have used such signs in his early pieces, as did other compos-

ers at this time, and gradually abandoned them. Likewise, later scribes and especially

printers reproducing these early pieces were prone to edit out the more difficult signs,

often replacing them with D. . . . [T]he appearance of modus cum tempore signs in works

attributed to Josquin is potentially significant for the dating of his music; in this regard

it is worth noting that the two masses making explicit use of O2 in some sources (the

Missa L’ami Baudichon and the Missa Ad fugam) are both believed to be early works.

Connections between the Ad fugam and L’ami Baudichon masses go beyond the use of old-fashioned mensuration signs. Both masses also engage in literal headmotive rep-etitions, although the headmotive in L’ami Baudichon is just four perfect breves long and comprised of a duet between the top two lines. A similar arrangement obtains in the Missa N’auray je jamais [Di dadi], for what that may be worth for the authorship question. Although Josquin appears to have moved away from headmotives as an organizing device in his later masses, they are still visible in the first two movements of the masses Pange lingua and Gaudeamus, and in the Missa Ave maris stella for two perfect breves in all movements except the Sanctus. Thus, the use of a headmotive is by no means out of the question for Josquin, especially in an early mass.

28 Two articles treat the presence of O2 in this section of the Pange lingua mass: R. Sherr, ‘Josquin’s

Missa Pange lingua. A note on Agnus dei III’, in EMu 18 (1990), 271-275; and W. Elders, ‘The

symbolism of reconciliation in Agnus dei settings of Josquin des Prez’, in Proceedings of the inter-national colloquium ‘Das Blut Jesu und die Lehre von der Versöhnung im Werk Johann Sebastian Bachs’, Amsterdam, 1993, ed. A.A. Clement (Amsterdam 1995), 49-62.

29 Bloxam, ‘Masses based on polyphonic songs’, 159, n. 19.

18

Rifkin’s general doubt about Petrucci’s motives in the Liber tertius may have been suggested by the wider abuse evident in later publications from the middle of the six-teenth century; but, given the small sample size for the sources among some parts of Josquin’s output, we would have a very fragmented idea of that oeuvre without Pe-trucci. His prints provide the only source for the attributions of a number of works; among the motets, Factum est autem (NJE 19.3), Qui velatus facie fuisti (NJE 22.3), O Domine Jesu Christe (NJE 22.1), Ut phoebi radiis (NJE 25.10), and even Illibata dei virgo (NJE 24.3) depend entirely on Petrucci for their attributions. The last motet might be thought to be an exception, but its source situation is essentially the same as that of the mass. Besides Petrucci’s print of 1508, Illibata is found only in the Vatican source VatS 15, without ascription, just as the Missa Ad fugam is found in VatS 49 without ascription. The two Vatican sources are especially close, for their copying dates over-lap; in fact, the Ad fugam mass was copied by the same scribe who copied Illibata in VatS 15, sometime in the years 1495-1497.30 Yet, no one one has ever thought to doubt the authenticity of Illibata, given that the composer’s name is inscribed directly into the text. Much the same can be said for the early secular music by Josquin; without Pe-trucci’s attributions, the following chansons, among others, would be anonymous: Cela sans plus (NJE 27.3), Basies moy (NJE 28.4), Fortuna d’un gran tempo (NJE 27.12), La Bernardina (NJE 27.21), La plus des plus (NJE 27.22), and Vive le roy (NJE 28.36). If the same critical approach were applied to the secular works as to the masses, there would be little left to characterize Josquin’s early secular music. It might be claimed that because Petrucci’s prints carrying these chansons are early – 1501 to 1504 – it is less likely that the publisher had any incentive to misattribute; Josquin’s reputation had not yet blossomed to the extent that it would by 1514. From this viewpoint, the early Petrucci prints would be inherently more trustworthy in their ascriptions than those of the Liber tertius. However, there are a number of misleading ascrip-tions among the early prints. The Missa Ferialis by Martini is ascribed to Josquin in Petrucci’s Fragmenta missarum (15051), as is the Credo La belle se siet by Robert de Févin (NJE 4.1 and 13.3). Conversely, the chanson Que vous madame / In pace (NJE 27.33), which in manuscripts is generally attributed to Josquin, was assigned to

30 Richard Sherr’s Scribal Hand A1. In neither of the two Vatican sources does Scribe A

1 ever

provide a composer’s name in the works he copied. Another hand found in VatS 15, Scribe B,

is known for attributing works only to Josquin or to de Orto, which gives a sense of how close

the context of these manuscripts is to these two composers. See Sherr, Papal music manuscripts, 76-144 and 199.

19

Agricola in Petrucci’s Canti C (15043).31 These misattributed works should make us wary of assuming that Petrucci had a commercial agenda with his attributions. Instead of providing evidence that the publisher was seeking to pad his publications with Josquin’s name, they suggest that Petrucci did not always know the truth, and was not in direct contact with composers such as Josquin. Despite the many who have assumed that the first book of masses (Misse Josquin, 1502), in contrast to the Liber tertius (1514), was assembled with Josquin’s oversight and/or blessing, there is no evidence of contact. It may well be that Petrucci was scraping the bottom of the barrel when he returned to Josquin’s masses for the Liber tertius. But to judge these masses as suspect until proven worthy by concordances does not take into account the paucity and delicate nature of the evidence that is left to us. And, inevitably, con-siderations of style undergird both the firmly traditional assumptions held by many, as well as the zeal of those who would challenge them. We tend to place our own desires and prejudices upon the ‘early Josquin’.

With regard to style, the Ad fugam mass is surprisingly well-positioned. The canonic structure is exactly what we would expect of an early mass by the composer of so many canonic explorations. Canon at the 4th or 5th was Josquin’s primary method, not only early, but throughout his career. The ‘exact quality’ of the canon is also relevant, as discussed above. The emphasis on duo textures in the Ad fugam mass, and the abrupt transitions from the headmotive to two-voice passages, may seem atypical for the composer. In other early masses and mass segments – Missa L’ami Baudichon and the Credo De tous biens for example – the transitions to duo textures are more smoothly handled, without the sudden dropouts that occur after the headmotive in Ad fugam, in the Gloria and Credo in particular. However, there may be structural reasons for these differences. In the Missa L’ami Baudichon, the headmotive that begins each move-ment is a duo, except in the Agnus dei where it is accompanied by the bass. Thus the introduction of the full four-voice texture occurs gradually, particularly in the Gloria and Credo. But in Ad fugam, the use of the superius necessitates the sounding of the tenor, because of the canon. Each movement begins with all four voices, and when the canonic voices take a break, a sudden change in the texture must follow. The Credo De tous biens playne (NJE 13.2) also begins with all four voices, but without a canon linking superius and tenor, the texture can drop to three rather than to just two voices; because there are two cantus firmi, the duo texture is used more sparingly.

31 The editors of NJE Vol. 27, Howard Mayer Brown and Jaap van Benthem, suggested that the

attribution may refer to Agricola as the composer of the si placet fourth voice rather than the

work as a whole. The proposal brings up another issue: why would a composer some ten years

older than Josquin have added this undistinguished si placet line to the work of a younger emu-

lator? Since two of Agricola’s motet-chansons are included in the same 1504 print, Canti C, it

is more likely that Petrucci assumed that Que vous madame, so similar in structure to Agricola’s

Belle sur toutes/Tota pulchra es, was by the older composer.

20

The best comparison is with another canonic mass section, the Credo [Quarti toni] (NJE 13.4), and indeed, this work has the same abrupt changes in textures seen in Ad fugam.32 This independent Credo section has been doubted by commentators in the past on stylistic grounds, even more than the Ad fugam mass. But given its unique source, CambraiBM 18 – a central manuscript for Josquin’s De beata virgine mass even before it was assembled as a whole – it is very likely that the Credo [Quarti toni] is an authentic work by Josquin; given its style, it is clearly an early work, a predecessor of the Credo movements employing the plainchant Credo I in canon, which were eventually incorporated into the Sine nomine and De beata virgine masses. The late date – before 1517 – that we must place on the assembly of this part of CambraiBM 18 need not affect our assessment of the early qualities of the Credo. A similar under-standing could be applied to the Ad fugam mass in Va. The readings in Va also point to an earlier version of the mass. As mentioned above, all three trios in the mass were originally conceived as duos, and later si placet lines were added to them. The Pleni is still a duo in Va, while a third line for the contra was added in Pe. The Agnus dei II trio seems somewhat better integrated than either the Pleni or Benedictus. The bassus partakes in the imitative figures of the upper canonic duet, especially at the descending triadic figure beginning at m. 56, which is familiar from earlier movements.33 On the other hand, the bassus is not ab-solutely required for the Agnus dei II, for it too can be stripped away without harm-ing the counterpoint, or creating any unseemly holes in the texture. Furthermore, the source Va says that the piece was constructed in the manner described above for the Pleni, for the superius is again headed with the description ‘Duo’, and the bassus is given the description ‘Tenor Si placet’. Of course, a si placet line can be performed or not, depending on the desires of the performers; given the rubric ‘Duo’, it is likely that the si placet lines were a later addition. The Agnus dei II happens also to be an excellent example of an exact canon, not only because it works in this fashion almost without flaw, but also because during its brief span, the Agnus II explores the range of harmonic possibilities that exact canon invokes. This range is revealed by the one explicit accidental in the piece, at mm. 63 in the si placet line. The flat is necessary because of the B♭ in the superius in that mea-sure, but in the source in which it appears, Va, the matter is by no means so simple as a local harmonic fix. The superius in Va, as throughout the entire mass, has no B♭ signature, and so the appearance of a single E♭ accidental in the bassus responds to non-notated accidentals in both the superius and tenor. The superius works very well for most of the Agnus dei with B♮, and there is no melodic reason to call for anything else in that voice until m. 63. At this point the melodic curve of the superius peaks on the pitch b’. In similar passages throughout the mass, such an upper neighbor context

32 See for instance, mm. 29, 55, 62, 67, 145, and 170.33 The figure appears in the Gloria in mm. 38-9, more fully explored at mm. 57-70; in the Credo

in mm. 37-41; and in the Agnus dei I in mm. 21-4, and mm. 33-4.

21

has called for B♭s.34 The E♭ of the si placet line happens to land precisely beneath this one B♭ of the superius. And because the superius is answered exactly by the tenor a 5th below, the E in the tenor in mm. 64-5 is also sung as E♭. The effect of the signed accidental in the bassus surely extends to that point, and thus supports the harmonic foray to the flat side initiated by the canon leader. These E♭-B♭ passages sound rich and strange to the modern ear, in the context of B♮s that occur elsewhere in the superius. But the juxtaposition is natural to the operation of an exact canon on a melodic line that explores both sounding forms of the step ♭fa♮mi. This small passage is thus an example, clarified by an explicit accidental in the added line, in which the harmonic content is determined by two factors the modern eye tends to overlook in its search for evidence to determine appropriate editorial accidentals: the melodic course, and a canon that calls for the same solmization of a line at two different pitch levels. The following example shows both Smijers’s edition of the passage, following Pe, and the NJE score, following Va and the assumption of exact canon (Ex. 6).

Example 6. Passage from the Agnus dei II in two interpretations.

a) from Smijers, following Pe

&

V

?

b

b

b

˙ œ œ .˙ œ

w ˙

-

w

ca

w

-

∑

ta

˙

-

w ˙

ta mun

œ œ ˙ œ œ

„

.w˙

.˙ œ ˙w

ta mun

.˙ œ ˙ ˙

mun

w w

di,

˙ .w

-w w

di,

65Ó w ˙

-mi se

˙ w

w

-

w

pec

- -

-

-

b) from the NJE edition, following Va

&

V

?

b

b

˙ œ œ .˙ œ

mun

w

-

˙w

ca ta

w

-

∑

ta

˙ w ˙

œ œ ˙ œ œ

„

.w

b

˙

.˙

-

œ ˙w

mun

.˙b œ ˙ ˙

mun

w w

di,

˙ .wb

w w

b

di,

65Ó w

-

˙

pec

˙ w

w

-

w

pec

- - -

-

-

34 Kyrie, mm. 28, 33, 38, 51, 52, and 56; Gloria mm. 43, 107, 133; Credo 43, 168; Sanctus m. 30.

Other passages, such as the triadic figure described above, remain above the pitch g’, and thus

maintain B♮.

22

Finally, the character of the Agnus dei II is much closer to what we generally consid-er to be Josquin’s style. The opening is clearly related to the beginning of the Agnus dei II in another Josquin mass, the Missa L’ami Baudichon, for both employ imitation based on the same figure:

d ¥ e d0d ¥ e d . This figure, and more importantly, the man-

ner of its imitation in the Ad fugam mass, might also be related to Ockeghem’s famous canonic trio, Prenez sur moy. If the first three measures of the bassus of the Agnus dei II are set aside, the imitative web of three entrances on d, g, and c at a distance of three semibreves can be seen to match the pattern created by the opening of Prenez sur moy. Of course, in Josquin’s trio, the pattern is upside-down, moving from the top voice to the lowest (Ex. 7).

Example 7. Comparison of the openings of Prenez sur moy to Ad fugam Agnus dei II.

a) Prenez sur moy

b) Ad fugam Agnus dei II

While the imitation in Ockeghem’s trio emerges from its canonic unfolding, it is simply contrived in the Josquin trio: the bassus is not part of the canon found be-tween the upper two lines. It merely pitches in briefly in order to create the sym-metric pattern found in Ockeghem’s chanson. Such symmetric imitative openings are not uncommon among Josquin’s early chansons. They generally occur in the context of ‘canon-like’ textures, where the imitation is maintained for an extended length of time, far longer than is suggested by the use of an imitative opening. The most famous of these is the Fortuna d’un gran tempo (NJE 27.12), which makes clear its canon-like conceit by the use of three different signatures, suggesting an exact transposition of the opening gesture. While the imitation of this figure only lasts six semibreves in the bass of Fortuna, it continues between the upper two lines for 13 semibreves. Even more extensive canon-like imitation is found in other chansons by

&

V

?

„

„

.w ˙ w

„

.w ˙ w

.w ˙ w

.w ˙ w

.w ˙ w

.w œœw

.w ˙ w

.w œœw

w ∑ w

&

V

?

b

b

.w ˙ w

„

› w

.w ˙w

.w ˙ w

w›

∑ .w ˙

.w ˙w

.w ˙ ˙˙

w .w ˙

∑ .w ˙

w.w ˙

23

Josquin with symmetric openings. Entré je suis à4 (NJE 28.14) carries its imitation for a full 17 semibreves in three voices (the altus is not engaged in the canon-like opening). Once again the imitation is exact, for the top voice lacks a flat signature. The frequent B♭ accidentals signed in the top voice serve to resettle the counterpoint at cadences to the prevailing mode, and also help us to take the differences in the signatures seriously.35

The most extensive canon-like imitation is found in the chanson Cela sans plus (NJE 27.3). While the bassus gives up the imitation after 13 semibreves, it is main-tained between the top two voices for 49 semibreves, which is nearly half the length of the piece. Once again, this imitation is configured in order to proceed in an inter-vallically exact manner, by means of an extra flat signature in the bass, and carefully crafted lines that maintain the same solmization for all 49 semibreves in the superius and tenor, while being expressed a fifth apart (Ex. 8).

Although the canon-like pieces are not canons in a formal sense – that is, with one part wholly derived from the other – one cannot help but suspect that a canonic model lay behind the composition, from which the composer then elaborated the current form of the work. Such a model may have only been a sketch or exercise, or it may have been an entire composition. Although we have no such canonic model for Cela sans plus, it is likely that it was similar to the Agnus dei II from the Ad fugam mass, for here the canon of the top two voices does indeed apply throughout. The Agnus dei II of the L’ami Baudichon mass also resembles these canon-like composi-tions, for the imitation between its top two voices lasts for 25 semibreves, enough to again suggest that a canonic model lay behind the current form of the piece. As noted above, the two Agnus dei II movements bear a striking resemblance, one that goes beyond the use of the same imitative motive: there is a patch of counterpoint in all three voices that is shared between the two masses, involving not only the canonic pair for ten semibreves, but also the accompanying bass for seven. The pitches within the boxed-in area in Ex. 9 are identical.

35 Jaap van Benthem has written on the canon-like aspects of this chanson, in ‘Die Chanson Entré je suis à4 von Josquin des Prez und ihre Überlieferung’, in TVNM 21 (1970), 203-210. David

Fallows summarizes the results of Jaap van Benthem’s investigation in his notes on the work,

but seems to miscontrue the tonal qualities when he writes: ‘the canonic structures here are es-

sentially diatonic’. The exact quality of the canon creates the reason for including both B♭ and

B♮ in the opening imitation, and also results in the ‘slightly uncomfortable cross-relations’ that

Fallows references. Even once B♭ seems to dominate in the superius through accidentals and

linear contour midway through the piece, the composer brings back one more phrase invoking

B♮ at m. 46. The piece artfully exceeds diatonic limitation through its use of exact canon. See

D. Fallows, Critical commentary to NJE vol. 28, at 195 and 199. Other symmetric openings by

Josquin with canon-like character are found in Belle pour l’amour (NJE 28.5) and A l’ombre d’ung buissonnet (NJE 27.2), although with these the imitative distance varies.

24

Example 8. Cela sans plus, opening and continuation of canon-like imitation between the upper

voices.

&

V

?

b

b

bb

C

C

C

w w

„

„

w ›

„

„

˙ ˙

w w

„

w w

w ›

„

5

w w

˙ ˙

w w

w ›

w w

w ›

˙ ˙

w w

˙ ˙

&

V

?

b

b

bb

w w

w ›

w w

w w

˙ ˙

w w

10

w.˙ œ

w w

w ›

˙ ˙ w

w w

w

w›

w .˙b œ

w

imitation lapses in bass voice . . .

.w

w

#

˙ ˙ w

œ œw

›

w›

w

&

V

b

b

15„

w( )

ö

w

n

›

›

w w

„

w ˙ w

›

œ œw

w w

20

w ˙ w

w

b

˙ w

b

œ œw

œ œw

&

V

b

b

∑w

w ˙ w

w w

œ œw

.˙ œ ˙˙

∑ w

25

˙ w ˙

imitation ends

w w

˙w ˙

.˙ œ ˙˙

w w

˙w

imitation ends

˙

.w œ œ

.w ˙

etc.

25

Example 9. The beginnings of Agnus dei II sections of Missae Ad fugam and L’ami Baudichon.

& V ?

C C C

„ „

.w

˙

A

∑.

w A „

w.

w

-gnus

de

20

˙w

gnus

„

˙w

.w

˙

de

.w

˙

A

.w

˙

w.

w

w.

w

-gnu

sd

e

w.

w

˙w

˙w

˙w

.w

˙

.w

˙

.w

˙

25 w

.w

w.

w

w.

w

˙w

˙w

˙w

.w

˙

.w

˙

.w

˙

ww i,

w.

w

w

.w

--

--

--

-

-

& V ?

b b

C C C

.w

˙

A

„

› A

w.

w

∑.

w A

ww

gnus

˙w

gnus,

˙w

›

∑.

w a

.w

˙

.w

˙

de

50

˙w

w∑

gn

us,

˙˙w i,

.w

˙

.w

˙

a

.w

˙

a

w.

w

gn

us

de

w.

w

w.

w

gn

us

de

˙w

˙w

gn

us

˙w

ww i,

.w

˙

de

.˙

œ˙w

55 ∑w qu

i

ww

˙#

w i,

.w

-

w

tol

w∑

i,

∑w qu

i

--

-

--

-

--

--

a) F

rom

the

Miss

a A

d fu

gam

b) F

rom

the

Miss

a L

’am

i bau

dich

on

26

The movement from the L’ami Baudichon mass does not contain a canon, even though its top two lines engage in canon-like imitation at the 5th for 25 semibreves, and at the same distance of three semibreves as in the Ad fugam mass. After freer material there is a cadence, and a new section begins that restarts a different canon-like imita-tion at the 8ve for 20 semibreves on a similar motive between bassus and superius. A final section begins with yet another imitation between the altus and superius at the 8ve for 26 semibreves, on a different manipulation of the motive. The borrowing of material between the two masses does not look like quotation. Rather it appears to be reuse of counterpoint, a re-exploration of possibilities implied by the melodic ma-terial. And in answer to the question of which work was derived and which original, the preference must be given to the fully canonic Ad fugam movement. Its Agnus dei II is both simpler and more strict in its contrapuntal working out, for its canon be-tween superius and middle voice is maintained throughout the work, whereas L’ami Baudichon’s Agnus dei II has other goals: the exploration of the imitation of a motive in three different configurations. Barton Hudson has made the claim that ‘clear-cut evidence of Josquin’s borrow-ing from his own music is lacking’. However, he cites as a counter example a motive that appears in three different works, all securely attributed to Josquin. He states that ‘while the motive used is identical in each case, one might question whether it is sufficiently distinctive to be seen as self-borrowing. Possibly yet other motives will come to light’.36 I suggest that the passage from the beginning of the Agnus dei II is one of these, an imitative pattern that was incompletely explored within the context of Ad fugam, and more fully considered within the Missa L’ami Baudichon.

The connection between these two masses, like the relationship with de Orto’s mass, provides a context for understanding the nature of the Ad fugam mass. These find-ings confirm and hopefully reinvigorate the traditional view of Josquin based on Pe-trucci’s attributions, that Ad fugam and L’ami Baudichon together provide us with the earliest examples of mass composition by the composer. In the case of the Ad fugam mass as transmitted in VatS 49, Petrucci’s later attribution is justifiable on so many levels that it must not be suppressed. And to account for the lack of early sources for Josquin’s first works, it perhaps would be better to heed the comment by Glarean: ‘For those who knew him say that he published his works after much deliberation and with manifold corrections; neither did he release a song to the public unless he had kept it to himself for some years, the opposite of what Jacob Obrecht appears to have done [...]’.37 In the period of time before the onset of printing, it may have made sense for composers to limit the distribution of their work. There was little that a composer would gain by having his work travelling in copies out of his control, es-pecially when scribes would copy works without composer attributions, which they

36 B. Hudson, Critical commentary to NJE, vol. 13, p. 48.37 C. Miller (trans.), Heinrich Glarean, Dodecachordon. Musicological Studies and Documents 6

(1965), 265.

27

did regularly. Before the development of printing, one’s investment as a composer may have resided in having the works under one’s arm, rather than allowing them to circulate freely. Widespread distribution, copyright, and the idea of publication had not yet dawned in the minds of composers before 1500.