Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Three Extant Masses of Claudio Monteverdi VAUGHN ROSTE

The Three Extant Masses of Claudio Monteverdi VAUGHN ROSTE

The Three Extant Masses of VAUGHN ROSTE

CClaudiolaudio MMonteverdionteverdi ((15671567 – 11643)643) iiss nnotedoted mmoreore fforor hhisis madrigalmadrigal compositionscompositions andand forfor hishis sseminaleminal ccontributionsontributions iinn tthehe operaticoperatic fi eldeld thanthan fforor hhisis ssacredacred mmusic.usic. HHowever,owever, aass tthehe ppersonerson wwhoho waswas employedemployed atat St.St. Mark’sMark’s CathedralCathedral iinn VVenice—arguablyenice—arguably tthehe bbestest mmusicalusical ppostost iinn tthehe wworldorld aatt tthehe ttime—forime—for tthehe llastast 3300 yyearsears ooff hhisis llife,ife, ssurelyurely hhisis ssacredacred mmusicusic sshouldhould nnotot bbee ooverlooked.verlooked. AAlthoughlthough hhisis VVespersespers ooff 11610610 ((VesperoVespero delladella BeataBeata Virgine)Virgine) isis generallygenerally wwellell known,known, hhisis mmotets—almostotets—almost 110000 iinn aall—ll— aarere infrequentlyinfrequently performed.performed. PerhapsPerhaps thethe bbest-knownest-known motetmotet wwouldould bebe BBeatuseatus VirVir (SV(SV 2268)68)1; hhisis ootherther mmostost rrecognizableecognizable ttitles,itles, ssuchuch aass NNisiisi ,Dominus, DDuouo seraphim,seraphim, oorr LLaudaauda JJerusalem,erusalem, aarere excerptedexcerpted ffromrom tthehe VVespersespers ooff 11610.610. ButBut manymany areare unawareunaware thatthat MonteverdiMonteverdi mmadeade anyany contributionscontributions atat allall toto tthehe ccentralentral ggenreenre ooff ssacredacred mmusic:usic: tthehe mmass.ass. IInn aann aattemptttempt ttoo rremedyemedy tthishis ssituation,ituation, tthishis aarticlerticle aaddressesddresses eeachach ooff MMonteverdi’sonteverdi’s eextantxtant mmassesasses iinn tturnurn.

VVaughnaughn RRosteoste iiss ddirectorirector ooff cchoralhoral aactivitiesctivities aatt NNortheasternortheastern SStatetate UUniversityniversity iinn TTahlequah,ahlequah, OOklahomaklahoma ..

30 CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 1

Claudio Monteverdi (1567–1643) is noted more for his compositions and for his seminal contri- butions in the operatic fi eld than for his sacred . However, as the person who was employed at St. Mark’s Cathedral in —arguably the best musical post in the world at the time—for the last thirty years of his life, surely his sacred music should not be overlooked. Al- though his of 1610 [Vespero della Beata Virgine] is generally well known, his —almost 100 in all—are infrequently performed. Perhaps the best known would be Beatus Vir (SV 268)1; his other most recognizable , such as Nisi Dominus, Duo seraphim, or Lauda Jeru- salem, are excerpted from the Vespers of 1610. But many are unaware that Monteverdi made any contributions at all to the central genre of sacred music: the Mass. In an attempt to remedy this situation, this article addresses each of Monteverdi’s extant Masses in turn.

CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 1 31 The Three Extant Masses of

Only three of Monteverdi’s masses Monteverdi masses have been lost. Cathedral when isorhythm was almost a survive, a number that stands in sharp The three extant masses by Monteverdi, generation out of ). As with Gombert’s contrast to the 104 masses produced by however, are identifi ed in Table One. Fine motet which was its inspiration and source, his predecessor Palestrina (1525–94), who editions of all of these masses are in print Monteverdi’s mass was also written for six lived for seven fewer years than Monteverdi. by Carus-Verlag (see bibliography for more voices. Unlike what we might expect coming However, there is evidence to suggest that information). from the pen of one of the era’s greatest an unidentifi ed number of Monteverdi’s This article takes into account the cir- madrigalists, however, the mass is largely masses have been lost, as evidenced in the cumstances surrounding the composition of bereft of any word-painting: only the usual ’s correspondence (127 original each mass and in the chronological order of suspects appear, such as a descending line letters by Monteverdi are still in existence). their publication. For expediency, the word for descendit de coelis and an ascending line , in his Sacred, Secular, and Oc- “extant” will not appear as an adjective in for et ascendit in coelum in the “Credo.” The casional Music, summarizes the epistolary every statement, but must be understood only musical nod to the more modern musi- evidence as follows: as a necessary caveat for all the claims about cal style is in the part included Monteverdi’s masses which follow. in the score, which rarely deviates from the In 1616 he mentions a mass for lowest vocal part. “If the author of this mass Christmas Eve, in 1618 a concerted were unknown, one would be tempted to mass for the Feast of the Most MMissaissa IInn IIllollo TTemporeempore ((1610)1610) attribute it to some composer of the Roman Precious Blood, and another for school, contemporary with Palestrina. The Ascension Day. [L]etters of 1621 and On July 16, 1610, the Mantuan singer, basso seguente is the only sign that the work 1627 mention a ‘messe solemne’ and Bassano Casola, wrote a letter to Cardinal is posterior to 1607, for it was in that year a mass for Christmas Eve, it being the Federico Gonzaga describing Monteverdi’s that used it, apparently for custom for the director of music [at fi rst mass as: the fi rst time...”6 St. Mark’s] to write a new one every Monteverdi’s Missa In Illo Tempore was year at this season. Unfortunately, showing great effort and learning, published in the same volume as his Vespers no trace of any such work survives since he is obliged to manipulate in 1610. By this time Monteverdi was 43 from the period 1616 to 1627, and constantly in every note throughout years old and had already published fi ve of the two masses published later all parts, always reinforcing [the his nine books of . He likely had cannot be confi dently assigned to presence of] the eight motives taken 2 several motives for its composition, beyond any particular year. from the motet In illo tempore by the challenge and self-development. Artusi’s Gombert.4 In addition to the above revelation, Tim accusations of 1600 may have still been ring- ing in his ears: in particular, Monteverdi’s use Carter mentions a 1625 mass written in Of import, Monteverdi’s fi rst mass was a of unprepared dissonance in his madrigal honor of the visit of Polish Crown Prince parody mass, and is among the last to ever 3 Cruda Amarilli, an A in the soprano part Władisław Sigismund to Venice, but does be composed. It has also been called “the against a G in the , was singled out as so not speculate which mass this might be; it very fi rst work consciously kept archaic and harsh that it offends the ear. By intentionally may overlap with the list above. Left with deliberately written in a musical style already composing in an archaic style, Monteverdi such incomplete information, scholars are obsolete”5 (which seems to ignore other may have wanted to demonstrate that the unable to ascertain how many masses possible contenders for that such as Prima Prattica was still a valid compositional Monteverdi originally composed, but we Nuper Rosarum Flores, composed by Dufay method—not outdated, but still in use. must assume that no less than fi ve additional in 1436 for the dedication of the

Table 1 The Three Extant Masses of Claudio Monteverdi

SV Title Key (Mode) Orchestration Date of publication 205 Missa da capella C Major (Ionian) 6 voices + basso continuo 1610 (aka “Missa In Illo Tempore”)

257 Missa da capella F Major 4 voices + basso continuo 1641 190 Missa da capella g minor 4 voices + basso continuo 1650

32 CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 1 Claudio Monteverdi

There were probably two [motives Ostensibly, the trip’s purpose was to secure to ascertain to what extent this style repre- for writing the mass In Illo Tempore]. a place at the Seminario Romano for his sents Monteverdi’s personal preference or is One was to include in his volume son Francesco, but his travelling to Rome an homage to Gombert (c. 1495 – c. 1560) then in preparation, which was raised suspicions that his ulterior motivation by intentionally emulating his compositional to be dedicated to Paul V, was to seek another post even at the time. mannerisms. In other words, can the use of a work that would show that he Moreover, his secrecy in making the trip Gombert’s motet as the source of Monte- could make a good maestro di only fuelled doubts concerning his loyalty verdi’s mass be interpreted as a compliment cappella for a Roman church, where to his patrons the Gonzagas. Monteverdi to Gombert, nominating him as the prime such tastes were still cultivated. surely made sincere subsequent attempts example of Prima Prattica? That view would Another was to show that he was to placate his employers, but the damage be a surprising assertion, because Gombert no simple revolutionary, but really may already have been done. Monteverdi’s never enjoyed as fi ne a posthumous reputa- believed in his theory that there tion as did Palestrina, Victoria, or Morales. It were two ‘practices’: one in which employ in did not last much longer: ‘the music [is] not commanded but after Duke Vincenzo’s death on February 18, more likely was merely a matter of conve- commanding, not the servant but 1612, his successor Francesco reduced the nience. “Gombert’s motet In illo tempore had the mistress of the words;’ the other size of the ducal court, and Monteverdi was two important advantages for Monteverdi: it where the expression of the words dismissed on July 29. In the end, however, this contained motives with a strong harmonic was paramount.7 dismissal opened the door for him to audi- basis, and it was fully Ionian, with no trace tion for the position at St. Mark’s Cathedral of the older Church modes. The work was One should also not neglect the impact of in Venice, where he would spend the rest therefore quite suitable for Monteverdi’s the death of his wife in 1607, which left him of his life. the sole guardian of three children: Fran- History records that Monteverdi pro- cesco, Camilla, and Massimiliano, aged 6, 4, vided a mass for his audition for the post of and 3 respectively. “The inner prompting maestro di cappella at St. Mark’s in Venice, but is undoubtedly to be sought in the spiri- there is no way of knowing for certain that it Request Your tual emotions attendant upon the deaths of was the Missa In Illo Tempore that specifi cally those dear to him; emotions that rendered served this purpose. This is the only mass of FREE the master, always inclined to melancholy, Monteverdi’s known to have been complete particularly susceptible to religious experi- at this time, but it is not written in a style CHORAL ences.”8 destined to impress cosmopolitan Venetians. RESOURCE Nevertheless, his career aspirations were Scholars have suggested it was the Vespers perhaps the single biggest reason for the of 1610, rather than a mass, that Monteverdi PACKET & composition of this mass. By the time of the used as his audition piece. If subsequent per- RESOURCE CD! publication of Monteverdi’s fi rst mass, he had formance history is allowed an opinion, the been living in Mantua for twenty years. Dur- popularity of Monteverdi’s Vespers, which is ing this time, he had been passed over for a much more frequently performed and better promotion: on the death of known than the Missa In Illo Tempore, would (1536–96), the post of maestro della musica surely lend credence to that claim. A parody in Duke Gonzaga’s court went to Benedetto mass written in the old style would be a logi- Pallavicino (1551–1601). Monteverdi did cal audition piece for a Roman audience— not ascend to that until Pallavicino’s death. even if it was, nonetheless, a bold attempt to But, during this period, he had witnessed try to impress audiences who were already the growth of his international reputation accustomed to Palestrina’s music—but less (e.g., six of his madrigals were published in likely to win him admiration in the most anthologies in 1605 and 1606) serene . and his operatic career—the fi rst composer Lewis Lockwood writes, “in choosing who can be said to have truly had one. Ari- a motet by Gombert as his model, Mon- anna was staged in Mantua in 1608—and teverdi selected the one composer of the All Things Musical Orfeo had been composed the previous year. fi rst half of the sixteenth century in which The Nation’s #1 Music Thus, after 20 years in Mantua, it would not the compositional style was prominently Education Resource be surprising if Monteverdi had been looking known for its density of textures, interplay of in Print, Digital & Online 9 further afi eld. motives in all voices, and absence of rests.” Toll Free 1-888-803-6287 Monteverdi traveled to Rome to per- Monteverdi’s mass remains true to its source [email protected] sonally present the freshly-published mass in all these respects. In the absence of any AllThingsMusical.com to its dedicatee (r. 1605–21). previous Monteverdi masses, it is impossible

CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 1 33 The Three Extant Masses of

own tonal inclinations.”10 though it were really and truly an least some noticeable difference in presenta- Stevens avers Monteverdi may have cho- ‘Art of .’ And, although the tion between crucifi xus and et resurrexit as sen a parody mass and a Gombert model as ‘Gombert’ mass is written for six- was quite common at the time but which its basis for his fi rst foray into in this genre part , as is Palestrina’s Assumpta Monteverdi studiously avoids. due to his close association in Mantua with est Maria, almost as to challenge called the mass “curiously emasculated.”19 Giaches de Wert, “a master of northern po- comparison with the great Roman Other scholars say that the mass shows lyphony and a skilled hand where the parody composer, there is none of the great effort, but it is still labored at points mass was concerned.”11 This circumstance sheer glorying in choral sonorities and the does not fl ow as likely may have also infl uenced his selection that we fi nd there. Apart from a freely as it would in later masses; apparently traditional reduction of forces for of a motet by Gombert. Monteverdi’s full potential as a composer in the Crucifi xus, Monteverdi uses the There are also reasons why a mass based the style of the Prima Prattica had yet to be full choir nearly all the time, allowing upon Gombert’s motet would be published realized. The general consensus seems to himself little or no contrast in sound agree with Casola, vindicated after all these alongside a collection of pieces for the Feast or texture. Certainly he obeys many years: that the Missa In Illo Tempore “was a of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “The three words Palestrinian rules. Dissonance is now in illo tempore point unequivocally to the fact work of great learning for Monteverdi to an orderly affair of preparation and 20 that we are dealing with a liturgical Gospel suspension and there are none of write, and it sounds like it.” text, and the continuation ‘loquente Jesus ad those maverick discords found in turbas’ indicates the feasts for which both the Vespers music. The is motet and mass were intended: the Vigil of deprived of any ornament and is MMissaissa ddaa ccapellaapella a 4 vvocioci the Assumption [and] the Nativity of the extremely smooth, with neither iinn F MMajorajor ((1641)1641) Blessed Virgin Mary.”12 The Missa In Illo the expressive leaps so common in Tempore can be considered a Marian Mass, his nor the irregular As the maestro di cappella at St. Mark’s, thus it makes perfect sense to include it in which make Lauda Jerusalem Monteverdi had approximately 25 singers at the same publication as his Vespers for the so exciting.15 his disposal, with an equivalent number of 21 Blessed Virgin Mary. instrumentalists available for festival days. Casola’s reference (quoted above) to Monteverdi’s ten fuge are supplied in Fig- Yet, none of Monteverdi’s masses illustrate the “eight motives” [otto fughe] Monteverdi ure 1 on the following page. As Joan Conlon the grand Venetian innovation of cori spezzati derived from Gombert’s motet is an error, points out, “the fughe share other similarities as one might well expect from St. Mark’s, since there are ten of them clearly identifi ed with one another: fuga fi ve is easily found at probably because “by the time Monteverdi on the front page of the original part books. the end of fuga one, and fuga two can be arrived in Venice, the ways of cori spezzati 22 Lockwood points out, however, that the found buried in the middle of fuga three.”17 were becoming distinctly old fashioned.” quoted fughe conform more closely to Mon- Her latter observation continues to mystify This circumstance may not, however, be so teverdi’s mass than Gombert’s motet.13 Ad- me (unless she is talking about the opening much a sign of Monteverdi’s conservatism ditionally, their order of presentation in the turn, which is found in fuga three transposed as a conclusion drawn from masses of his list differs from their order of appearance in down a fourth, but perhaps she was looking which happen to have survived. Masses the mass; two contemporary prints each list at the set of fughe from the other surviving would not always be grandiose affairs; many slightly different fughe. These facts, coupled source instead of this set, which comes from smaller masses would be required for regular with Casola’s reference to eight fughe, begs her book), she correctly observes that the production as well. The two masses written the question to what extent the listing of the fughe are all very similar. Although they cover by Monteverdi in Venice probably stemmed fughe really originated with Monteverdi, or if all the diatonic notes of C major, they all end from the observance of daily mass at St. they did, which version of the list should be on either tonic or dominant, and all but fuga Mark’s, a practice which had fallen slack viewed as more authentic? Regardless, the seven start there as well. The fi rst two notes but which Monteverdi re-instigated upon 23 point is made that ten (not eight) fughe form of fuga seven are the last two notes of both his arrival. He bought masses by Roman the basis of Monteverdi’s mass, since one or fuga one and fi ve, making it easy to transi- (including Palestrina) that had more of them can be found almost ubiqui- tion from one to another. The ninth fuga also been printed by the local Venetian presses tously within the composition. “The imitative bears much similarity to the fi rst; in fact, in and added to the repertory himself; beyond gives way to only in this case 9 + 5 almost = 1. even the two masses by him which survive Et incarnatus and Benedictus.”14 The scholarly assessment of Monteverdi’s from this period, a point confi rmed by the fi rst mass has not been overwhelmingly posi- following correspondence. Scarcely a bar goes by without direct tive. Some point to it as a “perfect example use of the themes, deployed with all of the prima prattica style,”18 but other critics It is clear that he was now fl uent in the contrapuntal devises—inversions, point to Monteverdi’s lack of word-painting the old style, and these two Masses augmentation, —as as a defect, claiming that there could be at fl ow more naturally than had the

34 CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 1 Claudio Monteverdi

plicity (a reduction in the number of voices from Monteverdi’s fi rst mass), but also its style of composition, as the term da cappella is indicative of a stylistic contrast with the other possibility, .28 Yet, this mass includes a peculiar aspect singular to Monteverdi’s sacred music: alternative movements that may be substituted as desirable. Three curious rubrics in the original print mention alternative concertato versions of three parts of the Credo: the Crucifi xus, the Et Resurrexit and the Et iterum. These concertato versions can be found in the same publication separated from the rest of the mass by a Gloria a 7 voci. Yet, substituting these alternative movements into their respective places in the F-Major Mass results in three problems. The fi rst is they do not have the same ‘Gombert’ paraphrase. Since these a credit to Monteverdi that he never aban- instrumentation as the movements they were for ordinary days, they were doned the old ways. were written to potentially replace, leaving written for a four-voiced choir some to suggest they were additions written accompanied by organ and did not [I]t would be diffi cult to assign it for a later occasion. Specifi cally, the Et Resur- demand the strenuous efforts of the to its composer without other rexit requires two that echo two solo earlier work. There are indeed ample evidence, its un-Palestrinian vocal lines with their own soloistic part, and rests, as Monteverdi reverted to the sequences and harmonic drive the Et Iterum is written as a trio for two earlier Netherlandish practice of are enough to show that it is the soloists and a bass who otherwise make no contrasting the upper and lower two work of someone still possessed appearance in the four-voice mass. sections of the choir. Nor are these of tremendous energy; and there The second problem is the abrupt pieces consciously learned. There is is something touching about a man stylistic change that performing these con- no parading of themes at the head who, accused of insidious revolution certed movements within a mass 24 of the Kyrie.... and wildness, shows a belief in, if not presents: the fl orid and melismatic writing in eternal principles, at least historical 27 the Et Iterum and the chromatic descending Nonetheless, the other two Monteverdi perspective, order and stability. lines in the Crucifi xus are completely out of masses are also written in Prima Prattica style, character with the rest of the Mass in F. and bear many similarities to his fi rst mass: Although the date of publication of the Finally, the inclusion of these movements “The mass is in the stile antico and is based Mass in F is not hard to determine (it was entails a more ambitious tonal adventure (F almost entirely on the use of imitative coun- published in the Selve Morale e Spirituale col- major, - D major with picardie third, terpoint; only a few passages in the Credo lection in 1641), its date of composition has G major, C major, F major) which, while logi- approach chordal style. The counterpoint proven more diffi cult to establish. Its perfor- cally continuous, is more convoluted than the is in the eloquent style of Lasso, and as the mance has historically been linked with the straightforward tonal path taken by the keys continuo does no more than support the celebration of the cessation of the plague, of the movements they would replace: in the lowest voice and can therefore be omitted in which had killed some 50,000 Venetians in original Mass in F, every movement begins 25 performance. . . .” Scholars use this mass to 1631, and so its premiere is thought to have and ends in the key of F. The replacement illustrate the development of Monteverdi’s occurred on November 21 of that year, for movements are thus out of place instrumen- skill in the archaic style of composition, the Feast of the Presentation of the Virgin tally, stylistically, and tonally with the rest of calling the Mass in F “one of Monteverdi’s thanksgiving celebration. A lack of clear the mass. most tightly-knit sacred compositions, with documentary evidence, however, means that Based upon some contemporary de- motives introduced during the Kyrie provid- this is merely an educated guess. scriptions of the premiere, it has been sug- ing the thematic substance for the entire The title of this mass, Missa da capella a 4 gested29 that these three movements are remainder of the mass.”26 Some consider it voci, economically indicates not only its sim-

CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 1 35 The Three Extant Masses of

only part of a completely concerted of no scholars willing to place Credo, but no evidence has ever been it more specifi cally than in the found to suggest that Monteverdi com- last decade of Monteverdi’s pleted an entire Credo in concertato style, life. However, it is generally so we must assume they are what Mon- assumed that Monteverdi teverdi’s score claims they are: move- composed his three masses in ments composed as possible substitutes. the same order in which they Hans Ferdinand Redlich once were published, since there is posited that Monteverdi was second- no evidence to date that con- guessing his own policy of Prima Prattica tradicts this assumption. by including alternate movements that In his analysis of this mass, provide much contrast to the otherwise Brindle points out that Mon- somewhat monochromatic set.30 Oth- teverdi bases the entire mass ers suggest that the replacement move- around a single subject that ments were occasional pieces composed can be divided in half or into later with specifi c individuals in mind, and There is a distinct sense of modern three equal parts (Figure 3). may even represent portions of an incom- : this music does not sound In a two-part division, the second half plete concerted mass. It is most interesting particularly ‘antique’ because the old is the mirror of the fi rst; each fi ts neatly to consider the replacement movements as modal system has gone. The rhythms into the same tetrachord. When divided an evolution in Monteverdi’s thought. If they are also more modern because they into three parts, Brindle identifi es where in do not represent part of an incomplete mass are more regular, and there are each movement either the descending scale themselves, apparently Monteverdi thought occasional extended melismas which pattern (the fi rst and fi nal thirds) or the that the Prima and Secunda Prattica could look as though they could have been ascending thirds pattern (the middle third) co-exist, not only simultaneously in history, written by Palestrina but in practice can be found. Even in the brief homophonic but also musically, as adjacent movements seem almost like—admittedly rather sections the overall pattern of a descending within the same composition. conservative—ornaments. And, if tetrachord can be identifi ed in each part. Without the alternative movements, a the F major Mass (printed in the Witness the soprano’s descent from Bb to performance of this mass is straight forward. Selva Morale) is rather dry in its F#, the alto’s and bass’s descent from G to refusal to exploit choral sonorities, Denis Stevens calls it “sober and unevent- D, and the tenor’s from D to A in Figure 4. the G minor has some moments of ful.”31 He was also the fi rst to point out the Nor is it only in the homorhythmic sec- distinctive brilliance.33 connection between the short theme that tions in which this theme appears, but as one pervades every movement of this mass might expect, it is used extensively in the The mass was not published until 1650, and another of Monteverdi’s own madrigals contrapuntal sections as well. The mass uses which is to say posthumously. The collection (Figure 2). The possibility exists, then, that so many sequences based upon descending Messe et Salmi was not printed in Venice Monteverdi’s second mass was also a parody patterns of scales and thirds that the subsec- until seven years after Monteverdi’s death, mass, but this time the parody model was tions of the theme outlined above become which is a testament to his enduring legacy one of Monteverdi’s own works. its major unifying feature. Brindle recognizes that his music was apparently considered to that “in building a relatively long work on still be in demand after his passing. Yet, this a very small amount of material, there is fact makes it even more diffi cult to deter- MMissaissa dada capellacapella a 4 vvocioci a danger of monotony, particularly when mine a date of composition for this mass iinn G MinorMinor (1650)(1650) as well as themes are derived than it is for the others. This author knows Monteverdi’s fi nal mass, in G minor, is considered by many to be his fi nest. The G Minor Mass includes much more melismatic writing, and switches freely and easily be- tween contrapuntal and homorhythmic sec- tions, which represents Monteverdi’s writing at the height of his career. No longer is he writing in ordinary keys such as C major and F major: G minor provides more color, and, perhaps, more inspiration. In his monograph “Monteverdi ,” Denis Arnold writes:

36 CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 1 Claudio Monteverdi

from the same motive. But the G Minor Mass dramas, but also he surpasses all the pur- must be accorded the same central position seems no less rich than Monteverdi’s two ists of the epoch. He uses a style of archaic in his lifework as must, for instance, Anton 38 other extant masses.”36 Over the course of austerity.” As such, they surely deserve to Bruckner’s three masses in his. They bear his career, Monteverdi seems to have found a be performed more frequently than they witness for Monteverdi as the guardian of way to constantly imbue a work with a sense currently are. powerful traditions.”39 of direction, purpose, and freshness, even in Monteverdi’s motivations in composing Monteverdi’s masses also provide a singu- a work such as this which utilizes a minimum these masses are diffi cult to ascertain, but he lar lens through which to view his evolution of musical resources in its creation. “To sum obviously composed masses for reasons be- as a composer: up, it would seem that, far from being merely yond mere need or vocational expectation. an exercise in the stile antico, the mass was He may have relished the fresh challenge Though one might believe that a tour de force in a new form of constructiv- they presented. Inasmuch as his and works in such a studied style must ism. It aimed at a method of drawing almost madrigals illustrate Monteverdi’s prowess in be cold, Monteverdi’s changing every note progression and much of the the Secunda Prattica, his masses afforded him personality is refl ected quite well harmonic structure from a bare minimum the rare opportunity to illustrate the breadth in his three stile antico Masses. If in of material that amounted to no more than of his compositional style(s) and capabilities Mantua he was tense, determined to a mere handful of notes.”37 in composing in the Prima Prattica manner show the world his skill and passion, as well. So, Monteverdi was no “reluctant in Venice he was more relaxed, composer of church music,” as Leo Schrade more philosophical in accepting (as the itself CConclusionsonclusions labelled him. On the contrary, he attacked the fi eld with relish. In the end, sacred music was doing) increasing age. There is almost a sense of relief and calm in With only three extant masses, Monte- was a major element of his compositional the works.40 verdi’s contributions to the genre are neither output, and his masses are central to his especially memorable for their quantity, and contributions to sacred music. The fact that The question remains about Monte- save for their intentionally archaic style, the publication of his masses spans the dura- verdi’s motivation in writing in the archaic nor are they likely to be remembered for tion of his lifetime (and extends beyond it), style: was it out of a perceived need, real their quality, with much competition in the indicates that he never abandoned the genre; or imagined, that this was the type of music fi eld from other composers in both the moreover, the fact that his three major publi- preferred by his adjudicators, or desirable and eras. Yet, Monte- cations of sacred music each include a mass for church music in general? Was it merely verdi’s masses represent much more than likely indicates he viewed the mass as central for the intellectual challenge in writing in a historical curiosities written in archaic styles; to both his worship experience and his completely different style? Or, did his mo- some scholars consider his masses to be sacred compositions. Monteverdi’s masses tivation stem from a desire to perpetuate the pinnacle of achievement in the genre provide a unique doorway into examining what he believed was an important tradi- for his time. “Not only does Monteverdi, in his sacred oeuvre, and may well prove to tion in sacred composition? Can the notion the more important of his religious works, be what he considered to be the core of that his masses are written in stile antico be from those audacities of his spiritual works. “These three masses . . . interpreted to mean that Monteverdi there- which characterize his madrigals and lyric

CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 1 37 The Three Extant Masses of fore agreed, in principle, with the ideals and origins in Chiome d’oro (SV 143), an earlier masses...” See Jeffrey Kurtzmann, Essays on reforms of the counter-? published in 1619. See Tim the Monteverdi Mass and Vespers of 1610 The answers to these questions must Carter and Geoffrey Chew, “Monteverdi, (Rice University Studies 64, no. 4. Houston: Rice Claudio” in Grove Music Online. Oxford University, 1978), 28–29. be assumed, but one may still venture an 16 educated guess based upon the evidence. Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline. Figure adapted from Joan Catoni Conlon, Because Monteverdi included alternative com/subscriber/article /grove/music/04487 Performing Monteverdi: A Conductor’s Guide (accessed Sept 15, 2010). (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Hinshaw Music, movements for his second mass in 2 Denis Stevens, “Monteverdi: Sacred, Secular, and 2001), 234. style, it follows that Monteverdi did not Occasional Music” (Cranbury, New Jersey: 17 Conlon, 233. consider stile antico to be the only appro- Associated University Press, 1978), 69. 18 Redlich, Monteverdi’s , 209. priate manner of composition for sacred 3 Tim Carter and Geoffrey Chew, “Monteverdi, 19 Denis Arnold, Monteverdi (London: J. M. Dent and music. Secunda Prattica is acceptable in the Claudio” in Grove Music Online. Sons, 1963), 138. sanctuary. This writer’s personal belief: as 4 di studio et fatica grande, essendosi obligato 20 Ibid. the composer witnessed the changes in maneggiar sempre in ogni note per tutte le vie, 21 Arnold, Monteverdi Church Music, 7. the musical scene, particularly in Venice, sempre piu rinforzando le otto fughe che sono 22 Ibid., 43. Monteverdi astutely perceived the musical nel motetto, In Illo Tempore del Gombert. . . 23 Ibid., 40. trends of his time. He was, after all, one of Translated by Lewis Lockwood, “‘Monteverdi 24 Ibid. the fi rst to articulate them in response to and Gombert: the Missa In illo tempore of 25 Homer Ulrich, A Survey of Choral Music (Belmont, Artusi. Monteverdi embraced the view that 1610,” In De musica et cantu: Studien zur California: Thompson Learning, Inc., 1973), 71. music would continue to evolve in a similar Geschichte der Kirchenmusik und der Oper: 26 Jeffrey Kurtzmann, in the forward to Monteverdi’s way in the future, and realized that church Helmut Hucke zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. Peter “Missa in F” (Carus-Verlag 40.671/01, 1991), composition would inevitably follow much Cahn and Ann-Karin Heimer (New York: x. 27 the same path. Monteverdi’s composing in Hildesheim, 1993), 458. Arnold, Monteverdi Church Music, 33. 5 28 an unfamiliar style was for a personal chal- Hans Ferdinand Redlich, “Monteverdi’s Religious Denis Arnold and Nigel Fortune, eds., The lenge and something he did to illustrate the Music,” Music and Letters, xxvii (1946), 209. Monteverdi Companion (London: Faber and 6 Henry Prunieres, Monteverdi: His Life and Work Faber, 1985), 161. breadth of his knowledge and talent, not be- 29 cause he wanted to institutionalize a certain (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd. 1926), 114. See Stevens, Monteverdi: Sacred, Secular, and 7 Denis Arnold, Monteverdi Church Music (London: Occasional Music, 70. style of music for sacred use. 30 Both Monteverdi’s life span and his com- British Broadcasting Corporation, 1982), 32. See Redlich, Claudio Monteverdi: Life and Works, 8 Hans Ferdinand Redlich, Claudio Monteverdi: Life 124. positional oeuvre reveal him to be a com- and Works: (New York: Oxford University 31 Stevens, Monteverdi: Sacred, Secular, and Occasional poser with one foot in the Renaissance era Press, 1952), 122. Music, 71. and one foot in the Baroque. Nevertheless, 9 Lockwood, Monteverdi and Gombert: the Missa In 32 Ibid., 73. the presumption is progressive composers illo tempore of 1610, 459. 33 Arnold, Monteverdi Church Music, 41. always looked steadfastly and impatiently for- 10 Jeffrey Kurtzmann, Essays on the Monteverdi Mass 34 Figure adapted from Reginald Smith Brindle, ward. Monteverdi certainly looked forward, and Vespers of 1610 (Rice University Studies “Monteverdi’s G Minor Mass: An Experiment arguably more so than his contemporaries, 64, no. 4. Houston: Rice University, 1978), 48. in Construction” (Musical Quarterly 54): 353. and even perhaps as much as Beethoven or 11 Stevens, Monteverdi: Sacred, Secular, and Occasional 35 Figure adapted from Brindle, 355. Schoenberg later would. Yet, Monteverdi’s Music, 68. 36 Brindle, 357–358. masses also give evidence that he was not 12 Lockwood, Monteverdi and Gombert: the Missa In 37 Ibid., 360. one to recklessly discard tradition, and that illo tempore of 1610, 468. 38 Prunieres, Monteverdi: His Life and Work, 109. he, at times, in fact chose to look backward 13 Ibid., 462. 39 Redlich, Claudio Monteverdi: Life and Works, 123. purposefully and fondly. 14 Carter and Chew, “Monteverdi, Claudio” Grove 40 Arnold, Monteverdi Church Music, 42. Music Online. 15 Arnold, Monteverdi Church Music, 32. Kurtzmann NOTES would agree: “The reduction of the texture to four high voices for the Crucifi xus was a 1 Beatus Vir is a SSATTB setting of Psalm 112 widespread tradition in the late sixteenth for two violins and continuo that has its and early seventeenth century polyphonic

Bibliography

Adams, K. Gary and Dyke Kiel. Claudio Monteverdi: A Guide to Research. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1989. Arnold, Denis. Monteverdi. London: J. M Dent and Sons Ltd, 1963.

38 CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 1 Claudio Monteverdi

______. Monteverdi Church Music. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1982. ______and Fortune, Nigel, eds.: The Monteverdi Companion. London: Faber and Faber, 1985.

Bowers, Roger. “Some Refl ections upon Notation and Proportions in Monteverdi’s Mass and Vespers of 1610.” Music and Letters 73 (1992), 347– 98.

Brindle, Reginald Smith. “Monteverdi’s G Minor Mass: An Experiment in Construction.” Musical Quarterly 54 (1968): 352–60. Carter, Tim and Geoffrey Chew. “Monteverdi, Claudio.” In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, (accessed September 22, 2010). Conlon, Joan Catoni. Performing Monteverdi: A Conductor’s Guide. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Hinshaw Music, 2001.

Fenlon, Iain. “Wert, Giaches de.” In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, (accessed September 20, 2010). Leopold, Silke. Monteverdi: Music in Transition. Translated by Anne Smith. New York: , 1991.

Lockwood, Lewis. “‘Monteverdi and Gombert: the Missa In illo tempore of 1610.” In De musica et cantu: Studien zur Geschichte der Kirchenmusik und der Oper: Helmut Hucke zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. Peter Cahn and Ann-Karin Heimer (New York: Hildesheim, 1993), 457–69.

______. “A View of the Early Sixteenth-Century Parody Mass.” Queen’s College: Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Festschrift, ed. Albert Mell (Flushing, New York: Q. C. Press, 1964), 53– 77. Monteverdi, Claudio. Missa in illo tempore. Edited by Jeffry Kurtzmann. Carus-Verlag 40.670/01, 1993. Monteverdi, Claudio. Missa in F. Edited by Jeffry Kurtzmann. Carus-Verlag 40.671, 1992.

Monteverdi, Claudi. Messa a 4 voci. Edited by Denis Stevens. Boston, Massachusetts: E. C. Schirmer Music Publishers No. 4210, 1991. Monteverdi, Claudi. Messa a quattro voci da cappella. Edited by Rudolf Walter. Carus-Verlag 1.542, 1992. Kurtzman, Jeffrey G. “Monteverdi’s ‘Mass of Thanksgiving’ Revisited.” xxii (1994), 63– 84.

______. “Essays on the Monteverdi Mass and Vespers of 1610.” Rice University Studies 64, no. 4. Houston: Rice University, 1978. ______. The Monteverdi Vespers of 1610: Music, Context, Performance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Prunieres, Henry. Monteverdi: His Life and Work. Translated by Marie D. Mackie. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. 1926. ______. “Monteverdi’s Sacred Music.” 3 no. 9 (April 1923): 259– 68.

Redlich, Hans Ferdinand. Claudio Monteverdi: Life and Works. Translated by Kathleen Dale. New York: Oxford University Press, 1952. ______. “Monteverdi’s Religious Music.” Music and Letters, xxvii (1946), 208– 15 Roche, Jerome. “Monteverdi: an Interesting Example of Second Thoughts.” Music Review, xxxiii (1971), 193– 204. Schrade, Leo. Monteverdi: Creator of Modern Music. London, Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1964. Shrock, Dennis. Choral Repertoire. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Stevens, Denis. Monteverdi: Sacred, Secular, and Occasional Music. Cranbury, New Jersey: Associated University Press, 1978. ______. “Monteverdi’s Venetian Church Music” Musical Times 108 (1967) 414– 17. Ulrich, Homer. A Survey of Choral Music. Belmont, California: Thompson Learning, Inc., 1973.

Young, Percy M. The Choral Tradition: An Historical and Analytical Survey from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day. Hutchinson Publishing Group Ltd., New York, 1971.

CHORAL JOURNAL Volume 53 Number 1 39

Top View