Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-s4zlt Total loading time: 0.947 Render date: 2022-10-07T10:39:06.565Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2014

Murray Steib*
Ball State University


Modena, Biblioteca Estense, MS α.M.1.13 (ModD) is a collection of masses compiled in Ferrara around 1480 for the court of Ercole I d'Este. Although several scholars have argued that the changes in ModD were the result of composers reworking their own music or intervention by the scribe, the situation is far more complex. Through a careful examination of the textual and musical changes in ModD, this essay substantiates three hypotheses: that ModD had a separate and independent editor (Johannes Martini) apart from the scribe who copied it (Fra Filippo), and that both tampered with the music to a different extent; that the reasons behind the changes were in part politically and religiously motivated; and finally that several of the masses in ModD contain sections written by someone other than their original composer, a practice that may have been more common than we currently believe.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1 S. Boorman et al., ‘Sources, MS’, in Grove Music Online, <> (accessed 10 Jan. 2010). Although some scholars find this to be an extreme view and point out that the surviving sources of most polyphonic works agree in their readings most of the time, such a counterargument disregards the often substantial changes that were made.

2 Bent, M., Bologna Q15: The Making and Remaking of a Musical Manuscript, 2 vols. (Lucca, 2008)Google Scholar; ‘A Contemporary Perception of Early Fifteenth-Century Style: Bologna Q15 as a Document of Scribal Editorial Initiative’, Musica disciplina, 41 (1987), pp. 183–201; Manuscripts as Repertoires, Scribal Performance and the Performing Scribe’, in Atti del XIV Congresso della Società Internazionale di Musicologia. Trasmissione e recezione delle forme di cultura musicale. Bologna, 1987, ed. Pompilio, A., Bianconi, L., Restani, D. and Gallo, F. A. (Turin, 1990), pp. 138–51Google Scholar; and Trent 93 and Trent 90: Johannes Wiser at Work’, in Pirrotta, N. and Curti, D. (eds.), I codici musicali Trentini a cento anni dalla loro riscoperta: Atti del Convegno Laurence Feininger, La musicologia come missione. Trent, 1985 (Trento, 1986), pp. 84111Google Scholar.

3 Lewis Hammond, S., Editing Music in Early Modern Germany (Aldershot and Burlington, Vt., 2007), pp. 1344Google Scholar. Bonnie Blackburn discusses many of the things early editors did; see Blackburn, B. J., ‘Petrucci's Venetian Editor: Petrus Castellanus and his Musical Garden’, Musica disciplina, 49 (1995), pp. 1545Google Scholar, and The Sign of Petrucci's Editor’, in Venezia 1501: Petrucci e la stampa musicale/Venice 1501: Petrucci, Music, Print and Publishing. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi. Venezia – Palazzo Giustinian Lolin, 10–13 ottobre 2001, ed. Cattin, Giulio and Vecchia, Patrizia Dalla (Venice, 2005), 415–29Google Scholar.

4 Richardson, B., Print Culture in Renaissance Italy: The Editor and the Vernacular Text, 1470–1600 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 118CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Grafton, A., ‘Correctores corruptores? Notes on the Social History of Editing’, in Most, Glenn W. (ed.), Editing Texts/Texte edieren (Göttingen, 1998), pp. 5476, at 57Google Scholar.

6 Lockwood, L., Music in Renaissance Ferrara, 1400–1505 (Cambridge, Mass., 1984), p. 239Google Scholar.

7 E. Moohan, ‘Sources of Sacred Music for the Chapel Choir of Ercole I d'Este (1471–1505) Duke of Ferrara and the Masses of Johannes Martini’ (D.Phil. thesis, University of Manchester, 1993), p. 213.

8 Rossi, F. R., ‘Le presunte “seconde versioni” del Ms. Mod α.M.13 [sic]: Intervento revisionale di Johannes Martini’?, Fonti musicali italiane, 9 (2004), pp. 715, at 15Google Scholar.

9 Lockwood, Music in Renaissance Ferrara, pp. 222–3 (‘Un libro de Messe da canto che ha fatto fra Philippo da San Zorzo di quinterni 27 di carta di capretto, con principio, arma, e lettere come sopra’).

10 Moohan, ‘Sources of Sacred Music’, pp. 41–2.

11 Fra Filippo was the scribe of ModD as well as ModC1 and ModC2 (Modena, Biblioteca Estense, MS α.M.1.11–12); see Lockwood, Music in Renaissance Ferrara, pp. 222–4. For more information about the scribe, see Chiappini, A., ‘Una biblioteca ed uno scriptorium a Ferrara nel secolo XV: San Giorgio’, Analecta Pomposiana, 6 (1981), pp. 185220Google Scholar.

12 Martini, Johannes, Masses, ed. Moohan, E. and Steib, M., 2 vols. (Madison, Wis., 1999), vol. i, pp. xiiixviiGoogle Scholar.

13 Martini was hired by Ercole in 1471 and arrived in Ferrara no later than 1473. He was the only active composer in Ferrara in the decade prior to the compilation of ModD; Johannes Brebis, who was also hired in 1471, composed only a few hymns (all in collaboration with Martini) and one motet but no masses.

14 Bloxam, M. Jennifer, ‘A Cultural Context for the Chanson Mass’, in Meconi, Honey (ed.), Early Musical Borrowing (New York, 2004), pp. 735Google Scholar. Rothenberg, D., The Flower of Paradise: Marian Devotion and Secular Song in Medieval and Renaissance Music (New York and Oxford, 2011)Google Scholar.

15 Howard Brown makes the same point about Alamire; see Brown, H. M., ‘In Alamire's Workshop: Notes on Scribal Practice in the Early Sixteenth Century’, in Finscher, L. (ed.), Quellenstudien zur Musik der Renaissance II: Datierung und Filiation von Musikhandschriften der Josquin-Zeit (Wiesbaden, 1983), pp. 1563, at 17Google Scholar.

16 Hannas, R., ‘Concerning Deletions in the Polyphonic Mass Credo’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 5 (1952), pp. 155–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Noble, J., ‘Communication’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 6 (1953), pp. 91–2Google Scholar; Ford, W. K., ‘Communication’, ibid., 7 (1954), pp. 170–2Google Scholar; and Kenney, S., Walter Frye and the Contenance angloise (New Haven, 1964), pp. 52–3Google Scholar.

18 Bent, M. and Bent, I., ‘Dufay, Dunstable, Plummer – A New Source’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 22 (1969), pp. 394424CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Chew, G., ‘The Early Cyclic Mass as an Expression of Royal and Papal Supremacy’, Music & Letters, 53 (1972), pp. 254–69, at 264CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Bonnie Blackburn makes the point that what the choir sings is less important as long as the celebrant recites the text; see her Masses Based on Popular Songs and Solmization Syllables’, in Sherr, R. (ed.), The Josquin Companion (Oxford, 2000), pp. 5187, at 53, n. 6Google Scholar. This view was recently questioned by Rodin, Jesse; see his ‘Finishing Josquin's “Unfinished” Mass: A Case of Stylistic Imitation in the Cappella Sistina’, Journal of Musicology, 22 (2005), pp. 412–53, at 413CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 For example, in the opening of the Credo of Caron's Missa Clemens et benigna, the complete text appears only in the top voice; the alto has only a lengthy incipit and one subsequent cue; the other voices have incipits only. At one point, the top voice has four bars of rest precisely where the words ‘Genitum, non factum’ would occur. These missing words doubtlessly would be sung by the other voices at this point, but since they were not fully texted, the source gives the illusion of a textual omission.

22 In determining textual omissions in Table 1 and throughout this essay, I have examined the text in all the voices and tried to discern what text was accidentally omitted and what was intentionally left out. Text which does not appear in any of the voices but which I believe would have been sung has not been listed as an omission. Invariably this amounts to only a few words at a time rather than whole lines, as in the Caron example cited above.

23 With a few exceptions that will be discussed below, this is not a case of someone adding more music to fit the extra text, but simply underlaying more text without changing the music.

24 It is interesting to observe that VatS 14 and 51 have the fewest omissions by far of any manuscript produced before the mid-1480s. The most recent theories of the provenance of these manuscripts suggests northern Italy and possibly Ferrara as their place of origin. A Ferrarese provenance implies two further conjectures. First, although they were not copied in Rome, they may have been intended for use there from the start. Second, if they were indeed copied in Ferrara, then perhaps the completeness of their Credo texts may be yet another example of Ercole attempting to show solidarity with the aims of the pope (see my conclusions about ModD at the end of this essay). Concerning the origins of these manuscripts, Adalbert Roth has argued for a Neapolitan origin; see Roth, A., Studien zum frühen Repertoire der päpstlichen Kapelle unter dem Pontifikat Sixtus IV. (1471–84) (Vatican City, 1991)Google Scholar and id., Napoli o Firenze? Dove sono stati compilati i manoscritti CS 14 e CS 51’?, in Gargiulo, P. (ed.), La musica a Firenze al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico (Florence, 1993), pp. 69100Google Scholar. In a series of unpublished conference papers, Flynn Warmington has argued for a northern Italian origin: F. Warmington, ‘Abeo semper Fortuna regressum: Evidence for the Venetian Origin of the Manuscripts Cappella Sistina 14 and 51’, paper read at the twenty-second annual Medieval and Renaissance music conference, Glasgow, 1994; and ‘The Winds of Fortune: A New View of the Provenance and Date of the Vatican Manuscripts Cappella Sistina 14 and 51’, paper read at the fifty-seventh annual meeting of the American Musicological Society, Chicago, 1991. Most recently, Richard Sherr has put forward the very tentative hypothesis that they might have been copied in Ferrara; see Masses for the Sistine Chapel: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cappella Sistina, MS 14, ed. Sherr, R., Monuments of Renaissance Music, 13 (Chicago, 2009)Google Scholar.

25 VerBC 755, for example, has a higher average number of omissions and was copied about a decade later at precisely the time we begin to see more complete text underlay.

26 The full trope texts are:

  • Kyrie 1: Kyrie Rex virginum amator Deus Mariae eleison.

  • Christe: Christe Deus de Patre, homo natus Mariae, eleison.

  • Kyrie 2: O paraclite obumbrans corpus Mariae eleison.

27 D. M. Kidger, ‘The Music and Biography of Petrus de Domarto’ (MA thesis, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1990), pp. 111–12; Planchart, A. E., ‘Parts with Words and without Words: The Evidence for Multiple Texts in Fifteenth-Century Masses’, in Boorman, S. (ed.), Studies in the Performance of Late Mediaeval Music (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 227–51, at p. 248Google Scholar; Wegman, R. C., ‘Petrus de Domarto's “Missa Spiritus almus” and the Early History of the Four-Voice Mass in the Fifteenth Century’, Early Music History, 10 (1991), pp. 235303, at 273–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Rifkin, J., ‘Munich, Milan, and a Marian Motet: Dating Josquin's Ave Maria.… virgo serena’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 56 (2003), pp. 239350, at 256–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Rifkin, J., ‘A Scriptor, a Singer, and a Mother Superior: Another Story about MS DCCLXI of the Biblioteca Capitolare in Verona’, in Bloxam, M. J., Filocamo, G. and Holford-Strevens, L. (eds.), Uno Gentile et Subtile Ingenio: Studies in Renaissance Music in Honour of Bonnie J. Blackburn (Turnhout, 2009), pp. 309–17, at 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Judith Benfield suggests a rough dating of 1480–1510 and a more likely dating of 1485–1500. J. Benfield, ‘Music in Verona c. 1480–1530’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1984), p. 183.

30 Rifkin, ‘A Scriptor’, pp. 313–14.

31 The second section of the Credo (Et incarnatus) uses phrase F of its model, but not as a cantus firmus per se. It is not in long note values, as the cantus firmus is in the rest of the movement, and it is split into two halves, the first stated in the altus and the second in the superius. The whole mass is filled with brief quotations of various voices from Ockeghem's chanson, which do not act as a cantus firmus but rather as further allusions to the model, a common practice in Martini.

32 Compare bb. 197–9 in ModD with bb. 146–8 in MilD 2/VerBC 761 or bb. 209–10 in ModD with bb. 164–5 in MilD 2/VerBC 761. See Martini, Masses, vol. ii, pp. 170–1 and 188–9.

33 Tinctoris's second rule of counterpoint clearly allows parallel perfect intervals, though not with the tenor voice. Tinctoris, Johannes, Liber de arte contrapuncti (Naples, 1477)Google Scholar; for a modern edition, see Johannes Tinctoris, Opera theoretica, ed. A. Seay (n.p., 1975–8); for a translation see Tinctoris, Johannes, The Art of Counterpoint, ed. Seay, A. (Rome, 1961), pp. 133–4Google Scholar.

34 For discussions of parallel perfect intervals in Josquin, see Macey, P., ‘Josquin's Misericordias Domini and Louis XI’, Early Music, 19 (1991), pp. 163–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mendel, A., ‘Towards Objective Criteria for Establishing Chronology and Authenticity: What Help Can the Computer Give?’, in Lowinsky, E. E. (ed.), Josquin de Prez: Proceedings of the International Jossquin Festival-Conference (London, 1976), pp. 297308, esp. p. 302Google Scholar; Rifkin, ‘Munich, Milan, and a Marian Motet’, pp. 328–9.

35 Wright, P., ‘Paper Evidence and the Dating of Trent 91’, Music & Letters, 76 (1995), pp. 487508, at 504CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Dickey, T. J., ‘Rethinking the Siena Choirbook: A New Date and Implications for its Musical Contents’, Early Music History, 24 (2005), pp. 152CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 49 and passim.

37 To be absolutely precise, Flos virginum is a contrafactum but Jhesu Christe piisime is one-third contrafactum and two-thirds new motet; both have a text by Petrarch. These pieces were copied into TrentC 91 c. 1475–6; see Wright, ‘Paper Evidence’, p. 504.

38 A Florentine Chansonnier from the Time of Lorenzo the Magnificent, ed. Brown, H. M., 2 vols., Monuments of Renaissance Music, 7 (Chicago, 1983), text vol., p. 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cumming, J., The Motet in the Age of Du Fay (Cambridge, 1999), p. 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Dickey, ‘Rethinking the Siena Choirbook’, p. 40.

40 Martini spent approximately nine months in Milan in 1474 and could have left a copy of the mass there at that time.

41 The motif is used in its two-voice version in the following places: Kyrie, bb. 29–30*; Gloria, bb. 17–8; Credo, bb. 27–8; and Sanctus, bb. 10–11 (the lower voice is altered in MilD 2 in the example from the Sanctus). The upper voice of the motif is found on its own in the following places: Gloria, bb. 7–8*, 74–5* (in augmentation), and 87–8* (in augmentation); Credo, bb. 67–8*, 70–1* and 123–4 (in triple metre)*; Agnus Dei, bb. 48–52*. Those examples marked with an asterisk are not found in SienBC K.I.12.

42 Dickey, ‘Rethinking the Siena Choirbook’, p. 40.

43 Rossi, ‘Le presunte “seconde versioni”’, pp. 7–15.

44 According to Benfield, the section of VerBC 755 that contains Missa Orsus, orsus was copied in Rome or Naples during the late 1480s and early 1490s, and brought to Verona ‘in the early years of the sixteenth century’. Benfield, ‘Music in Verona’, p. 148.

45 Both LucAS 238 and SienBC K.I.2 are fragmentary and do not appear in my discussion of this mass; in LucAS 238, only a portion of the Gloria survives, and in SienBC K.I.2, only a portion of the Credo survives. It is worth noting that Missa Orsus, orsus was copied into SienBC K.I.2 c. 1502–4, and contains the extra section. See Dickey, ‘Rethinking the Siena Choirbook’, p. 3 and passim.

46 Both Missa Dio te salvi Gotarello and Missa Coda pavon have Credos with only two sections, both for four voices.

47 Benfield has suggested that the masses of VerBC 761 are ‘entirely typical of music at Ercole's chapel’ and speculated that the repertory could have emanated from Ferrara; Benfield, ‘Music in Verona’, pp. 186–7. The close connection here supports her hypothesis.

48 As can be seen in Table 6, the text that appears in the new middle section in ModD (line 8) is used at the beginning of the last section in VatS 51.

49 Masses for the Sistine Chapel, ed. Sherr, pp. 15–17.

50 Benfield, ‘Music in Verona’, p. 139.

51 Ten masses have three separate Agnus Dei settings (nos. 2–3, 6, 9, 11–14 and 16–17); another five have two Agnus Dei settings, but the text of the first and third sections is underlaid in the first, and the second section is in reduced scoring (nos. 4–5, 7–8 and 10); another one was probably meant to be performed this way, but only the text of the first section is underlaid in the first section (no. 15). In this mass (Faugues's Missa L'homme armé), its concordance in VatS 14 has the text of the first and third sections underlaid in the first section, along with the rubric ‘ut supra’ at the end of the second section. Missa Orsus, orsus seems to be alone in lacking its middle Agnus Dei in ModD.

52 There is another plausible explanation for the missing section in the Agnus Dei. It is just possible that the version in ModD is indeed the earliest copy. VatS 51 was copied sometime from the mid-1470s to about 1480, and ModD around 1479–81. Missa Orsus, orsus is the first mass in ModD but appears in the second half of VatS 51. It is conceivable that it was copied into ModD before it was copied into VatS 51, and that when it was copied into ModD it existed only with a two-section Agnus Dei, to which Martini added a new section in reduced scoring in time for its inclusion in VatS 51. Although there could not have been much time between the copying of this mass into the two manuscripts – perhaps no more than a year at best – that would have been ample time for Martini to reconsider the two-section Agnus Dei and compose the new section for inclusion in VatS 51. If it is the case that this mass was copied into ModD earlier than into VatS 51, then the missing second section of the Credo in VatS 51 must not have been available to the scribe for some reason.

53 It is interesting to note that in the Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei of Missa Orsus, orsus, JenaU 32 follows the structure but not the texting of ModD, further proof (if any were needed) that scribes viewed the texting of masses with a great deal of latitude.

54 Moohan, ‘Sources of Sacred Music’, p. 173. It also suggests that his exemplars were separate sheets for each movement and that he mislaid the Osanna sheets of this mass as he was copying the Sanctus (and possibly misunderstood a rubric), only finding them later when it was too late to incorporate it in its rightful place (hence adding the text to the Pleni). I am grateful to an anonymous reader for this suggestion.

55 Rossi, ‘Le presunte “seconde versioni”’, p. 13.

56 The only difference is in the contratenor in b. 2 of the Credo, where a breve has been divided into a semibreve and two minims, all on the same pitch.

57 Three of the six people whom Tinctoris cites as good examples of composers who embody the ideal of varietas are included in ModD (though none of the actual pieces that he mentions): Du Fay, Caron and Faugues (not included are Ockeghem, Busnoys and Regis). Tinctoris, The Art of Counterpoint, pp. 139–40. For an extended discussion of varietas, see Luko, A., ‘Tinctoris on varietas’, Early Music History, 27 (2008), pp. 99136CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Moohan comes to the same conclusion; Moohan, ‘Sources of Sacred Music’, 169.

59 Rifkin, ‘Munich, Milan, and a Marian Motet’, p. 327, n. 189; Dickey, ‘Rethinking the Siena Choirbook’, pp. 3, 31 and passim.

60 Dickey, ‘Rethinking the Siena Choirbook’, pp. 27–31.

61 For example, the first Kyrie of Missa O rosa bella III in TrentC 89 ends with the modern cadence, but in ModD (the later source) it has been changed to an octave-leap cadence.

62 Martini's only other use of is in Kyrie 2 of Missa Ma bouche rit, in ModD and VerBC 761, which dates from slightly after ModD.

63 In addition to his Missa Ma bouche rit, Weerbeke's Missa O Venus bant and Domarto's Missa Spiritus almus also use .

64 Dickey, ‘Rethinking the Siena Choirbook’, p. 29.

65 See ibid., p. 29, Example 1.

66 The earliest source for Missa Orsus, orsus is probably VatS 51, dating from about 1472–81; the only source of Missa La Martinella is VatS 35, which dates from the late 1480s or early 1490s. The absence of Missa La Martinella in ModD suggests that it had not been composed when that source was compiled.

67 Kyrie, b. 9; Credo, b. 31; and Sanctus, b. 17. See Dickey, ‘Rethinking the Siena Choirbook’, pp. 30–1.

68 Martini, Masses, vol. 1, p. xiii; Dickey mentions this in a footnote. Dickey, ‘Rethinking the Siena Choirbook’, p. 30, n. 55.

69 Wilson, B., ‘Heinrich Isaac among the Florentines’, Journal of Musicology, 23 (2006), pp. 97152, at 134CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Neither of these two dissonances is altered in any of the sources.

71 Rossi, ‘Le presunte “seconde versioni”’, p. 15.

72 For a complete list of the variants, see Martini, Masses, vol. i, pp. 250–1.

73 For a list of erasures and corrections in ModD, see Moohan, ‘Sources of Sacred Music’, pp. 157–65.

74 A point that David Fallows also makes; see Fallows, D., Josquin (Turnhout, 2009), p. 68Google Scholar.

75 Rob Wegman reached the same conclusion. Wegman, R. C., ‘Miserere supplicanti Dufay: The Creation and Transmission of Guillaume Dufay's Missa Ave regina celorum’, Journal of Musicology, 13 (1995), pp. 1854, at 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 See Fallows, D., Dufay (London, 1987), pp. 209–14Google Scholar.

77 TrentC 88 and VatS 14 share seventeen sharps; VatS 14 has another twenty sharps and TrentC 88 has four; LucAS 238 has fifteen sharps altogether: two are unique, it shares three with VatS 14, another three with TrentC 88, and seven with both TrentC 88 and VatS 14. See Wegman, R. C., ‘Petrus de Domarto's Missa Spiritus almus and the Early History of the Four-Voice Mass in the Fifteenth Century’, Early Music History, 10 (1991), pp. 235303, at p. 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sherr has a slightly different total number of sharps; see Masses for the Sistine Chapel, ed. Sherr, p. 31.

78 Kidger sees this accidental as mistake, but Wegman views it as part of the unique way Domarto uses accidentals. See D. M. Kidger, ‘The Music and Biography of Petrus de Domarto’ (MA thesis, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1990), p. 368; and Wegman, ‘Petrus de Domarto’, pp. 288–90.

79 The four masses are Domarto's Missa Spiritus almus, Caron's Missa Clemens et benigna, Faugues's Missa L'homme armé and Weerbeke's Missa O Venus bant; of these, only Faugues's mass has the sequence of mensurations in all of its concordances.

80 Missae Nous amis, O rosa bella III and Je suis en la mer all use , and Missa Ave regina caelorum essentially uses .

81 S. E. Saunders, ‘The Dating of the Trent Codices from their Watermarks, with a Study of the Local Liturgy of Trent in the Fifteenth Century’ (Ph.D. thesis, King's College, University of London, 1983), pp. 89–91.

82 Rossi, ‘Le presunte “seconde versioni”’, 15.

83 Of the twenty-two masses in TrentC 89, eleven have the same number of movements in their Gloria and Credo and the same sequence of mensurations; another seven have the same number of movements, but only a similar sequence of mensurations. Only four masses have a different number of sections in their Glorias compared to their Credo.

84 The only source of Missa Jesus autem transiens is VatS 51, also a source for Martini's Missa Orsus, orsus and Gaspar van Weerbeke's Missa O Venus bant. The two sources of Missa Sanguis Sanctorum are VatS 51 again and VerBC 755, also a source for Martini's Missa Orsus, orsus and Weerbeke's Missa O Venus bant.

85 In Missa Jesus autem transiens, the tenor in the Gloria is ruled by a verbal canon; the canon itself is insufficient to perform the line correctly (the middle section must be sung in retrograde inversion, but the canon only says retrograde (‘remeando’), so the singer needed to do a certain amount of guesswork). The Credo tenor is ruled by the same canon, but it is not given a second time, so again a certain amount of guesswork was required. The current edition of this mass, by James Thomson, does not mention the canon at all.

86 Thomson, J., An Introduction to Philippe (?) Caron (New York, 1964), p. 8Google Scholar.

87 PerBC 1013 contains only the three three-voiced sections of this mass: the Pleni, Benedictus and Agnus Dei II; its reading is closest to VerBC 761. See Blackburn, B. J., ‘A Lost Guide to Tinctoris's Teachings Recovered’, Early Music History, 1 (1981), pp. 26116, at 3140CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Blackburn, B. J., ‘Obrecht's Missa Je ne demande and Busnoys's Chanson: An Essay in Reconstructing Lost Canons’, Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 45 (1995), pp. 1832, at 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Rodin, J., ‘Unresolved’, Music & Letters, 90 (2009), pp. 535–54, at 539–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 In Missa O rosa bella, this voice part is labelled once as ‘Contratenor’ and once as ‘Contra primus’.

91 Fallows, Dufay, p. 206.

92 Wegman, R. C., ‘Guillaume Faugues and the Anonymous Masses “Au chant de l'alouete” and “Vinnus vina”’, Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 41 (1991), pp. 2764, at 29–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is very interesting to note that of the eight masses that Wegman lists as having some significant structural repetition beyond the use of a head motif, four are found in ModD. The eight masses are: Du Fay, Missa L'homme armé and Missa Ave regina caelorum; Faugues, Missa Le serviteur, Missa La basse danse, Missa L'Homme armé, Missa Je suis en la mer; Martini, Missa Io ne tengo; and Regis, Missa L'Homme armé.

93 It should be noted that these structural repetitions do contain slight variants, especially though not exclusively in the decoration of cadences. For example, compare the final cadence of Kyrie 1 (bb. 26–8) with that of the Confiteor (bb. 26–8) and the Sanctus (bb. 24–6).

94 In addition to these repetitions of complete or nearly complete movements, there are two other, smaller-scale examples of structural repetition in Missa L'homme armé: compare the Et in terra, bb. 69–75 with the Patrem, bb. 89–95, and the Qui sedes, bb. 79–103 with the Crucifixus, bb. 119–43.

95 George Schuetze does not discuss the reasons for the changes in the ModD version of this mass; see Schuetze, G. C. Jr, An Introduction to Faugues (New York, 1960)Google Scholar.

96 F. R. Rossi, ‘Faugues and the Two Versions of the “Missa L'Homme armé”: Authorial Revision’ (paper presented at the 27th annual Medieval and Renaissance Conference, Glasgow, 15–18 July 2004). I would like to thank Professor Rossi for sending me a copy of his paper.

97 Wegman, ‘Faugues’, pp. 28–9 and 59, n. 24.

98 Strohm, R., Music in Late Medieval Bruges, rev. edn (Oxford, 1990), p. 154, n. 63Google Scholar.

99 Steib, M., ‘A Composer Looks at his Model: Polyphonic Borrowing in Masses from the Late Fifteenth Century’, Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 46 (1996), pp. 541, at 34–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100 O rosa bella is attributed to both Dunstable and Bedyngham, but until recently it was generally believed to be by Dunstable, and it was published in Dunstable's complete works. However, Fallows has argued convincingly for Bedyngham's authorship on the basis of stylistic considerations and its transmission in particular sources. See Fallows, D., ‘Dunstable, Bedyngham and O rosa Bella’, Journal of Musicology, 12 (1994), pp. 287305CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Robertus de Anglia and the Oporto Song Collection’, in Bent, I. (ed.), Source Materials and the Interpretation of Music: A Memorial Volume to Thurston Dart (London, 1981), pp. 99128, at 114–15Google Scholar.

101 A brief examination of masses from approximately 1420 to 1480 that are available in modern editions reveals that in most of them all of the movements cadence on the same chord. Many of those that do not are what might be called Phrygian pieces in which movements cadence on chords built on either E or A (for example, Martini's Missa Ma bouche rit).

102 For a thorough discussion of how Martini uses polyphonic quotations, see Steib, ‘A Composer Looks at his Model’, pp. 5–41.

103 Martini, who had worked in the Imperial city of Constance as well as in Milan, would have had access to a large repertory of masses and may have brought copies with him when he came to Ferrara. Ercole was an avid collector of music and lost no opportunity in obtaining new music.

104 Bent, ‘A Contemporary Perception of Early Fifteenth-Century Style’, pp. 183–201.

105 de Faxolis, F., Book on Music, ed. and trans. Blackburn, B. J. and Holford-Strevens, L. (Cambridge, Mass., 2010), p. xiGoogle Scholar.

106 Lockwood, Music in Renaissance Ferrara, p. 136.

107 Rodin, ‘Finishing Josquin's “Unfinished” Mass’. J. Dean, ‘The Far-Reaching Consequences of Basiron's L'homme armé Mass’, paper read at the 75th annual meeting of the American Musicological Society, 13 Nov. 2009, Philadelphia.

108 For a discussion of one of Martini's si placet lines, see Wilson, ‘Isaac among the Florentines’, p. 134.

109 Atlas, A. W., ‘Conflicting Attributions in the Italian Sources of the Franco-Netherlandish Chanson, c. 1485–c.1505: A Progress Report on a New Hypothesis’, in Fenlon, I. (ed.), Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Patronage, Sources and Texts (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 249–93, at 277Google Scholar.

110 Si placet Parts for Motets by Josquin and his Contemporaries, ed. Schlagel, S. (Middleton, Wis., 2006)Google Scholar.

111 Masses for the Sistine Chapel, ed. Sherr, p. 8. He mentions in particular the Alamire complex of manuscripts.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *