Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis

Calculated to Please the Ear: Ockeghem's Canonic LegacyAuthor(s): Peter UrquhartSource: Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, D.47ste, Afl. 1ste/2de, [Johannes Ockeghem] (1997), pp. 72-98Published by: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse MuziekgeschiedenisStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/939120Accessed: 21/04/2010 15:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=kvnm.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Peter Urquhart

CALCULATED TO PLEASE THE EAR: OCKEGHEM'S CANONIC LEGACY*

Critical appreciation of Ockeghem's works, although continuous since his time, has

varied widely in content through the intervening five centuries. Works that had been

singled out for praise and study in the 16th century - the canon Prenez sur moy, the Missae Prolationum and Cuiusvis toni - were seen as hopelessly artificial and sterile in the 18th century. In the 20th century, attention has turned from the rigors of Ockeghem's constructivist methods in certain works towards the apparent lack of structure in others.' We assume now that we understand the obscurities of the canonic and modal

experiments, because we can transcribe them from their original puzzle form into our notation without error. However, in defining these works as canonic puzzles or exercises in solmization and mode, do we understand them any better than did our

18th-century forebears? What may these pieces have meant to singers not interested in

creating a score, but in realizing the music into sound directly from its highly compact notation?

Charles Burney, in his General History of Music (1789), was one of the 18th-century commentators generally critical of Ockeghem's puzzle compositions. Burney reports that the reputation of the composer stemmed from the respect accorded him in theory treatises such as the Dodecachordon of Glareanus (1547). About Glarean, Burney states that 'this writer tells us, that [Ockeghem] was fond of the

Kact0ohkxt in the cantus; that

is, of composing a melody which may be sung in various modes, or keys, at the pleasure of the performer, observing only the ratio, or relation of consonant notes in the

harmony.' Burney's reaction to his 16th-century predecessor's description of the katholikon is recorded in a footnote:

This seems to imply no more than that the singer, as was usual in old music, should himself discover and express the accidental flats and sharps, without which, however ecclesiastical the melody might look, the harmony would be intolerable; and, indeed, this kind of

music seems more calculated to please the eye than the ear.2

Today, in large part we share Burney's assumption that singers would have worked out on their own the harmonic problems of the music with performers' accidentals. We've named the process musica ficta, a term that Burney knew, but one that he did not associate with a performer's practice or with editorial accidentals.3 Because he assumed that singers would correct the harmony as needed, 'as was usual in old music', Burney was clearly not as impressed by these katholika as was Glarean. However, if singers were

responsible for working out the pitch implications of such works as the Cuiusvis toni

mass and Prenez sur moy, is there really any content to Ockeghem's compositional conceit? Is there anything special about Ockeghem's katholika?

72

The two works by Ockeghem that Glarean named are normally the only ones

associated with this term, katholikon: the canon Prenez sur moy and the Missa Cuiusvis

toni.4 However, the idea of modal manipulation of a melody is also necessary to a third

work by Ockeghem, his Missa Prolationum. The Prolation mass methodically explored canons at every interval from the unison to the octave, and thus began a tradition of

encyclopedic canonic works that stretches to J. S. Bach's Goldberg Variations and

beyond.' In the Prolation mass, Ockeghem was clearly more cautious with the

imperfect interval canons than with the perfect ones, for he assigned the intervals of the

second, third, sixth and seventh to the short segments of the mass only - the 'Christe',

'Kyrie II', 'Sanctus', and a two-voice 'Pleni sunt caeli'. The rest of the mass, including the very lengthy 'Gloria' and 'Credo', was set with canons at the more traditional

perfect intervals of the unison, fourth, fifth and octave (Table 1).

Table 1. Canons in Ockeghem's Missa Prolationum

Section Voices Interval Section Voices Interval

Kyrie 1 4 unison Sanctus 4 6th Christe 4 (duets) 2nd Pleni 2 7th

Kyrie 2 4 3rd Hosanna 4 8th Gloria 4 4th Benedictus 4 (duets) 4th

Qui tollis 4 4th Agnus Dei 1 4 4th Credo 4 5th Agnus 2 2 5th Et resurrexit 4 5th Agnus 3 4 5th

The canons at imperfect intervals, although slight, are extremely significant. Together with Prenez sur moy, they suggest the following claim: Ockeghem may have been the

earliest composer to explore the use of canonic writing at intervals other than the

perfect ones of the unison, octave, fourth and fifth. The trick with canons at these

imperfect intervals is to write a melody that can be readily expressed in two different

modes. Certain intervals must either be avoided entirely, or they must be handled

carefully when they force the introduction of accidentals. Every interval may turn out

to have a different quality when transposed. Accidentals are forced most often when the line traverses a fourth or fifth, that is, when the perfect quality of these linear intervals is transformed into augmented or diminished intervals. The problems created by the

introduction of accidentals can be minimized by thinning the texture, a ploy used by Ockeghem in his canons at the second, sixth and seventh, which consist mostly of two-voice writing. For instance, in the 'Sanctus' (Example 1), which is composed of a four-out-of-two canon at the sixth, the interval of G to C in the top line in m. 17-18 is

expressed earlier in the contratenor as B6 to E. This fourth must either be sung as B to

El, or as B? to E?; it matters little which introduced accidental is chosen, since there are

only two voices present for the first half of the 'Sanctus'. More important to notice is that the imitation is not exact with regard to the quality of the intervals. The contra's

73

very first interval ofa minor third in m. 1 is imitated in the top line as a major third; there is no possibility of any other relationship between these opening thirds. This canonic

relationship may be termed 'diatonic', meaning that while the number of the interval is

reproduced precisely, the quality might change.

Example 1. 'Sanctus' from Ockeghem's Missa Prolationum

.II I Contra

-, Sanc

Bass

Sanc - - - tus

Superius -4- i 4 - Contra

Tenor Bass

Before Ockeghem, canons were always exact, that is, the intervallic content remained

precisely the same. While the compositional challenge of writing a diatonic canon was not great, the idea seems to have been new at this time. The difficulty lay not with the

counterpoint, but with the performers' understanding of how to realize the canonic instruction. Canons were normally written in compressed form, that is, with a rule

directing how singers would realize the voice part or parts. Thus, Tinctoris states in his

Diffinitorium of 1475:

Canon est regula voluntatem composi- A canon is a rule showing the purpose toris sub obscuritate quadam ostendens. of the composer behind a certain

obscurity. 6

By means of this rule, a melody was either transformed into a different line, or was

imitated and therefore multiplied into two or more lines. The latter practice covers the

modern understanding of canon - strict imitation at fixed intervals of time and pitch. In

the 15th century, the common term for the imitation canon wasfuga.

Fuga est idemtitas partium cantus quo Fuga is the identity of the parts of a

ad valorem nomen formam et in- melody with regard to the value, terdum quo ad locum notarum et name, shape, and sometimes even

pausarum suarum. place on the staff, of its notes and rests.7

74

The use of the term nomen invokes the identity of hexachordal name, an interpretation that is confirmed by later theorists. It is also confirmed by the practice of composers before Ockeghem, who invariably composed canons with exact imitation. This causes no difficulty in canons at the unison or octave, the most common variety, but it is quite difficult to arrange for exact canon at an imperfect interval; for that reason, canons at

imperfect intervals appear not to have existed before Ockeghem.8 Canons at the fourth or fifth, however, were written upon occasion by composers

before Ockeghem; these canons are all intervallically exact, despite the pressure that

may be exerted upon the harmony by additional pitches forced by the canon. In

Example 2, that pressure is represented by the cross-relations created between Bs in the comes and Bis in the dux. As is common in all canonic works of this period, the derived voice is not written out in the unique source. For that reason, Heinrich Besseler's edition of the work in the Dufay Opera Omnia does not provide the comes tenor with a one-flat signature.9 However, commentators after Besseler have agreed that 'since the canonic Tenor is a fifth lower, it must have a key signature of one flat', thus matching the

signature of the contratenor.10 Examples of canon at the fifth were written by Ciconia, Landini, Hugo de Lantins, and Dufay; but only in the case of Landini's work was the canon realized in its source, and there contrasting signatures between the dux and comes do indeed occur."

Example 2. Exact canon in Dufay's Entre vous, gentils amoureux

dux

contra AC

comes

14

8

Ockeghem's expansive canons at the fourth and fifth in the Missa Prolationum differ from the practice of his predecessors, for they seem to be diatonic in every case.'2 This

75

fact suggests the second innovation I wish to claim for the composer, which is perhaps even more important than the first: Ockeghem was the first composer to use diatonic canon at the fourth and fifth. Diatonic canon at perfect intervals essentially depends on the same invention as writing canons at imperfect intervals. In both cases, the identity of solmization must be put aside in favor of asking the singer to read from the same staff, but with a differing solmization. Not surprisingly, the same conceit is expressed by the clefless Missa Cuiusvis toni.

Canonic practice after Ockeghem quickly began to conform to this new model. Exact canons at the fourth and fifth continued to be used upon occasion, especially by Josquin, and later by Willaert, Lassus and even William Byrd. But the new practice of diatonic canon proved even more useful, as composers found that remaining within a diatonic collection by altering the mode of the imitated part resulted in a smoother

harmony. Theorists such as Giovanni Spataro and Pietro Aaron began to change their definition of thefuga to account for the new practice,13 so that by the time of Zarlino it was possible to formally differentiate between the two kinds of canon.14

Given these claims made for the Prolation mass, it might appear that the canon Prenez sur moy is almost an afterthought. It uses some of the same techniques that are found in the mass - diatonic canon at the fourth and at the seventh - but within a much more limited frame. It is the presence of these two levels of canon simultaneously that is unusual about this piece; as a window on the compositional thought of the time, it is an even more intriguing example than the mass.

Canons that operate at three different pitch levels result from stacking canons at the fourth or fifth upon each other.'5 If the canons are diatonic, each pitch level contains a

modally differentiated version of the same melody, which puts greater restrictions on the design of the melody. These restrictions are quite obvious in the melodic contour of

Example 3. Ockeghem's Prenez sur moy from CopKB 291

P P r

77N IV? V-

s q

Prenez sur moy. The melody divides itself readily into a number of phrases that span the

interval of a fifth. Example 3 shows the canon as transmitted in one early manuscript source.16 The text has been stripped away here, and certain characteristic intervals of fourths and fifths have been marked.

The first phrase clearly spans an interval of a fifth, marked here as 'p'. The next phrase

spans another fifth, 'q', until the melody returns to the first fifth span. The fifths marked

'r' and 's' follow soon thereafter. Each of these spans of a fifth, four in total, seems to be

deliberately described by the melody; furthermore, these four intervals are the only fifth

spans employed for the remainder of the piece. When one considers that all of the spans of a fourth - marked in the third staff of the example as 't', 'i', 'v', and 'w' - are these same intervals, but inverted, it becomes clear that the composer's plan was to limit his

melodic contours to describe just four dyads, or characteristic intervals.

Example 4. The four characteristic intervals in Prenez sur moy

as 5th o spans

p q r s

as 4th O _

spans t w u v

These four intervals can be given no pitch content initially, because of course the piece has no clef. But it would seem reasonable to assume that none of these fifth or fourth

spans should be the diminished fifth or tritone interval of B to F. And if one considers that there are a total of six perfect fifths available in a diatonic collection, of which this

piece has accessed only four, the reason for the limitation becomes clear: the two

remaining perfect fifths are created when the melody is transposed in the canon. The canonic interval of imitation is the fourth above, a fact learned either from the canonic

prescription in some sources, or, as presumably was the case for this source, by trial and

error.'7 The signs of congruence at the end of the piece suggest that the canon is for three voices, a fact confirmed by the titles given the piece in certain sources, or, once

again, by trial and error. The four intervals 'p', 'q', 'r', and 's' happen to be contiguous on the circle of fourths; that is, they are adjacent when arranged in a series of fourth

transpositions, as in Example 5a. When these four intervals are twice transposed up a fourth as in the realized canon, they create six intervals of a fifth, that is, each succeeding voice pushes its four intervals one step to the right on the series of fifths (Example 5b). We may presume that the one unused fifth span is the B-F interval, an assumption that indentifies all of the other fifth spans employed in the three-voice canon as perfect fifths. This assumption also establishes the precise pitch content; given a no-flat signature, the bottom voice must begin on A, and the following voices on D and G (Example 5c).

77

Example 5

a) Characteristic Avoided intervals b) Characteristic intervals c) Resultant

intervals reor- in canon dux clef

dered by series

of 4ths voice 3

voice 2 4th up

duxvoc2RI

q p s r q p s r

In the foregoing discussion of Prenez sur moy, we have not dealt with the puzzle

signatures, that array of flats and sharps that stands in place of a clef. Indeed, the purpose of avoiding reference to the signatures was to show that understanding them is not

necessary to solve the puzzle of the canon; there is enough information in the melodic

design of the piece to accomplish that. In Example 3 these signs were presented in an

idealized fashion, in a symmetrical array that was first suggested to be Ockeghem's

original conception by Carl Dahlhaus in 1960. In fact, these signatures occur in early sources in a bewildering variety of placements and alignments. Nevertheless, with

Dahlhaus's configuration, a completely independent solution for the canon's meaning can be worked out, which results in precisely the same answer as presented in Example

5c. I will not discuss here the interpretation of the puzzle signatures, for I have written

on this subject twice before.'8 However, I would argue that the existence of two

completely independent resolutions of the puzzle leading to the same answer provides

nearly irresistible proof that we understand this piece."9

One final question about Prenez sur moy arises: why would Glarean have considered the

piece to be a katholikon ifonly one solution ofthe canon is possible? The other work that

has been connected with this term is the Missa Cuiusvis toni. Glarean called it the Missa

ad omnem tonum, a name that is generally understood to mean that the piece can be

realized in the four modal pairs or maneriae.20 If the analysis presented here is correct, Prenez sur moy is certainly not this sort of piece. The attempt to render the polyphonic texture as a whole in various modes has engendered much literature on the piece, as

various writers have wrestled with the apparent contradictions between Glarean's

statement and the works involved.21 I would counter, however, that Prenez sur moy is

indeed in three different modes, these being represented by the three different voices, different on account of the careful plan designed into the notated line itself. The piece as

notated by Ockeghem, and as presented in all early sources including Glarean, is in fact a

single line. Its realization in polyphony requires just what Glarean describes for katholika: 'composed so that they would be sung in many ways, almost according to the

will of the singers, yet so that the relationship of the harmony and the consonances

would be observed no less.'22

Given the hypothesis that the 'song' or cantus Glarean is referring to is the single

78

notated line before its unfolding in polyphony, a number of other canonic katholika may be proposed, all of them possibly written in response to Ockeghem's modest but influential puzzle. Three similar canons for four voices realized from one notated part appear together in Georg Rhau's print of 1545, Secundus tomus biciniorum.23 They are ascribed to Verdeloth, loan. Mouton, and Anto. Fevin, and in each case there are earlier sources that support the composers' authorship.

Johannes Mouton's chanson En venant de lyon appears earlier on the opening page of the Antico print of 1520, Motetti novi e chanzoni franciose a quatro sopra doi, a print dedicated to canons, mostly of the four-out-of-two variety.24 Mouton's canon is four-out-of-one, with each succeeding voice entering a fourth above the previous one.

Example 6 presents the piece following Antico, with its characteristic intervals of a fourth or fifth marked.

Example 6. Mouton's En venant de lyon from 15203 g g d

d d

Like the Ockeghem katholikon, this melody has a number of prominent leaps of a fourth or fifth. D to G (interval 'g' in Example 6) and D to A ('d') are outlined early in the piece, whereas the third prominent interval, G to C ('c'), is not used until near the end. One would expect that a katholikon for four voices would be even more severely limited melodically than one for three voices, an expectation which is borne out by the limited character of this tune. However, as seen in Example 7, the three dyads employed by Mouton are not the ones we might have expected.

Example 7. Characteristic intervals Characteristic intervals in En venant de Lyon reordered by series of 4ths

04th up

d g c d c

79

Instead ofemploying the E-A dyad, the composer uses the one from G to C ('c'), which, near the end of the canon, creates the apparent tritone interval BA to E in the cantus

(Example 8).

Example 8. Characteristic intervals realized in Mouton's polyphony

All transpositions of Unused Avoided characteristic intervals interval intervals

rLa 4 0

duxCS C

d g c a f bb e

This tritone is mollified however, through the use of performers' accidentals invoked for linear reasons, creating Ebs in the cantus. Apparently the composer had this harmonic color in mind, for these Els are not in any way countermanded by the other voices (Example 9).25 Thus the structure of the piece, while somewhat anomalous for

having avoided one useable interval of a fourth or fifth, still fits well within our diatonic canon construct.

Example 9. The end of En venant de lyon, scored

25 1

e cy bie n gar- de ve- cy bien gar - d mou- ton.

ve - cy bien gar- de ve - cy bien gar - d& mou - ton.

ve cy bien gar- d& ye-cy bien gar - d& mu - ton.

ye - cy bien gar- d~ ye - cy bien gar- d• mou - ton.

Philippe Verdelot's canon is given the text 'Da pacem Domine' in Rhau's 1545 print, but it appears elsewhere as the motet Dignare me laudare te.26 Example 10 presents the

piece following the 1534 Attaignant print.

Example 10. Verdelot's Dignare me laudare te from 15345 a

c f g

i~4 A

.V6.

I IJ 4

Verdelot's canon operates at the fifth above, and like the Mouton work emphasizes three intervals in particular: C to G (interval 'c'), C to F (jf'), and G down to D ('g'). These are the three intervals that we would expect to be emphasized in a diatonic canon at four

pitch levels.

Example 11. Characteristic intervals in Dignare me Characteristic intervals reordered

by series of 5ths

5th up

a c g f d f c g d a

However, one other interval also appears which should cause difficulty when trans- posed. A to E ('a') is the very first and last fourth outlined by the melody. The last

appearance of this interval at the end of the canon obviously will cause no trouble, for it is only the leading voice, the bass, that traverses it. The same is true of the interval labelled 'd' in Example 10, which is traversed only by the bass and tenor voices. But as seen in Example 12, the opening fourth 'a' transforms into a tritone in the altus voice.

81

Example 12: Characteristic intervals realized in Verdelot's polyphony All transpositions of Less frequently Avoided characteristic intervals used intervals intervals

8

dux

-__CI_._O f c g d a e b

While it would appear possible to inflect the B in that voice for linear reasons, as we inflected the Es in Mouton's chanson, the harmonic results would not be reasonable

(Example 13). This seems to be an exception to the careful coordination of linear and harmonic elements that operates in the other katholikon canons under consideration, but it is not a very serious infraction. The offending augmented fourth is not a direct interval at the opening, and is otherwise avoided throughout the piece; the final direct

leap 'a', of course never occurs in the altus voice. Nevertheless, it would appear that the voice on the altus line must sing B? in m. 5, a choice that might not be made by a singer given the linear context.27

Example 13. The beginning of Dignare me lauidare te, scored

Dig na - re me lau - da- re te

Dig - na - re me lau- da- re te vir - go

Dig na - re me lau - da- re te vir - go sa- cra -

I i D- I Dig - na - re me lau- da-re te vir - go sa - cra- ta

Antoine de F~vin's canon Quae est ista, nr. 118 in the Georg Rhau print of 1545, also occurs in the manuscript CambrP 1760, a manuscript that has been dated as 1509 or

1510;28 this is the earliest date for any of the three 16th-century canons discussed so far. However, Quae est ista is the most developed of these three canons, and there is little

82

about its style to suggest that it was composed earlier than the canons by Mouton and Verdelot. Fevin's canon leader is the highest voice; the following voices are each given a

clef, directing imitation to occur at the fifth below (Example 14).

Example 14. Fevin's Quae est ista from 1540O

a f f e a f

As with the Verdelot example just explored, the intervals of fourths and fifths corre-

spond with those predicted for a canon in four voices at the fifth below, with one

prominent exception. The highest note of the line produces an indirect interval of a fourth (interval jf'), which in the altus voice transforms into a tritone interval.

Example 15.

Characteristic intervals Characteristic intervals in Quae est ista reordered by series of 5ths down

5th down

a f e d b e a d f

Once again the question arises whether to accept the linear tritone in the altus, or to

modify it by invoking Bb. The primary difference between this and the foregoing Verdelot example is that the interval of a fourt h s in Fvin's canon is emphasized repeatedly at the beginning of the piece. In the altus transposition, it is doubtful that one would inflect one ofxception. The top-of-the-line Bs without inflecting them all, for all five are in close proximity to one another and to the pitch a fourth below, that is, F in the altus transposition.

Example 16. The beginning of Fvin's motet in altus transposition

83

i . ,v - "Vlp- - • - & v~ - "~ql • I - - ,v~q ,-• ',

If the composer had intended the Bs to be inflected as BIs, he would have taken care to allow them all to be so inflected without clashing with the other voices. On the other

hand, if the composer was unconscious of the problem, or if performer's accidentals

normally took care of such vertical problems, he would probably have run one of these Bs in the altus into direct juxtaposition with Bs in at least one of the three other lines.

Example 17 suggests that Fevin was fully aware of the soft hexachord half-step that would be introduced in the unwritten altus part.

Fevin's counterpoint allows the use of B6 in the altus throughout this passage. The only

B,/B? interaction is the contiguous juxtaposition between the cantus and altus in m. 10

to 11, a thoroughly idiomatic cross-relation. By way of contrast, one should consider the impossibility of inflecting the top pitch of the tenor as

E,; even if it were possible

with respect to the line, the harmonic context would not allow Et in this voice (m. 7, 10, and 20).29

These three examples have served to show some of the variations available in the katholikon for four voices. All of these canons tend to explore the three fourth or fifth intervals that are expressible as perfect intervals in each of the four modes employed. There is also some exploration of other intervals, either by invoking an extra flat beyond the diatonic collection, as in the canons by Mouton and FNvin, or by suffering a linear

augmented fourth, somewhat mediated by indirect motion in the case of the Verdelot motet. But more important than these extensions is the evident care taken in these works to limit the intervallic content of the melodic line to only those intervals that can be employed in each modal expression invoked by the canon. This care is evidence of

compositional planning regarding the precise size of intervals. This planning is most

important to notice, for it provides a corrective lesson for the modern tendency to

ignore the precise intervallic pitch content of Renaissance music, and inflect at will all harmonic events judged 'incorrect' under the general rubric of 'musica ficta.'

A number of other katholikon canons appear in some of the sources of the three canons

just considered. These, and a few others I have happened upon, are listed in Appendix 2. This list does not pretend to be complete, but it does provide an initial survey of the

practice of the katholikon canon.

Georg Rhau's print of 1545, Secundus tomus biciniorum, is the source of an anonymous three-out-of-one canon entitled Pleni sunt celi (nr. 110). This work exploits the first four intervals ofits series offourths and fifths, and then adds one more fourth interval, which causes the addition of an extra flat for linear reasons in the bass voice at two places. Both

passages accept the flat readily, the second one creating the final cadence of the piece.30

84

Example 17. The beginning of Quae est ista, scored

f0 fIII Fi Il I I F I sFIopi ,2 Quae est is - ta, quae

al -

6 -, I I

Quae est is

SQuae est

Quae

10

pro - ces - sit sic -

ta, quae pro - ces - sit

8 is - ta, quae pro- ces - sit

est is - ta, quae pro- ces -

15 20

ut vir gu la fu

.• IPI .*

sic - ut vir - gu la

sic -

ut vir -

gu

sit sic -

85

Example 18. a) Analysis of Pleni sunt celi

b) The end of Pleni sunt celi, scored

a) All transpositions of characteristic intervals Avoided intervals

5th down

dux CIn

A companion volume to Rhau's Secundus tomus, the print Biciniagallica, latina, germanica

(1545), contains yet another three-voice katholikon canon, a Miserere by 'Petrus de la

Rue'.31 This turns out to be a contrafactum of the 'Pleni sunt caeli' section of La Rue's

Missa Sancta Dei Genitrix. The canon explores only three of the four intervals possible for a three-voice canon, and avoids the two intervals which would cause linear

difficulties in diatonic transposition (Example 19a).Johannes Frosch's motet, Qui musas

amat, is found in Kriesstein's print of 1540, the source that contains the canonic motets

by Verdelot and Fevin discussed above.32 FrOsch's canon is nestled within a six-voice

piece. There are two free voices, but they appear to have been added later to a

self-sufficient four-voice canon. The canon turns out to be conservatively organized

along the lines we have seen before; the piece exploresjust the three intervals of fourths

and fifths that are allowed by the canon at the fifth above (Example 19b).

8

86

Example 19. Characteristic intervals in canons by La Rue, Frosch, and Obrecht, ordered by series of 5ths

La Rue canon A 3 Frosch canon a 4

4th up I 5th up |

dux dux __

Obrecht canon A 3

5th up

dux

There appears to be a problem with the Obrecht canon, the three-voice 'Benedictus' from the Missa N'aray-je jamais.33 A two-flat signature prefaces the canonic dux. The editor of the mass for the New Obrecht Edition has scored the 'Benedictus' as an exact canon, that is, with a two-flat signature in the bottom voice (the dux), one flat in the middle voice, and no flat in the top voice. This configuration appears to fit in with the rest of the mass; although the mass generally has a one-flat signature in all voice parts, a two-flat signature occasionally breaks out in the bass, as in the 'Pleni sunt caeli' and the 'Benedictus' under scrutiny. However, exact canon clearly does not work in this piece. The canon is not constructed to operate as an exact canon, for there are conflicts between lines that occur because of the contrasting signatures.34 Some of these clashes have been addressed by means of editorial accidentals in the New Obrecht Edition, but these are purely harmonic in derivation, and simply show that the exact canon is unworkable. As we might expect from a diatonic canon, the intervallic structure of the dux shows only three fourth or fifth intervals being used (Example 19c). However, given the two-flat signature, there seems to be no good reason for the composer to have chosen these particular three intervals, for they will create a tritone when transposed in the canon, whereas two of the intervals avoided would not. The solution to this

problem is obvious from Example 19c. The melodic line would allow a diatonic canon if the two-flat signature were changed to one flat. The linear structure of the piece demands this change if the canon is to operate, and the harmonic setting, once again, fully allows it.35

87

Example 20. Characteristic intervals of Obrecht canon with revised flat signature

5th upF

dux

The last work to consider is a canon that appears in a manuscript largely devoted to

Italian compositions, BolC Q21. Each of the four partbooks begins with a circle canon

with a French text. The soprano book contains the Mouton canon En venant de lyon, the

altus a three-voice piece called Se ie naj mon amie, the tenor, a four-voice work Mon petit cor, and the bass a four-out-of-one version of Basies moy, Josquin's well-known canon.36 En venant de lyon and Se ie naj mon amie appear not only as circle canons, but they are also

both clefless works, which connects them in yet another way with Ockeghem's original katholikon canon. We know the precise inflection ofMouton's work from other sources, but for Se ie naj mon amie we may try relying on the intervallic structure and the evidence

provided by the other diatonic canons studied thus far in order to fashion a solution.

Example 21. Se ie naj mon amie from BolC Q21 (uncircled)

1 ni n o

P q m n o

Three canonic voices are suggested by the two signs of congruence that occur at what

must be the beginning of the piece, which occurs in the original circle format at the top of the page. Four intervals would be expected in a three-out-of-one katholikon canon, and indeed four different intervals of fourths or fifths are suggested on the clefless staff.

Note that intervals '1' and 'p', and 'n' and 'q', are inversions of each other.

Example 22. Characteristic intervals in Se ie naj mon amie

I CID D A

I %

1 m n o p q m nq o lp

By trial and error it can be determined that the interval of imitation is a fifth above, and

thus the four intervals may be placed in order of a series of fifths, still without assuming

any particular clef. Since there are four intervals, we may presume that they should be as

far away from a tritone interval as possible in the diagram arranged according to the

series of fifths, thereby enabling the diatonic canon.

88

Example 23. Characteristic intervals in Se ie naj mon armie reordered by series of 5ths 5th up 5th up

m p 11 o m p n o

The last fourth ofthis series (circled in Example 23) we may assume is the tritone F to B, which identifies also a clef usable for the leader voice: the bass clef (Example 24a). The canon thus begins as in Example 24b, and turns out to be an ideal example of a katholikon.

Example 24. Analysis and beginning of Se ie naj mon amie, scored

a)

5th up

m p n o

b)

Se je n'ai mona - mie je mo-ra de do-leur

8 Se je n'ai mon a- mie je mo- ra de do - leur dux

IIi

I IF' I F FE

F

Se je n'ai mon a - mie je mo- ra de do- leur Et

After working through this solution to the canon in the altus partbook of BolC Q21, I came upon another version of this piece.37 In two prints by Le Roy and Ballard of 1553 and 1560, the chanson appears beginning on F in the lowest voice, but with one-flat

signatures in all voices, and with a slightly different text. It is an exact transposition of the piece up a fourth from the version in Example 24b, and thus provides complete confirmation of the solution just offered above on the basis of internal analysis of the

melody alone. The confirmation emphasizes the point that underlies this entire article: these canons were written in a particular way to allow the expression of a certain combination of modal versions of the melodic line. Thus, polyphonically, there is only one solution to these katholika, a solution that can be derived from the intervallic structure of the single notated part. This point brings us back to the initial question about the Ockeghem canon that began this entire tradition. Burney was wrong to

89

assume that singers would solve all harmonic problems with these pieces. Indeed, the katholikon is carefully calculated by the composer to do that on its own, and thus to do more than just 'please the eye'.

One other detail is offered by the Le Roy and Ballard prints: the composer of Sije ne

voy m'amie is given as Willaert. To add Adrian Willaert's name to our collection of katholikon composers completes a picture of a French tradition of writing these canons. The composers Mouton, Willaert, Fevin, and even Verdelot may all be connected with French musical traditions that could relate back to Ockeghem directly. Mouton and Fevin were both connected to the French royal chapel from the first decade of the sixteenth century. Mouton wrote a canonic lament on Fevin's early death in 1511 or

1512, Qui ne regrettoit le gentil FRvin?, and there are pieces cross-attributed to the two

composers. Adrian Willaert studied with Mouton while he was at the royal chapel, according to Willaert's student Zarlino (Dimostrationi harmoniche, 1571). Only for Verdelot is there no direct evidence of a connection with the French royal chapel, but

then, there is apparently no information at all about the composer before his appearance in Florence in 1521.38 A connection withJohannes Mouton has long been surmised on the basis of musical style. B6ker-Heil proposed an early stylistic phase for Verdelot

during which his music resembled that of Mouton.39 Colin Slim noted that 'Pietro

Aron, the Florentine theorist ... mentions Verdelot in company with' Josquin, Mou-

ton, Fevin, Richafort, Costanzo Festa, Pierre de la Rue, and Lheritier.40Jean Richafort, also connected with the French royal chapel at some time in the second decade of the

century, was the composer of the motet used by Verdelot as the basis of his two ascribed masses. Slim also notes that 'the surprisingly small number of chansons seems to confirm Verdelot's early departure from France'; he relates that one chanson, 'Qui la dira la peine, a virtuoso quadruple canon (8 ex 4), resembles the work of Mouton'.41

It may be that the writing of katholikon canons of three or four voices was an exercise for composers and their students in the musical circles of the French royal court. The

exercise could have derived from Ockeghem's earlier essays in modal manipulation, and

was probably designed to force the composer to confront the restriction of melodic material in order to accomplish the polyphonic goals of diatonic canon. Calculated

though it may seem to modern sensibilities, the goal of the katholikon canon was to maintain the diatonic collection of pitches by changing the mode of the imitated part, so that the singer might effortlessly 'discover and express the accidental flats and sharps'

necessary, and create a work as much calculated to please the ear as the eye.

University of New Hampshire, Durham (NH)

90

APPENDIX 1 - Four Katholikon canons

1) 15203 version of Mouton's En venant de lyon

Joannes mouton

En venant de lyon bon bon bon bon trouvay en ung buysson robin et marion

il luy levoit son pelisson bon bon bon bon: mays ie ne scay quiltz font ro

bin a dit a marion bon bon bon bon vecy bien garde vecy bien garde mou

ton.

2) 1534s version of Verdelot's Dignare me laudare te

Quatuor in partes opus hoc distinguere debes. Verdelot.

SF .. I I Ii II i~I

Dignare me laudare te virgo sacrata da michi virtutem contra hos -

tes tuos contra hostes tuos ii contra hostes tuos.

91

3) 15407 version of Fevin's Quae est ista

FUGA. ANTHONIUS FEVIN. CI.

Quae est ista, que proces

sit sicut virgu la

fu mi, ex aro ma ti -

bus myr rhe &

thu ris. Dispositio huius Cantilenae

D A T B

4) BolC Q21 version of Willaert's Se ie naj mon amie (uncircled)

Se ie naj mon amie je mora de doleur et demerancolie de cela je suis secur son leal

AL INI A, I'L

sevitor sarai tutte ma vie son leal servitor sarai tutte ma vie

92

IN

Appendix 2 - Katholikon canons, a preliminary work-list

Composer Title No. of voices Canons Sources

Ockeghem Prenez sur moy ai3 3 ex 1-4th up DijBM 517 (missing); CopKB 291; 15043 (Petrucci); Mantua

intarsia; numerous later theory treatises Obrecht (?) Missa N'aray-je jamais a3 3 ex 1-5th up BerlS 40021; DresSL 1/D/505; WrocU 428

La Rue Missa Sancta Dei a3 3 ex 1-4th up JenaU 21; as Miserere mei 15456 (Rhau)

genitrix -Pleni La Rue Pater de caelis A6 3 ex 1-5th up with 3 free voices 15204 (Grimm & Wyrsung); 155511 (Montanus & Neuber) Mouton En venant de lyon A4 4 ex 1-4th up 15203 (Antico); 15457 (Rhau); Attaingnant 152? (see Heartz,

JAMS, 1961) Verdelot Dignare me laudare te A4 4 ex 1-5th up 15341 (Attaingnant); 15407 (Kriesstein); VallaC 15; as Da

pacem Domine 15457 (Rhau) Fevin, Ant. de Quae est ista A4 4 ex 1-5th down CambrP 1760; 15407 (Kriesstein); 15457 (Rhau) Willaert Se ie naj mon amie a3 3 ex 1-5th up Bol Q21; 155322(Le Roy & Ballard); 1560 Cincquiesme livre de

chansons (Le Roy & Ballard) Forestier Missa L'homme arm ~a5 BrusBR IV922; JenaU 3; MontsM 766; VatS 160

- Benedictus 4 ex 1-4th up with 1 free voice - Agnus Dei III 17 7 ex 1-two 3 ex 1 canons (4th up) and one voice 2 8ves up);

thus entrances on G, c, f, g, c', f', g' anon. Pleni sunt celi iA3 3 ex 1-5th down 15457 (Rhau) Frosch, Joh. Qui musas amat 'i6 4 ex 1-5th up 15407 (Kriesstein)

with 2 free voices

Palestrina Missa Ad fugam iA3 3 ex 1-5th down Missarum liber secundus (1567) - Benedictus

Palestrina Missa Sacerdotes Domini ai6 3 ex 1-2nd up Missarum liber octavus (1599) with 3 free voices

* Thanks are due to Alan Gosman, Jessie Ann Owens, Johanna Swartzentruber, and Lewis Lockwood for their stimulus in the creation of this article.

1 See M. Bukofzer's influential description of Ockeghem's counterpoint 'in negative terms

only', in 'Caput: A Liturgico-Musical Study', in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music

(New York 1950), 217-310, esp. 278-292. 2 Charles Burney, A General History of Music, Vol. I (2nd ed., 1789; rpt. New York: Dover,

1935, 1957), 728. 3 Burney, 646 and 672. 4 The discussion of the katholikon is found on p. 277 of Clement Miller's edition of Glarean's

Dodecachordon, Vol. II, Musicological Studies and Documents 6 (Rome: American Institute of Musicology 1965).

5 Palestrina's Missa Repleatur os meum is an example in which the progress of the canon

proceeds in the opposite direction: canons occur at the octave, seventh, sixth, and so on until a unison canon is reached in the 'Agnus Dei'. The connection between Palestrina's mass and Ockeghem's was suggested by D. Plamenac, ed., Johannes Ockeghem Collected

Works, Vol. 2 (New York: American Musicological Society 1981), xx; the mass can be found in Vol. VI of Palestrina, Giovanni Pierluigi da, Le Opere complete, ed. R. Casimiri (Rome: Scalera 1939).

6 Johannes Tinctoris, Dictionary of Musical Terms, translated and annotated by C. Parrish

(London: The Free Press of Glencoe 1963), 12-13. 7 Ibid. 32; the translation is my own. 8 Difficulty in carrying off a particular compositional feat has always spurred composers to

rise to the challenge, and exact canon at imperfect intervals is no exception. The presence of such works in later literature provides an indirect confirmation of the nature of the problem during Ockeghem's period. See Willaert's Praeter rerum seriem 'a 7, nr. 23 of Musica Nova

(1559), found in Adriani Willaert Opera Omnia, CMM 3/V (Rome 1957), ed. H. Zenck and W Gerstenberg; and more spectacularly, Orlando di Lasso's Quemadmodum desiderat, an exact canon at the interval of a seventh: Siimtliche Werke, 19. Band, ed. E X. Haberl (Leipzig 1908), 18-20.

9 Guillelmi Dufay Opera Omnia, ed. H. Besseler, CMM 1/6 (Rome 1961), 49. 10 David Fallows cites Hans Schoop, Margaret Bent, and Karol Berger as support for this

opinion, in The Songs of Guillaume Dufay, MSD 47 (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hainssler-Verlag 1994), 101.

11 Landini's canon is the madrigal De! dinmi tu, found in the Squarcialupi codex. A general review of these early exact canons at the fifth is found in my dissertation, Canon, Partial

Signatures, and 'Musicaficta' in Works byjosquin and his Contemporaries, (Ph.D. Diss.: Harvard

University 1988), 79-92. 12 Evidence for this assertion is found in my dissertation (1988), 99-102, but also may be seen

by attempting to impose an exact canon interpretation on the score provided in the ohannes

Ockeghem Collected Works, Vol. 2, ed. D. Plamenac (New York: American Musicological Society 1981), 21-36.

13 For Spataro's redefinition offuga we have only a secondary source, a letter from Giovanni del

Lago to Spartaro dated October 8, 1529. In the letter, Del Lago quotes and then mis- construes Spataro's negation of the importance of solmization syllable for defining thefuga;

94

see A Correspondence of Renaissance Musicians, ed. B. J. Blackburn et al. (Oxford: 1991), 378 and 392. Aaron may have responded to Spataro's idea, for in his Lucidario of 1545, he

appended to the definition offuga provided in his treatise of thirty years before, the Libri tres de institutione harmonica (1516), the possibility of a canon where 'there is no identity of name, since if when the Soprano says re mifa sol, the Tenor says ut re mifa.' See P Urquhart (1988), 116-120, for a discussion of these two treatises; and 120-138 for a fuller translation and

interpretation of Del Lago's letter. 14 Zarlino, in his Istitutioni harmoniche (1558), used the wordfuga for what here I have called

exact canon, and imitatione for diatonic canon. See J. Haar, 'Zarlino's Definition of Fugue and Imitation', inJAMS 24 (1971), 226-254. Haar also mentions the two discussions offuga by Pietro Aaron alluded to in the previous footnote (232-233), and generally presages many of the issues brought out in the present article.

15 Alan Gosman, responding to my earlier work on Ockeghem's Prenez sur moy, has written a

fascinating theoretical investigation of the compositional issues involved in some of these katholikon works, which Gosman dubbed 'stacked canons'. See A. Gosman, 'Stacked Canon and Renaissance Compositional Procedure', injMT 41 (1997).

16 Copenhagen, Ms. Thott 291, hereafter CopKB 291. Manuscript sigla used are from the

Census-Catalogue of Manuscript Sources of Polyphonic Music, 1400-1550, Renaissance Manu-

script Studies I (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hanssler-Verlag 1979-1989). Other sources of

Ockeghem's canon include the Petrucci print Canti C (RISM 15043), and numerous theoretical treatises. A complete list of sources, together with a list of published scores, is found in Johannes Ockeghem Collected Works, Vol. 3, ed. R. Wexler, AMS Studies and Documents 7 (New York: American Musicological Society 1992), lxxxvii-xci. David Fallows, in 'Prenez sur moy: Okeghem's Tonal Pun,' in Plainsong and Medieval Music 1 (1992), 63-75, makes the argument that the versions of the canon transmitted by 16th-century theorists stemmed from one source, Petrucci's Canti C. Fallows also pointed out (in private correspondence) one theoretical source, LonBL 4911, not included in Wexler's list.

17 The canonic prescription Fuga trium vocum in Epidiatessaron or the like occurs in the treatises

by Sebald Heyden (1540), Henricus Glareanus (1547), Gregorius Faber (1553), and Ambrosius Wilphlingseder (1563).

18 My 1988 dissertation treated the question in full, and credited Carl Dahlhaus with correctly divining the secret of the puzzle signatures. David Fallows (1992) agreed with this

viewpoint, and quoted some of the material from my dissertation. I then elaborated upon my earlier statement in an article published in a festschrift volume for Lewis Lockwood, and contrasted the A-D-G realization of the canon found in the dissertation and published by Fallows, with the versions published by other scholars recently. I found that 'the degree to which their transcriptions diverge from the relative intervallic content found in the version

suggested by Dahlhaus and published by Fallows [is] the degree to which their transcriptions are wrong. ... the piece was meant to operate in this modal configuration only.' J. Levitan, 'Ockeghem's Clefless Compositions', in MQ 23 (1937), 440-464, reviewed the history of solutions to the canon; his own solution was itself superseded by C. Dahlhaus, 'Ockeghems "Fuga trium vocum"', in Mf 13 (1960), 307-310; see also D. Fallows, 'Prenez sur moy: Okeghem's Tonal Pun,' in Plainsong and Medieval Music 1 (1992), 63-75; and P. Urquhart, 'Three Sample Problems of Editorial Accidentals in Chansons by Busnoys and Ockeghem,' in Music in Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis Lockwood, ed. by J.A. Owens and A.M. Cummings (Michigan: Harmonie Park Press 1997), 465-481.

95

19 No editorial accidentals are needed to perform the work, except perhaps to inflect the final cadence. In contrast, the transcriptions by Eugenie Droz et al. (1927), Leeman Perkins

(1990), and Richard Wexler (1992) rely heavily upon editorial correction. See E. Droz, G. Thibault & Y. Rokseth, eds., Trois chansonniersfrangais du X Ve siecle (Paris 1927; reprint, New York: Da Capo 1978), 1-2; L. Perkins, 'Ockeghem's Prenez sur moi: Reflections on Canons, Catholica, and Solmization', in Musica Disciplina 44 (1990), 119-184; Johannes Ockeghem Collected Works, Vol. 3, ed. R. Wexler (1992), 80.

20 In contrast with this common modern interpretation, Glarean was quick to point out that the mass 'should be sung according to three tones only corresponding to the three

fourth-species.' Dodecachordon Vol. 2 (1965), ed. C. Miller, 277. 21 See especially Levitan (1937) and Perkins (1990). 22 Translation by C. Miller, 277. 23 RISM 15457. The three canons are published as nr. 116, 117, and 118 in B. Bellingham, ed.,

Georg Rhau, Musikdrucke, Vol. VI (Kassel: Bairenreiter / Saint Louis: Concordia 1980), 302-307.

24 RISM 15203, fol. 2 (Joannes mouton). An example of the canon reproduced from this source, complete with text, occurs in Appendix 1. The other sources are BolC Q21, at the

beginning ofthe Cantus partbook (anonymous), and the last page of an eight-page fragment of an Attaingnant print of the 1520's (anonymous), described and reproduced in D. Heartz, 'A New Attaingnant Book and the Beginnings of French Music Printing', in JAMS 14

(1961), 9-23. Beside reproducing the Attaingnant fragment and the Antico 1520 versions of the canon, Heartz provided a score of the piece. The other modern score is found in

Bellingham (1980), 303-305. 25 The ending of the altus voice in Example 9 occurs on a different note than indicated in the

15203 print shown in Example 6; the signum was likely misplaced in the print. The

momentary clash between B and B? indicated at the cadence in the penultimate measure of this example may be quite characteristic of Franco-Flemish style, as argued by this author in 'Cross-relations by Franco-Flemish Composers after Josquin,' in TVNM 43 (1993), 3-41. This inflection does not affect the argument underway; cadential accidentals would have been added by the performer as an additional layer to the diatonic canonic structure.

26 The other sources for the work are an Attaingnant print, RISM 15345, fol. 4v (Verdelot); and a Kriesstein print 15407, nr. XCVIII (VERDELOTT). The reproduction in Appendix 1 follows the 15345 source. Modern editions are found in Bellingham (1980), 302-303, and Treize livres de motets parus chez Pierre Attaingnant ..., ed. A. Smijers, Troisieme livre (Paris: L'Oiseau Lyre 1936), 39-40.

27 Because the B is the top pitch of this phrase, one would expect it to be sung as B6, following Franco-Flemish vocal norms. This rule is often referred to as 'una nota super la, semper est canendum fa', although the rhyme arises only a century later. The idea behind the rule is the avoidance of linear tritones, a concept that 'is voiced in practically every theorist' from Marchetto to Zarlino, according to Karol Berger, Musicaficta. Theories of accidental inflections in vocal polyphony from Marchetto da Padova to Gioseffo Zarlino (Cambridge 1987), 70 and 77-79.

28 H. M. Brown, introduction to Cambridge, Magdalene College, Pepys MS 1760, Vol. 2 of Renaissance Music in Facsimile (New York: Garland 1988), vi. The source is damaged in part, and therefore the beginning of the canon is missing, but the attribution on the side remains (A. de fevin). The work is also found in the Kriesstein print mentioned before as a source for

96

Verdelot's canon: RISM 15407, nr. CI (ANTHONIVS FEVIN). Example 14 and the texted example in Appendix 1 are derived from this print. Modern editions are found in

Bellingham (1980), 305-307, and Collected works ofAntoine de Fevin, Vol. 3, ed. E. Clinkscale (Ottawa: Institute of Medieval Music 1994), 112-114.

29 The span of a fourth labelled b in Examples 14 and 15 presents another case of a problematic interval, this time just once in the leader voice, the cantus. It is hard to imagine this voice

doing anything but singing F# here, as though it were a cadence. The setting created by the other voices around m. 35 complies fully.

30 The work is found on p. 292-293 ofBellingham (1980). No concordances of the work have

yet been located. The editorial accidentals in the last two measures are all added for different

reasons, and therefore represent different layers of certainty: the bass E6 results from the direct linear motion up from the B6, and is secure; the tenor F# results from the contrapuntal context of the final cadence, and is also relatively secure; the cantus B? depends on the

performer's concern for a harmonic major third for the last sonority, and is the least secure.

Only the bass flat is germane to the analysis of the diatonic canon, for the other two are added as another layer of inflection caused by the approach to the end of the piece.

31 The print is RISM 15456. The canon is nr. 77 in Bellingham (1980), 106. The earlier mass source, JenaU 21, has been dated as 1521-1525 (Census-Catalogue). For the mass, see Pierre de la Rue Opera Omnia, CMM 97, vol. VI, ed. T. H. Keahey (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: AIM

1996), 1-21; the contrafactum is found in Vol. IX, ed. N. Davison (1996), 189-190. 32 RISM 15407, nr. LXXXII. 33 New Obrecht Edition, vol. 14, ed. Tom Ward (Utrecht 1994), 53-54; see also Der Kodex Berlin

40021, ed. Martin Just, Das Erbe deutscher Musik 78 (Kassel 1991). 34 Measures 182, 194, 197, and 198 in the New Obrecht Edition. 35 A brief diminished fifth occurs at the beginning of the piece (m. 173) which may have been

the reason a scribe added an EL to the signature. This signature flat causes enough trouble later on in the piece to cause doubt whether it was intended by the composer.

36 The canon of the tenor partbook operates at two pitch levels only; precisely what pitches they are is open to question, given the lack of a clef. It is closely related to the four-out-of- two canon on f. 29v-30' ofAntico's Motetti novi e chanzonifranciose... (15203). The canon of the bass partbook, as reported byJaap van Benthem, 'appears to be ingeniously developed out of Josquin's composition', which is yet another four-out-of-two canon found in Antico's print 15203. Van Benthem provides a transcription of the work. While related to the katholikon canons studied here, the order of the entering voices differs. J. van Benthem, 'Fortuna in Focus', in TVNM30 (1980), 1-50 at 26 and 49-50. Claudio Gallico, in his study ofthe source BolC Q21, published photographs of all four circle canons, and mentioned the ascription of En venant de lyon to Mouton in the Antico print 15203: Un canzoniere musicale Italiano del Cinquecentro (Firenze: Olschki 1961), 69-75.

37 Alan Gosman first called my attention to the existence of a three-out-of-one canon in Courtney Adams' edition of French Chansonsfor Three Voices (ca. 1550), Recent Researches in Music of the Renaissance 37 (Madison 1982), 77-78; I later recognized it as the same work as the BolC Q21 canon.

38 Alexandra Amati-Camperi reviews the evidence for a pre-Florentine Roman period in the composer's career, in An Italian genre in the hands of a Frenchman: Philippe Verdelot as madrigalist, with special emphasis on the six-voice pieces (Ph.D. Diss.: Harvard Univ.

97

1995), 7-13. See also R. Sherr, 'Verdelot in Florence, Coppini in Rome, and the Singer "La Fiore"', inJAMS 37 (1984), 402-411.

39 N. Bbker-Heil, Die Motetten von Philippe Verdelot (Cologne 1967), 100. 40 H. C. Slim, A Gift of Madrigals and Motets, Vol. 1 (Chicago 1972), 42. 41 H. C. Slim, 'Verdelot', in NGD 19, 633.

98