Richard Wistreich Whosingsthe cantus?Children as performers of secular musicinthe earlymodernperiod Sometimearound1488, thepoet Angelo PolizianowrotefromRome(in Latin) to thephilosopher Pico della Mirandolaabout abanquethehad at- tended givenbythe nobleman,Paolo Orsini, during whichthe guests were entertainedbythe host’s 11 year-oldson, Fabio: No soonerwereweseatedatthe table than [Fabio]was orderedtosing, to- gether with some other experts,certain songswhich areput into writing with thoselittlesigns of musicand immediately he filledour ears,orratherour hearts,withavoicesosweet,that as formyself (I do notknow aboutthe others),Iwasalmosttransportedout of my senseand wastouchedbeyond doubt by theunspokenfeelingofanaltogetherdivinepleasure.1 This famous lettercontinueswithanevenmoreecstaticaccount of Fabio’s solo rendition of aself-composedmonodyonaheroic themethatfolloweD hisperformance in theensemblesongs,inwhich Polizianopraised theboy’s perfectoratorical styleofdelivery,likeninghim to thegreat Romanactor, Roscius.2 Setting asidefor amoment Poliziano’sratherself-conscious citation 1Ascited in Nino Pirrotta andElena Povoledo, Music andTheatre from PolizianotoMonteverdi, trans. KarenEales (Cambridge, 1982),p.36. (»Vt ergo discubuimus, canere quædam iussus notata Musicisaccentiunculis carmina simulcum peritisalijs statim suauißimaquadamuoce sicinauresnostras illapsus, imòveròinpræcordia est, ut me quidem(cæterosnescio) penè extramerapuerit, certèsensu tacito diuinæ prorsuscuiusdam uoluptatis affecerit.« Angeli Politiani operum: Epistolarium libros XII. ac Miscellaneorum Centuriam I. complectens,Paris: SébastienGryphius, 1550,p.351). 2Ibid.:»He then performedanheroicsongwhich he hadhimself recently composed in praise of ourown Pierodei Medici …His voicewas notentirelythatofsomeone reading, norentirelythatofsomeone singing: both couldbeheard, andyet neitherseparated one from theother:itwas,inany case,evenormodulated, andnow restrained,now calm anD nowvehement, nowslowing down andnow quickening itspace, butalwaysitwas precise, always clear andalwayspleasant; andhis gestures were notindifferent or sluggish,but not posturing or affected either. Youmight have thoughtthatanadolescentRosciuswas act- ingonthe stage.«(»Pronuntiauitheroicumdeindecarmen, quod ipsemetnuper in Petri Medicis…Voxipsanec quasi legentis,nec quasi canentis,sed in quatamen utrunq[ue] sentires,neutrum discerneres: uariè tamenprout locusposceret, autæqualis, autinflexa, nunc distincta, nunc perpetua,nuncsublata,nuncdeducta,nu[n]cremissa,nunc contenta nunc lenta, nunc incitata,semperemendata, semperclara,semperdulcis, gestusnon oti- 157 RichardWistreich of generic elementsofrhetoricinsupport of hispraise forthe boy’sperformance, thehabituatedhistoricalperformance-practitioner in me will immediately notethatthisappearstohavebeen aperformance of secularpolyphony;that the »other experts« were probablyalsosingers (althoughthisisnot definite); andthatthischild waspresumably singing thesuperius part in chansons in hisunbrokenvoiceinthe soprano range. Ergo,thisliterarydescription yields up aset of useful informationthatmight well be extrapolated to future per- formancesoflatefifteenth-century secularsongfromRome, andquite possiblyafarwider geographical area –particularlywelcome in aperiod of history that is so rich in vocalrepertoire andyet so extraordinarilyshort of eye-witnessaccountsofvocal performance:all in all, apretty promising way to beginanessay thatasksthe question »Who singsthe cantus part in secu- larmusic?« Theculturalhistorianofmusic in me,meanwhile,isdrawn to thesingu- larity of theoccasion: thephysicaland social spacethe performance occupied –private, yetsemi-formal;anaudienceoffamilyand guests,seateD at tablebut notyet eating, theirconversation interrupted or delayedby complexmusic;anensembleconsisting of ayoung family member collabo- rating with »experts«; Poliziano’sselectiveness of detail –focussedonsound, musical textureand personalemotion,but no hint of thewordcontent or meaning of thesongs(something reversedinhis subsequentaccount of the monody);and finally (for now), returning to themainfocus of thewriter’s attention:thisboy,Fabio.His ability: outstanding,asweexpectfromason of thearistocraticand humanistelite;his specific skills:apparentlymusically literate andcreative, able to hold hisown with expert musicians, indeed, to outshinethem; achild with theconfidenceand bearingofayoung adult, yet, as Polizianonotes alittlelater,»not posturing or affected either«.But even if Irestrictmyselftoconsidering this source solelyintermsofmychosen job-in-hanD –investigating sopranosinging,and,specifically,the role of chil- dren in theperformanceofsixteenth-century polyphonic secular music –and going behind thewriter’shighlyrhetorical style(we mightwellaccuse Polizianohimself of posturing andaffectation!),itisclear that this account cannot be treated simplyasadescriptive portrait of »a singer«, »a boy-soprano«, even »the cantus«, anymore than we wouldremotelydojustice to,say, the Lamentod’Arianna by describing it as »a piecefor mezzosoprano«orto osus,non somniculosus,sed necuultuosus tamen, ac molestus: Rosciolumprorsusali- quem diceresinscena uersari.«Ibid.,pp. 151–52). 158 Whosings the cantus? Virginia Ramponi, whofirst performeditin1608,byconsidering hermere- ly as »a female theatre singer«. Andyet theseexamplesinmanywaysencapsulate thekindsofhistorio- graphicalproblemsthatunderlie and, Iwould argue, canundermine the validity of systematic approaches to thestudy of thesingingpractices of Renaissancevocal music,especially thosewhose principalaim is the›re- covery‹ofvocal practicesinorder somehowtoreviveearlymodernmusic in thecontemporary world. Thepreoccupation of the›historical performance movement‹withsuchrecovery hasinevitablymeant that thekinds of ques- tions whichtheyask of sources arenaturally liable very much to shapethe kindsofanswersthose sourcesare askedtoyieldup, openingupbroader problems of historical method not alwaysrecognised as suchbymusicolo- gistsworking in thesamearea, butperhaps to differentends. When we look foranswers to even such apparently innocuous questionsas»Didwomen perform fifteenth-centurymotets?«or»DidMonteverdiwritethe SixthBook of Madrigalsintending thesoprano partstobesungbycastratos?«–questions that performancepracticescholarshavebeeninvestigating anDDebatingfor awhile now–we caneasilyimagine that allweneedtofindisthatone elu- sivedescriptioninaletterorpicture that willprovidethe evidenceweneed.3 Images of actual singers, especially when they are›caught in theact‹ of mak- ing musicare,naturally,highlyprivilegedsources, seemingtopromise exclusive›first-hand‹knowledge. Butwhether they arefamousvirtuosi or elite amateurs,rank-and-file professionals, or thecountless andusually name- less figureswho,inletters, reportsand pictures, briefly break intosong anD out again(andoften onceonly),individualsingers caneasilybeforcedto become expert witnesses, calledtotestifyinenquiries intendedeithertoes- tablishsweepingly broadgeneralisations aboutentiregenresofmusic,or, in culturalhistorical studies, to carry theburdenof›speaking on behalf of‹ sometimeshugesocial groups,suchas»nuns«, »courtiers«, or even an entire gender.But thereisaninherent danger that in making generalisations from individualcases we cancreatedistortionsthatthenbecomeestablishedas ›truths‹. 3See forexample,HowardMayer Brown, »Women Singersand Women’sSongs in Fifteenth- Century Italy«, WomenMakingMusic:The WesternArt Tradition 1150–1950,ed. Jane Bowers andJudithTick(Urbana,1986),pp. 62–89; RichardWistreich,»Monteverdi in Perfor- mance«, TheCambridge CompaniontoMonteverdi,ed. John Whenham anDRichard Wistreich (Cambridge, 2007), pp.261–279,296–298. 159 RichardWistreich Thus,inarecent companionarticle to this one, in whichIfocussed on adultsoprano singinginthe sixteenthcentury,4 Inoted howthe relatively richliteraryrecordofprofessionalvocal performancethatisnow fore- groundedinmostdiscussions of ensemblevocal performanceinthe sixteenthcentury –and especially thecopiousknowledgewehaveofthe famous concerti delle donne –has been appropriatedtounderpin what is now awell-entrenchedtruismaboutthe compositionalhistoryofthe Italian madrigal.Thisteleological modelstates, in briefand in thewords of Antho- ny New-comb, that in thecourse of thesixteenth century, madrigal scorings changed, from »the low, male-dominated (probablyoften all-male)ensemble of theRore generation, to thebright,female-dominated oneofthe last quarter of thecentury«.5 This highly questionableassociation of thevocal colour anD pitch level of thesoprano voicewiththe gender of itssingersisbased on an anachro-nisticassumptionthatitispossible to identify anDDifferentiate spe- cifically»female sopranomusic«fromother cantus or superius parts, on the grounds of ahigherpitch range. In fact,perhaps themostinteresting fact aboutthe soprano voiceand itsmusic in sixteenth-centurysecular music, is theinter-exchangeabilityofthe soprano parts, howevernamed,among all those whowerebothcapable of singing in thesamevocal range–adult women, adultmen, both castratos and falsettistsand,ofcourse, children, both girlsand boys.But theimplications of Newcomb’sstatement givesriseto thefurtherproposal that,inthe wordsofanotherinfluential scholar, »the latersixteenth-centuryItalian madrigal is«,therefore, »possibly thefirst mu- sical genreinmodernhistorytowhich thefemalevoiceiscrucial«.6 Butcareful consideration of theevidenceabout theparticipation of adult male sopranos(bothfalsettistsand castratos) as well as womeninthe perfor- manceofmadrigalsand