Luther’s Polyphony: Petreius’s Liber quindecim missarum in Protestant Nuremberg

A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Music

In the Division of Composition, Musicology and Theory of the College-Conservatory of Music

by

Anna Pranger

B.A. Xavier University, May 2006

M.L.S. Indiana University Bloomington, December 2010

Committee Chair: Dr. Stephanie P. Schlagel, Ph.D. Abstract

In 1539, Johann Petreius published a book of masses in Nuremberg, the Liber quindecim missarum. He included masses by prominent composers such as Josquin des Prez, Heinrich

Isaac, Antoine Brumel, Pierre de la Rue, and even Johannes Ockeghem, along with some lesser- known works, such as those by Wilhelm Breitengraser, Francesco Layolle, and Pierre Moulu.

But Nuremberg had adopted Luther’s reformed church making the use of complex Catholic polyphony practically impossible. The City Council of Nuremberg had lifted the ban on polyphonic music in 1537 and Petreius, along with fellow Nuremberg printer Hans Ott, began publishing music by these composers at a feverish rate. This included Ott’s monumental Novum et insigne opus musicum of 1537-1538 and his Missae tredecim that, like Petreius’s collection, would also come out in 1539. Petreius was likely aware of Petrucci’s tradition of printing this

music starting in 1501 with the Misse Josquin appearing a year later, and publications like this

would have a strong influence on what Petreius included. In a city that adopted a religion wary of complex music that obscured the intention of the words, Petreius understood that his Liber

quindecim missarum still served a strong purpose in the roles of education and in saving this

music from obscurity. This thesis will also include a modern transcription of Breitengraser’s

Missa Dominicale.

ii

Copyright © 2013, Anna Pranger

iii Acknowledgements

Of primary importance, I must thank my adviser, Dr. Stephanie P. Schlagel, without

whose guidance and support I would not have finished this thesis. I offer my heartfelt thanks to

my readers, Dr. Matthew Peattie and Dr. Richard Schade, for agreeing to be part of this process

and offering their advice and support. Thank you to the librarians of the Loeb Music Library at

Harvard University for providing their assistance while using their collection of early print

microfilm, and my thanks to Mary Beth Bruns for working her magic to make the Moderne

prints legible. Further thanks must be given to my colleagues, past and present, at the Cook

Music Library at Indiana University for their friendship and support, and also my parents, Gary and Mary Pranger, for their unending encouragement and love throughout this entire process.

iv Luther’s Polyphony: Petreius’s Liber quindecim missarum in Protestant Nuremberg

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements iv

Introduction 1

Chapter

1. Wittenberg, Nuremberg, and Questions of Liturgy 4

2. Composer Reputations, Novelty in Writing, and Printer’s Decisions 23

3. The Roads That Led to the Liber of 1539 43

Conclusion 56

Appendix: Breitengraser Missa Dominicale transcription 58

Bibliography 114

v List of Tables

Table 1: Number of Orders Specifying Mode of Performance 20

Table 2: Contents of the Liber quindecim missarum, 1539 29

Table 3: List of Potential Printed Sources for the Masses of the Liber quindecim missarum 48

vi List of Examples

Example 1: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales, Kyrie, in Petreius, 1539, Excerpt 54

Example 2: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s L’homme armé svm, Kyrie, in Ott, 1539, Excerpt 54

Example 3: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa Fortuna desperata, Kyrie, in Petreius, 1539, Excerpt 54

Example 4: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa Fortuna desperata, Kyrie, in Ott, 1539, Excerpt 55

Example 5: Transcription of Tenor Voice of Moulu’s Missa Duarum facierum, Sanctus, Giunta 1522, Excerpt 57

Example 6: Transcription of Tenor Voice of Moulu’s Missa Duarum facierum, Sanctus, Petreius 1539, Excerpt 57

vii Introduction

In 1539 the Liber quindecim missarum was published in the city of Nuremberg during a time of enormous change. It was the first city to adhere to Luther’s religious philosophies, but because of this there was not much structure to the religion and no tradition to follow. Regardless of what role the music of the polyphonic masters like Josquin would play in the new church, printers like Johannes Petreius and Hans Ott believed it was important to preserve this music.1

Petreius also included in his Liber music of contemporaries that preserved their style for the

same reason, but one unanswered question is where Petreius got his music. There was another

printer in Nuremberg; Petreius also had a colleague in Lyon, but Petrucci’s prints seem to have

been readily available to Petreius.

Nuremberg was the first city to declare an adherence to the Lutheran faith rather than the

Catholic Church. However, Luther believed that each city that adopted his teachings should

figure out what worked in their situation instead of Luther dictating to them how they should

practice it. Since Nuremberg was the first city to reject Catholicism in favor of Luther’s reformed

church, its citizens had no model to follow, and the government’s relationship with the Holy

Roman Emperor meant strict consequences if it was discovered that Nuremberg had switched

faiths. There were some religious camps in Nuremberg that wanted to eliminate completely the

traditional polyphonic music because of the difficulty of performing and understanding it, but

others fought to preserve this music through their own connections to the political hierarchy in

Nuremberg. The need to keep up appearances and the work of a few powerful men in Nuremberg

meant that polyphony would continue to have a place in the reformed liturgy.

1 Stephanie P. Schlagel, “Fortune’s Fate: Josquin and the Nürnberg Mass Prints of 1539,” in Josquin and the Sublime: Proceedings of the International Josquin Symposium at Roosevelt Academy Middleburg, 12-15 July 2009, ed. Albert Clement and Eric Jas (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011), 197. When Petreius was compiling the music for his Liber, there seemed to be three different motivators for what he included: famous names that would help the publication sell, gaining music through personal connections, and including music that had some sort of compositional construct to it. Six out of fifteen masses in the Liber are by Josquin suggesting that Petreius knew what would sell and purposely selected many of his masses. He also included composers like

Heinrich Isaac, Antoine Brumel, and Pierre de la Rue who would also have been well-known names to the right audience. But Petreius also demonstrated that his knowledge of this music went beyond name recognition in that several of the masses he included have some sort of constructivist device that would only be clear to someone looking at the music. This is why he included masses like Josquin’s Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales and Missa La sol fa re mi, Ockeghem’s Missa Cuiusvis toni, and others. Petreius also searched locally for masses to include and a potential local resource was Wilhelm Breintengraser, who was a teacher in

Nuremberg and whose music had been published prior to the Liber.

The task then becomes to determine what sources Petreius used for his own publication.

There were a number of people who were printing this music throughout Europe such as Jacques

Moderne in Lyon, Andrea Antico and Luca-Antonio Giunta in Italy, and even Hans Ott who was located in Nuremberg and held the Emperor’s privilege to print music in that city. Even though

Petrucci was no longer printing—having died in 1539—his music publications were still very respected for their beauty and accuracy as much during the sixteenth century as they are today.

Chapter 1 of this thesis looks at the social and religious context of Nuremberg in the

1520s and ‘30s that surround Petreius’s Liber quindecim missarum. Chapter 2 explores

Petreius’s repertory selections and motivations by examining the internal evidence of the print as well as Petreius’s professional background, the reputations of the composers included, and the

2 compositional construction of the masses in the Liber. Chapter 3 explores the external evidence: previous prints that might have been available to Petreius that he might have copied from for his own publication. Many of Petrucci’s first editions play a large role in Petreius’s selection process. As an appendix to this document, I also have included a transcription of Wilhelm

Breitengraser’s Missa Dominicale.

3 Chapter 1: Wittenberg, Nuremberg and Questions of Liturgy

By the sixteenth century, Nuremberg had been a favorite city of the Holy Roman

Emperors for almost 200 years, starting when Emperor Frederick II declared in 1219 “that every

citizen of this city shall have no other liege than Us and Our successors, the Roman kings and

Emperors.”1 Nevertheless, the influence of a2nother German town, Wittenberg, was

unmistakable. Martin Luther’s role as a teacher at the University of Wittenberg meant that his

influence stretched into matters of politics, religion, and music in Nuremberg. An examination of

the relationship between these two cities as well as the role of music during the time of transition

between two religious confessions reveals a careful balance of elements of the old and new

traditions and beliefs. Nuremberg converted to the reformed church less than ten years after

Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, but many questions remained about the format

this new church would take. Although these decisions took place almost twenty years before

Petreius published his Liber quindecim missarum, they would affect a great deal of the liturgical problems that Nuremberg faced.

Luther had many reasons to want to reform the Catholic Church, the practice of selling indulgences being the most well known complaint. But in all of his voluminous theological writings, he never clearly stated in a stand-alone document the role he felt music should play. For example, in the process of giving general guidance on the structure of a new Mass, he might mention where one could sing a Sanctus if so desired, or where a hymn might be appropriate, but he never gave more direct instructions in the use of music than this. Primarily his friends and colleagues, such as Philipp Melanchthon and Georg Rhau, preserved his thoughts on the use of

1 Stephen Brockmann, Nuremberg: The Imaginary Capital (Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2006), 13.

music in the form of cursory quotations that are the most direct record of what Luther said. He

also wrote prefaces to quite a few publications that added substance to the initial framework of

his philosophy.3

Early on, Luther knew that music would have an important role in this reformed church.

He was an accomplished lutenist, and most say he had a fine tenor voice. Like most boys during

that time, he sang in the church choir and received his musical education from the church.4

Luther’s primary concern with the use of music in church was its intention, saying “If it [music] was performed merely in fulfillment of the demands of unreformed ecclesiastical law then it was to be condemned, but if it was performed in response to the gospel then it was to be commended.”5 Luther understood that the inclusion of music could add to any kind of worship

service as long as the intention of the music was the glorification of God rather than the

glorification of music. Combined with Luther’s admiration of the great composers of his day,

this attitude toward the use of music in the liturgy makes it easy to assume that the music of these composers would have likely played a significant role in the reformed church.

Luther also worried that too much sudden change would frighten new congregants. “The

first step is to let the old practice continue. . . but besides that, through the sermon keep the

consciences free, so the congregation may learn that these things are done not because they have

to be done that way or because it would be a heresy to do them differently, as the nonsensical

laws of the pope insist.”6 Luther understood that with so much change happening at once,

3 Volume 53 of Luther’s Works contains Luther’s writings about the liturgy and hymns. It includes sections from his Formula missae of 1523 and Deutsche messe of 1526; he also wrote introductions to six hymnals printed between 1524 and 1545. A number of brief quotations about specific hymns are also preserved in this volume. 4 Robin Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music: Principles and Implications (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 22. 5 Helmut Lehman, ed., Treatise on Good Works, vol. 44 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976), 39. 6 Helmut Lehman, ed., Receiving Both Kinds of the Sacrament, vol. 36 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976), 254.

2 congregations and religious leaders could feel a little unsettled. Luther believed that the old

traditions could continue for a while as long as the intention behind the ceremony remained

focused on God and not the pomp of the ceremony. Indeed, Luther never wanted to create his

own church: he wanted to reform the Catholic Church from within. However, his

excommunication for his heretical statements proved that impossible.

He also believed that certain musical traditions of the Catholic Church would fit into the

new version of the Mass because of the inherent praise of God in some of the hymns and parts of

the Mass Ordinary. By 1530 Luther had a more established view of the role music would play in the Mass. He stated in Concerning the Sacraments:

I believe that many hymns were included and retained in the Mass which deal with thanksgiving and praising [God] in a wonderful and excellent way, as for example, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Alleluia, the Creed, the Preface, the Sanctus, the Benedictus, and the Agnus Dei. In these various parts you find nothing about a sacrifice but only praise and thanks. Therefore, we have also kept them in our Mass. Particularly the Agnus Dei, above all songs, serves well for the sacrament, for it clearly sings about and praises Christ for having borne our sins and in beautiful, brief words powerfully and sweetly teaches the remembrance of Christ.7

He understood that some of the old tradition had value in his new church. He appreciated the parts of the Mass that praised God, and most of the liturgical items listed above have strong musical elements, namely the Gloria, Sanctus, Benedictus, and Agnus Dei, which were all included in any Mass Ordinary setting. Luther’s continuous message from the early days of the

Reformation to the 1530s was that music would have a place in the liturgy as long as the motivation behind the music was God’s glorification. He even stated later that certain parts of the

Catholic Mass preserve the original intention of God’s glorification.

Luther had the good fortune to work at a university in a region where the ruler had a greater tolerance for new ideas than most of his contemporaries. Frederick the Wise, made the

7 Helmut Lehman, ed., Concerning the Sacrament, vol. 38 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976), 123.

3 Duke of Saxony in 1486, held a position in the Holy Roman Empire second only the Emperor

Maximilian I, his cousin. Frederick’s close relationship with the Emperor allowed him to serve

as Maximilian’s court adviser for one year between 1496 and 1497; Frederick also stood in for

Maximilian at an Imperial court proceeding in Augsburg in 1502. He followed Maximilian as the

Imperial court traveled throughout the Holy Roman Empire, and he served the emperor in

whatever further capacity Maximilian desired. Despite the kinship between these royals,

Frederick believed that the power of the Holy Roman Emperor should be limited and this person

should not have the power to rule as an absolute monarch, as had been the case for centuries.

Normally someone in Frederick’s position would not have held such views, but they required

him to act one way when serving the Emperor while keeping his true feelings to himself. When

his service to the Emperor ended around the time he founded his university, Frederick had the

freedom to retire to his duchy and establish a haven for academics sympathetic to reform.8

When Frederick established the University of Wittenberg in 1502, he did so with the intention of making it a model for education based on humanistic ideas. His initial choice of teachers would have a profound effect on the development of the university from its very beginning. His personal physician, Martin Polich von Mellerstadt, received his medical training in Leipzig and became a teacher at the university having been influenced by the humanistic movement already established in Leipzig; Johann von Staupitz came from a position at a religious establishment in Munich to teach.9 Though Staupitz remained faithful to the Catholic

Church throughout his life, he voiced his call for reform within the Church and he served as

Luther’s confessor. With the two earliest teachers at this university—as well as its founder—so

amenable to humanistic ideas, more like-minded teachers gravitated toward Wittenberg as well.

8 Kathryn Ann Pohlman Duffy, “The Jena Choirbooks: Music and Liturgy at the Castle Church of Wittenberg under Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995), 31-4. 9 Ibid., 53.

4 Some members of the faculty would greatly influence the evolution of a separate Lutheran faith within the confines of both Wittenberg and Nuremberg, such as law professor Christoph Scheurl and theology professor Philipp Melanchthon.

Frederick developed a reputation as a ruler with a deep appreciation for the arts. He communicated with composers Pierre de la Rue, Alexander Agricola, and Paul Hofhaimer;

Adam Rener served as his court composer starting in 1507.10 Most of these composers had a connection to the Habsburg court: Pierre de la Rue served as the court composer at the

Habsburg-Burgundian court for the majority of his life, Paul Hofhaimer as Maximilian’s court organist, and Adam Rener as a chorister for Maximilian’s court. During this time German courts tried to imitate the music that Maximilian’s musicians created. Frederick’s position as a ruler second only to Maximilian meant that much of the music and musicians at his court would imitate what he heard at the Imperial court. It further meant that residents of Wittenberg and teachers at the University would have experienced this music on a regular basis, possibly making someone like Luther less reluctant to separate from such a strong part of the religious tradition.

The musicians of Frederick’s chapel served two roles: as choristers for the Duke’s private chapel and as musicians in an official capacity for the university. To assure these musicians had the best compositions available to sing, Frederick began compiling masses and other sacred compositions from a number of different places. He commissioned a few of the manuscripts, received some from Maximilian as gifts (including through his familial relationship to Margaret of Austria, whose court scriptorium produced the books), and he personally commissioned some from the copyist Petrus Alamire.11 This collection of manuscripts, known today as the Jena

Choirbooks, has a number of masses in common with the Liber quindecim missarum including

10 Leaver, 35. 11 Eric Jas, “Index of Composers and Compositions,” in The Treasury of Petrus Alamire: Music and Art in Flemish Court Manuscripts 1500-1535, ed. Herbert Kellman (Ghent: University of Chicago, 1999), 84.

5 five by Josquin des Prez and Pierre de la Rue’s Missa Tous les Regrets.12 While this is not to

imply that Petreius copied from these choirbooks, it suggests that the musical taste in the regions

of Wittenberg and Nuremberg favored traditional polyphony of Franco-Flemish origins, at least

in the early years of the church.

The power and influence of Frederick’s position would also benefit Luther in 1521 after

his formal excommunication at the Diet of Worms. Luther hid at Wartburg castle under the

protection of Frederick for a year during which time he translated the Bible from Latin to

German. But the call for reform was not silenced simply because Luther no longer served as the

figurehead: other leaders from Wittenberg emerged to push forward these changes.

The more ardent teacher and theologian Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, also based in

Wittenberg, decided to publish his own ideas of what role music should have in religious

services. His De cantu gregoriano disputatio of 1521 lists fifty-three theses criticizing the music

of the liturgy. Among these he states that chants were created by “the church of which Gregory

was the head” and “not by the church of which Christ is the head.”13 He further says about

polyphonic music that “if, therefore, you wish chant to remain in the church, you should desire

none except that which is one, so that there may be one God, one baptism, one faith, and one

chant” (i.e., monophony only).14 Karlstadt believed in a uniform sound for worship and that the church as it had existed put the musical tradition of Gregory ahead of music meant to praise God.

Under Luther’s tenets as well as Karlstadt’s, the proper motivation for music should be praise of

God. But Karlstadt believed that the church needed a different kind of music separate from this

Gregorian tradition to also remove any papal influence. However Luther hoped that by

12 Duffy, 251. 13 Hermann Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (Nieukoop: de Graaf, 1968), 31. 14 Ibid., 29.

6 redirecting the intention of the music back to worship, he could redeem its use for the new

church.

Only after Karlstadt published his own views on the use of music did Luther start making

more decisions about what role music would have in the liturgy. In 1523, he wrote his Formula

missae et communionis pro eccelsia Vuittembergensi [An Order of the Mass and Communion for the Church of Wittenberg] in which he described services in Wittenberg as a guide for cities wanting a model for this new church. He did not make many changes and did not encourage other churches to change too quickly, “for I [Luther] have been hesitant and fearful, partly because of the weak in faith, who cannot suddenly exchange an old and accustomed order of worship for a new and unusual one, and more so because of the fickle and fastidious spirits . . . who delight only in novelty and tire of it as quickly, when it has worn off.”15 Luther encouraged slow change for anyone considering this new faith not only because to do otherwise might scare some worshippers, but also to convince the newly converted that the leadership had a vision and a plan for this faith beyond the immediate future. Luther further stated in his Formula missae that he approved of the temporary conversion of the Mass to the common language of German, but that perpetuation of this practice was not a wise course of action.16 Again Luther preferred to

maintain the traditions of the Catholic Church rather than encourage radical reform. His mention

of music within this context also suggests that his preference for keeping some traditions

expanded into the realm of music.

Luther included further descriptions of the role music should play in reformed services in

other writings. He provided the preface for the first Lutheran partbooks, the Geystliche gesangk

Buchleyn or Chorgesangbuch published in 1524, in which he wrote “I would like to see all the

15 Helmut Lehman, ed., An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, vol. 53 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976), 19. 16 Ulrich Leupold, Introduction to vol. 53 of Luther’s Works (St Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976), xvi.

7 arts, especially music, used in the service of Him who gave and made them.”17 Luther

emphasized his belief that the importance of music lay in the intentions of those making music: if

the intention was to serve God, then music complements the worship, but if it served man, then

the music distracted from the worship of God.

Luther had maintained a consistent message from the beginning, but when he finally put

his beliefs into print it helped solidify the role he wanted music to have. This also gave more

confidence to worshippers in regions that waited for more guidance before embracing the

reforms for which Luther called.

The leaders of Nuremberg closely watched each event surrounding Luther and this new

church with great interest. The City Council felt sympathetic toward the reforms that Luther was

trying to enact but they had to keep up a policy of appearances that discouraged reformist

thoughts because of the city’s close relationship with the Holy Roman Emperor.18 This policy

meant that the Council could not be seen to participate in any way with the reforms, and instead

left the religious changes to the city churches to implement. But there existed a period of eight

years between the end of an attempt to keep up this policy, which occurred around the same time

that Nuremberg banned the use of polyphony in 1525, and the city signing a confession of faith

known as the Brandenburg-Nuremberg Church Order in 1533.19 During this time, Luther still

had not decided the details of his new religion, so Nuremberg’s religious leaders created their

own form of worship that discarded some old traditions but kept others.

Nuremberg had a governing structure unique for the cities of the Holy Roman Empire

and indeed for Western Europe in general. It did not have a bishop’s seat or a secular ruler to

17 Helmut Lehman, ed., Preface to the Wittenberg Hymnal, vol. 53 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO: Concordia: 1955-1986), 316. 18 Barlett Russell Butler, “Liturgical Music in Sixteenth-Century Nürnberg: A Socio-Musical Study” (PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1970), 78. 19 Ibid., 78.

8 whom the city governors answered; they answered solely to the Emperor. All aspects of daily life

in both sacred and secular matters were controlled by a city council. In its beginning, Council

members could come from any level of the social hierarchy through a local election, but by the sixteenth century, membership on the Council was limited to citizens of the highest social rank.

The Council had always leaned toward conservatism in matters of state and religion, but during the first half of the sixteenth century it became harder and harder to appease both the Emperor’s call for the quieting of reformers, and the people’s call for reform. Some would agree that

Nuremberg took this conservative view toward all aspects of city life to please the Emperor, but

Bartlett Butler states that “it is perhaps closer to the truth to see in its policies a calculated

technique for survival in a rapidly changing, complex, and often hostile environment.”20

Whatever the reason for the stance they took, it meant that members of the Council had to constantly say one thing to the Emperor while they did quite the opposite.

The control that this Council held over all matters extended into music, both sacred and secular. German Meistersingers had had a strong presence in Nuremberg going back to the fourteenth century. But with the acceleration of the reform movement, Meistersingers no longer were permitted to meet in the city and could no longer play an educational role in the Nuremberg schools according to the ruling of the Council in 1533.21 The ban on polyphony that the Council

began in 1525 also demonstrates the power that this ruling body had over every aspect of

worship and education.

Nuremberg had always maintained a close connection to Wittenberg because of the

movement of prominent people between these two cities. Nuremberg did not have an institution

of higher learning, so many of the wealthy families sent their sons to study either in Italy or at

20 Butler, 36. 21 Susan Gattuso, “Sixteenth-Century Nuremberg” in The Renaissance: From the 1470s to the End of the 16th Century, ed. Iain Fenlon (London: Macmillan, 1989), 294.

9 the University of Wittenberg. 22 Since Luther began teaching in Wittenberg in 1512 and

Nuremberg would convert to Lutheranism in 1525, some of his students may have risen to places of prominence within the governmental structure of the city. The education of Nuremberg’s upper class in Wittenberg may also explain the city’s tendency toward the new religion despite their allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor. The humanistic philosophies championed by Duke

Frederick the Wise, Luther, and his fellow teachers would be fresh in the minds of these

Nuremberg elite who mixed it with a desire to implement these ideas in their own city.

Hector Pömer is one such example. In Nuremberg he served as a priest, a doctor of law, and a musician. He received his law degree in Wittenberg before returning to Nuremberg in 1521 and becoming a provost at St. Lorenz Church, one of two prominent churches in Nuremberg.

During his time in Wittenberg and after he returned to Nuremberg, he kept in communication with many members of Luther’s circle including Luther himself, Philipp Melanchthon, and

Luther’s primary publisher, Georg Rhau.23 Pömer had important Reformation connections and the proper position in Nuremberg during a crucial time in the city’s transition. It is easy to imagine the political and religious leaders of Nuremberg approaching Pömer to ask how Luther might interpret a question of liturgy during such an early period of the new church.

Some connections between Nuremberg and Wittenberg extend to a time before Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses. Christoph Scheurl, one of Frederick’s original recruits for the

University of Wittenberg, began serving as an advisor to the Nuremberg City Council as early as

1512. His association with the City Council would continue through their years of transition to

Lutheranism until his death in 1542, and Scheurl had the responsibility of traveling to the court of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V to initially ask for the emperor’s protection from local

22 Gattuso, 286. 23 Butler, 64.

10 barons who wanted to use the resources of the city and its outlying lands to improve their own financial standing. But while he was there, members of the court forced him to answer questions about rumors that Nuremberg allowed anti-Catholic sentiment to spread throughout the city.24

His careful interactions at the Imperial court gave Nuremberg time, if nothing else, to lay the groundwork for the Lutheran church and decide how to appease their terrestrial ruler while following their desire for a new form of worship of their heavenly ruler.

Nuremberg also drew its newest clergy from the ranks of Wittenberg’s finest theologians.

Georg Pessler and Dominus Schleupner both became preachers and administrators at the most prestigious church in Nuremberg, St. Sebald, along with Hector Pömer at St. Lorenz. These new religious leaders came to Nuremberg in the early 1520s when the Reformation had just started; the Council’s conscious choice to recruit religious leaders and Luther’s former students from

Wittenberg gave the impression that these leaders wanted to show their allegiance to Luther and other Reformation supporters through his former students and encourage the Reformation movement in their own city.

Andreas Osiander, while neither a graduate of the University of Wittenberg nor an associate of Luther, stirred up the fire for reform in Nuremberg in both his sermons and his publications. The City Council appointed him to St. Lorenz Church in 1522, one year after the appointment of Pömer as provost, knowing full well his sympathies to the reformation movement. He spoke with such passion on this topic that he almost served as an embarrassment to the Council because two more years would pass after his appointment during which the

Council would continue this policy of appearances toward the Emperor.25 His writings on church reform showed his dedication to the idea that a Mass in German was the easiest way for a

24 Butler, 71. 25 Ibid., 101.

11 congregation to fully participate. Osiander went a step further than Luther by contending that

Latin and Greek had no place in the reformed rituals and that saying the Mass in the vernacular would encourage more participation and understanding among the congregation.26 While Luther had the opinion that musical elements such as the Gloria and Agnus Dei could still play a part in the reformed Mass, Osiander thought differently. By reciting and singing in the vernacular instead of the language of the learned elite, he hoped it would induce more congregational participation. The initial years of the Nuremberg reform quickly became characterized by radical changes despite Luther’s urging for moderation, and despite the close connections between

Council leaders in Nuremberg and Martin Luther and his associates in Wittenberg.

Luther did write something of a guide for worship at the insistence of a colleague in

Zwickau. The Formula missae was published in December 1523, a mere year and three months before Nuremberg converted to Lutheranism. The document is quite short and readable in a few hours’ time—hardly enough space to lay out an entire theology—and it only described the practice as it existed in Wittenberg. Luther expressed that he did not want others simply to copy him, but to adopt practices that suited the local congregation: surely his colleague in Zwickau had hoped for some more substantial guidance.27 Luther explained that he wanted to wait a while before publishing his thoughts on the religion to allow for a period of adjustment between the traditional and new approaches.28 He also worried that too much change in the initial stages of worship would turn people away, so his approach to reform tended toward conservatism. Even though so many people in his circle called out for more guidance, Luther realized that he navigated unknown waters and wanted to take deliberate, strategic steps to guarantee the success

26 Ibid, 104. 27 Helmut Lehman, “Introduction,” Luther’s Works 53 (St Louis, MO: Concordia: 1955-1986), xvi. 28 Bard Thompson, “Martin Luther, Formula missae and Deutsche Messe,” in Liturgies of the Western Church (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1965), 99.

12 of this new church. He was very hesitant to start a separate church because he thought that his

call for reform might convince Church leaders in Rome to enact some of the changes for which

he had been calling. This helps to explain why most of the ceremony did not deviate in the early

years of the new church.

By October 1524, the Nuremberg Council could no longer keep up appearances. The first

Lutheran mass was said, and a ban on celebrating Catholic mass came the following year. With

the Lutheran movement growing and Nuremberg’s religious personnel so vocal in their support

of Luther, it was impossible to pretend that Catholicism still had a strong standing in the city.

But only Luther’s Formula missae gave any kind of guidance in establishing this new form of worship. Because Luther had left most of the formula of the mass up to the individual congregation, Nuremberg developed its own interpretation of Luther’s theology and tended

toward a conservative interpretation. Despite the influence of Protestant leaders such as

Osiander, Scheurl, and Pömer, the ultimate decisions regarding liturgy and music fell to the

Council, which still tended toward conservatism.

Between the years 1524 and 1533, two forms of the Mass appeared in Nuremberg: one

more traditional version that the Nuremberg provosts wanted to perform; and another that more closely followed Luther’s suggestions, and thus, made more changes to the Mass. However, both

versions still deviated little from the Catholic Mass. In fact, the only musical element completely

eliminated was the Offertory chant with some silent prayers also deleted in both versions of the

early Nuremberg Mass.29 One insertion into the Lutheran Mass unique to the Nuremberg

Reformation was a presentation in German explaining the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.30

Luther mentioned in his Formula missae that the clarification of these rituals was extremely

29 Butler, 159. 30 Ibid., 167.

13 important so that the congregation understood the purpose of certain recitations.31 In including

the history of the rituals, the purpose of the Mass clearly changed from one of mystery and

sacrifice to education and celebration, a point that Luther heavily emphasized and concluded the

Catholic Church had forgotten. The lack of radical modifications to the Mass structure ensured

that people would follow the new church because of the similarity to the established ritual.

More decisive changes occurred in 1525 and would continue until the standardization of

the religion in 1533. The first change concerned the number of Masses to be said during the

week: Luther believed that Mass should only occur on Sundays and holy days; but Nuremberg

gave two services per day, one in the early morning and one in the afternoon, until forced to

abolish this practice in 1533.32 The sermon, which had been embedded in the afternoon Mass, was moved to its own separate Mass that occurred between the early morning and afternoon services.33 Consequently, more people attended the sermon Mass because of its use of the

vernacular and singing chorales in which the congregation could participate. For those wanting

reform and those wanting consistency, separate services seemed the perfect way to please both

factions. Although the practice of separate services ended with the Church Order in 1533, it gave

conservative congregations a chance to get accustomed to a different format, and it allowed the

reformed congregation the opportunity to experiment with a new service to find a balance

between traditional and “Lutheran” elements on which everyone could agree. This

experimentation extended into the realm of music as much as any other part of the Mass.

Theologians based in Wittenberg approved the Brandenburg-Nuremberg Church Order

(Kirchenordnung) in 1533, and it finally provided a framework for how to practice this new

31 Helmut Lehman, ed., The German Mass and Order of Service, vol. 53 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO: Concordia: 1955-1986), 64. 32 Butler, 169. 33 Ibid., 170.

14 religion.34 But as other cities adopted Luther’s reformed church, each region could deviate from

the rules to fit the needs of its own congregation, so determining the actual practice in any

Lutheran city becomes quite difficult. Some mandates of worship appear in almost every church order, including those about the use of music during services. The list of requirements and

degree of specificity in any church order varied from city to city, but in each they served as a

guide to religious practice for that city and its outlying areas.

Some church orders even included the level of participation the choir would have. The role of the choir depended on many variables: the resources available to the church; whether the congregation preferred a Latin or German mass; and how often churches wanted to have daily mass instead of weekly, to name a few. It appears that each city chose whether to have services in Latin or German with no apparent reasoning. Some recited the traditional parts of the mass in

Latin while others, such as the sermon, Lord’s Prayer, and the consecration, were in German so

that everyone could understand the words.35 The choice of using Latin or German also impacted

the extent to which a congregation needed a choir. Since the small amount of congregational music would have been simple enough for most people to sing, a highly skilled choir seemed

excessive. But when church orders kept parts of the traditional Latin Mass, the choir needed to

learn either the traditional chant and its notation, or even more complex polyphony. With the

conservatism of the council, Nuremberg preferred Latin to German, although instances of both

were used before the Church Order of 1533. The city’s preference for more traditional elements

also suggests that the music at their services would have retained a nostalgic quality. Just four

years after this, the ban on polyphony would be lifted in Nuremberg making way for the

34 Butler, 198. 35 Joseph Herl, Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism: Choir Congregation, and Three Centuries of Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 40.

15 publication of Hans Ott’s multi-volume set of motets, Petreius’s collection of psalm settings, and

the two mass prints by both men in 1539.

Each church made further decisions about their services based on the personnel available and the role that a particular church played in its community. This was true in large cities such as

Nuremberg where there was a greater likelihood that mass would be recited daily instead of

weekly. The increased musical demand meant that churches had to draw talent from the Latin

schools of larger cities, a tradition that went back to the days of the Medieval church.36

Nuremberg was one of the larger cities in the German-speaking territories, and the conservative

leaning of the Council would suggest that services would continue much as they had in the past.

Boys studying at the Latin school in Nuremberg were required to study music and participate in

the church choir a certain number of times per week, provided it did not interfere with the rest of

their schoolwork. Consequently, the quality of music and the level of musicianship at such well-

funded institutions would stand above what small, rural parishes could provide.

While Luther stressed the importance of participation by the congregation, the actual

level of congregational involvement in musical aspects of worship varied. Joseph Herl has

compiled a chart that summarizes how many church orders specified who should perform certain

musical parts of the mass. A simplified version of Herl’s data appears in Table 1. 37

36 Herl, 38. 37 Herl, 55. The table on page 55 is an abbreviation of the data he presented in his Appendix 3.

16

Table 1. Number of orders specifying mode of performance Part of mass liturgy Total orders38 Choral Congregational Either/both Introit 163 38 8 17 Kyrie 138 24 0 6 Gloria 137 25 2 14 Gradual 125 26 6 8 Sequence 67 14 0 1 Creed 157 8 26 32 Hymn before sermon 35 2 6 0 Hymn after sermon 73 4 9 2 Sanctus 98 20 2 5 Agnus Dei 104 19 11 5 Communion hymns 140 10 46 8 Dismissal hymn 43 4 8 0

Herl consulted a total of 169 original editions and reprints of church orders before 1600, and the totals represented in the “Total orders” include those church orders in which that specific part of the liturgy is included regardless of whether the original language was to be Latin, German or some combination of both. “Choral” indicates how many of the “Total orders” mandated that the choir should sing a specific part of the mass liturgy, whereas “Congregation” indicated that the congregation should sing. “Either/both” means that either the congregation or choir could sing; or the congregation and choir could sing together.

For the most part, church orders specified that choirs should sing the majority of the mass with congregational participation encouraged especially for the Creed and during most of the hymns. Luther said from his earliest publication, Formula missae of 1523, that more worshippers needed to participate in the Mass and one way to encourage participation was through singing hymns. Luther also asserted in his Deudsche Messe that the Creed constituted one of the most important parts of a Christian’s primary beliefs, along with the Ten Commandments and the

38 The choral, congregational, and either/both columns do not equal the total because in many cases the desired format was not available or could not be determined

17 Lord’s Prayer.39 Although the Creed, or Credo, typically appears with the “Ordinary of the

Mass” (i.e., Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei), when considering Luther’s emphasis on

the importance of the Creed, it stands to reason that church orders would encourage congregations to participate in the recitation of their beliefs instead of having the choir simply sing the prescribed musical setting of the Credo. According to the table above, it seems that most cities adhered to Luther’s tendency toward consistency, rather than radical reform. The choir still sang all parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, except the Creed for the above reason.

The question of the role of polyphonic music in worship was moot between 1525 and

1533 because of the ban of its use or publication in Nuremberg, but that does not mean that this music did not have its champions. Religious leaders and teachers such as Sebald Heyden,

Hieronymous Baumgartner, and Veit Dietrich used their positions in the city to further the performance of polyphony in the classroom and call for its reinstatement in the liturgy. Heyden served as the rector at Saint Sebald School and published three different manifestations of an educational treatise on polyphonic music.40 Heyden’s reasons for reinstating polyphony

consisted of liturgical and educational arguments: Heyden agreed with Luther and other

reformers that reciting or singing parts of the mass in Latin or Greek without understanding the

language separated the worshippers from the meaning of the text. Heyden understood that unless

people knew why the mass included the parts that it did, then one would question the inclusion of

those parts. But Heyden was also a humanist and had a high appreciation for music, which he

believed added beauty and solemnity to the Mass. So rather than eliminate polyphony from the

Mass because some people may have found it too decorative and distracting, Heyden took it

upon himself to write Musica stoicheiosis in 1532 as a defense of and guide to polyphony.

39 Lehman, ed., The German Mass and Order of Service, vol. 53 of Luther’s Works, 65. 40 Musica Stoicheiosis, 1532; Musicae, 1537; De arte canendi, 1540; all published by Petreius.

18 Heyden’s purpose in writing Musica Stoicheiosis was to make polyphony easier for students to learn.41 He realized that learning this music took time that students could spend on other subjects, and thus justifying the reason for its exclusion to some, so Heyden wanted to lighten the burden for them. In 1537 and 1540 he wrote two more modified versions of this treatise, Musicae and De arte canendi, respectively. In both of the later editions he dedicated the work to

Hieronymous Baumgartner, a Nuremberg patrician who worked hard to re-establish polyphony’s place in the reformed liturgy.

Heyden believed that church leaders wanted to remove polyphony partially because it seemed complicated and not many people understood how to read the notes and rhythms of the music of Obrecht and his generation. Heyden wrote in his preface of the 1540 edition

“Therefore, we consider the use of [musical] signs so necessary that we contend nobody can truly understand the art of singing without investigating and observing them very diligently.”42

From this statement we can deduce that the ability of students to read musical notation had dwindled, since Heyden stresses that one cannot sing properly without this ability. Heyden continued, “These, then, are the things I wished especially to fulfill in our books. First, to make the art of singing as easy and expeditious as possible for young students. Second, to return the value and use of signs to definite proportional relationships, so that in any examination one may immediately understand their use and value.”43 Once again, Heyden states that his students find the performance of polyphony difficult, and he hopes that his treatises would make the task easier. But on a deeper level, he wanted to show that this music did have value and should not just be preserved but also performed as was its original intention.

41 Butler, 423. 42 Sebald Heyden, De arte canendi, translated by Clement Miller (S.l.: American Institute of Musicology, 1972), 21. 43 Ibid., 22.

19 Heyden had an ally on the City Council in his crusade to return polyphony to classrooms

and choir lofts. Hieronymous Baumgartner was part of the Nuremberg patrician class as well as

the dedicatee of Heyden’s treatise, but he also served as the city’s Kirchenpfleger, or church administrator, starting in 1533 when the Nuremberg church order took effect. This position held the responsibility of enforcing the rules of the Council, solving any problems and interacting

directly with the religious personnel at each church, including people like Osiander who wanted

less of the traditional polyphonic music. As with many other leaders in Nuremberg, Baumgartner

studied with both Luther and Melanchthon at the University of Wittenberg and had a close

friendship with these men. He shared the opinion of Melanchthon that polyphony did have a

position in the new church, along with other humanistic and progressive ideas.44 Baumgartner

began in his position as Kirchenpfleger the same year that the city’s Kirchenordnung took effect,

but he was not in a position to institute dramatic change to the music of the liturgy despite his

own beliefs. Instead he allied himself with people like Heyden and other Nuremberg religious

leaders to resurrect polyphony in the churches and schools.

Religious support for polyphony also came from a recently installed preacher at St.

Sebald in Nuremberg, Veit Dietrich. Martin Luther personally recommended him for the job, and

Baumgartner undoubtedly used the influence of his position to secure Dietrich’s employment.

Immediately upon being hired in 1535, Dietrich started instituting reform in churches throughout

Nuremberg both in the liturgy and the music that accompanied it. He wrote a letter to

Baumgartner within the first year of his employment about the state of music in the churches of

Nuremberg and made a reference to the current status of music in Wittenberg as well:

But since the common people need such things as inducements, so to speak, to attend church regularly and since we can have no worthier reason for providing and preserving music than to use it for worship, I [Dietrich] think we can also

44 Butler, 411.

20 succeed in using the organ for Mass on solemn feasts. . . . And at Wittenberg the organ is used not only on holy days but every Sunday. Since, then, there is no danger in this practice and since art music in its best form is honored as the most pleasing of all the arts, I think we can attempt this change without any complaint. Our rector [Sebald Heyden] has promised us his assistance and that of his school.45

We can deduce from this letter that the use of the organ during Mass had not disappeared in

Wittenberg as it had in Nuremberg along with polyphony; and that religious leaders in

Wittenberg also had a higher tolerance for polyphony in the city than did those of Nuremberg.

We can also assert that Dietrich and Heyden collaborated in an attempt to bring back the use of polyphony in the churches. Since Baumgartner served as the final word on the use of music in the liturgy, Dietrich knew the importance of his approval. And given Baumgartner’s educational background and association with Luther and Melanchthon, Dietrich could safely assume that his request for Baumgartner’s approval on reinstituting organ music and more ornate vocal music would not go disappointed.

During the early sixteenth century, the leaders of Nuremberg spent a large amount of time trying to reconcile the city’s many contradictions. Despite its history as a favorite city of the

Holy Roman Emperor, the Council chose to convert to Lutheranism but still wanted to convince the Emperor of their (false) Catholic devotion. Nuremberg church leaders had no more guidance than those of any other city, and Luther purposely provided few details on the structure of

worship because he wanted each region to discover and practice whatever worked for their

specific congregation. Concerning details of music within the service, he was even more vague.

With the ban of polyphony in Nuremberg lifted in 1537, the range of possibilities in church

45 Translated by Butler, 435. Originally from MS Thom, no. 84.

21 music expanded, and printers including Ott and Petreius would both provide repertory and take advantage of this new source of revenue.

22 Chapter 2: Composer Reputations, Novelty in Writing, and a Printer’s Decisions

When the printer Johannes Petreius planned which composers he wanted to include in his

Liber quindecim missarum, he had a number of things to consider. He decided upon those who

his potential buyers would recognize, thus making the book more appealing to a larger number of

people. Also his personal relationships with colleagues in Nuremberg and in the printing

business would have made these ideal candidates for Petreius’ publication because of easy

accessibility. His Liber quindecim missarum is also unusual in the chronological time span that

he covers: he not only included works by his contemporaries, like Francesco Layolle, Wilhelm

Breitengraser, and Pierre Moulu, but Petreius incorporated works by composers who experienced

their greatest popularity earlier in the sixteenth century, like Heinrich Isaac and Josquin, for

example. Petreius also included Ockeghem, who was two generations removed from the

printer’s, and the Liber was the first printed edition in which his Missa Cuiusvis toni appeared.

Petreius also demonstrated that his musical taste went beyond just name recognition in that a

number of the masses he chose have some sort of compositional constructivist device such as a

cantus firmus that ascends step-wise in each mass movement, or a mass that could be performed

two different ways depending on whether one includes all notated rests. By considering

Petreius’s role in the printing industry in Nuremberg, the reputations of the composers he

included, and the printer’s choices in repertory we may better understand how Petreius assembled this collection.

Petreius had a strong background in humanistic ideas and counted among his associates and correspondents some of the leaders of the humanistic movement in Nuremberg. He attended the University of Basel, an institution that Heinrich Glarean would later attend, receiving his master of arts in 1517.1 A university education during this time meant a background in classical literature and veneration for the writings of those who had come before: ideas embraced by the humanistic movement. This foundation on the writings of classical scholars meant that Petreius could easily position himself as well-read when he established his own printing business.

Petreius received his professional experience from one of the most significant printing

firms in Switzerland: the house of the Petri family to whom he was also related.2 He worked as

an editor there for at least four years before inheriting a printing business in Nuremberg from a friend in the 1520s.3 While Petreius was learning his craft in Basel, Petri was publishing writings

by Luther and Melanchthon as well as other documents that showed sympathy for the

Reformation movement. Petri also published a number of Glarean’s works including his later

Dodecachordon in 1547.4 Petreius had surely gained quite a bit of knowledge on running his

own printing house by the time he arrived in Nuremberg to take up his inherited business. His

exposure to the Reformation movement in Basel as well as his university training in classical

writings and literature made Nuremberg a comfortable fit for Petreius.

Once he settled in Nuremberg and became a citizen in 1523,5 he started associating with

the literati of the city. He also corresponded with professors at the University of Wittenberg.

Petreius counted among his associates Philipp Melanchthon, who took on the task of laying the

foundation for a new church after Luther’s call for reforms to the old church; Melanchthon also

1 Mariko Teramoto, Die Psalmendrucke des Johannes Petrejus in Nürnberg (Gedruckt 1538-1542) (Tutzing, Germany: Hans Schneider, 1983), 23. 2 Mariko Teramoto, “Die Rezeption der Franko-Flämischen Musik in der Deutschen Musiktheorie in der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in Musikkonzepte-Konzepte der Musikwissenschaft, ed. Katherine Eberl (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2000), 161. 3 Anthony Grafton, Johannes Petreius (c. 1497-1550): A Study of the History of Learned Publishing (Oberlin, OH: Oberlin College, 1998), 4. 4 Teramoto, Psalmendrucke, 24. 5 Ibid., 25.

24 taught Petreius’ son.6 Georg Rhau, the primary music printer in Wittenberg and Reformation

movement sympathizer, exchanged letters with Petreius. And despite their different opinions on

the importance of music in the reformed church, Petreius corresponded with Andreas Osiander, a

staunch supporter of the Reformation and a preacher at St. Lorenz church, the second-most

important church in Nuremberg. Petreius also knew Georg Forster through their mutual teacher

Martin Luther.7 Petreius and Forster would participate in discussions that Luther hosted in

Wittenberg, and Forster wrote music (published by Rhau) that was considered acceptable for the

Lutheran church. Petreius also published writings by Willibald Pirkheimer, who was a leading

Humanist in Nuremberg.8 He was in frequent communication with fellow Humanists as well as

some of the most important people in the Reformation movement. Each of these religious and

intellectual leaders saw Petreius not only as a tradesman, but a colleague. They appreciated

Petreius’s grasp of and belief in humanistic ideas. More importantly, his background in music

printing would have given his publications a level of authority because his colleagues respected

his expertise. When the ban on polyphony ended in 1537, he was perfectly poised to gather

music that would appeal to traditionalists who wanted music from Josquin’s generation, and

would recognize his own contemporaries who composed in this earlier style.

Some music publishers had a twofold mindset when it came to choosing which

composers to print: to represent the compositional practices from the previous generation9 and preserve these works because of their artistic value.10 We cannot know whether Petreius had

either of these intentions with the Liber quindecim missarum because the publication offers no

6 Teramoto, Psalmendrucke, 27. 7 Ibid., 29. 8 Ibid., 28-9. 9 Stephanie P. Schlagel, “Josquin des Prez and His Motets: A Case Study in Sixteenth-Century Reception History” (PhD diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1996), 11. 10 Stephanie P. Schlagel, “Fortune’s Fate: Josquin and the Nürnberg Mass Prints of 1539,” in Josquin and the Sublime: Proceedings of the International Josquin Symposium at Roosevelt Academy Middleburg, 12-15 July 2009, edited by Albert Clement and Eric Jas (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011), 197.

25 information on this issue in the form of a preface, dedicatory letter, or any other writings of that

nature. But of the nine composers that he included five came from a previous generation and,

with the exception of Ockeghem’s Missa Cuiusvis Toni, Isaac’s Missa O Praeclara, and la Rue’s

Missa Tous les regrets, these masses had all previously appeared in print. Table 2 gives the complete contents of the Liber quindecim missarum as well as prior printed sources.

Table 2. Contents of the Liber quindecim missarum, 1539 Composer Mass Title11 Sources

Josquin Missa L’homme armé super J666 (1502); J667 (1514); voces musicales J668 (1516); J669 (1526); 15392 Josquin Missa La sol fa re mi J666 (1502); J668 (1516); J669 (1526) Josquin Missa super Gaudeamus same as La sol fa re mi Josquin Missa super Fortuna desperata same as L’homme armé Josquin Missa de beata Virgine J673 (1514); 15161; 1522; J675 (1526) Antoine Brumel Missa Festivale (Missa Je nay dueul) B4643 (1503) Heinrich Isaac Missa O praeclara (Missa La mi la sol) not published before 1539 Lupi Missa Hercules dux Ferrariae 15328 Pierre de la Rue Missa Tous les regrets not published before 1539 Francesco de Layolle Missa Adieu mes amours 15328 Josquin Missa Ave maris stella J670 (1505); J671 (1515); J672, (1526) Wilhelm Breitengraser Missa Dominicale not published before 1539 Antoine Brumel Missa A l’ombre d’ung buissonet 15161 Johannes Ockeghem Missa Cuiusvis toni not published before 1539 Pierre Moulu Missa Duarum Facierum (Alma redemptoris mater) 1522

That a composition had been previously published suggests that it had a history of making

money for the one who printed it because of the fame and esteem in which certain composers

were held.

11 The mass titles that appear in parentheses are alternative titles.

26 Petreius’s inclusion six masses by Josquin surely helped make the Liber attractive to a wide range of buyers; and it seems that his popularity had barely waned since his death eighteen years earlier. But other composers from Josquin’s generation had strong followings as well.

The composers from this time period that Petreius included are Josquin (c. 1450-1521),

Isaac (c. 1450-1517), la Rue (c. 1452-1518), and Brumel (c. 1460-1512/3). Despite the background that Jacob Obrecht shared with these composers, the popularity of his masses, and the appearance of his music in print in or around Nuremberg, none of his compositions are present in Petreius’s Liber quindecim missarum, making his absence something of a mystery.

The composers mentioned above make up a legacy generation: for the first time in history, people looked back to examples of the past and picked out those who were worth following.

Even though Josquin died in 1521, his music appeared in Petreius’s Liber almost two decades later. Petreius would not be the last to print Josquin’s music: Glarean’s Dodechachordon of 1547 holds Josquin’s music up as an example that composers and publishers should follow for success. The composers that Glarean chose also tells us who he and his contemporaries already held in high esteem and whose music was worthy of imitation.

One can find Josquin’s music among both Catholic and early Protestant repertories because of his reputation as one of the best composers of his age. Many reformers worried that the dense polyphonic music of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries obscured the words and distracted worshippers from the true purpose of celebrating Mass (i.e., religious devotion).

Luther’s followers could only use Josquin’s psalm settings or contrafacted motets because Luther

believed that only words from the Bible could be set to music.12 Marian devotion had quickly

risen in popularity in the Catholic Church during the Renaissance and a large body of music

12 Jessie Ann Owens “How Josquin Became Josquin: Reflections on Historiography and Reception,” in Music in Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis Lockwood, ed. Anthony Cummings (Warren, MI: Harmonie Park, 1997), 278.

27 developed around devotion to the mother of Jesus, but it was also a major point of contention

between Luther and the Catholic Church, so motets and other music in praise of Mary were

limited to the Catholic rite. But the ability of Josquin’s music to bridge the religious gap shows

that both groups could and wanted to claim his music for their own. The acceptance of Josquin’s

music by both Lutherans and Catholics would have been particularly significant in Nuremberg where their policy of appearances meant that they had to prove their Catholicism to higher authorities while instituting a new religion without incurring the Emperor’s anger.

A motet to Mary by Josquin, his Ave Maria virgo serena, even took pride of place in

Petrucci’s first book of motets in 1501. The appearance of Josquin’s music in publications from

the earliest years of the sixteenth century would only increase for the next fifty to sixty years. By

the middle of the century, he had surpassed all of his contemporaries in the number of times his

music had appeared in print. It began appearing in German publications as early as 1520 in the

Liber selectarum cantionum13 but not until 1555 in any substantive way in French-speaking

territories.14 These publishers looked not only to local manuscripts but also to Petrucci’s and

others’ prints sold at book fairs taking place in Paris, Frankfurt, and other cities.15 Even Petreius

frequently attended the book fairs in Frankfurt and could have potentially bought there some of his sources for his Liber quindecim missarum.16 Josquin had to his advantage not only his

popularity, but also the wide distribution and multiple copies that music prints could have over

manuscripts. Many more people in different locations could then collect and perform his music,

13 Schlagel, “Josquin des Prez and His Motets,” 28. 14 Ibid., 88. 15 Jane A. Bernstein, “Buyers and Collectors of Music Publications: Two Sixteenth-Century Music Libraries Recovered,” in Music Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis Lockwood, ed. Anthony Cummings (Warren, MI: Harmonie Park, 1997), 24. 16 Teramoto, Psalmdrucke, 27-8.

28 something new to this generation where printing made information much cheaper to reproduce

and distribute widely.

Sometimes called the “French Josquin,” Antoine Brumel’s employment at prominent churches and courts in France and Italy made him another obvious choice for inclusion in the

Liber quindecim missarum. Brumel (c. 1460-1512/3) worked at the cathedral of Notre Dame in

Paris, which held much prestige because of the importance of the church itself, and also because

of its dedication to Mary and the popularity of Marian devotion mentioned above. Around 1500,

Brumel resigned from his position at Notre Dame possibly because his recommendation of

someone for a position at the church was ignored.17 The church council tried to appease Brumel

after he handed in his resignation, but he still left. His paper trail has him in Lyon five years later. The church administration’s attempts to convince Brumel to stay would suggest that he already had a reputation as a quality musician and composer who added to the prominence of the

church with him as a member of the faculty. And just a year after this incident, Petrucci would

publish a book of Brumel’s masses. His reputation would grow as he traveled south in search of

work.

During the year 1505 and part of 1506, Brumel worked as the court composer for the

Duke of Sora living in Lyon, a city that would become very important for music printing with

Moderne’s first music publication in 1532.18 The Duke of Ferrara, Alfonso, approached Brumel

about him becoming his next court composer. He gave Brumel a very generous initial offer but

Brumel negotiated with the Duke for a number of months on the salary and other contingencies

of his employment.19 Brumel’s demands for higher pay and better perks show that he knew his

own value for a prominent court like Ferrara, with its reputation for musical excellence. Since

17 Lloyd Biggle, “The Masses of Antoine Brumel” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1953), 21-22. 18 No record exists that Moderne published any music by Brumel. 19 Biggle, 26.

29 Alfonso initially pursued Brumel and he accepted the terms that Brumel proposed, Alfonso knew

the prestige Brumel would bring to his court was worth the higher price. However Alfonso did stipulate that Brumel’s employment would last for the rest of the composer’s life, indicating that the Duke meant to have a return on the large investment he had made. The Este court in Ferrara had already developed a reputation for employing the best composers, including Josquin and

Obrecht, prior to Brumel’s appointment. To find Brumel worthy to fill such shoes certainly spoke to his ability and reputation during his lifetime as well as justification for preserving his music for the future.

Two of Brumel’s contemporaries, Pierre de la Rue and Heinrich Isaac, served two

Habsburg family members. Pierre de la Rue worked at the Habsburg-Burgundian court of

Margaret of Austria for most of his life, and the music he created while under its employ helped increase his reputation as a “legacy” composer. His official role was as a singer in the grand chapelle, which was an elite choral group in Margaret’s court, but he was also a highly productive composer. 20 La Rue was not just one of many singers employed at the Burgundian

court, he was one of the best. In his free time, he chose to write new music to contribute to the

repertory of the court. He established a reputation as a musician whose ability seemed worth

preserving and sharing, and Margaret surely enjoyed spreading his music to other European

centers through music manuscripts such as those copied in her own scriptorium by Pierre

Alamire. In fact, it is possible that la Rue was a favorite of Margaret as suggested by their

similarities in musical taste and in the inclusion of so many of his compositions in her personal

chansonniers.21 Margaret had received a solid musical education so she recognized good

musicians and chose to reward those like la Rue, whose music particularly agreed with her.

20 Honey Meconi, Pierre de la Rue and Musical Life at the Habsburg-Burgundian Court (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 53. 21 Meconi, 87.

30 Having such favor with a ruler also meant that his music would appear more frequently in

written records, and thus was likely to spread to a larger audience as well. In fact, Meconi writes,

“perhaps the most important factor in crediting la Rue with greater significance than his colleagues is his unquestioned dominance of the court manuscript repertoire. No one else even comes close in either the number of individual pieces included or the amount of times pieces

were recopied.”22 Like Josquin’s dominance in the world of music printing, la Rue dominated the

repertory found in the Habsburg-Burgundian collection; therefore, la Rue’s compositions were

more likely preserved and distributed. Margaret also gave these manuscripts as gifts, meaning

she would include the music of her favorite composers, among them, la Rue. As a result, his

compositions spread to courts all over Europe.

Another composer employed by the Habsburg family, namely Maximilian, was Heinrich

Isaac. He started his career as a singer at the Medici court during the reign of Lorenzo de Medici

where he stayed until Lorenzo’s death,23 and the rise of Savonarola compelled Isaac to leave

Florence quickly. Isaac worked at one of the most important courts in Italy for a ruler who

famously brought about a flowering of both visual and aural arts and was instrumental in the

creation of the Italian Renaissance. That Isaac would be worthy enough to work at this court

demonstrates his ability as a musician and his desirability as an employee. Four years after

Lorenzo’s death, Isaac entered Maximilian’s court and he was appointed as the Imperial court

composer—the first musician to hold this title.24 Under the Medicis, Isaac was one of many

singers working for the Medici family. But with his appointment as the composer at the court of

the Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian bestowed on Isaac a great deal more prestige and he

likely concluded that Isaac’s musical ability made him worthy of the position. Later in his life,

22 Meconi, 89-90. 23 Martin Staehelin, Die Messen Heinrich Isaacs (Bern: Paul Haupt Verlag, 1977), 17. 24 Staehelin, 19.

31 Isaac received Maximilian’s permission to return to Florence for his retirement, but still collected

a salary from Maximilian.25 Isaac had practically no obligations to Maximilian by this point, but

the Emperor continued to include him on the payroll, suggesting that Maximilian still wanted to

claim Isaac as an employee. After Isaac’s death, his music appeared in theoretical treatises and

anthologies of music well into the second half of the sixteenth century.26 The Nuremberg printer

Hans Ott began the process of creating the most important collection of Isaac’s sacred music, the

Choralis Constantinus between 1550 and 1555. In Ott’s dedicatory letter he states that he wants

to “save from destruction” music by Isaac and other composers associated with the imperial

court of Maximilian.27 We can interpret Petreius’s actions as participating in this tradition

through his inclusion of a mass by Isaac.

With the choice of composers partially resolved, Petreius now had to select which works

of the legacy generation he would include. While publishing a book of masses limited the repertory, he still had many decisions to make about specific selections. Most of the compositions by the legacy generation that Petreius picked have particularly advanced structures

underlying the music that make them stand out more than other compositions. These include

masses by Josquin, Brumel, Isaac, Petreius’s contemporary Moulu, and Ockeghem.

Josquin’s compositional creativity within such a formal structure is best evident in two of

his masses, Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales and Missa Fortuna desperata. He did

not simply follow a pattern to create them, but he tried to do something different within such an

unalterable structure. The Missa L’homme armé SVM has the traditional “L’homme armé” tune

in the tenor voice, but it is unique in that each appearance of the “L’homme armé” tune comes on

25 Louise Cuyler, The Emperor Maximilian I and Music (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), 51. 26 Cuyler, 110. 27 Stephanie P. Schlagel, “Ab Interitu Vindicarem: Isaac and the Music Books of Ott and Petreius” (Paper presented at “Heinrich Isaac and His World,” Bloomington, IN, May 21-23, 2010).

32 successive notes of the hexachord through all five mass movements while maintaining a modal center of D Dorian. The mass also has many points of complex rhythms, mensuration canons, augmentation and diminution: in spite of these manipulations, the composer maintains the integrity of the original tune.28 From the opening of the Kyrie to the final Agnus Dei Josquin

wrote the mass in such a way that performers would have to draw from a number of different

skills to perform it correctly. It also put Josquin in a league of his own when it came to

composing. As early as 1502, printers and others who wrote about music recognized the genius

of this piece. Petrucci placed it first in his 1502 publication of Josquin’s masses and Petreius

shares five out of six of the same pieces as this early Petrucci print; music theorists would also

write about this mass throughout the sixteenth century. The fame of this mass made it a natural

candidate for the Liber quindecim missarum and the attention it received gave Petreius the confidence that it would help sell the collection.

The Missa Fortuna desperata has an ambitious form because of the way Josquin distributes the borrowed material during each movement of the mass.29 The tenor of the original

three-voice canzona shows up in the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, and Agnus III, the bass of the canzona

is placed in the tenor of the Sanctus, and the superius provides the tenor melody of Agnus I.30

Josquin also creates the effect of acceleration because the time signatures become progressively faster as they change within each section of the first four mass movements. In the Agnus Dei the melody originally found in the superius voice is placed in the bassus voice, inverted, and is four times longer than in its original context as if the composer wanted to show a sudden change in

28 Bonnie Blackburn, “Masses Based on Popular Songs and Solmization Syllables,” in The Josquin Companion, edited by Richard Sherr (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 53. 29 Jennifer M. Bloxam, “Masses Based on Polyphonic Songs and Canonic Masses,” in The Josquin Companion, edited by Richard Sherr (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 166. 30 Ibid., 166.

33 fortune.31 This mass represents much more than a composer finding a tune from one source and

using it in another composition. He created a number of effects through manipulations of the

original canzona beyond just the cantus firmus: the time signatures become progressively faster

through each movement to create a sense of acceleration and urgency, and he included

unexpected changes in the melody of the voices which would have been clear to the listener. The

many manipulations to the original musical material help make this mass one of Josquin’s most

imaginative, and the many hidden compositional devices would have also made it perfect for

inclusion with the other clever masses in the Liber.

Another mass that takes its inspiration from previous material is Brumel’s Missa A

l’ombre dung buissonet. It is based on a chanson by Josquin and it shares both an overall

structure and cadence pattern with its source material. As in Josquin’s chanson, Brumel’s mass is

a four-voice double-canon, with the tenor and bass voices derived from one part and the superius

and contratenor derived from another. Brumel wrote a mass that not only incorporates music from a famous composer’s chanson, but he also manipulates the music so that the entire mass works out as a double-canon and still has variety and is pleasant to listen to. One would only find this level of creativity in a composer who understood the rules of harmony and counterpoint as it existed in the Renaissance and in a composer whose talents lay above that of an ordinary musician.

Isaac’s own motet O Praeclara, which has not survived, was probably the basis for his

Missa O Praeclara or Missa La mi la sol. The chant “O praeclara” begins with the melodic motive “La mi la sol,” giving the mass its name.32 Throughout the mass, the sequence of notes

“la mi la sol” shows up in every voice in different rhythmic values from semiminims to longs;

31 Ibid., 167. 32 Willem Elders, “Zur Frage der Vorlage von Isaacs Messe La mi la sol oder O Praeclara,” in Von Isaac bis Bach: Festschrift Martin Just (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1991), 10.

34 sometimes the tune has neighboring or passing notes in the sequence, but it is still recognizable.

The original four notes are frequently also paired with “la sol la mi,” which is not quite the

retrograde version of the tune, but it does switch the placement of the whole step and the fourth.

The structure of the mass has much in common with other masses from the same time period.

Some of the appearances of the motive would have been audible, but to truly detect the

pervasiveness of the motive, one would have to look at the music, a characteristic of other

masses that Petreius included, such as Josquin’s Missa La sol fa re mi.

While the compositional technique of Isaac’s Missa O proaeclara is sometimes cleverly

hidden, that of Josquin’s Missa La sol fa re mi is purposely obvious. Josquin had asked a favor of

an influential person to which he said “laise faire moy,” or “leave it to me.” He then did

everything in his power to avoid this obligation, leading Josquin to write his mass using the

syllables “la sol fa re mi” to remind this person of their promise.33 If one believes the story

behind the mass’s composition, then the repetition of this phrase helped reinforce his point. But

other techniques in this mass make it another example of Josquin’s compositional prowess: the

five-note motive, la sol fa re mi, plays the role of cantus firmus, subject, and motif. The nature of the soggetto means that there will be inherent tonal ambiguity, but this does not seem to faze the composer, and he was able to use the motive in any rhythmic value from the maxima to a semiminim, with the melody appearing in multiple voices at the same time.34 While the mass

may be somewhat repetitive to listen to, the true appreciation of Josquin’s comes from a closer

examination of the music. The reputation of it stands on the fact that it appears second in

Petrucci’s first book of Josquin’s, and this likely weighed heavily in Petreius’s decision to

include it with the other Josquin masses.

33 Blackburn, 78. 34 Ibid., 79.

35 Josquin wrote another mass based on a soggetto cavato, his Missa Hercules dux

Ferrariae. While this is not included in the Liber, Petreius did include a mass with the same

name by the composer “Lupi.” Bonnie Blackburn’s research on the so-called “the wolf pack” of

composers uncovered three contemporaries with similar names who were often confused during

their lifetimes and afterward. These include Johannes Lupi from Cambrai, Lupus Hellinck from

Bruges, and a mysterious third Lupi that Blackburn indentified as Pietro Lupato, who worked at

the Cathedral of St. Mark in Venice in the 1520s.35 It is this Lupi whose music appears in the

Liber. Blackburn suggests that Lupato served as the chapelmaster at St. Mark’s for a short time

before Willaert’s arrival as the new composer.36 No archival evidence for Lupato exists other than his name on a list of singers, and after Willaert’s arrival, his name disappears completely.

His employment at such an important church meant that no composition of his would have strayed too far from the accepted traditions of the time. Petreius probably did not know this composer personally, but chose his mass based purely on the style that seemed in line with the rest of the masses. And the title of the mass Missa Hercules dux Ferrariae recalls Josquin’s mass

of the same name.

The soggetto cavato of Josquin’s Hercules mass follows the words of the phrase: re-ut-re-

ut-re-fa-mi-re, but this is not the case with Lupi’s mass: his has the phrase sol-fa-re-fa-re-mi-re-

fa-fa-mi-re. We can deduce “Ferrariae” from re-fa-fa-mi-re, and sol-fa-re-fa can be equivalent to

re-ut-re-ut for “Hercules dux” depending on how the pitches are solmized, but it does not

account for the entire soggetto.37 Blackburn suggests that Moderne made a copying error when

publishing this mass in his Liber decem missarum in 1532 by adding the note “mi.” She further

says “Lupus clearly was not touched by the Italian trend toward clear declamation of the text. If

35 Ibid., 38. 36 Ibid., 38. 37 Ibid., 109.

36 any work of his indelibly stamps him as a Franco-Flemich composer, it is the present one.

Contrapuntal techniques take precedence over good declamation.”38 This statement is consistent with Petreius’s seeming motivation to not only present the Flemish masters such as Josquin and

Brumel, but also contemporaries who preserved this style.

The mass by Petreius’s contemporary Moulu, his Missa duarum facierum or Missa Alma redemptoris mater, has a special feature that helped make it his most famous piece. The mass exists simultaneously as a version performed with all of the notated rests and one performed by omitting rests larger than a minim. Chapman even claims that Moulu’s reputation may have rested predominantly on this mass,39 and this may help explain Petreius’s inclusion of it. Like

Brumel’s mass created by means of a canon, the composer of such a work must have had a solid

understanding of counterpoint and harmony. It could have presented a challenge or game to the

singer, and required him to pay attention to which rests to sing and which rests to omit.

Another mass that would have challenged the singer, but for entirely different reasons,

was Ockeghem’s Missa Cuiusvis toni. It fascinated literati and musicians who wrote about it

even after it appeared in Petreius’s Liber and many years after the composer’s death. In the

Dodecachordon Glarean claims that one could sing this mass in “three tones only, corresponding

to the three fourth-species.”40 While Glarean discounts the possibility of singing the mass in all

twelve modes, the fact that he still writes about it potentially a century after its composition

means that it still held significance for either the puzzle it presents or the continued high regard

of the composer. Ockeghem may have written this mass as an exercise in sightreading and

38 Ibid., 121. 39 James Chapman, “The Works of Pierre Moulu: A Stylistic Analysis” (PhD diss., New York University, 1964), 141. 40 Johannes Ockeghem, Masses Based on Freely Invented Melodic Material, vol. 3 of Masses and Mass Sections, edited by Jaap van Benthem (Utrecht: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1994), VII.

37 transposing for the composer’s more advanced students.41 With the constantly changing

combinations of half steps and whole steps and mutations between hard, natural, and soft

hexachords, the mass would stand as a formidable challenge especially to students learning

music theory as it existed in the sixteenth century. Therein could lay Petreius’s decision to

publish the Missa Cuiusvis toni. A well-rounded humanistic education in music during this time

and in this location would have included study of the great composers of the past and admirable

contemporaries who imitated that style. Sebald Heyden wrote his De arte canendi for the

purpose of giving students a guide to learning this very music. Ockeghem’s role as the teacher to

the best composers of that time and the didactic potential that presented itself in the Missa

Cuiusvis toni would have given Petreius two very strong reasons for preserving this older work.

Later German printers would continue to include Ockeghem’s music in anthologies and

theoretical treatises into the mid-sixteenth century. Adrian Petit Coclico gave Ockeghem

something of a backhanded compliment when he wrote in 1552 that Ockeghem, Obrecht, and

Agricola made up a founding triumvirate of music but “they were only theorists.”42 However, the

music of these three composers circulated much more than other composers that Coclico

categorized as theorists,43 and this reinforces Ockghem’s popularity, even though it may not have

suited the taste of Coclico. The presence of Ockeghem’s music in print so long after his death

suggests that his name and music still carried weight and a certain kind of reverence especially in a city that had introduced his Missa Cuiusvis toni to a larger audience.

41 Johannes Ockeghem, Missa Cuiusvis Toni in Its Original Notation and Edited in All the Modes, introduction by George Houle (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992), 7. 42 Lawrence Bernstein, “‘Singende Seele’ or ‘unsingbar’? Forkel, Ambros and the Forces Behind the Ockeghem Reception During the Late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” Journal of Musicology 23 (Winter, 2006): 47. 43 Bernstein, 48.

38 The generation that would come after Ockeghem, the legacy generation along with

printers like Petreius, saw an importance in this music and recognized how important it was to

preserve it. When Hans Ott, another Nuremberg music printer, applied for a new imperial printing privilege in 1545, he said he wanted to publish this music so that it had a greater chance of surviving into the future.44 Again, people looked back to previous generations for a guide, in

this case, in musical composition. Ott and many others saw Josquin and his contemporaries as

the greatest musicians and this new method of reproducing music meant that it was easier to save more music. Schlagel also states that between 1537 and 1539 Ott and Petreius published several collections of sacred music with most compositions coming from the previous forty to fifty years.45 This time span would include all members of the Josquin generation and Ockeghem.

Although we cannot know what motivation led Petreius to publish the Liber quindecim

missarum, this book and his other musical publications put him in line with a greater movement

happening in Nuremberg and German lands. There was a sense that the music of these

composers deserved to be preserved because of their artistic merit and part of the role of a

publisher was to make it available to a wide audience of people.

In addition to older repertory, Petreius included music by four composers who were alive

at the time of the publication of the Liber quindecim missarum in 1539: Wilhelm Breitengraser

(c. 1495-1542), Francesco Layolle (1492-c. 1540), Pierre Moulu (1484-c. 1550), and potentially

Lupi. Breitengraser seemed to move in the same circles as Petreius and other prominent humanists of Nuremberg. One citizen of this city associated with Breitengraser was Sebald

Heyden,46 whose De arte canendi (and earlier versions; see Chapter 1), a treatise that praised the

44 Schlagel, “Fortune’s Fate,” 198. 45 Ibid., 192. 46 Rudolf Wagner, “Wilhelm Breitengraser und die Nürnburger Kirchen- und Schulmusik seiner Zeit,” Die Musikforschung 2 (1949): 144.

39 polyphony of the Josquin generation, was published by Petreius. Each version of Heyden’s treatise is full of examples of the best music by composers like Brumel, Josquin, Isaac,

Ockeghem, and la Rue. The composer also corresponded with Veit Dietrich, a prominent religious leader of Nuremberg.47 What these two people—Heyden and Dietrich—also have in

common is their admiration for polyphonic music like that found in the Liber. Dietrich worked

with Hermann Baumann of the Nuremberg Council to reinstate polyphonic music in the city

citing its use in Wittenberg. Breitengraser was well positioned with the educated members of

Nuremberg to justify his place in Petreius’s Liber. In the transcription of his Missa Dominicale

(see Appendix), one can see that he has studied the rules of composition as they existed at that

time, but his music lacks the constructivist devices of the great composers like Josquin or Isaac

that make their compositions particularly admirable. At some points in the Missa Dominicale, his

music seems to lack direction; however other parts of the mass show a careful adherence to the

text. The other Nuremberg printer Hans Ott published sixteen of Breitengraser’s Lieder in Der

erste Teil hundert und ainundzweintzig newe Lieder (1534).

Petreius likely had a professional connection to Francesco de Layolle through the latter’s

work as an editor at Moderne’s printing house in Lyon. Layolle’s early music training, acquired

in Florence, would have made him an ideal candidate to edit music for Moderne’s first book of

music. Layolle had to leave Florence because of his anti-Medici sentiments during a time when

the republic was highly unstable.48 Layolle received his musical education and employment in

Florence. He and other refugees from Florence set up their own academic circle in Lyon

positioning this composer among the educated members of the city’s society. But primarily,

Layolle’s work as Jacques Moderne’s editor and proof-reader meant that he was invaluable as

47 Wagner, 147. 48 David Sutherland, Francesco de Layolle (1492-1540): Life and Secular Works (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1968), iii.

40 Moderne ventured into music publishing for the first time, and it gave Layolle a means to publish his own music. The appearance of his music in so many of Moderne’s publications also gave it

wide distribution and high accessibility to publishers in other regions.

Layolle was probably a professional colleague of Petreius, but his musical style also leads

one to classify his compositions as imitating Josquin’s. In Layolle’s Missa Adieu mes amours

(first published in Moderne’s 1532 Liber decem missarum), one can easily see his indebtedness

to Josquin. The five-note ostinato in the tenor part provides the structure for the entire mass and

is thus similar to the structure of Josquin’s Missa La sol fa re mi.49 In the final Agnus Dei

Layolle includes other melodic material in the tenor voice and the texture is expanded to five

voices from four through a canon in the alto voice.50 These characteristics of better-known composers demonstrate that Layolle had a solid education in the compositional technique of his predecessors, and for a printer like Petreius looking to preserve the style of the old masters

Layolle would be an ideal contemporary imitator.

Another contemporary of Petreius, Pierre Moulu, helped keep alive the musical tradition of the legacy generation. Chapman states that Moulu and Richafort were responsible for continuing the Netherlandish style into the sixteenth century.51 Moulu’s music even had the

honor of appearing in the Medici Codex.52 Other composers who appeared in this important manuscript include Adrian Willaert, Josquin, Brumel, Jean Mouton and Andreas de Silva;

Josquin and Brumel’s music also appear in the Liber quindecim missarum. For Moulu’s music to

be preserved with such company speaks to the high esteem with which it was held. Although

49 Sutherland, 285. 50 Frank A. D’Accone, “Layolle, Francesco de,” Oxford Music Online accessed April 15, 2013 http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/16159?q=francesco+de+ layolle&search=quick&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit 51 Chapman, 6. 52 Ibid., 5.

41 Moulu was born a generation after Josquin and Brumel, he represented the best of the inheritors

of that style, and he is sometimes called a “disciple of Josquin.”53

Petreius gathered music together for his Liber quindecim missarum from a number of places and for multiple reasons. He recognized the importance of not only the “legacy generation,” but also that this style continued into his own time and went back beyond Josquin.

Certain masses also show a higher level of creative thought than others in using such devices as mensural, modal, motivic, and cantus firmus manipulations. But sometimes Petreius simply grabbed what was available: Breitengraser’s mass seemed an obvious choice for inclusion considering his standing in Nuremberg and his proximity, and Layolle was both a colleague and composer who had the perfect route for the proliferation of his own music. With the wide distribution of much of Petreius’s selections in publications by Moderne, Petrucci, and others, the next step is to determine whether or not he may have used the earlier prints as his source.

53 Ibid., 6.

42 Chapter 3: The Roads That Led to the Liber of 1539

Johannes Petreius had a number of ways of accessing music for his Liber quindecim missarum including acquiring masses from local composers, purchasing earlier music publications, and using his professional connections in the printing business. It has not yet been determined exactly what sources Petreius might have used, but the majority of masses were printed before Petreius’ Liber and many of these publications were by Petrucci, whose prints had spread far and wide even forty years after he produced the Odhecaton. Other publishers like

Nuremberg’s own Hans Ott, the French printer Jacques Moderne situated in Lyon, and the

Italians Giunta and Antico also figure in as possible sources from which Petreius could draw.

This chapter will show the significant role that Petrucci’s prints played in the creation of the

Liber and also, despite the geographical proximity between Petreius and Ott, the different sources that each printer turned to. In the case of masses surviving only in manuscripts this question will remain unanswered here because of scope of this examination.

Asserting the existence of a relationship between Petrucci’s and Petreius’s prints can be furthered by stemmatic filiation. Researchers commonly apply this technique because it establishes a hierarchy of differences between sources and can help methodically lead to an original source preferably created under the supervision of the composer. James Grier mentions two kinds of errors that help determine filiation between source: conjunctive and separative.1

Conjunctive errors occur when two printers or scribes reproduce the same error from the same

source rather than both making the same mistake independently. This suggests that the two versions came from the same source that contained the mistake; it establishes a relationship

1 James Grier, The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 77-8. between those manifestations of the music that share a particular error. Separative errors show

that a particular ancestry is impossible. Just as two sources with the same mistakes suggest a

relationship between them, the absence of the same separates a third source from the other two

and creates a different line of development that it must have followed. It is by tracing the errors in copying rather than making assumptions from the lack thereof that one can establish connections between sources.

Variants between sources do not carry as much analytical weight as errors when determining their filiation, but they can still provide useful information in the absence of clear errors,2 and as music printing surpassed the production of manuscripts, the importance of major

and minor variants increases. Since printing created the ability to produce a larger number of

copies that looked exactly the same in a relatively short amount of time, the potential for errors

decreased dramatically as compared to producing manuscripts, each as its own unique version of

the same material. More importantly, an aggregate of variants can provide clues on the filiation

of sources, especially in printed sources where errors have diminished.3 By establishing patterns

between variants, researchers can collate publications with the same variants and build

something of a family tree of the development of a particular publishing tradition. Therefore

variants such as cadential characteristics or passing tones as opposed to an interval of a third or

fifth become more significant when considered as part of a larger trend in one set of sources

compared to another.

The creation of an authoritative collection void of as many errors as possible was what

Hans Ott, Petreius’s contemporary and colleague, sought to provide when he published his

2 James Grier, “Musical Sources and Stemmatic Filiation: A Tool for Editing Music,” Journal of Musicology 13, no. 1 (Winter 1995): 73-76. 3 Stephanie P. Schlagel, “A Credible (Mis)Attribution to Josquin in Hans Ott’s Novum et Insigne opus musicum: Contemporary Perceptions, Modern Conceptions and the Case of Veni Sancte Spiritus,” Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 56 (2006): 105-6.

44 Novum et insigne opus musicum in 1537 and its second volume in 1538.4 Ott along with fellow humanist Sebald Heyden praised the technology of their modern world as a way to preserve the music of Josquin and his generation from obsolescence, especially in Nuremberg where certain members of the church were campaigning to have this music removed. The printer made a conscious effort, in the wake of so many false musical attributions to Josquin, to present in his two large volumes only music that could strongly be associated with Josquin.5 Reformers in

Nuremberg encouraged a discontinuation of the performance of this music because of its

connection to the Catholic Church, but Ott and Petreius saw a value and potential in this music

and sought to provide accurate manifestations of the music of the masters. They enthusiastically

began publishing this music when the ban on polyphony was lifted in 1537.

Table 3 provides a list of all the masses in the Liber quindecim missarum and printed

sources in which they appeared prior to the Liber.

Table 3. List of Potential Printed Sources for the Masses of the Liber quindecim missarum Composer and Mass Possible Sources Josquin Misse Josquin (Petrucci, 1502) RISM: J666 L’homme armé super voces musicales Liber primus missarum Josquin (Petrucci, 1516) RISM: J668 Liber primus missarum Josquin (Giunta, 1526) RISM: J669 Missae tredecim quatuor vocum (Graphaeus, 1539) RISM: 15392 Josquin Misse Josquin (Petrucci, 1502) RISM: J666 La sol fa re mi Liber primus missarum Josquin (Petrucci, 1516) RISM: J668 Liber primus missarum Josquin (Giunta, 1526) RISM: J669 Josquin Misse Josquin (Petrucci, 1502) RISM: J666 Super gaudeamus Liber primus missarum Josquin (Petrucci, 1516) RISM: J668

4 Ibid., 103. 5 Ibid., 103.

45 Liber primus missarum Josquin (Giunta, 1526) RISM: J669 Josquin Misse Josquin (Petrucci, 1502) RISM: J666 Fortuna desperata Liber primus missarum Josquin (Petrucci, 1516) RISM: J668 Liber primus missarum Josquin (Giunta, 1526) RISM: J669 Missae tredecim quatuor vocum (Grapheus, 1539) RISM: 15392 Josquin Missarum Josquin tertius (Petrucci, 1514) RISM: Missa de beata virgine J673 Liber quindecim missarum (Antico, 1516) RISM: 15161 Missarum decem a clarissimis musicis. Liber primus (Giunta, 1522) RISM: 1522 Missarum Josquin tertius (Giunta, 1526) RISM: J675 Brumel Misse Brumel (Petrucci, 1503) RISM: B4643 Je nay dueul [Festivale] Isaac Not printed before Petreius’ publication O praeclara [La mi la sol] Lupi Liber decem missarum (Moderne, 1532) RISM: Hercules dux Ferrariae 15328 La Rue Not printed before Petreius’ publication Tous les regrets Layolle Liber decem missarum (Moderne, 1532) RISM: Adieu mes amours 15328 Josquin Missarum Josquin liber secundus (Petrucci, 1505; Ave maris stella 1515) RISM: J670; J671 Libri secundi missarum Josquin (Giunta, 1526) RISM: J672 Breitengraser Not printed before Petreius’ publication Dominicale Brumel Liber quindecim missarum (Antico, 1516) RISM: A l’ombre d’ung buissonet 15161 Ockeghem Not printed before Petreius’ publication Cuiusvis toni Moulu Missarum decem a clarissimis musicis. Liber Duarum facierum [Alma redemptoris primus (Rome: Giunta, 1522) RISM: 1522 mater]

Since the masses by Breitengraser, Ockeghem, la Rue, and Isaac were not printed prior to

Petreius’ publication of them, a discussion of the sources for these masses will not be included.

46 From looking at Table 3, one sees the potential for Petrucci’s prints to play a large role in

Petreius’s possible sources. The four Josquin masses at the beginning of the Liber were printed

in Petrucci’s 1502 publication in the same order and were reprinted in 1516. The similarities

between the Petreius 1539 print and the two versions of Petrucci’s first Josquin publication make

the appearance of minor variants all the more important since no major differences appear.

The strongest correlation between the 1539 Liber and the 1502 Petrucci appears when

looking at the Missa fortuna desperata. Hudson asserts that Petreius’s redaction comes from

Petrucci’s 1502 publication based on “the fact that, with a single exception at Sanctus 4-5 T, [the

1502 and 1539] ligatures [appear] at the same places, and only there; those which were added or

dissolved in subsequent Petrucci issues (i.e., Petrucci’s 1516 Liber primus misasrum Josquin) are

not reflected.”6 The only differences between the two versions are in the placement of one ligature. All of the notes are the same as well as cadential patterns and rhythmic ornamentations.

Other researchers have reached the same conclusion, but to a lesser degree, about the Missa La sol fa re mi7 and Super gaudeamus.8 While research has yet to be done regarding Petreius’s

source for Josquin’s Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales, the principle of Ockham’s

razor would suggest that Petreius copied all four masses from an interation of Petrucci 1502 that

was easily accessible to him. Schlagel states that Ott’s edition of the Missa L’homme armé is

almost identical to Petrucci’s Misse Josquin9 but stops short of claiming that Ott derived his copy

from the earlier edition.

6 Barton Hudson, ed., Masses Based on Secular Polyphonic Songs 2: Critical Commentary, vol. 8 of New Josquin Edition (Utrecht: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1996), 70. 7 James Haar and Lewis Lockwood, ed., Masses Based on Solmization Themes: Critical Commentary, vol. 11 of New Josquin Edition (Utrecht: Koninklikje Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2003), 89. 8 Willem Elders, ed., Masses Based on Gregorian chant 2: Critical Commentary, vol. 4 of New Josquin Edition (Utrecht: Koninklikje Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2000), 23. 9 Stephanie P. Schlagel, “Fortune’s Fate: Josquin and the Nürnberg Mass Prints of 1539,” in Josquin and the Sublime: Proceedings of the International Josquin Symposium at Roosevelt Academy Middleburg, The Netherlands, July 2009, ed. Eric Jas and Albert Clement (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011), 206.

47 Petreius likely used Petrucci’s 1505 publication for another Josquin mass in the Liber:

Ave maris stella. As with Petrucci’s 1502 print, his Missarum Josquin liber secundus was

published twice: once in 1505 and again 1515, making it something of a challenge to determine

which version might have been available to Petreius. Elders states that Petreius “is in close agreement with Petrucci, 1505.”10 They share some of the same errors, but the former [Petreius]

must have had a corrected copy because he does not repeat other mistakes that appear in the

Benedictus.11 The dependence of the Liber on Petrucci’s prints is not surprising given the wide

distribution of these collections and the respect that Petrucci’s work had among his colleagues

and collectors.

This use of Petrucci’s prints likely applies to Petreius’s inclusion of Brumel’s mass Je

nay dueul, which appears in Petrucci’s 1503 publication. Only minor variants exist between the

two. Common variants include a difference in the notation of a rhythm. For example: in the

second phrase of the “Sanctus” in the tenor voice Petrucci’s version has a dotted minim followed by a semibreve while Petreius notates two even minims. Another occurrence appears in the first

Agnus Dei of the tenor voice as well as an instance in the bassus voice in the phrase “secundum

scripturas” in the Credo. Petrucci has notated a dotted semibreve followed by a minim while

Petreius’s Liber contains a semibreve and two minims. In the Credo of the contratenor voice in

the phrase “Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum,” the Liber has a breve

followed by a semibreve while Petrucci simply notates a dotted breve. In the discantus voice in

the phrase “qui tollis peccata mundi” of the Gloria Petreius has notated two semibreves while

Petrucci indicated a breve. Another minor variant manifests itself in the phrase “Tu solus

altissimus, Jesu Christe” of the tenor voice. The Liber has a breve with a fermata over it as the

10 Willem Elders, ed., Masses Based on Gregorian chant 1: Critical Commentary, vol. 3 of New Josquin Edition, 24. 11 Ibid., 24.

48 fifth-to-last note while Petrucci’s print has a longa instead. Given Petreius’s apparent

predilection for Petrucci publications, the existence of only minor variants between the two

versions, and the fact that this mass appears in no other printed collection, it is likely that

Petreius drew from Petrucci’s 1503 print.

Antico’s 1516 Liber quindecim missarum provided Petreius with his version of Josquin’s

Missa de Beata Virgine and Brumel’s Missa A l’ombre d’ung buissonet. The Missa de Beata

Virgine also appeared in Giunta’s Missarum decem of 1522 and this publisher also used Antico

as his source. Elders has determined that Petreius copied from Antico because he repeats all of

the latter’s mistakes as well as adding some of his own, but Petreius does not include the errors

that appear in Giunta’s publication.12 This is a perfect example of Grier’s method in practice. By

realizing that Petreius has perpetuated the mistakes of Antico’s earlier publication, but not the

errors found in and created by Giunta’s 1522 edition, we can determine that Petreius copied from

the earlier source rather than that produced closer to his own time. The assertion that Petreius

drew from Antico’s Liber quindecim missarum for the Missa de Beata Virgine further

strengthens the suggestion that Brumel’s Missa A l’ombre d’ung buissonet also came from the

1516 print, especially given Petreius’s habit of using prints as opposed to manuscripts and

Antico’s print being the only one that published this mass prior to 1539. Unfortunately, we do

not know whether Petreius chose Antico’s print because of better quality or because the Giunta

1522 collection was not available to him. Despite the concordances, there is no evidence that

Petreius used any Giunta prints when preparing his Liber.

Moderne’s Liber decem missarum of 1532 shares two masses with Petreius’ 1539 Liber:

the Missa Adieu mes amours by Francesco de Layolle and the Missa Hercules dux Ferrariae by

12 Willem Elders, ed., Masses Based on Gregorian chant 1: Critical Commentary, vol. 3 of New Josquin Edition, 92.

49 “Lupi.” Between the Moderne and Petreius versions of Layolle’s mass almost no variants exist;

the only one is in the discantus voice in the phrase “Confiteor unum baptisma” of the Credo.

While Moderne indicates a string of five notes on B-flat, Petreius indicates the same rhythm but

has B-flat, A, 2 B-flats, and another A in the same phrase. Other than this section, both versions

are the same. The only difference between the two manifestations of Lupi’s mass is Moderne’s

use of minor color versus Petreius’s use of a dotted semiminim to indicate the same rhythmic

value.

Grier is adamant in pointing out that the absence of errors proves nothing.13 We cannot

determine a relationship between the two sources or lack thereof based on what they have in

common; rather we must look to their differences for our evidence. We also cannot draw conclusions without analyzing both manuscript and printed sources of all fifteen masses, and that level of analysis has not occurred in the case of Moderne’s prints or any other prints discussed here. But other factors such as the similar professions of Petreius, Moderne, and Layolle, the fact that the 1532 and 1539 Liber have two masses in common, and that these masses have not survived in any sources other that these two publications make Moderne’s print a strong contender as Petreius’ source.

Two publications, Giunta’s Missarum decem of 1522 and Ott’s Missae tredecim of 1539, appear in Table 3 as prints concordant with the Liber. Ott’s Missae tredecim contains Josquin’s

Missa L’homme armé and Fortuna desperata, similar to Petreius. Giunta’s 1522 print shares

Missa Duarum facierum and Missa de Beata Virgine with Petreius’s Liber. While both prints are

almost certainly not sources for Petreius, an explanation is still necessary as to why this is not the

case, especially concerning Ott because of the chronological and geographic proximity to

Petreius.

13 Grier, “Musical Sources and Stemmatic Filitaion,” 89.

50 Hans Ott published a book of thirteen masses the same year that Petreius published his.

The two books have two masses in common: Josquin’s Missa fortuna desperata and L’homme armé super voces musicales. Schlagel states that the presence of these two masses in Petreius’s

and Ott’s books attests to the popularity and respect that these compositions held at the time.14

One first notices differences in presentation between these prints. While the beginning of each

mass in Petreius’s print has decorated woodcut letters, Ott’s publication is not decorative and rather more plain. Below are Petreius’s and Ott’s editions of the tenor voices Josquin’s Missa

L’homme armé and Missa Fortuna desperata.

Example 1: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales, Kyrie, in Petreius, 1539, Excerpt

Example 2: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s L’homme armé svm, Kyrie, in Ott, 1539, Excerpt

14 Schlagel, “Fortune’s Fate,” 194-195.

51 Example 3: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa Fortuna desperata, Kyrie, in Petreius, 1539, Excerpt

Example 4: Tenor Voice of Josquin’s Missa Fortuna desperata, Kyrie, in Ott, 1539, Excerpt

Since the L’homme armé mass is the first selection in Petreius’s Liber, it would have obviously received a highly decorative setting, but the care that Petreius took in the presentation of the music is apparent throughout the publication. In contrast, it almost looks like Ott hastily assembled his book and presentation was not as important as availability and function. The date of Ott’s dedication, February 1539,15 suggests that his publication came out before Petreius’s

Liber and further leads to the idea that Ott felt a need to have his print available before anyone

else, so an attention to presentation may not have been as important. The detail shown in

Petreius’s version of the Missa L’homme armé may be atypical because it is the first work in the

Liber, but the decoration found in Petreius’s version of the Missa fortuna desperata is greater than what is found in Ott’s Missae tredecim.

When comparing both versions of the Missa Fortuna desperata there are not many differences between the sources; these are mostly minor variations in pitches and differences in

15 Royston Gustavson, “Hans Ott, Hieronymus Formschneider and the Novum et insigne opus musicum (Nuremberg, 1537-1538)” (PhD diss., University of Melbourne, 1998), 53.

52 divisions of certain notes. In the final Kyrie of the tenor voice, Petreius’s version has notated D,

B-flat, B-flat, while Ott has printed D, C, B-flat, filling in the third. In the bassus voice in the

opening phrase of the Gloria there is a combination of melodic and rhythmic variants. While

Petreius’s edition has D, B-flat, G notated with equal minims, Ott has the same phrase notated

with a dotted minim followed by a semiminim and a final minim, and Ott has the notes D, C, A

which is quite different than what Petreius has.

Another minor variant appears in the tenor and contratenor voices of the Missa fortuna

desperata. In Ott’s version of the Sanctus in the tenor voice, he indicates that the “Pleni sunt”

section should be “tacet,” but in Petreius, he has the tenor voice notated. Petreius further

indicates in his contratenor voice that “Pleni sunt” is “tacet,” while Ott has included music in his

contratenor “Pleni” section. When Petreius prepared his Liber for publication, he caught that

these two “Pleni” parts needed to be switched. The music that Ott includes for the “Pleni” should

appear in his tenor voice and not his contratenor voice. Hudson writes “a peculiarity of [Ott’s

potential source] is that the page positions of the contratenor and tenor throughout the Sanctus

and Agnus Dei are reversed,”16 but I did not find this to be entirely the case in my analysis of

Ott’s printing of this mass. I found that the “Sanctus” and “Osanna” were in the correct

placement, but the “Pleni,” “Benedictus,” and entire “Agnus Dei” were indeed switched. Without comparing Ott’s print to his supposed source, I cannot say if Ott’s potential source introduced

these variants and he simply reproduced them, or if he himself created these variants. Despite the

proximity in time and geography, it is impossible that Petreius copied from Ott for the Missa

fortuna desperata, and was, in fact, working from different sources.

The Missarum decem printed by Giunta in 1522 also shares two masses with Petreius’s

Liber: Josquin’s Missa de Beata virgine and Moulu’s Missa Duarum facierum, the second of

16 Ibid., 72.

53 which had never appeared in print before 1522. It was stated previously that Petreius likely

copied from Antico and not Giunta for the Josquin mass, and it is clear that Petreius did not copy

the Moulu mass from Giunta either. In the tenor voice, there is a combination of notes missing

from passages in Giunta; this redaction also contains rhythmic variants and more decorative

cadences that do not exist in Petreius. The most definitive difference comes in the second Agnus

Dei of the tenor voice. A transcription of both versions is seen below.

Example 5: Transcription of Tenor Voice of Moulu’s Missa Duarum facierum, Sanctus, Giunta 1522, Excerpt

Example 6: Transcription of Tenor Voice of Moulu’s Missa Duarum facierum, Sanctus, Petreius 1539, Excerpt

The four measures that are bracketed in example 5 occur in Giunta’s version but do not appear in

Petreius’s Liber. The other three voices of this source do not have these four additional measures, thus misaligning all four voices when they were sung together. In the phrases that both versions share, one can see slight differences in rhythm such as Giunta’s seventh measure and

54 Petreius’s third. But the Liber has a rhythmic variant in the penultimate measure that does not

appear in Giunta’s Missarum decem. While the example above is the most extreme found when

comparing the two versions, variants—especially in the case of cadential decorations—appear

throughout Giunta’s version and do not appear in the Liber. The frequency of these cadences

along with the number of incorrect pitches in Giunta makes it likely that Petreius used a different

printed source that has not survived, or manuscript source that is outside the scope of this project.

After comparing the masses in Petreius’s Liber to sources that appeared before 1539, it

seems that his indebtedness to Petrucci is quite significant. Six of the fifteen masses likely came

from Petrucci prints with a seeming partiality toward the earlier versions rather than later ones.

Whether Petreius chose to use the earlier versions or whether it was all that was available to him

we will never know. But it does indicate that music printed by Petrucci and at least one other

Italian printer, Antico, had made it north of the Alps into the hands of German literati eager for

this music. However, the role that Giunta played in this tradition seems rather small given that he

issued the same repertory as Antico and Petrucci, and it appears that Petreius did not use them.

Petreuis did, however, have relatively quick access to Moderne’s music books, from which he derived masses by lesser-known composers. This music would have caught a customer’s attention and contributed to the overall salability of the Liber. He also seemed to have drawn on many different sources including acquiring repertory from people he knew through personal connections, and music that had a reputation of selling well in the past.

55 Conclusion

Petreius had a number of methods of acquiring music by both contemporary and past

composers, including getting music from local colleagues and turning to other professionals

publishing similar repertories. The indebtedness to Petrucci, however, overpowers these other

methods with six of the fifteen masses seemingly coming from this Italian’s prints. Whether

through a conscious decision or using sources that were available to him, Petreius’s Liber is

enriched because he drew from some of the finest publications of polyphonic music.

When Petreius was initially compiling the Liber, he had many composers to consider for

inclusion, but his decisions seem to have been based on three things: the popularity of the

composer, any personal connection between the composer and Petreius, and masses that had

some sort of constructivist device or puzzle. Including names like Josquin and Heinrich Isaac

would surely help sell a large number of copies, but the presence of music by local musician

Wilhelm Breitengraser would appeal to potential customers who might have also known this

composer. For those buyers who had a strong grasp on the nuances of this music, Petreius

included masses like the Cuiusvis toni of Johannes Ockeghem that had an intellectual appeal as

well as a beautiful sound. These same kinds of compositional devices appear in Josquin’s Missa

L’homme armé super voces musicales and La sol fa re mi and have made these masses continuously popular since their creation.

To fill out his Liber Petreius drew from sources other than Petrucci’s earliest publications. He also took masses from Jacques Moderne’s Liber decem missarum and Andrea

Antico’s Liber quindecim missarum, although Giunta’s publicaiton seems to be entirely non- represented. Despite using music by local composers like Nuremberg resident Wilhelm

Breitengraser, Petreius does not seem to have collaborated or borrowed from Nuremberg printer

56 Hans Ott, evidenced by the differences in appearance and accuracy of Josquin’s Missa fortuna

desperata and L’homme armé super voces musicales in the Liber quindecim missarum and the

Missae tredecim.

A strong motivator of the Liber and other collections that included Catholic music of the legacy generation was Nuremberg’s unique situation in history and its status within the Holy

Roman Empire. Its allegiance to the Emperor but also its desire to freely practice a different religion meant that the city’s citizens had to play a careful game of keeping up appearances. But throughout the many changes that this city saw in such a small amount of time, polyphonic music by the Renaissance masters always had its champions, allowing the music to survive.

57 Bibliography Scores

Brumel, Antoine. Missa A l’ombre d’ung buissonet. Edited by Barton Hudson. Vol. 5 of Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae. S.l.: American Institute of Musicology, 1970.

———. Missa Je nay dueul. Edited by Armen Carapetyan. Vol. 5 of Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae. S.l.: American Institute of Musicology, 1956.

Isaac, Heinrich. Missa “La mi la sol/O Praeclara.” Edited by Martin Staehlin. Vol. 2 of Messen. Mainz: B. Schott’s Söhne, 1969-

Des Prez, Josquin. Missa Ave Maris Stella; Missa De Beata Virgine. Edited by Willem Elders. Vol. 3 of The New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koningklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2003.

———. Missa Fortuna Desperata. Edited by Barton Hudson. Vol. 8 of The New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koningklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1995.

———. Missa Gaudeamus. Edited by Willem Elders. Vol. 4 of The New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2000.

———. Missa La sol fa re mi. Edited by James Haar and Lewis Lockwood. Vol. 11 of The New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koningklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2002.

———. Missa L’homme armé super voces musicales. Edited by A. Smijers. Vol. 1 of Werken. Amsterdam: G. Alsbach, 1926.

La Rue, Pierre. Missa Tous les Regrets. Edited by Nigel St. John Davison, J. Evan Kreider, and T. Herman Keahey. Vol. 6 of Opera Omnia. S.l.: American Institute of Musicology, 1989-1992.

Layolle, Francesco de. Music of the Florentine Renaissance, Vol. 6 of Layolle, Francesco de: Masses and Penitential Psalms. Edited by Frank D’Accone. S.l.: American Institute of Musicology, 1969.

Ockeghem, Johannes. Missa Cuiusvis Toni. Edited by Jaap van Benthem. Vol. 3 of Masses and Mass Sections. Utrecht: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1994-

58

Primary Sources

Johann Petreius

Heyden, Sebald. De arte canendi. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1540.

———. De arte canendi. Translated and transcribed by Clement Miller. American Instiutute of Musicology, 1972.

———. Musicae. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1537.

———. Musicae stoicheiosis. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1532.

Liber quindecim missarum. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1539.

Tomus primus psalmorum selectorum a praestantissimis musicis. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1538.

Tomus secundus psalmorum selectorum quatuor et quinque vocum. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1539.

Tomus tertius psalmorum selectorum. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1542.

Hieronymus Formschneider/Grapheus

Der erst Teil: hundert und ainundzweintig newe Lieder. Nuremberg: Formschneider, 1534.

Missae tredecim quatuor vocum a praestantissimis artificibus compositae. Nuremberg: Grapheus, 1539.

Novum et insigne opus musicum, sex, quinque, et quatuor vocum. Nuremberg: Formschneider, 1537.

Secundus tomus novi operis musici, sex, quinque et quatuor vocum. Nuremberg: Grapheus, 1538.

Ottaviano Petrucci

Liber primus missarum Josquin. Fossombrone: Petrucci, 1516.

Missarum Josquin liber secundus. Fossombrone, Petrucci, 1505, 1515.

Missarum Josquin liber tertius. Fossombrone: Petrucci, 1514.

Misse Brumel. Venice: Petrucci, 1503.

Misse Josquin. Venice: Petrucci, 1502.

59

Giunta

Liber primus missarum Josquin. Rome: Giunta, 1526.

Libri secundi missarum Josquin. Rome: Giunta, 1526.

Missarum decem. Rome: Giunta, 1522.

Missarum Josquin liber tertius. Rome: Giunta, 1526.

Andrea Antico

Liber quindecim missarum. Rome: Antico, 1516.

Jacques Moderne

Liber decem missarum. Lyon: Moderne, 1532.

Secondary Sources

Barge, Hermann. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. Nieuwkoop, Holland: de Graaf, 1968.

Bernstein, Jane A. “Buyers and Collectors of Music Publications: Two Sixteenth-Century Music Libraries Recovered.” In Music Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis Lockwood, edited by Anthony Cummings, 21-33. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park, 1997.

Bernstein, Lawrence. “‘Singende Seele’ or ‘unsingbar’? Forkel, Ambros and the Forces Behind the Ockeghem Reception During the Late 18th and 19th Centuries.” Journal of Musicology 47 (Winter, 2006): 3-61.

Biggle, Lloyd. “The Masses of Antoine Brumel.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1953.

Blackburn, Bonnie. “The Lupus Problem: Stylistic Analysis of the Works of Lupus, Johannes Lupi, and Lupus Hellinctus.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1970.

———. “Masses Based on Popular Songs and Solmization Syllables.” In The Josquin Companion, edited by Richard Sherr, 51-88. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Bloxam, Jennifer M. “Masses Based on Polyphonic Songs and Canonic Masses.” In The Josquin Companion, edited by Richard Sherr, 151-209. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Brockmann, Stephen. Nuremberg: The Imaginary Capital. Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2006.

60

Brown, Howard Mayer. “Hans Ott, Heinrich Finck and Stoltzer: Early Sixteenth-Century German Motets in Formschneider's Anthologies of 1537 and 1538.” In Von Isaac bis Bach—Studien zur Älteren Deutschen Musikgeschichte: Festschrift Martin Just zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Wolfgang Osthoff, 73-84. Kassel: Bärenreiter 1991.

———. Introduction to Trium vocum cantiones centum, a praetantissimis diversarum nationum ac linguarum musicis compositae (Nuremburg: Johannes Petreius, 1541). London: Garland, 1986.

Buszin, Walter. Luther on Music. Saint Paul, MN: North Central Publishing, 1958.

Butler, Bartlett Russell. “Liturgical Music in Sixteenth-Century Nürnberg: A Socio-Musical Study.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1970.

Chapman, James. “The Works of Pierre Moulu: A Stylistic Analysis.” PhD diss., New York University, 1964.

Crawford, David. “Reflections on Some Masses Published by Moderne.” The Musical Quarterly 58 (1972): 82-91.

Cuyler, Louise. The Emperor Maximilian I and Music. London: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Dobbins, Frank. Music in Renaissance Lyons. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.

Duffy, Kathryn Ann Pohlmann. “The Jena Choirbooks: Music and Liturgy at the Castle Church in Wittenberg under Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995.

Elders, Willem, ed. Masses Based on Gregorian Chant 1: Critical Commentary, vol. 3 of New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koninklikje Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2003.

———, ed. Masses Based on Gregorian Chant 2: Critical Commentary, vol. 4 of New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koninklikje Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2003.

———. “Symbolism in the Sacred Music of Josquin.” In The Josquin Companion, edited by Richard Sherr, 531-568. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

———. “Zur Frage der Vorlage von Isaacs ‘Messe La mi la sol’ oder ‘O Praeclara.’” In Von Isaac bis Bach-Studien zur Älteren Deutschen Musikgeschichte: Festschrift Martin Just zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Wolfgang Osthoff, 9-13. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1991.

Fenlon, Iain. Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

61 Fitch, Fabrice. Johannes Ockeghem, Masses and Models. Paris: H. Champion, 1997.

Gattuso, Susan. “Sixteenth-Century Nuremberg.” In The Renaissance: From 1470 to the End of the 16th Century, edited by Iain Fenlon, 286-303. London: MacMillan, 1989.

Gould, Ronald. “The Latin Lutheran Mass at Wittenberg, 1523-1545: A Survey of the Early Reformation Mass and the Lutheran Theology of Music, as Evidenced in the Liturgical Writings of Martin Luther, the Relevant Kirchenordnung, and the Georg Rhau Musikdrucke for the Hauptgottesdienst.” Doctor of Sacred Music diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1970.

Grafton, Anthony. Johannes Petreius (c. 1497-1550): A Study of the History of Learned Publishing. Oberlin, OH: Oberlin College, 1998.

Grier, James. The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

———. “Musical Sources and Stemmatic Filiation: A Tool for Editing Music.” Journal of Musicology 13, no. 1 (Winter 1995) 73-102.

Gustavson, Royston. “Hans Ott, Hieronymus Formschneider, and the Novum et insigne opus musicum (Nuremberg, 1537-1538).” PhD diss., University of Melbourne, 1998.

Haar, James. “Josquin as Interpreted by a Mid-Sixteenth-Century German Musician.” In Festschrift für Horst Leuchtmann zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Stefan Hörner, 179-205. Tutzing: H. Schneider, 1993.

———. “Some Remarks on the ‘Missa La sol fa re mi.’” In Josquin des Prez: Proceedings of the International Josquin Festival-Conference held at The Julliard School at Lincoln Center in New York City, 21-25 July 1971, edited by Edward Lowinsky, 564-588. London: Oxford University Press, 1976.

——— and Lewis Lockwood, ed. Masses Based on Solmization Themes: Critical Commentary, vol. 11 of New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koninklikje Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2003.

Herl, Joseph Herl. Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism: Choir Congregation, and Three Centuries of Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Hudson, Barton, ed. Masses Based on Secular Polyphonic Songs 2: Critical Commentary, vol. 8 of New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 1996.

Jas, Eric and Herbert Kellman. “Notes on the Catalogue and Sigla.” In The Treasury of Petrus Alamire: Music and Art in Flemish Court Manuscripts, 1500-1535, 64-168. Ghent, Belgium: Ludion, 1999.

62

Judd, Cristle Collins. “Music Anthologies, Theory Treatises, and the Reformation: Nuremberg in the 1530s and 1540s.” In Reading Renaissance Music Theory: Hearing with the Eyes, 82- 114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Just, Martin. “Lateinische Sentenzen und Deutsche Lieder: Wilhelm Breitengrasers Fünfstimmige Werke in Otts Sammlung von 1534.” In Musikalische Quellen: Quellen zur Musikgeschichte-Festschrift für Martin Staehlin zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Ulrich Konrad, 65-80. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002.

Krautwurst, Franz. “Musik des 15. und der 1. Halfte des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In Nürnberg: Geschichte einer Europäischen Stadt, edited by Gerhard Pfeiffer, 211-218. Munich, Germany: C.H. Beck, 1971.

Leaver, Robin. Luther’s Liturgical Music: Principles and Implications. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2007.

Lehman, Helmut, ed., Concerning the Sacrament. Vol. 38 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976.

———. The German Mass and Order of Service. Vol. 53 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia: 1955-1986.

———. An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg. Vol. 53 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976.

———. Receiving Both Kinds of the Sacrament. Vol. 36 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955-1976.

———. Preface to the Wittenberg Hymnal. Vol. 53 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia: 1955-1986.

———. Treatise on Good Works. Vol. 44 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955- 1976.

Leupold, Ulrich. Introduction to Vol. 53 of Luther’s Works. St Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955- 1976.

Lowinsky, Edward. Historical Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1 of The Medici Codex of 1518; a Choirbook of Motets Dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, Duke of Urbino. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.

Meconi, Honey. “Josquin and Musical Reputation.” In Essays on Music and Culture in Honor of Herbert Kellman, edited by Barbara Haggh, 280-297. Paris: Minerve, 2001.

63 ———. Pierre de la Rue and Musical Life at the Habsburg-Burgundian Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Nowacki, Edward. “The Latin Psalm Motet, 1500-1535.” In Renaissance Studien. Helmuth Osthoff zum 80. Geburtstag, edited by Ludwig Finscher, 159-184. Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1979.

Owens, Jessie Ann. “How Josquin Became Josquin: Reflections on Historiography and Reception.” In Music in Renaissance Cities and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis Lockwood, edited by Anthony Cummings, 271-280. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park, 1997.

Planchart, Alejandro Enrique. “Masses on Plainsong Cantus Firmi.” In The Josquin Companion, edited by Richard Sherr, 89-150. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Pogue, Samuel. Jacques Moderne: Lyons Music Printer of the Sixteenth Century. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1969.

Rodin, Jesse. “Finishing Josquin’s ‘Unfinished’ Mass: A Case of Stylistic Imitation in the Cappella Sistina.” Journal of Musicology 22 (2005): 412-453.

———. “Josquin and the Polyphonic Mass in the Sistine Chapel.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 2007.

———. “A ‘Most Laudable Competition’? Hearing and Composing the Beata Virgine Masses of Josquin and Brumel.” Tjidschrift van de Koninklijke Vereinging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 59 (2009): 3-24.

Roelvink, Veronique. “Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel: A Motet by Johannes Lupi and a Mass by Gheerkin de Hondt.” In Uno Gentile et Subtile Ingenio: Studies in Renaissance Music in Honour of Bonnie J. Blackburn, edited by Jennifer Bloxam, 23-57. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2009.

Schlagel, Stephanie P. “Ab Interitu Vindicarem: Isaac and the Music Books of Ott and Petreius.” Paper presented at “Heinrich Isaac and His World,” Bloomington, IN, May 21-23, 2010.

———. “A Credible (Mis)Attribution to Josquin in Hans Ott’s Novum et insigne opus musicum: Contemporary Perceptions, Modern Conceptions, and the Case of Veni Sancte Spiritus.” Tjidschrift van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 56 (2006): 97-126.

———. “Fortune’s Fate: Josquin and the Nürnberg Mass Prints of 1539.” In Proceedings of the International Symposium “Josquin and the Sublime,” Roosevelt Academy, Middleburg, The Netherlands, July 2009, edited by Eric Jas and Albert Clement, 79-189. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011.

64 ———. “Josquin des Prez and His Motets: A Case Study in Sixteenth-Century Reception History.” PhD diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1996.

———. “The Liber Selectarum Cantionum and the ‘German Josquin Renaissance.’” Journal of Musicology 19 (2002): 564-615.

Staehelin, Martin. “Luther über Josquin.” In Festschrift Martin Ruhnke zum 65. Geburtstag, 326- 338. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler Verlag, 1986.

———. Die Messen Heinrich Isaacs. Bern: P. Haupt, 1978.

———. “Eine Wenig Beachtete Gruppe von Chorbüchern aus der Ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts.” IMS Report 1972, edited by Henrik Glahn, 664-668. Copenhagen: Edition Wilhelm-Hansen, 1972.

Sutherland, David Agnus. “Francesco de Layolle (1492-1540): Life and Secular Works.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1968.

Sutton, Owain. The Mass Music of Antoine Brumel. Manchester: University of Manchester, 2002.

Teramoto, Mariko. Katalog der Musikdruke des Johannes Petreius in Nürnberg. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1993.

———. Die Psalmendrucke des Johannes Petrejus in Nürnberg (Gedruckt 1538-1542). Tutzing, Germany: Hans Schneider, 1983.

———. “Die Psalmmotetten von Heinrich Isaac.” In Heinrich Isaac und Paul Hofhaimer im Umfeld von Kaiser Maximilian I: Bericht über die vom 1. bis 5. Juli 1992 in Innsbruck abgehaltene Fachtung, edited by Walter Salmen, 179-187. Innsbruck: Helbling, 1997.

———. “Die Rezeption der Franko-Flämischen Musik in der deutschen Musiktheorie in der Ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In Musikkonzepte-Konzepte der Musikwissenschaft, edited by Kathrin Eberl, 155-171. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2000.

Thompson, Bard. “Martin Luther, Formula missae and Deutsche Messe.” In Liturgies of the Western Church. New York: World Publishing Company, 1965.

Wagner, Rudolf. “Wilhelm Breitengraser und die Nürnburger Kirchen- und Schulmusik seiner Zeit,” Die Musikforschung 2 (1949): 141-177.

Well, Helmut. “Johannes Ockeghem: ‘Missa Cuiusvis Toni’?” Musiktheorie 18 (2003): 223-239.

65 Editor’s Notes

Credo

Measure 46 of the contratenor voice indicates a C, but was corrected to indicate an E. This edition has notated the E

Measure 96 of the discantus originally notated G, but it did not work with the harmonies around it so it was changed to F

Measure 152 of the contratenor originally indicated a fusa and minim together. This version corrects that error with two fusae

Sanctus

The “Benedictus” section of the tenor voice has two different time signatures: and . The different signatures along with a fermata halfway through suggests that there might be a way to notate this section using both. Petreius has not provided instructions as to this section’s resolution and the editor was not able to come up with a viable option. However, this particular section is still complete having left the puzzle unresolved.

66 Missa Dominicale: Kyrie

Wilhelm Breitengraser

Discantus 3 & b 1 W w W w ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ . ˙. Ky -----ri ------˙ ˙ œ œ œ ˙

Contratenor wb V b 31 „. W W w ˙ w ˙ w Ky ------ri

Tenor V b 31 „. „. „. „.

Bassus ? b 31 „. „. „. „.

5

D & b w Ó ˙ ˙ œ w. ˙ w ˙ ˙. œ œ œ w ˙ ˙ w e e ------. ˙ ˙

Ct ˙. œ œ œ ˙. œ w ˙ w ˙ œ V b ˙. œ ˙ w Ó ˙ œ ------˙ w w e e -

T V b W w W w W. w w w Ky -----ri --- e e ----

B b ? b „. W wb W w w ˙ ˙ w Ky ------ri e e ---

68 9

D & b ˙ w w C le ------˙ Wi w son.W. W.

Ct ˙. œ w V b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w . C ------le w wi W son.W

T V b W w W. W. C leW. ------i son.

B ? b w. ˙ w W w W W C le ------˙i . œ son. .

13 D W w w ˙ ˙ ˙ & b C ˙ . œ ˙ ˙ ˙ . œ Chri ------˙ ˙ ˙ Ct w V b C „ „ W w ˙. œ ˙. œ Chri ------

T V b C „ „ „ „ W Chri ---

B ? b C „ „ „ „ „

18 D w & b ˙ œ œ ˙ Ó œ œ œ œ . ------œ œ ˙ ˙ste w ˙e . œ

Ct œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ V b ˙ w ˙. œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ ------˙ ste˙ [e le

T W W V b W W ste e ----

B ? œ ˙ b „ ∑ Ó œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Chri˙ ------œ ste [e˙. œ

69 22 D ˙ ˙ & b w. ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ œ ˙. œ [le -----i son, e - ] œ œ œ ˙ ˙ le ---

Ct œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ w V b Ó w ˙. œ ------i son], ˙e -----le

T V b W W W W ------le

B ? ˙ œ b œ œ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ------le wi son],W

26 D 3 & b ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ œ w. œ 1 ------i son [e le˙. œi son.]W

Ct œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w 3 V b œ œ œ œ œ W W 1 ------i son.

T 3 V b w w W W W 1 ------i son.

B ? ˙ 3 b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ 1 e------le i son.W W

30 D 3 & b 1 „. „. W. w. ˙ w Ky ------

Ct 3 W œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ w ˙ V b 1 . ˙. œ œ œ w œ œ œ œ œ Ky ------˙

T 3 V b 1 „. „. „. „.

B ? 3 ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ w W w ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w b 1 ˙. œ ˙ Ky ------ri

70 34

D # & b ˙. œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w ∑ w w w. w œ œ ------˙ ri ˙ we W. e ----- # b Ct w W V b w W W ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ w ------ri ˙ œ œ w. ˙e

T V b W. W. W. W. W. Ky ------ri

B ? w w ˙ w b Ó W w ˙ w w ˙ w w e [Ky ------. ˙ ri]W

39 D w ˙. & b ˙. œ ˙. œ œ œ œ ˙ w w w ˙ ˙ œ œ ------œ œ W

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙b ˙ ˙ W V b w ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó ˙ w. ˙ ˙ ˙ e ---

T V b w W W. w W. -- e e ------leW i

B ? ˙ b w Ó w. ˙ ˙ wb ˙. œ w w Ó -- we ˙e ------[le ˙ i son,w e -

43 D ˙ w & b Ó ˙ ˙ . œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ------le ˙ i son.W.

Ct ˙. ˙ ˙ W. V b œ w w Ó ˙. œ œ œ œ œ ˙. œ ˙ ------le ˙ ˙ i son.

T V b W. W. W. W. ----- son.

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙ b w Ó ˙ w ˙ w ˙ w W --- ˙ lei - son,w e]------le i son. .

71 Missa Dominicale: Gloria

Wilhelm Breitengraser

Discantus 3 w ˙ ˙ & b 1 w ˙ w ˙ Ó ˙ W Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ Et in ter- ra pax ho--- mi ni bus bo ----nae vo lun ta

Contratenor V b 31 „. w ˙ w ˙ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó w ˙ Et in ter- ra pax ho--- mi ni bus bo- nae

Tenor V b 31 „. „. „. „.

Bassus ? b 31 „. „. „. „.

5 D ˙. & b œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙. œ w ˙ w Ó ˙ ˙. œ w w w ------tis. Lau----- da mus

Ct œ w ˙ ˙. œ wb V b ˙ œ œ œ œ œ w ˙ w ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ Ó ˙ w vo------lun ta tis. Lau-- da

T V b „. „. „. „.

B ? b „. „. W w w w w Lau -----da mus

72 9 D W & b w Ó w œ œ w w Ó ˙ ˙. œ ˙. œ œ ˙. œ te, Lau - da- mus te, Be------ne di ˙ ˙ ci

Ct ˙ . ˙ V b ˙ œ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ mus ˙b œ te,˙ Lau˙ -- da mus te,˙. œ ˙ be---- ne di ci˙ mus

T V b „. w W W w W w Lau------da mus te,

B ? b W w w W Ó ˙ œ w w te, Be˙ ---- ne. di ciw mus te,w

13 D W & b œ ˙ w w. w ∑ ∑ w ---œ œ œ ˙ mus œ œ ˙ ˙ te, A ---do

Ct ˙ w w w V b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. Ó ˙ te, be---- ne di ci mus œ w ˙ ˙ te,˙ a-- do

T V b w ∑ w w w ˙. œ œ œ ˙. œ w ˙ W ∑ Be ------ne di ci mus te,

B ? ˙ œ b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w W ˙ œ ˙. œ ˙ w W ∑ A------do ra mus te,

17

D & b w ˙ w ˙ w ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ w w w ˙. œ ra- mus te, Glo ----ri fi ca

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ V b w ˙ ˙ w w w. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ra - mus, a---- do ra mus, te, Glo---- ri fi ca

T V b „. W w w ˙ ˙. œ œ w ∑ ∑ A ---do ra mus œ te,

B ? ˙ w b ∑ Ó ˙ ˙ Ó w ˙ w w w ∑ ∑ A--- do ra mus Glo---- ri fi ca˙ ˙ mus te.

73 21 D ˙ & b œ œ ˙. œ w ˙ w Ó ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙. œ ˙ w --- mus te. Gra--˙ ti as a---- gi mus˙ ti- bi,

Ct œ œ V b œ œ œ œ œ œ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ w ˙ w W ∑ --- mus te. Gra---- ti as a gi mus ti -- bi,

T V b „. „. „. w w w Gra-- ti as

B w w w W w ? b „. w w Ó ˙ Gra-- ti as a-- gi mus ti ---

25 D w w W w & b w ∑ ∑ w W Ó ˙ gra---- ti as a-- gi mus ˙ Ct ˙ w w w ˙ w ˙ ˙ w w V b Ó Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w a-- gi mus ti- bi, a-- gi mus ti - bi, a---- gi # T ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙. œ w ˙. œ V b w w w w ˙ Ó w ˙ a-- gi mus ti ----- bi ti ---

B w w w ˙ . œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ w ˙ ? b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ w -- bi Gra-- ti as a-- gi mus ti ----

29 D w ˙ w ˙ & b ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ w ˙ ˙ ˙. œ w ti - bi prop-- ter mag nam glo ----ri am tu ---˙ ˙ Ct ˙ ˙ w ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ w. ˙ w ˙ V b ˙ ˙. œ ˙ œ œ œ œ mus ti --- bi, prop-- ter mag nam glo-- ri am tu- am.

T V b w ∑ ∑ Ó w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w W. bi prop---- ter mag nam glo ri am tu - am.

B ˙ ˙ w. w ? b w ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w bi a----- gi mus ti bi prop ter mag nam glo ------ri am tu

74 33 D ˙ & b w w w. œ œ w ˙ Ó ˙ ˙ w ∑ Ó - ˙ am.˙ Do---- mi ne De- us,˙ De -˙ us, De -

Ct ˙ ˙. œ ˙ w W ˙ ˙ ˙ V b w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ∑ Ó Do-- mi ne De ------us, Rex cae-- les

T . V b w ∑ ∑ w w w w Ó w ˙ w ˙ w Do-- mi ne De- us Rex cae-- les

B ? ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ b ˙ œ œ w w w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó ˙ ˙ œ œ am. Do-- mi ne De- us, Do ---mi ne De us, Rex cae---- les tis,

37 D ˙ ˙ & b w. ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ∑ Ó ˙ us pa------ter om ˙ ˙ ni po tens,W De-- us pa

Ct w w ˙ ˙ V b ˙ ˙ ˙. œ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó w tis, De----- us pa ter om ni potens, De-- us pa terw om-- niw ˙

T . V b W. W ∑ w w w ˙ œ ˙ w ˙ tis, De- us pa - ter om--- ni po

B ? w. ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙. b ˙ w ˙ ˙ w w ˙ œ ˙ ˙ w De- us pa- ter om--- ni po tens, Do-- mi ne De-- us om

41 D w w & b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w ˙ ˙ w w ˙. œ w w ter om------ni po tens. Do-- mi ne Fi -

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ ˙ w. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ V b w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ------˙ ˙ ˙ po˙ tens. om ni po tens. Do-- mi ne Fi ---

T V b w ∑ ∑ „. W w W w tens. Do - mi - ne Fi -

B ? b w ˙ ˙ w W ∑ Wb w ni---- po˙ ˙ w ˙ tens,˙ om--- ni po tens, Do ---mi

75 45 D w & b ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ w ˙. œ œ œ œ œ w --œ œ wli u ----ni ge ni te Je- su Chri ---- ste,

Ct w œ œ œ œ œ W w w V b w Ó ˙ ˙. œ ˙. Ó ˙. œ ˙ -- li u -----ni ge - ni - te Je- su

T V b w w. ˙ ˙ ˙ W W w w W li u---- ni ge ni te Je - su Chri- ste,

B ? b w w w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w w w Ó ˙ -- ne Fi - li u---- ni ge ni te Je - su Chriw - ste. Je -

49 D w & b ∑ w w w Ó ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙ Je- su Chri- ste al˙ ------tis. si ˙ me,w

Ct ˙ V b ˙ ˙ w w ˙. œ ˙ œ œ ˙ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙. œ w Chri ------˙ ˙ ste˙ al ---tis si me,w al ---tis si me,

T V b ∑ W w W W w W. al ------tis si me

B ? ˙. œ w b ˙ w ˙ w w Ó ˙. œ W ∑ Ó ˙ - su Chri - ste. al˙ --- tis si me, al--- tis si me,

53

D n & b Ó w ˙ C Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ al˙ --- tis. si meW. Do--- mi ne De us,w

Ct . V b Ó ˙ w ˙ W. C ∑ w w al--- tis si me Do - mi -

T V b W. W. C ∑ ∑

B ? w w w w b Ó ˙ w. ˙ W C al--- tis si me . Do- mi - ne De -

76 57 D ˙ ˙ œ œ & b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ De˙ --- us, Do-- mi ne De ------w

Ct w w ˙ w ˙ œ œ V b w w Ó ˙ ˙ ne De ------De us

T V b ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ w A -

B w w ˙ w w w ˙ ˙ w ? b ˙ -- us, Do- mi - ne De ---- us,

61

D & b Ó ˙ ˙ W ∑ Ó ˙ usW W A- gnus De˙ - i, Fi - # # Ct ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ ˙ V b ˙. œ w ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó A --- gnus A ------De i, Fi ----

T V b W w w w w w Ó ˙ w w ----- gnus De --- i, Fi ----li

B ? ˙. b Ó ˙ ˙ œ W œ w W ∑ A- gnus. De --- i,

66

D & b w w w ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ w li ---- us Pa - tris. Qui tol - lis pec-- ca

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ V b ˙. œ w w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w li- us, Fi-- li us, Pa- tris. Qui tol- lis

T V b w ˙. œ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w w w us Pa - tris. Qui tol- lis pec -----ca

B ˙ ? b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ w ˙ ˙ w Fi-- li us Pa- tris. Qui tol - lis pec-- ca

77 70

D & b ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ta mun ------˙ W di,˙ mi----- se re˙. re

Ct w w ˙. . V b œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙. œ . pec ------ca ta mun ------˙ œ

T V b w w W W ∑ w -- ta mun ---- di, mi -

B w ? b w W w. ˙ W ta mun - di, mi ------se re

74

D & b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w no - bis,w mi--- se re re no˙. ----œ bis.

Ct ˙. V b œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ Ó ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ -----œ œ œ œ œ œ di mi--- seœ œ re re no -----

T V b w w w w ˙ ˙ w w ∑ se -----re re no ---- bis.

B ? ˙ w ˙ b w w ∑ Ó ˙ wb re no - bis.w mi--- se re re no -

78 D 3 & b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ 1 Qui tol- lis pec---- ca ta ˙ . œ munW ---

Ct ˙. ˙ ˙ 3 V b œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ 1 bis. Qui tol- lis pec -----ca ta mun -

T V b ∑ Ó ˙ w ˙ w ˙ w w 31 Qui˙ ˙ tol- lis pec-- ca ta mun- di,

B ˙ . ? b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ w W 31 bis. Qui tol- lis pec --ca ta mun - di,

78 82 á k»á D 3 & b 1 w w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w w w W diw su--- sci pe de pre---- ca ti o nem no -----w

Ct w w w w V b 31 w ∑ ∑ W w w w di, su ----sci pe de--- pre ca

T V b 31 W w W ∑ W w W w su - sci - pe de - pre -----ca ti

B w w ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ? b 31 w ˙ ˙ w w w ˙ ˙ w su - sci - pe de----- pre ca ti o nem

86 ( C ) á k á D » & b W ∑ „ w C W W stram. Qui se --- des

Ct w w w ˙. V b w C ˙ œ ˙ ti-- o nem no- stram.W [Qui˙ sew - des],˙ Qui

T V b w w ˙ ˙ w. œ w C W „ o------nem no œ stram.

B ? w w b w w w W C W ∑ no ------stram. Qui

90 # D ˙ ˙ œ œ & b ∑ w w w w w ˙ ad dex - ter - am Pat ------

Ct ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w V b w ˙ ˙ ˙ se- des ad dex-- te ram Pa ------

T V b „ „ „ „

B w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ? b w ˙ se ---- des ad dex-- ter am Pat ------

79 94 D w & b ∑ Ó w ˙ ˙ œ œ œ W ris, mi--- se re re˙. no ----

Ct œ V b œ œ œ w w w w w ˙ ˙ ˙. œ --- tris mi------se re

T V b „ W W W mi ------se

B w. ˙ ? b w ∑ ˙ œ œ w Wb ris, mi -----se re re no ----

98

D & b W Ó w ˙ bis, mi ------seœ œ ˙ w w w

Ct V b w w ˙ œ œ w Ó ˙ w ˙ re no ------bis, no ˙ w

T V b W W W W ------re

B ? b w. ˙ w. œ œ ˙ ˙ w w w ------

102

D & b ˙ w W Ó ˙ w W ---˙ re - re no --- bis.

Ct V b ˙ w ˙ . ˙ ˙ ------˙ ˙ œ ˙ w ˙ ˙ w

T V b w w w ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ W re no ------bis.

B ? b w w w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w w ---- bis. no ----- bis. now -

80 106 D w ˙. & b W ∑ œ ˙. œ ˙. Quo - ni- am œ ˙. œ

Ct ˙ ˙. œ . V b ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙. œ . ˙ ----œ œ ˙ bis.˙ Quo-- ni am tu ˙ œ ˙

T V b W W W QuoW ------ni am

B ? b ˙ W ∑ w w w ----˙ ˙ ˙ bis. Quo - ni- am

110

D & b œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w w œ œ œ tu so- lusw san ---

Ct ˙ ˙ V b ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ so ---- lus [san˙ ------œ œ

T V b ∑ w W W w w tu so ------lus

B ? b Ó ˙ wb w w w w w w tu so ------lus san ---

114

D & b w w. œ œ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ctus,w san ------ctus. Tu so- lus Do-- mi

Ct ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ V b ˙ w ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ w ˙ - ctus], san --- ctus. Tu so- lus Do -----mi

T V b W W W „ san ------ctus.

B W ? b W w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ------ctus. Tu so- lus Do-- mi

81 118

D & b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ nus, tu so- lus Do-- mi nus, tu˙. œ so ----- # Ct w w V b ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ w ˙ w w nus. Tu so ---- lus

T V b „ „ W w w Tu so- lus

B ˙ ˙ w ? b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ w nus. Tu so- lus Do-- mi nus. Tu so- lus

122 D ˙ ˙ & b w ∑ Ó ˙ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ lus Al--- tis si mus, Al -----tis si˙ œ œ

Ct ˙ ˙ V b ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙. œ œ œ ˙ ˙ Al-- tis si ------œ w ˙ mus,w [Al ---- tis- si -

T V b w ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ W W Al------tis si mus,

B ? ˙ b ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ w w w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Al------tis si mus, Je ------

126

D & b ∑ „ W W mus,w Je ------# Ct V b ˙. œ ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ w w W ------mus] Je su

T W V b ∑ w w w W Je ------su Chri

B . ˙ œ ? b ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ w W W ------su Chri ---

82 130 D w w & b ˙ œ œ w w w W C „ ∑ su Chri˙. ------œ . ste. Cum

Ct w w . œ w w ˙ ˙ V b w ˙ . W C Chri ------w w ˙ ste. Cum San ---cto Spi ri T W W V b W W C „ „ ------ste.

B ? b W W W C „ „ ------steW

136

D & b w w w w ˙. œ œ œ ˙ œ œ w ˙ San- cto Spi ------ri

Ct œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ V b œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ w ------

T V b „ „ „ „

B ? b „ „ „ „

140 D w & b w Ó w œ ˙ ˙ ˙ tu, Cum˙ ˙ San -----œ w cto˙ Spi -----ri

Ct V b W „ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ tu, cum San- cto Spi ---

T V b W w w w w w w Cum San ------cto Spi ---

B ? b „ „ „ „

83 144

D & b œ œ ˙ w W W ∑ w ----- tu, in

Ct w V b w W ∑ w w w ri ---- tu, in glo-- ri

T V b w w w Ó ˙ w w W ri ---- tu, in glo-- ri a

B ? b „ W W Wb in glo ---

148 D ˙ & b w. . œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w ∑ w glo ---œri œ œaœ De --- i Pa- tris. A -

Ct W V b w ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w w a De ----- i Pa ---- tris.w

T V b w w w w „ ∑ w De- i Pa - tris. A -

B ? b W W w w W ri ---- a De - i Pa ---

152

D & b W w. œ œ w w w w ------

Ct ˙. œ w w œ œ ˙ œ wb V b Ó œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ A------men, A

T V b w w W W W ------

B w w ? b W ∑ w w wb tris. A ------

84 156

D & b W w ˙. œ ------w. œ œ w. ˙

Ct W ˙ ˙ V b W w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ------[men, A]

T V b W W W w w ------

B ? w w w b w w W w ------

160

D & b ˙ ˙ w w w ------w ˙ œ œ men.W

Ct w ˙ ˙. œ V b ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ w W ------men.

T V b w w W W W ---- men.

B ? w b w w w W W ------men.

85 Missa Dominicale: Credo

Wilhelm Breitengraser

Discantus & b 31 „. „. „. „.

Contratenor w w w w ˙ ˙ œ . V b 31 „. Ó ˙ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ œ ˙ Pa- trem om ----ni po-- ten

Tenor b 3 w w w Ó w ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ ˙. V 1 Pa- trem om ------˙ ˙ ni po œ œ œ ˙ ten˙ œ ˙ w

Bassus ? b 31 „. „. „. ∑ ∑ Paw -

5

D # & b ∑ w w w Ó w ˙ ˙ w Pa ---- trem om ------˙ ni po ˙ ten˙

Ct w ˙ ˙ w ˙ . V b w ∑ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ tem, om ------ni po ten

T b ˙ ˙ ˙. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w V tem,˙ om ------œ œ ni˙ po ten˙ ˙ tem,˙ om ----ni po˙ ten

B ˙ ? b w ∑ Ó ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w -- tremw om ------ni po ten tem,

86 8

D & b W ∑ Ó ˙ tem, cae˙. - œ ˙ li etœ œ œ œ ter ---˙ ˙ ˙ rae,w Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ V b ˙. œ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w -- tem, fac-- to rem cae ------li et ter - ˙ n T b ∑ ˙ w. ˙ w ˙ ˙. œ w ˙ V tem,w fac˙ ----to rem cae - li et ter -

B ? w ˙ ˙ w ˙ b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙b ˙ ˙ ˙ w fac---- to rem cae --- li et ter ----

11 # D & b ˙ ˙ w w œ ˙. œ w vi˙. ---- siœ bi li um om ------œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ni˙

Ct V b w ˙ ˙ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w rae, vi˙. ---- sibiœ li umw om-- ni um et in- vi--- si bi

T b W ∑ œ ˙ ˙ w w œ œ V rae, vi˙. ---- si bi li um om -----œ œ ˙ ni˙

B ˙ ? b w Ó w ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ wb w rae, vi------si bi li um om-- ni um

14

D b ∑ ∑ w w w ˙ ˙ ˙ & umw et in ------vi˙ ˙ si ˙

Ct wb ˙ . œ w V b ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ ∑ ∑ Ó ˙ li --- um. om-- ni um, et

T b w w w ˙. œ w ˙ w ˙ w V umw et in------vi si bi li um.

B w ˙ ? b „. Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ et in------vi si bi

87 17 # D b ˙. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ & bi˙ -----œ w ˙li um.w Et˙. inœ w u - num, et in u- num,

Ct ˙. ˙. V b œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ w ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ in--- vi si bi ------wli

T b „. „. w V EtW in

B ? ˙ ˙ w w w w w. b ˙. œ ˙ w ------li- um. Et in u -

20

D & b w ˙ ˙ ˙. ˙ ˙ ˙ w w Et˙. inœ u- num Do-- miœ num˙ Je˙ -˙ sum Christum,- Fi-- li

Ct V b W ˙ ˙ ˙. œ w w. ˙ w um. Et˙. inœ u- num Do-- mi num Je - sum Chri -

T b w. ˙ ˙ ˙ W w w V u - num Do-- mi num Je - sumW Chri -

B w ? b W Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w W w num Do --mi num Je - sum Chri -

23 # D & b w œ ˙ ˙ œ œ w w ∑ ∑ um De˙. - i u ------œ œ ni˙ gen˙ i tum.

Ct . V b œ w ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ----˙. stum,w Fi-- li um De -----i u ni gen˙ i n T b w w w w w w ˙ ˙. œ w ˙ V stum, Fi ----li um De - i u---- ni gen i

B w ? b w ˙ ˙ w Ó w w ˙ ˙ w stum, Fi-- li um De ---˙ i u---- ni gen i

88 26

D & b ˙ w w ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ ˙ Et˙. exPaœ - tre˙ na ------˙ tum˙ an-- te om˙

Ct œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ w ˙ V b W Ó ˙ ˙. œ œ œ Ó tum. Et ex Pa ---- tre na- tum an -

T b W. œ ˙ w w w w V tum. Et˙. exPa- tre˙ na - tum an ---

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ b w ˙ ˙ w ˙ w Ó ˙ ˙ tum. Et ex Pa - tre˙ na -- tum an- te om-- ni

29

D & b œ ˙ ∑ „. Ó ˙. œ ˙ w ---œ niw a De - um 3 Ct ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ w ˙ ˙. œ ˙ V b œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ -- te om----- ni a, an te om ni a sae ----cu la.

T b w w w w w w W. V te om-- ni a sae-- cu la.

B ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ? b œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w ---- a, an----- te om ni a sae cu la. De -

32 D b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ∑ Ó ˙ w W w & de De --- o, De --- um de

Ct . œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ V b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ w œ w De ---- um de De ------˙ œ o,

T b ∑ ∑ w ˙ w w ˙ W. V De - um de De - o,

B ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w ? b ˙ ˙ w W. um de De- o, lu - men de lu-- mi ne,

89 35 D w b ˙ ˙. œ œ œ . ˙. œ ˙ & De- o lu - men de˙ œ ˙ lu-- mi new De˙ - um˙ ve w -

Ct ˙. œ w. ˙ w V b w w w ˙ ˙ ˙ lu --- men de lu-- mi ne,˙ De - um ve- rum

T V b w ∑ ∑ „. „.

B ? w w w ˙ ˙ W w. ˙ w b lu- men de lu-- mi ne, De - um ve -

38

D b œ œ w ∑ „. & rumw dew De˙ - ˙ o veœ œ - ro

Ct ˙. œ ˙ w ˙ w œ œ ˙ V b Ó w ˙ w ˙. œ de De --- o ve --- ro. Ge - ---ni

T b „. w w ˙ w ˙ V GeW ----ni tum, non fac- tum,

B ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w œ ˙ w w ˙ ? b œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ rum de De- o ve ----- ro. Ge-- ni tum, non fac -

41

D & b ∑ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w con----- sub stan ˙ti a lem˙ Paw - trwi: per

Ct ˙ ˙ w V b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w w ˙ ˙ tum, non fac- tum, con--- sub --stan ti --a lem Pa- tri: # T b ˙ w œ œ œ ˙ w ˙ w ∑ w V con˙ ------sub˙ stan˙ ti a œ lem Pa --- tri: per

B ˙ ? b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ „. tum, con----- sub stan ti a lem Pa˙ --- tri:w

90 44

D b w ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ C & quem. om ----ni a œ œ fac˙ - ta˙ suntW..

Ct ˙ w ˙ ˙ w V b œ ˙ ˙ W. C per˙. quem˙ om --ni a fac- ta sunt. n T b w w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ w ˙ W. C V quem om- ni - a fac- ta sunt.

B ? ˙ b ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ W. C per quem om-- ni a fac˙. ----œ taw sunt.

47

D & b C w w w w ˙. œ ˙ ˙ œ Qui prop -----ter nos ho mi nes, ho miœ ˙ nes,w

Ct w w V b C „ „ „ Qui prop -

T b C „ w w w ˙. V QuiW prop- ter nos ho-- miœ

B ? b C „ „ „ „

51

D & b Ó ∑ ∑ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ nos˙ ho˙ -- mi˙ nes,w et prop-- ter nos trum

Ct w w ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ V b w w ter nos ho-- mi nes, et prop- ter nos- trum sa -

T b Ó w ˙ œ ˙ w w V nes,w et˙ propw - ter œ nos- trum˙ sa- lu -

B w w . ? b ∑ w w ˙ œ w Ó ˙ Qui prop- ter nos ho-- mi nes, et

91 55

D b ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w w Ó & sa- lu˙ - tem˙ de˙ ------scen dit de˙ cae w -

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙. œ ˙ ˙ V b ˙ ˙ w Ó ----lu tem de --scen dit de cae˙ - lis, de - n T b W Ó ˙ w w ˙ ˙ w ˙ V tem de-- scen dit de cae - lis,˙ de cae -

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙. œ w w ˙ w b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ prop-- ter nos trum sa- lu - tem de-- scen dit de cae -

59 D b Ó & lis.w Et˙. œ in˙ --- car˙ na w tusw est,w Et˙ in˙. - œ

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w . œ V b ˙. œ Ó Ó Ó Ó ˙ scen- dit, de --scen dit de cae - lis. Et

T b W W œ ˙ ˙ w w V lis. Et˙. in--- car na tus

B œ ˙ ˙ w ? b W Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ ∑ lis. Et in----- car na tus est,

63 # # D n b œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ w w w w w & car œ----na tus est de Spi -----ri

Ct ˙ ˙ w w ˙. œ ˙ œ V b w ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ in--- car na tus est de Spi -----ri

T b „ w w V estW dew Spi -----wri

B ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w w w ? b w w et in ---car na tus est de Spi --ri

92 67

D b w „ & tu Sanw - ctoW W

Ct ˙ ˙ V b ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ tu San˙ --- cto ex Ma ------ri ˙ œ œ a,˙ ex

T b w W W W V tuw San - cto ex

B ? w b w W W W tu San - cto

71

D b W W ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ & ex Ma-- ri˙ a Vir -----œ œ ˙ gi˙

Ct w w w ˙. œ ˙ V b œ ˙. œ w Ma-- ri a, Ma --ri˙ a Vir˙. -----gi

T b w w W W W V Ma-- ri a Vir ------gi

B ? w w ˙ ˙ b ∑ w ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ ex Maw - ri - a Vir---- gi ne: Et

75

D & b ˙ œ œ ˙ w w ˙ ˙ ne:w Etw ˙ ho˙ ---- mo˙ fac tus est, ho- mo

Ct . œ w w w V b w w w ˙. œ ˙ ne: Et ho - mo fac -

T b w w w w w w w w V ne: Et ho - mo fac --- tus

B ˙ ? b w w w. w w w ho- mo fac --- tus˙ est,˙ et ho - mo fac -

93 79

D b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ Ó w ˙ & fac- tus˙ est.˙ Cru ---ci fix us,W cru-- ci

Ct ˙ ˙ w ˙ w w V b ˙ w -- tus est. Cru-- ci fix- us,w cruw - ci -

T b W „ „ „ V est.

B ? ˙ b ˙ w w w. ˙ ˙. -- tus est. Cruw - ci - fix - us e--œ ti am,w

83

D b ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ w w w ∑ & fix- us˙ e. --œ ti amœ œ pro no- bis:

Ct œ œ œ ˙ V b ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ - fix ------˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ usw ˙ e----- ti am

T b „ w w ˙ w ˙ V CruW ------ci fix us e --ti

B ? w ˙ b ∑ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó w cru---- ci fix usw e --ti

87 # D & b ∑ Ó ˙ w ∑ Ó ˙ ˙. œ ˙ sub Pon˙ --˙ ti o Pi -----la ˙

Ct V b ˙ œ œ w w Ó ˙. œ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ ˙ pro no - bis: sub˙ Pon--- ti o Pi˙ la -- --

T . b w ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó ˙ V am˙ pro˙ no - bis: sub Pon --ti o Pi-- la˙ tow pas -

B ˙ ? b ˙ w W „ „ am pro no - bis:

94 91 D b ∑ „ „ & tow Etw rew -

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. V b ˙ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ to pas- sus et se˙ ---- pul˙. tusœ œ n T b w w ˙ ˙. œ œ w ˙ w V sus et se------pul œ ˙ tus est. Etw

B ? w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ b ˙ œ œ ˙ w w w pas------sus et se pul tus est. Et

95

D & b w w œ œ w sur - rex - wit terw -----˙ ˙ ˙ti. œ a œ diœ- e

Ct w w V b w ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙. œ est. Et˙. œ re-- sur˙ rex - it ter ------

T b w w w w ˙ V re- sur - rex- w it w ter ----˙tiw a

B ? b w w w ˙ ˙ ˙ w wb re˙ --- sur˙ rex it ter ------˙ti a di -

99

D b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w & w se˙ --cunw dum˙ Scrip ------w tu˙. œ ras,

Ct . œ ˙ V b œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ W w w ---œ ti a di - ˙e se ------cun dum

T b w w ∑ w w w w w V di - e se - cun- dum Scrip --tu

B ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ? b w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙b . œ œ œ œ œ w --- e se- cun - dum Scrip------tu

95 103 # D b w Ó ˙ ˙. œ w ∑ Ó ˙ & scrip -----tu ˙ ˙ ras.w Et

Ct ˙ V b Ó ˙. œ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ ˙ w ∑ ∑ Ó Scrip ------tu ras. Et

T b W ∑ Ó ˙ w ˙ ˙ w V ras. Et˙ a--- scen dit˙ in cae lum:

B ? W ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ b „ ˙ ˙ w ras. Et a--- scen dit in cae lum:

107

D b ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w & a-- scen dit in cae- lum: se- det ad dex --ter ˙ am

Ct ˙ w ˙ ˙ w ˙ œ œ w V b ˙ w ˙ œ œ a-- scen dit in cae- lum: se- det ad dex-- ter am

T b „ „ w w w Ó ˙ V se - --- det ad

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ b „ „ Ó ˙ ˙. œ se- det ad dex---- ter

111 n D & b ˙. œ ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ Pa ----- tris. ad dex-- ter am Pa ----˙ w ˙

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ V b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w Pa ----- tris, Pa ------˙ ˙ w

T b w ˙ ˙ w w W W V dex --ter am Pa ---- tris.

B œ ˙ ˙ w w ? b œ œ œ w ∑ ∑ w --- am Pa ---- tris, Pa -

96 115 D b Ó Ó & tris.˙ Et˙ ˙ i- ter˙ - um,w et˙ ˙i-- ter˙ umw ven˙ -- tu˙ rus˙

Ct ˙ V b Ó ˙ ˙ Ó ˙ ˙ Ó tris.w Et˙ i-- ter rumw ven˙ -- tu rus estw cum

T b w w w w Ó ˙ w w V Etw i- ter - um ven --tu rus

B ? b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ W Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ tris. Et i-- ter um ven-- tu rus est cum

119 D b Ó Ó & estW cum˙ glo˙ -----˙ ri a,w iu˙ ˙ di˙ ca˙ re˙

Ct ˙ ˙ w w V b Ó ˙ ˙ w ˙. œ w glo-- ri a, cum˙ glo----- ri a iu di ca

T b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó w ˙ w w V est cum glo----- ri a, iu di ca re

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙ b ˙ ˙ w w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó glo-- ri a, iu ------di ca re,w iu di ca

123

D b w ˙ w w w w 3 & vi˙ - vos et mor ------tu os:W 1

Ct ˙. œ ˙ V b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙. ˙ 31 re vi - vos et mor -----œ œ tu˙ os, mor-- tu n T b w w w ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ W 3 V vi --- vos et mor -----tu os: 1

B w ? b w ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w W 31 re vi ---- vos et mor-- tu os:

97 127

D b 3 W w w W w w ˙ w & 1 Cu - ius re - gni nonW er . --- it

Ct 3 w w w w W w. ˙ w w w V b 1 w os Cu- ius re - gni non er- it

T b 3 W w w W W. W. V 1 Cu - ius re - gni

B ? 3 W w w W w. ˙ w b 1 w. ˙ w Cu - ius re - gni non

131

D b w w w Ó . . 3 & Wfi ---- nis, non˙ erw --w ˙it wfi ---W nis.W 1

Ct w w w ˙ ˙ W w W Wn . 3 V b w w w 1 fi ------nis. n n T b ∑ ∑ w w W w w. ˙ w. œ w W. 3 V non er - it fi -----œ nis. 1

B ? W w w W W w W 3 b w W. 1 er - it fi ------nis.

136

D & b 31 w w EtW inw Swpi ------ri w ˙. œ tum,w Spi -

Ct V b 31 w. ˙ w ˙ ˙. œ ˙ w w. ˙ Et in Spiw ---- ri tum, in Spi --ri

T b 3 W. w. ˙ w V 1 EtW. in Spi ---ri tum

B . ? b 31 W w w bw w w w ˙ Et in Spi -----ri tum, Spi --ri

98 139

D b ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ œ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ ˙ ˙ & --ri tumSanc- tum˙ Do. -- mi num, San - ctum Do ----mi

Ct w ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ V b w Ó ˙ œ œ œ œ œ tum San- ctum Do ------mi

T b w w ˙ ˙ ∑ ∑ V San- ctum Do-- mi num,W. etw

B ? w w ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙. ˙. œ œ œ w b Ó œ œ œ ˙ tum San- ctum Do ----mi num, Do ----mi

142

D & b w Ó w ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w œ œ w num, et vi ------vi fi ˙ ˙ can - tem:

Ct w w ˙ w ˙ ˙ w w ˙ w V b Ó ˙ num, et vi ----vi fi - ----can tem: n T b w. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ w ˙ W. V vi------vi fi can tem:

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙ b w ˙. œ w ˙ w W. num et vi ----vi fi can - tem:

145

D b ˙. ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ & Qui˙ cum œ ˙ ˙ ˙ Pa -----˙ ˙ ˙ tre ˙ et˙ b Ct ˙. œ ˙ . ˙ ˙ ˙. V b ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ Qui cum Pa ----- tre et Fi˙ -- li

T b W. w w Ó ˙ V QuiW. cum Pa- tre et

B . ˙ œ ˙ ? b Ó ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙b ˙ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ Qui cum Pa ----- tre et Fi-- li

99 148

D & b ˙ w ˙ w w ˙ ˙ ˙ w Fi˙ - li- o si˙ - mul˙ ˙ a--- do ra tur,˙ et con--- glo ri

Ct œ œ ˙ w ˙. œ w V b ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ ˙. œ o-- si mul a ---do ra˙ tur, et con -- ---

T b ˙ ˙ ˙ w w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ V Fi-- liw o˙ si- mul wa--- dow ra tur, et con --glo

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙. ˙ ˙ ˙ b œ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ wb w ˙ w o si ---- mul a--- do ra tur, et con--- glo ri

151 n D b œ œ œ ˙ w ˙ w. ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙. œ & ------œ fi ca w tur: Qui lo-- cu tus

Ct w. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙. œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w V b ˙ ˙ glo ------ri fi ca tur: Qui lo-- cu tus

T b ˙ ˙ ˙ w W. w ∑ ∑ V ri-----˙ fi ca tur:

B ? w. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙. œ b ˙. œ ˙ w fi ------ca tur: Qui lo-- cu tus

154

D b w Ó ˙ W Ó ˙ ˙ & est per Pr˙o-- phe˙ tas. Et un˙ ---˙ ˙ amw

Ct ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ œ V b w W Ó œ ˙ ˙ w est per Pro- phe - tas. Et un --- am

T b w ˙. œ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w V Quiw lo-- cu tus est per Pro---- phe tas.˙ Et un -

B ˙ . ˙ ˙. œ ? b w Ó w ˙ œ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ est, qui lo --cu tus est per Pro-- phe tas. Et

100 157

D & b Ó ˙ ˙ œ ˙ Ó san -----˙. œ œ œ œ ctam ca˙ ----- tho˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙li camw et˙

Ct w ˙ V b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w san- ctam ca--- tho li cam et a ------pos to li

T b ˙ w w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ V am san- ctam ca ---tho li camw etw a -

B ? ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ b ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ un - am san ---- ctam ca˙ ---tho li cam˙. œ et

160

D & b œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ w w œ ˙ ˙a. ---- posto li cam Ec -----cle ˙. si am. Con˙ ---œ fi te or˙ b Ct œ œ V b w Ó ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ ˙. ˙ œ ˙ ∑ cam Ec------cle˙ si am.˙

T b ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w. w ˙ Ó Ó ˙ V pos--- to li cam Ec - cle ---si am. Conw ---

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ b ˙. œ ˙ ˙b œ œ ˙. œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ a ----pos to li cam Ec--- cle˙. si am.˙ Con ---

163

D & b ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w. ˙ ˙ ˙ w u ----- num bap-- ti sma in˙ re˙. --œ mis˙

Ct ˙ V b ˙ œ œ ˙. œ ˙ œ œ w w ∑ Con--- fi te or u - num bapw ----˙ ti smaw

T b ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w ˙ ˙ w ˙ V - fi-- te or u - num bap-- ti sma inw re -

B ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ? b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ wb ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ fi -----te or u- numbap------ti œ œ

101 166 D w & b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ------œ œ œ œ si˙. œ o œ œ œ œ nem, in re---- mis si o nem # # Ct ˙ ˙. œ œ ˙ V b w ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ in rew ---- mis si o nem pec˙ ------ca˙ to

T b w w. ˙ ˙ Ó ∑ ∑ V -- misw. ------si˙ w o nem

B ? ˙ ˙ w w b ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ smaw in re˙ ------mis si o œ œ ˙ nem˙ pec----- ca to

169 D w & b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ Ó ˙. œ pec------ca to rum. Et ex spec œ œ ˙ to˙ re --˙

Ct ˙ V b ˙ w ˙ w rum, pec------ca w ˙ to rum.w W. n T b ˙. œ ˙ w ˙ w. ˙ w V pec----- ca to rum. Etw. ex-- spec tow.

B ? w ˙. ˙ ˙. ˙. b œ w ˙ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ ----- rum. Et ex----- spec œ œ to˙ re-- sur

172 n n D ˙ & b ˙ Œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ - ˙ sur. ------œ œ œ rec˙ ˙ œ œ wti ˙ ˙o nem˙ mor----- tu o Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ V b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Et˙ ex˙ ------spec˙ to re sur rec ti o nem mor - tu -

T b w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w V ˙re w -- sur rec˙ -----˙ Wti o nem mor--- tu o

B ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ? b ˙ ˙. œ œ œ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ rec------ti œ ˙o œ œ œ nem mor˙ ------tu

102 175

D b ˙ Œ œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ w w & rum, mor------tu o œ w œ œ rum. Et # n # Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙. ˙ œ ˙ w V b œ œ ˙ ˙. ---o rum. Et vi ------n T b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w ∑ ∑ œ w ˙ V rum, mor--- tu o rum. Et˙. œ œ vi -

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ w b w ˙ ˙ w ------o- rum. Et vi -----

178

D b w ˙. œ w Ó & viW--- tam w ven- tu - ri,w venw -- tu˙ # Ct w œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ W. V b ˙. ˙ ˙. œ ------tam ven-- tu ri

T b W w w W W V tam ven ------tu wri

B ? b w Ó w ˙ w tam, vi- tam venw ------tuW W ri

181

D & b ∑ œ w ˙ W w --w wri sae˙. ------œ œ cu

Ct w ˙ V b ∑ w w ˙ w ˙ œ w ˙ sae---- cu ------œ œ œ li, sae - # T b œ œ w ˙ w ∑ ∑ W. V sae˙. -----œ cu li. A -----

B w ? b Ó ˙ w w ∑ ∑ Ó w ˙ w sae ----cu li, sae ----cu

103 184 D ˙ œ & b ˙ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w w w w li. A˙ ------w ˙ Ct w w. ˙ w ˙ V b œ ˙. œ ˙ œ w ˙ ---œ cu li. A ------men, A˙. ----

T b W w w w w W. V ------men,

B ? w ˙ b ∑ Ó w ˙ w ˙ w li.W A ------

187

D & b w ∑ Ó ˙ œ œ œ œ men, A ------˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ men.W.

Ct V b ˙. œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙. œ W. ------˙ w ˙ ˙ œ men.

T b w ˙ V A ------w ˙ W. men.W.

B ? b ˙ ˙ w w ˙ w men,˙ A ------˙ ˙ men.W.

104 Missa Dominicale: Sanctus

Wilhelm Breitengraser

Discantus 3 # & b 1 W. W. W w w W San ------

Contratenor ˙. . V b 31 ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ w œ œ w San ------

Tenor V b 31 „. „. „. „.

Bassus ? b 31 „. „. „. ∑ W San -

5

D & b ˙. œ ∑ Ó ˙ W w w ˙ w ˙ ---˙ ˙ ctusw w san ------

Ct ˙. w V b w Ó ˙. ˙ ˙ Ó œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ w w ------œ ˙ ctus San ----

T # V b W w w W W w ∑ ∑ San ------w ctus

B ˙ ? b ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙. ˙ ˙ ˙. ˙ ˙ ˙ w ------˙. œ ˙ œ œ w ctus,˙ [San ---

105 9

D & b W Ó w w W Ó ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ctus, [san˙ ------˙. œ ctus, san

Ct ˙b ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ w ˙. œ œ ˙ V b ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ w ˙ ˙ . œ ˙ œ ------

T W. Wb w w ˙ V b w w w Ó ˙ ˙ San ---- ctus San -

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ b ˙. œ ˙ w w w W Ó ˙ ------˙ w ctus,] San ----

13

D & b w Ó w ˙ w Ó ˙. œ ˙ œ œ w œ ctus] San ------œ w b Ct ˙ w ˙. œ œb ˙ V b ˙ w Ó œ ˙ w ctus San ------w. ˙

T V b W. w W W. ------

B ? b w Ó w ˙ w Ó w w ctus, San ------ctus, [San ˙ ctus,W San

16 # D ˙ ˙ & b W Ó w ˙ w Ó w œ œ ˙ w ˙ ------˙ ˙ ctus San ------˙ ˙

Ct ˙ ˙ w w ˙ ˙ V b w. ˙ ˙. œ ˙ w ˙ ˙ Ó ˙ ------˙ w

T V b w W W ˙ ˙ w ------. W w ˙ ˙

B ? ˙ ˙ b ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ -- ctus, San - ctus,] San ------˙.

106 20 D w. & b w Ó ˙. œ œ œ œ œ w w ∑ ∑ ctus Do ------mi nus DeW. ---

Ct ˙ wb ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ V b ˙ ˙ w Ó w ˙ w. œ œ w ------ctus Do ----mi nus De - us

T V b W. w w W W. ctus DoW ------mi nus De ---

B ? œb œ ˙ ˙ w b ˙. œ œ œ œ w Ó ˙ . œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ctus˙ Do ------mi˙ œ nus Do --mi nus Dew. ---

24 # D ˙ œ & b W. ˙ ˙. œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ w ˙ W. C us Sa ------œ œ ba oth.

Ct ˙. œ œ w. V b w Ó œ W w ˙ ˙ ˙ W. C Sa ------ba oth.

T V b w W W. w ˙ ˙ w W. C ----- us Sa---- ba oth

B ? b ˙ ˙ W w ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ C ------us Sa ba othW.

28

D & b C ∑ ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó ˙ œ w Ó ˙ Plew ----- ni˙ ple˙ ---. ni sunt

Ct œ ˙ œ ˙ V b C w ˙. ˙ Ó ˙ ˙. ˙. œ w Ple ------˙ ni

T V b C „ „ „ „

B ? b C „ „ „ „

107 32 D ˙ & b ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ coe ------œ œ œ œ w Ct œ œ ˙. œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ w V b Ó w ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ sunt coe --- li

T V b „ „ „ „

B ? ˙. œ w b „ „ ∑ Ó ˙ Ple --- ni

36 D w w & b Ó ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙. œ wli sunt˙ coe ----- li ple ------

Ct # V b ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ w ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ sunt coe --- li ple ------

T V b „ „ „ „

B ? b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ w ∑ w w sunt coe ---- li plew - ni

40 D ˙ w & b œ œ œ œ œ ˙ w ˙ œ œ œ œ ni sunt coe -----œ ˙ wli coe ------œ œ

Ct œ œ ˙ œ œ œ W V b ˙ œ œ œ w w w ------ni sunt coe ----

T V b ∑ w w W W Plew - ni

B ? b W w ∑ ∑ w w w sunt coe -

108 44 D W & b Ó . œ ˙ ˙ œ œ li sunt˙ coe˙ ----˙ ˙ li et œ œ terw -

Ct w V b w w Ó ˙ w w w w -- li ple - ni sunt coe -- li

T V b ∑ w w w w w w sunt coe ------wli et

B ? b w w W w ∑ ∑ -- li

48

D & b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ----W raw et ter -----˙ w raw

Ct V b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w „ w ˙. œ et ter - ra ple ----

T # V b w w ˙ w ∑ W terw ------˙ ra ple ----

B ? ˙ b W w w w ˙ w ter ------˙ ra ple˙ -

52 D ˙ & b Ó ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙ Ple ---- ni sunt coe- ˙ li œ œ et. ter -

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. V b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ------ni sunt coe li coe -----

T V b w w W w w W ni sunt coe - li # B œ w w ˙ ˙ ? b œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ------ni sunt coe -

109 56

D & b ˙ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙. w œ œ ------˙ ˙ w ˙ œ œ œ ra˙ glo --- Ct ˙ V b ˙ ˙. œ œ œ œ œ w w Ó ˙ ˙. œ ˙. œ li coe ------li et ter ----

T V b W ∑ w w w W et ter ---- ra

B ? ˙ b b ˙b ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ w ˙. œ w wb w ------li et ter ----

60

D & b ˙ œ ˙ ˙ w ------. Wri wa tuw ------˙ ˙

Ct ˙. œ w w V b ˙. œ . ˙ w ˙ ˙. œ œ œ ------ra glo ----

T V b ∑ w w w w w w w glo ------ri a

B ? b W W w w w w ------glo ------ri

64

D & b w w W w w œ ------˙a O˙. ---œ œ

Ct ˙ V b w ˙ W W ˙ ˙. œ œ œ ------ri a glo --ri

T # V b W W w w w tu ------a Ow ---

B ? b w w w. ˙ ˙ ˙ w -- a tu ------Wa

110 68

D & b œ œ œ w ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ ˙. œ ------œ sa - na˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ct w W w V b w ∑ W a tu - a O ----sa

T # V b œ œ ˙ œ œ w ˙ W „ sa˙. ------œ na

B ? b „ W w w W ex ------

72

D & b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ W W in ex-- cel sis

Ct V b ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ w œ ˙ ------na in˙. œ œ

T V b W w w w ˙ ˙ in ex ------cel

B ? b w w Ó w ------w sisw ex˙ -

75 # D w & b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙ œ œ w ˙ W C in ex ------cel . sis.

Ct w V b œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ W C ex˙. ------œ cel sis.

T V b ˙ ˙ w w ˙ ˙ w W C ------w sis.

B ? b w. ˙ ˙. œ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ C ------cel sis.W

111 79

D # & b C ∑ ˙ œ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ œ œ w ˙ w ˙ Bew ------ne. dic tus, be˙ - ne

Ct ˙ ˙ w w ˙ œ w V b C w ˙. œ Ó œ ˙ w œ œ œ œ Be -----ne dic tus, be -----ne dic tus,

T V b C „ „ „ „ w ˙. œ Be ---

B ? b C ∑ ˙. œ w Ó w ˙. œ w ∑ Bew ---ne dic tus, be----- ne˙ dic tus,w

84

D & b œ œ w œ œ w Ó w dic --- tus,w be˙ ------ne dicW

Ct V b Ó ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ w be˙ ------ne dic tus, be ne -

T V b ˙ ˙ w w ∑ ∑ w W ----ne dic tus qui ve ----

B ? b ∑ w w w ˙ ˙ w Ó be ------ne dic tusw qui˙

88

D & b Ó . œ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ tusw qui˙ ve˙ ----˙ ˙ nit, qui ven ----

Ct ˙ V b ˙ Ó . œ w ˙ ˙. œ dic˙ - tusw w qui˙ ven˙ ---- nit qui ven -

T V b W W W ∑ w ---- nit in

B ? b ˙ ˙ œ W W ve ------˙ . nitW

112 92 D w & b Ó . œ ˙ ˙ Ó ˙ œ œ œ œ œ nit in˙ no˙ ----mi new Do˙ -----œ œ Ct ˙ ˙. V b ˙ ˙ w „ ∑ Ó ˙ œ ˙ -- it in no---- mi

T V b W W w w w ˙ no ------mi ne Do ----˙

B ? ˙ w b Ó œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙. œ w in˙ no˙. -- mi ne, in no-- mi ne Do - mi -

96 # D w & b ˙ w ˙ w w w w. ˙ w Ó ˙ ----mi ni, in no -----mi ne, in

Ct V b w Ó ˙ œ œ ˙ w w w w ∑ w ˙ ˙ ne Do ------mi ni, in no-- mi

T V b w w w w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ mi ------˙ w ˙ ˙ ni,w

B ? b ∑ w ˙ ˙ w W W ni,w Dow -----mi ni,

101

D & b ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ no-- mi ne, in no-- mi ne˙ Do˙. -- miœ ni, Do -

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ w V b w Ó „ ∑ Ó ˙ ne, in no-- mi ne, in

T V b Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ in no-- mi ne, in no-- mi ne Do ----mi˙ ˙. œ

B ? b W W Ó œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ in˙. no-- mi ne,

113 105 D w ˙ & b ˙ œ w W Ó ˙. œ mi. - ni, in no -----œ œ mi˙

Ct ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ V b w Ó w ˙ w Ó ˙ no------mi ne, in no mi ne Do mi ni, in n T W V b W ∑ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ni, in no---- mi ne

B ? ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙. b œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ ˙ W in no ----mi ne Do mi ni,

109 # # D ˙. & b ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ w œ œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ W c ne, Doœ œ ------mi ni.

Ct ˙ W w ˙ V b ˙ ˙ w. ˙ Ó W c no-- mi ne˙ Do ----mi ni, Do-- mi ni.

T V b w w W ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ w W c Do -----mi ------ni.

B ? b ∑ ∑ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ c in˙ no˙ mi˙ -- ne Do˙ -- mi ni.W

114

D & b c „ „ w w OW ------sa

Ct V b c w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ w Ó ˙ O------san na, [O -

T V b c W W w w OW ------sa na

B ? ˙ b c w ˙ ˙ œ œ w Ó ˙ ˙ O------sa˙ naW in ex-- cel

114 118 D W & b w ∑ „ „ na in

Ct ˙ V b ˙ w ˙ w. œ œ w ˙ w Ó ˙ ------sa na, O -

T V b Ó w ˙ w w ˙ w ˙. ˙ ˙ in ex ------cel ˙ œ

B ? œ œ w b ˙ w w ˙b ˙ w ˙. œ ˙ ---- sis, [ex ------cel ˙

122

D & b w w W w w w ˙. œ ex ------cel

Ct wb V b ˙ ˙ w w ˙. œ w W sa ------na]

T ˙ V b ˙ ˙ w . œ w Ó w ˙ œ œ ˙. œ ------˙ sis, [ex------cel

B ? b w W w œ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ------sis,w ex cel ˙.

126

D # & b ˙ Ó ˙ œ ˙ w ˙ W --˙sis, w in˙ ex. ------cel sis.

Ct . œ ˙ V b Ó ˙ w w W W in ex - cel- sis.

T V b ˙ w ˙ w ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ w W ------sis.]

B w w ? b ˙ ˙ w ˙ w ------˙ sis.]W

115 Missa Dominicale: Agnus Dei

Wilhelm Breitengraser

Discantus b C w ˙ Ó ˙ & Aw ------w ˙ gnusW [De˙ ---œ œ

Contratenor wb V b C „ „ w ˙ w ˙ A ------

Tenor V b C „ „ „ „

Bassus ˙ ? b C „ „ ∑ Ó ˙ ˙ ˙b ˙ A -----

5

D & b ˙. Ó -----˙ œ ˙ Wi] ˙a ------˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙

Ct V b ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ------gnus,w [a

T b W V AW ˙ w ˙ W

B ? b W w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ ------gnus [A˙ ˙ ˙

116 9

D & b ∑ w ˙. œ œ œ ˙ ----˙ ˙ w gnus]W De ------b 3 b 3 Ct w w ˙ . V b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ w ˙ ˙ œ ------gnus De ------

T b W w w V gnusW DeW ------3 3 B ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ b ? b ˙ w Ó ˙b . œ ˙. œ ˙ ˙. œ ----˙ gnus]w De ------

13

D b œ œ œ œ œ W Ó w ˙ & ------œ œ œ i qui

Ct . œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ V b ˙ ˙ w ˙. œ ˙ œ --- i qui tol ----

T b w w W Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ V ------i Qui

B ? ˙ ˙ b ˙ w Ó œ œ œ ˙. œ ---˙ i qui˙. tol -----

16

D b ˙ ˙. œ œ w . œ ˙ w ˙ & tol -----œ lis˙ qui˙ tol˙ ------˙ ˙

Ct ˙ ˙ w ˙ œ œ ˙ w V b w Ó ˙ w ˙ lis, qui tol -- lis, qui tol ------lis,

T b W W w V tol ------W w

B ? w ˙ w b Ó w w Ó ˙ w lis, qui tol - lis, qui tol - lis,w

117 20 D . & b ˙ œ W w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ œ ˙ ----œ œ œ œ œ lis, qui tol ---

Ct ˙ ˙ œ œ V b Ó ˙ w w ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ qui tol ------[lis, qui tol] -----

T b W W V ------W W

B ? b Ó ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ qui tol - lis,˙ qui tol ------œ lis,w

24

D b w Ó ˙ ˙ . & lis qui˙ tol˙ ------˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ œ w

Ct V b w Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙. œ lis, qui tol ------

T b ˙ ˙ w V ------w. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ lisW

B ? b Ó w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó ˙ qui tol ------lis,w qui

28

D & b Ó Ó ˙ ˙ w lisw qui˙ tol˙ ------˙ w lisw pec ca˙ ta, Ct w V b w w ˙ œ w w ------lis, qui tol˙. œ œ ˙ ˙.

T „ V b W ˙ w pecw-----ca w ˙ ta

B ? œ ˙ b ˙ w ˙ ˙ w œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ w tol ------˙ lis pec ----ca

118 32

D b Ó ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w w Ó ˙ & pec--- ca˙ ta mun di, pec --ca ta mun - di, pec -

Ct ˙b V b ˙ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ w w W lis pec------ca ta mun --- di

T b ∑ „ ∑ w V munW diw mi -

B ˙ w ˙ w w ˙ ? b ˙b ˙ w ˙ Ó ta˙ pec-- ca ta mun ------di mi -

36 D b ˙ ˙ w w ∑ w ˙. œ w & ca----- ta mun diw mi ---se re

Ct V b „ Ó ˙. œ ˙ œ œ ˙. œ ˙ Ó mi------se re re,w mi˙

T b ˙ w ˙ W W V ----se re re W

B ? ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ b ˙ ˙ w ˙ ˙ œ ˙. œ ------se re re, miw -----se˙.

40

D b ˙ œ œ w w Ó ˙ w w ˙ & ----- re mi --se re - re no˙ ---˙ ˙

Ct ˙ ˙. V b œ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ w ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ se˙. ------re [no bis], mi ------seœ re

T V b W ˙ ˙ W now. ------˙ ˙ ˙

B ? w ˙ œ b ˙. œ ˙. œ w Ó œ ˙b ˙ ˙ re re no ---- bis,w mi -----se re

119 44

D # & b w W ------˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ bis.

Ct V b ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ w W re no bis.

T b ˙ V ------˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w bis.W

B ? b ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w re no ------˙ bis.W

120